HomeMy WebLinkAboutCC Resolution 11665 (Adopt General Plan 2020)RESOLUTION NO. 11665
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN RAFAEL TO
ADOPT SAN RAFAEL GENERAL PLAN 2020
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN RAFAEL RESOLVES as follows:
WHEREAS, the current San Rafael General Plan 2000 was adopted on July 8, 1988,
and was periodically revised thereafter; and
WHEREAS, in May 2000, the City Council of the City of San Rafael determined that it
was necessary and desirable to comprehensively update San Rafael General Plan 2000, and
appointed 19 people to the San Rafael General Plan Steering Committee, charging them with
preparing a recommended General Plan for the City of San Rafael; and
WHEREAS, in accordance with Section 65351 of the California Government Code, over
a three year period, the City, through the efforts of the General Plan 2020 Steering Committee,
has successfully facilitated public participation in the process of preparing a new general plan.
This public participation program informed the public on an on-going basis of the progress of
plan development; obtained public input to define major issues and to draft and critique policies
and implementing programs; and, informed decision makers of public opinions and proposed
planning approaches; and
WHEREAS, between the summers of 2000 and 2003, the Steering Committee met for 39
public meetings in neighborhoods throughout the City, and in addition, conducted the following
community outreach:
• In the fall of 2000, the Steering Committee members met with 42 community groups
and heard from over 700 people to identify the most important planning issues in San
Rafael.
• Between September and November 2000, over 170 people attended a two-day Town
Meeting to discuss a future vision of the City, 25 youth attended a second visioning
session at the Teen Center, and nearly 40 people participated in a visioning workshop
held in Spanish at Bahia Vista School.
• In December 2000, the City Council appointed 45 people to serve on Task Groups to
prepare Citywide policy recommendations to implement the General Plan goals.
Altogether and individually, there were 23 Task Group sessions. In May 2001, the
Task Groups hosted an Open House where an estimated 150 people attended so the
community could review and comment on the draft policy directions. The Task
Groups presented their recommendations to the City Council in June 2001.
• In January 2002, the Steering Committee hosted a Community Design Charrette to
obtain ideas regarding future development and change in San Rafael. Over 100
community members and 48 volunteer architects participated in the charrette and
studied the Canalfront, Loch Lomond, Marin Square, Medway, Northgate and
Woodland Avenue areas.
• During Spring 2002, 18 community groups, consisting of 214 people, helped to
evaluate the housing potential of various sites and whose feedback was used to
prepare a "housing sites" list for the Housing Element.
• In October 2002 the draft Housing Element was reviewed at a community workshop
with over 100 people attending.
• In May 2003, about 40 people attended a workshop to review results from the
General Plan traffic modeling.
• During Spring 2003, 15 "loop out" meetings with over 280 people were conducted to
give community groups an overview of the emerging General Plan 2020
recommendations.
• In June 2003, the Steering Committee held a Community Open House on the draft
General Plan 2020 with approximately 150 people attending; and
WHEREAS, on August 4, 2003, the General Plan Steering Committee presented its
recommended Draft General Plan 2020 to the City Council that contained the following
elements:
• The Land Use Element, which is a required element, establishes the planned land use
pattern for San Rafael based on historic development and the community's vision for
the future.
• The Housing Element, which is a required element, that continues to provide a wide
range of housing densities to allow a variety of housing types to meet the different
needs of San Rafael's population. Policies would also continue to encourage
innovative financing, below market rate housing, density and height bonuses for
affordable housing, and community partnerships to assist in the development of
affordable housing and to prevent discrimination in San Rafael's housing market.
The draft Housing Element has been reviewed by the California Department of
Housing and Community Development, and the reviewer's suggestions for additional
information resulted in revisions and additional information incorporated in the
recommended draft Housing Element.
• The Neighborhoods Element, which is a new optional element, consolidates General
Plan 2000 residential policies, policy recommendations in Vision North San Rafael,
and policies in various neighborhood plans (adopted plans include Gerstle Park,
Neighborhood 13/14 [SunValley/Fairhills], Peacock Gap, Northgate Activity Center,
East San Rafael, and Montecito/Happy Valley; community plans never adopted
include Our Vision of Downtown, Canal Voice, and Vision North San Rafael). The
General Plan 2020 Neighborhoods Element would replace all existing adopted
neighborhood plans.
• The Community Design Element, which is a new optional element, provides policies
and programs to guide development of the City's built environment and create an
appealing, functional, and safe city.
• The Economic Vitality Element, which is a new optional element, establishes
policies supporting economic development and diversity in San Rafael. The element
includes policies to implement San Rafael's Economic Vision. The focus of the
element is on sustaining a strong forward-looking economy through retaining
existing and seeking new businesses, encouraging infill and enhancing the City's
business areas.
• The Circulation: Element, which is a required element, establishes policies affecting
the movement of people, goods and vehicles within and through the City. The
central focus of the Circulation Element is on creating a more diversified, safe, cost-
effective, and resource -efficient transportation network.
• The Infrastructure Element, which is a new optional element, provides policies and
programs for the planning, construction, management, and maintenance of public
facilities provided by the City of San Rafael related to roads, drainage,
telecommunications, water and power systems, and other facilities.
• The Governance Element, which is a new optional element, identifies policies and
programs to support community involvement in local government, partnerships with
educational efforts, collaborative efforts with community groups, and sound fiscal
practices.
• The Culture and Arts Element, which is a new optional element, identifies policies
and programs to encourage, promote, and provide arts and cultural activities. The
element would also provide for the expansion of library services, and for the
protection and maintenance of historic buildings and archaeological resources.
• The Parks and Recreation Element, which is an optional element, provides policies
and programs, which identify San Rafael's park facilities, describe the community's
recreation needs, and establish policy direction on park and recreation improvements.
• The Safety Element, which is a required element, focuses on reducing the potential
risk of death, injury, damage to property, and economic and social disruption
resulting from fire, flood, seismic and geologic hazards, and other public health and
safety hazards, including hazardous materials.
• The Noise Element, which is a required element, includes standards to protect people
from excessive, unnecessary and unreasonable noises in the community.
• The Open: Space Element, which is a required element, protects San Rafael's open
spaces to ensure their continued preservation. Policies also identify additional open
spaces to preserve, encourage management of open spaces, and address appropriate
access to and use of open space.
• The Conservation Element, which is a required element, protects natural resources to
ensure their economic and recreational value, as well as their ecological value.
Policies address water, air quality, and wildlife and cover the following topics:
wetlands; diked baylands; creeks and drainageways; native plants; animals and
habitat; and resource management.
• The Air and Water Quality Element, which is a new optional element, promotes
actions to maintain high quality air and water in San Rafael; and
WHEREAS, on May 6, 2003, in accordance with requirements of state law, the City, as
Lead Agency under the California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA"), issued a Notice of
Preparation ("NOP"), informing public agencies of the City of San Rafael's intent to prepare a
Draft Environmental Impact Report ("Draft EIR") for the City of San Rafael General Plan 2020
and solicited input from Federal, State, regional, and local agencies as well as interested parties;
and
WHEREAS, the City prepared a Draft EIR, dated February 2004, for Draft General Plan
2020 which was circulated to the State Clearinghouse, local agencies, and members of the public,
and advertised for availability for a 45 -day public and agency comment period beginning on
February 9, 2004 and ending on March 24, 2004; and
WHEREAS, on February 24, 2004 the Planning Commission held a duly -noticed public
hearing on the Draft EIR wherein public comments on the Draft EIR were received and
considered; and
WHEREAS, a Final Environmental Impact Report ("Final EIR"), which includes the
Draft EIR, responses to all comments received on the Draft EIR as well as on the Draft General
Plan 2020, and revisions to the Draft EIR; and the Final EIR was made available to the public on
August 9, 2004; and
WHEREAS, on September 15, 2004 the City Council held a duly -noticed public hearing
on the Final EIR, and subsequently responded to all comments submitted either orally or in
writing at the hearing on the Final EIR; and
WHEREAS, on February 9, 2004, in accordance with Section 65352 of the California
Government Code, the Draft General Plan 2020 was referred to local and regional agencies for
review and comment, including communications with the Marin Municipal Water District in
accordance with section 65352.5 of the California Government Code; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held at least two public hearings on each element
of Draft General Plan 2020, including duly -noticed public hearings on January 13, January 27,
February 10, February 24, March 9, March 23 and March 30, 2004; and
WHEREAS, on March 30 and April 27, and May 19, 2004 the Planning Commission
held public hearings on the draft Affordable Housing Ordinance, the draft Project Selection
Process, the draft Design Guidelines, and the draft Zoning Ordinance text and map amendments,
and provided direction to staff on desired changes to these implementing ordinances and
resolutions; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission received hundreds of comments on the Draft
General Plan 2020. During their first review of the draft Plan's elements, the Commissioners
gave staff direction on revisions of the policies and program statements. On May 25, 2004, the
Commissioners reviewed staff's draft report titled "Responses to Comments on the Draft General
Plan 2020" that included public comments, staff suggestions and Planning Commission initial
recommendations; and
WHEREAS, on May 25, June 29, July 8, and August 24, 2004, the Planning
Commission continued their final review of the Draft General Plan 2020 and the draft May 250'
report summarizing their recommendations, and made final recommendations on their desired
edits to the draft General Plan 2020; and
WHEREAS, on July 13, 2004, the Planning Commission reviewed a second time the
draft implementing ordinances and resolutions for affordable housing, design guidelines, Project
Selection Process and the zoning ordinance text and map amendments; and
WHEREAS, during the Planning Commission meetings, the Commissioners voted on a
number of issues including the following:
1. Circulation Level of Service (LOS) Standards (C-5)— There was a 4:2 vote in favor of the
Steering Committee's recommended LOS standards. Two Commissioners felt that
deterioration of LOS should only be allowed when safety improvements are built.
2. Cal -Pox Site (NIII-87) — There was a vote of 5:2 in favor of not encouraging the consideration
of residential uses on site because of environmental and land use concerns. Two
Commissioners felt that this is an appropriate site for residential development, and that the
environmental issues could be addressed through the environmental review process. The
4
Commission was unanimous in revising policy language to encourage future consideration of
a hotel as an allowed land use.
3. Loch Lomond (NH -121) — The Commissioners agreed upon recommended language for this
policy. However, three Commissioners desired a minimum density of 6.5 units per acre for
areas zoned Neighborhood Commercial while three Commissioners desired more flexibility
in the minimum numbers. No revision was made to the draft policy regarding a minimum
density. One Commissioner voted against the revised policy language for the Loch Lomond
Marina site, believing it was too specific for a General Plan.
4. Windward Way Site as new park (PR -9) — Commissioners voted 5:2 in favor of deleting a
sentence related to allowing private non -recreational development on the City's Windward
Way site in exchange for park improvements. Two Commissioners were interested in
retaining the sentence in order to maximize opportunities for funding improvements at the
site.
5. Downtown Cineplex (NTLI -17a) — Although all Commissioners voted in favor of this policy,
one Commissioner noted that he did not agree that a Cineplex would improve the ambiance
of Downtown.
6. Conservation policies CON -4 and CON -6 — Commissioners voted 6:1 in favor of deleting the
"taking" language in these policies, including it instead in a policy that would address all
potential `taking' issues, and not just those related to fill in wetlands or setbacks from creeks
and drainageways; and,
WHEREAS, on August 24, 2004 the Planning Commission adopted Resolution 04-22
recommending to the City Council adoption of the San Rafael General Plan 2020; and
WHEREAS, a revised draft plan, dated September 15, 2004, incorporating the Planning
Commission's edits was prepared for the City Council and made available to the public; and
WHEREAS, on September 15, 2004 the City Council held a duly -noticed public hearing
to receive and consider comments on the Final EIR; and
WHEREAS, on September 27, 2004 the City Council held a duly -noticed public hearing
to receive and consider comments on various specific topics within General Plan 2020 including
proposed land uses at the Loch Lomond Marina, Canalways and the Cal -Pox sites; and
WHEREAS, on September 28, 2004 the City Council held a duly -noticed public hearing
to receive and consider comments on the Circulation Element, Land Use Element, Neighborhood
Element, Economic Vitality Element, and the Community Design Element of General Plan 2020;
and
WHEREAS, the City Council also held a duly -noticed public hearing regarding the
proposed Traffic Mitigation Fee on September 28, 2004; and
WHEREAS, on October 4, 2004 the City Council held a duly -noticed public hearing to
receive and consider comments on the Infrastructure Element, Governance Element, Culture and
Arts Element, Parks and Recreation Element, Safety Element, Noise Element, Open Space
Element, Conservation Element, Air and Water Quality Element, and Housing Element of
General Plan 2020; and
5
WHEREAS, the City Council also held a duly -noticed public hearing on the draft
Affordable Housing Ordinance and other proposed Zoning Ordinance amendments on October 4,
2004; and
WHEREAS, on October 5, 2004 the City Council held a duly -noticed public hearing to
receive and consider comments on the proposed Design Guidelines and Project Selection Process
that are to be adopted by City Council Resolutions; and
WHEREAS, on October 19, 2004 the City Council held a special meeting at which it
considered all of the comments previously received and also considered responses to those
comments prepared by City staff and shown in the staff report:
1. Cal -Pox Site (NH -87) — The Council discussed the possibility of allowing consideration of
residential use on this isolated former dump site in a commercial area, and determined that
residential would not be an appropriate use at this location.
2. Loch Lomond Marina (NH -121) — The Council made several edits to the policy to highlight
the importance of preserving the marina as a public amenity, to refine the `affordable by
design' policy, to clarify the location of the view corridor down the main entryway, and to
include a recreational area along the waterfront (rather than in the center of the site, or along
the entryway).
3. San Rafael Rock Quarry and McNear Brickworks (NH -147) — The Council approved the
addition of a statement about the current reclamation plan for the Quarry.
4. Exception Review (C -5c) — The Council approved staff's recommended edits, with two
changes to add the word "substantially" to the finding.
5. Flexibility in Design of Roadway Improvements — The City Council approved including a
new sentence in policy C-7 about other feasible design solutions.
6. Mahon Creek (I-1 Oc) — The Council approved adding a new program about Mahon Creek.
7. Bellam/Windward Way Site (PR -9a) — The Council approved including a sentence to allow
for development of a portion of the site in exchange for funds for park improvements.
8. Lincoln/San Rafael Hill (PR -9x and NH -120x) — The Council approved adding two policies
about a new park in the Lincoln/San Rafael Hill neighborhood.
9. Sale, Lease or Contractual Agreements (PR -27) and Use of Funds from Sale of City Parks or
Open Space (PR -27a) — The Council agreed to revise the wording to allow for more
flexibility in the use of public funds for park purchase and /or improvements.
10. Exhibit 37 — The Council agreed to revise the map to reflect new information about Clapper
Rail habitat; and
WHEREAS, the City prepared responses to all the comments received either orally or in
writing on the Final EIR and General Plan 2020, and those responses are included in the
November 15, 2004 staff report recommending certification of the Final EIR; and
WHEREAS, the City Council has proposed amendments to Draft General Plan 2020 as
recommended by the Planning Commission, which proposed amendments are attached as Exhibit
A; and
WHEREAS, the City has determined that those proposed amendments to Draft General
Plan 2020 do not require further consideration of Draft General Plan 2020 by the Planning
Commission pursuant to Government Code section 65356; and
WHEREAS, the City Council, in approving Resolution No. 11664, has certified that the
Final EIR for General Plan 2020 has been completed in compliance with CEQA; that the Final
EIR is legally sufficient, not only for approval of General Plan 2020, but also for subsequent
6
actions such as projects that are consistent with General Plan 2020, rezonings, prezonings,
annexations, and revisions to the San Rafael Municipal Code and regulations as necessary to
implement the provisions of General Plan 2020; and that the Final EIR reflects the independent
judgment of the City of San Rafael and the City Council of the City of San Rafael; and
WHEREAS, in compliance with Government Code section 65585(a), the City
considered the guidelines adopted by the California Department of Housing and Community
Development ("HCD") in preparing its Housing Element; and
WHEREAS, in conformance with Government Code section 65585(b), the City
submitted a draft Housing Element to HCD on April 4, 2003; January 9, 2004; and August 27,
2004, and, in its submittals of January 9, 2004, and August 27, 2004, responded to HCD findings
dated June 6, 2003, and March 12, 2004 to substantially comply with the requirements of Article
10.6 of the Government Code; and
WHEREAS, by letter dated October 29, 2004, HCD determined that the Housing
Element should be further revised to expand the inventory of land suitable for residential
development; and
WHEREAS, the City Council has considered the findings of HCD in its consideration of
General Plan 2020; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to Government Code section 65585(f)(1), the City Council has
changed the draft Housing Element to substantially comply with the requirements of Article 10.6
of the Government Code by:
a. Including additional information, as requested by HCD, regarding Northgate Town
Center mall, the Elks Club site, and sites in the Downtown area.
b. Providing additional discussion of all land made available for development, including
development affordable to lower income households, and clarifying in its policies
and programs the City's commitment to make available adequate sites for housing,
including sites appropriate for development of housing affordable to lower income
households.
c. Adding programs and strengthening existing programs to provide adequate sites,
including providing additional regulatory and financial incentives for housing
affordable to low- and moderate -income households; and
WHEREAS, the City Council has determined that that Housing Element includes a
policy regarding working collaboratively with the County of Marin and other local jurisdictions
to develop a long-range housing policy, in that Housing Policy H-6 requires that the City
coordinate with other jurisdictions in Marin County to address housing needs in the County; and
WHEREAS, the final Housing Element, including responses to HCD's October 29, 2004
comments, shall be transmitted to HCD immediately following adoption, and the City shall duly
consider additional modifications to the Housing Element if deemed necessary following further
HCD review; and
WHEREAS, by staff report accompanying this Resolution and incorporated into this
Resolution by this reference (the "Staff Report"), the City has been provided with additional
information upon which the findings and actions set forth in this Resolution are based.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of San
Rafael hereby finds and determines that the above recitals are true and correct and, together with
the Staff Report, serve as the evidentiary basis, in part, for the actions of the City Council set
forth below.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of San Rafael does
hereby repeal Resolution 7771 for General Plan 2000 adopted July 18, 1988, Resolution 5629
adopted March 5, 1979 for the Gerstle Park Neighborhood Plan, Resolution 5968 adopted
September 2, 1980 for the Neighborhood 13/14 [Sun Valley/Fairhills] Neighborhood Plan,
Resolution 6038 adopted December 1, 2980 for the Peacock Gap Neighborhood Plan, Resolution
6423 adopted October 18, 1982 for the Northgate Activity Center Neighborhood Plan, Resolution
8172 adopted May 7, 1990 for the East San Rafael Neighborhood Plan, and Resolution 9569
adopted March 18, 1996 for the Montecito/Happy Valley Neighborhood Plan, recognizing that
these plans will be replaced with the Neighborhoods Element.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of San Rafael does
hereby adopt General Platt 2020, with the modifications thereto set forth in Exhibit A.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Council hereby instructs staff to formally
request that the Marin Local Agency Formation Commission ("Marin LAFCO") initiate
proceedings to remove the St. Vincent's/Silveira Properties from the City's Sphere of Influence
as depicted on Exhibit 1 of San Rafael General Plan 2020; to achieve this, the City Council
further directs City's planning staff to meet with the appropriate representatives of Marin County
pursuant to the pertinent requirements of Government Code section 56425, subdivision (b); after
satisfying the requirements of Government Code section 56425, subdivision (b) staff is directed
to submit the proposed amendment to San Rafael's Sphere of Influence to Marin LAFCO as
provided in and pursuant to Government Code section 56428, subdivision (a), together with the
resolutions approving General Platt 2020.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that upon review and consideration of the Final EIR
and other documents prepared as part of General Platt 2020, the City Council of the City of San
Rafael makes the following findings regarding General Plan 2020:
1. The General Plan is consistent with the intent of the Marin Countywide Plait, which
designates San Rafael within the "City -Centered Corridor."
The Countywide Platt has three environmental corridors: the coastal Recreation Corridor, the
Inland Rural Corridor and the City -Centered Corridor. These three corridors were adopted 30
years ago and set the pattern for development in the County. One of the principles of the
Countywide Platt is to preserve the natural environmental character of Marin County by
encouraging development in existing urban areas and preserving the central and western areas of
the County for agricultural, open space, and recreational uses.
General Platt 2020 allows urban development which is consistent with the County's direction to
"encourage balanced communities with higher intensity, mixed uses in built-up areas with
services" (page CD -4) and with Countywide Plan policy CD -1.1, which states "Urban
development will be concentrated in the City -Centered Corridor where infrastructure and
facilities can be made available to serve urban development." (page CD -9).
2. The General Plan provides for future development consistent with Smart Growth
principles, also promoted by the Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG), and
with Livable City principles.
General Plan 2020 is based on planning principles expressed in the Ahwahnee Principles
(www.lgc.org/ahwahnee/principles.html), which form the basis for the Smart Growth planning
approach, and in the True Urbanism Principles (www.livablecities.org/true_urbanism.htm), which
form the basis for the Livable Cities planning approach. Early in the planning process, the
General Plan 2020 Steering Committee and the Planning Commission agreed that these planning
approaches held the most promise for San Rafael's future. Both planning approaches share in
common these principles: a community center, appropriate design, mixed uses, and balanced
transportation planning. In addition, the region's planning agency ABAG has endorsed Smart
Growth principles as the preferable approach to planning for growth in the Bay Area.
General Plan 2020 includes Neighborhood Element policies promoting Downtown and
encouraging the development of the North San Rafael Town Center as community centers;
Community Design Element policies identifying design characteristics and fostering the
improvement of the built environment; Land Use Element policies increasing the opportunities
for mixed use development throughout the City, and Circulation Element policies supporting the
full range of modes of transportation, including pedestrian, bicycle, auto and transit.
3. The General Plan encourages transit -oriented development.
Transit -oriented development is "Moderate to higher density development, located within an easy
walk of a major transit stop, generally with a mix of residential, employment, and shopping
opportunities designed for pedestrians without excluding the auto. TOD can be new construction or
redevelopment of one or more buildings whose design and orientation facilitate transit use."
(source: Technical Advisory Committee for the Statewide TOD Study: Factors for Success in
California; http://transitorienteddevelopment.dot.ca.govl) Transit oriented development allocates
land use more efficiently by locating higher density housing and commercial uses near public
transit, thereby increasing transit and pedestrian trips, reducing commute and short -distance auto
trips, and decreasing regional emissions.
General Plan 2020 includes land use districts, such as Hetherton Office, Fourth Street Retail
Core, Second/Third Mixed Use and Retail/Office that allow high density residential uses near the
San Rafael Transportation Center in Downtown, and includes Neighborhoods, Housing and
Circulation policies promoting housing near the proposed Civic Center rail stop.
4. The General Plan allows economic growth, which supplies jobs for existing and future
residents while protecting environmental resources.
The Economic Vision and Strategies for the City of San Rafael (1997) sets forth a vision of San
Rafael's economy: that there's a partnership relationship between government, business interests,
citizens groups and environmental interests; that the economy generates revenue for public
services, jobs for the community and goods and services for residents; that the city will look for
development that enhances existing economic strengths or provides for community needs; that
San Rafael is a major economic force in the county; and that the city will have a broad spectrum
of businesses and a diversified economic base (pages 1-6).
With reductions in State and Federal funding for local government, and with the increased costs
of providing City services and programs, it is critical that new development help support City
functions. One way to meet the City's budget needs is to allow development that generates
significant tax revenue and provides local job opportunities, thus contributing to the City's
economic vitality.
General Plan 2020 seeks to provide a balance of land uses to provide jobs and services while still
protecting environmental resources. The Plan also seeks to provide for economic development
while maintaining the City's ability to finance City services and construction and maintenance of
public improvements. The Plan offers local employment opportunities for San Rafael residents so
that inter -city commuting can be reduced, and recognizes the need to assure the availability and
diversity of resident -serving goods and services. Finally, the Plan projects a slower rate of
economic development than the General Plan 2000 consistent with community desires to
improve the City's jobs/housing balance.
Alternative 3 (Reduced Development) would allow considerably reduced amount of new
commercial development, resulting in a lower contribution to the City's General Fund, and fewer
opportunities to maintain San Rafael's opportunities for economic growth and development.
5. The General Plan addresses affordable housing goals and maintains social and
economic diversity.
One of the top planning issues in San Rafael over the past 30 years has been affordable housing,
both how to encourage it and where it should be (Sail Rafael General Plan 1974, and Sall Rafael
General Plan 2000 1988). Single-family homes have escalated in price beyond the means of
many young families. As current occupants move out, many of their homes are unaffordable to
middle and lower income households. Over time, middle and lower income families—who are an
integral part of the City's social and economic fabric—may be forced out of the local housing
market. This affects not only these families, but also the local businesses where they work and the
regional transportation system that must accommodate their commutes. By providing affordable
housing opportunities for local workers, many of them paid lower salaries, the City can encourage
social and economic diversity in the community.
The City also has an important role to play in planning for its "fair share" of the Regional
Housing Needs Determinations provided under State law.
Because San Rafael has little vacant land for more housing under the current plan, the community
had to look at a new approach to land use. At the same time, many residents stated that they
would like to preserve the character and integrity of San Rafael's established neighborhoods.
General Plan 2020, Appendix B, Housing Background, includes an evaluation of current
programs and outlines major policy changes to expand the opportunities for new housing.
Appendix B also identifies adequate sites and development opportunities where new housing
development may occur during the Housing Element's planning period (1999-2007). Major
policy changes include allowing residential in several land use districts where housing is
currently not permitted (Land Use Element), retaining the densities in already developed
residential neighborhoods (Land Use Element), encouraging redevelopment and infill (H-22 Infill
Near Transit), providing design guidance for new development (NH -2 New Development in
Residential Neighborhoods, and EV -20 Development Review), increasing the inclusionary
housing requirement (policy H-19), and implementing a new commercial in lieu fee (program H -
24a).
10
6. The Plan meets future needs while managing the impacts of new development.
The Plan must balance affordable housing needs with economic development, environmental
protection and traffic constraints. The use of San Rafael's remaining developable parcels must
reflect the City's anticipated needs as well as regional trends. There is a high demand for housing
yet limited opportunities to build new housing in San Rafael. The City must respond to the
changing needs of residents and local businesses, while addressing the cumulative effects of
development to avoid potential long-term problems. Adequate attention must be given to the
community's social and recreational needs, traffic and service capacities, neighborhood concerns,
and environmental constraints.
General Plan 2020 includes program LU -3a Project Selection Process to evaluate the impacts and
benefits of proposed development, and balance proposed projects against their cumulative traffic
impacts. The plan also includes Community Design Element programs to adopt design guidelines
to assist developers in preparing development applications. The Plan also includes Governance
Element policies to highlight the importance of the City's outreach to, engagement with, and
collaboration with residents and to ensure effective community participation and collaboration as
part of community-based governance.
7. The Plan will improve the physical appearance of the neighborhoods while retaining
San Rafael's distinctive hometown character.
San Rafael has a unique mix of neighborhoods, each distinct in its land use and amenities. Home
remodels and additions, infill development, and redevelopment of underutilized sites offer
opportunities to improve the appearance of a neighborhood.
San Rafael's General Plan carefully allows for specific and intentional changes as described in
site-specific policies (i.e., Loch Lomond Marina, Marin Square, North San Rafael Town Center)
in the Neighborhoods Element. Community Design Element policies and programs assist
property owners in preparing development proposals that will enhance the community and
preserve the qualities treasured by residents.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of San Rafael does
hereby adopt the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program attached as Exhibit B, and the
Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations for General Plan 2020, attached as
Exhibit C.
I, JEANNE M. LEONCINI, Clerk of the City of San Rafael, hereby certify that the
foregoing Resolution was duly and regularly introduced and adopted at a regular meeting of the
City Council of said City held on Monday, the 150' day of November, 2004 by the following vote,
to wit:
AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: Cohen, Heller, Miller and Mayor Boro
NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: None
ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: Phillips
.� A
JEAANE M. , City Clerk
11
Appendix B: Housing Background
PURPOSE
This section of the Housing Element provides background information on San Rafael's housing
needs and topics required to be addressed in State law.
KEY FINDINGS
EXISTING CONDITIONS AND FUTURE TRENDS
• San Rafael has a mix of owner, renter, single-family and multifamily housing. Fifty two
percent of the dwellings in San Rafael are occupied by their owners. Renters occupy the
remainder. Approximately 47 percent of the housing stock in the community are single-
family units. The remainder is multifamily units.
• Market rate housing is generally not affordable to low and very low income households.
Almost one-third of the households currently residing in San Rafael are either very low or
extremely low income. About one-half of the households currently residing in San Rafael are
considered lower income (earning less than 80 percent of median income, or $73,200 per year
for a family of four based on 2003 Income Limits). New construction for very low and low
income households usually must rely on multifamily projects with some public subsidy.
• There is a very low vacancy rate for market rate rental housing. San Rafael's housing
supply is very tight, especially for rentals. A December 2000 vacancy survey by RealFacts,
Inc. (December 2000) found that about 1.2 percent of the units in apartment complexes
throughout the city are vacant.
• Single-family homes are only affordable to above moderate -income households. Due to
high prices, above moderate income housing need is expected to be met by market rate
construction of single-family homes. The median priced conventional single-family home in
San Rafael sold for $562,500 in 2000. An income of between $125,000 and $150,000 would
be needed to purchase a typical single-family home. The median priced condominium or
townhouse in San Rafael sold for $325,084 in 2000. An income above $75,000 per year
(current median income for a family of four) would be needed to purchase a low-end
condominium or townhouse in San Rafael in 2000.
• The lack of affordable housing impacts available services and businesses. The economic
impacts of inadequate workforce housing on businesses include: (1) The cost of recruitment
and retention of employees; (2) loss of experienced personnel; (3) lost investment in staff
training; and (4) money earned in San Rafael is spent elsewhere. The economic vitality of
smaller businesses and very low wage jobs may also be disproportionately impacted. Public
agencies, School districts, social services, and child and elder care will continue to have a
difficult time attracting people to work in San Rafael as affordable housing becomes more
difficult to find. There are also safety issues when a large percentage of police, fire and other
public safety personnel live out of the area.
• The lack of availability of affordable housing contributes to traffic congestion. The lack
of affordable housing pushes people farther and farther away, commuting to and through
Marin for job destinations. Very little growth in either population or employment is projected
for Marin County over next 20 years. Congestion is growing about two times the rate of
either population or employment growth in the County, but our growth in congestion has very
little to do with growth in Marin County. Providing affordable housing and improving the
323
jobs/housing balance reduces the need for commuting. Creating transit -oriented development
focused on transit modes is also beneficial, as is creating mixed-use developments that avoid
the need for many "midday trips." This not only has implications for traffic, but also for the
people employed, businesses and services available in the community.
The lack of affordable housing locally and statewide has significant implications for our
quality of life. According to the State Department of Housing and Community Development
(HCD), about 70 percent of the future population growth in California (16 million people by
the year 2020) will be due to natural increases in our current population (births over deaths),
and only 30 percent to people moving to California. HCD views the low housing supply and
high housing costs as potentially impacting the State's economy, with serious implications for
increases in commuting, homelessness, overcrowding, and substandard and illegal units.
Available land supply is limited in San Rafael. The available vacant land supply is limited
for all land uses, especially multifamily and nonresidential uses. The city must rely
increasingly on reuse of underutilized land to meet needs.
HOUSING NEEDS AND TYPES
• Affordable Smaller Rental Housing Units. Single person households (students, seniors and
younger person households) will require affordable studio and one -bedroom units and single -
room occupancy units.
• Affordable Family Housing. While there is a significant need for affordable housing for
single person households in San Rafael, there is also a need for affordable family housing
with two -and three -bedrooms. Need groups include new families, single parents and large
families.
• Affordable Smaller For -Sale Housing Units. For -sale units affordable to higher moderate
income households, including new units and resales of existing housing. Adjustments should
be made to consider all costs and tax benefits of for -sale housing.
• Housing for the In -Commuting Workforce. San Rafael contains approximately 30 percent
of the jobs in Marin County, and is a significant employment center in the North Bay. In the
past decade, the supply of jobs has been growing faster than the number of employed
residents, indicating that there is a net in -migration of workers. For the next two decades, the
Association of Bay Area Governments reports that the majority of new jobs will be in retail
sales and service jobs that are relatively low paying. Statistics from the U.S. Commerce
Department's Bureau of Economic Analysis indicate that the average wage of workers in
Marin County is only 88 percent of the Bay Area average wage.
• Housing for Persons with Special Needs. The affordable housing crisis is especially severe
for younger and senior households. Young households (under 34 years old) comprise 18.6
percent of all households in San Rafael. Of those, 60 percent are low income or below.
Senior households (over 65 years old) comprise 24% of all households in San Rafael. Of
those, 80 percent are low income or below. Households 75 years plus having even lower
incomes. Special needs may have a possible service delivery component. They include: very
low and low-income seniors; people living with disabilities; and households "at risk" of
homelessness (roughly 20% of all very low income households in San Rafael).
• Second Units. Based on City of San Rafael surveys, second units can provide a significant
source of affordable housing (50% affordable to very low income households and 50%
affordable to moderate income households).
• Rental Housing. Based upon a survev of rents comDleted by the Citv (see Exhibit IZ,
Mmarket rate rentals of all t Tee ^reof all types are generally eener-all}affordable to
moderate income households, with certain market rate units also available to lower income
324
households:,n-.i,oI,,,l-a, e g between 100 120-% ,. f ed;,a kr.-c- r.e4,,.,,,a wete ;
h0HSehE)1dS)•
COMMUNITY PARTICIPATION IN THE UPDATED HOUSING ELEMENT
Requirements for public participation are described in Section 65583(6)(b)) of the Government
Code. The City of San Rafael must take affirmative steps to get input from low-income persons
and their representatives as well as other members of the community. This means that input
should be sought, received and considered before the Draft Housing Element is completed.
The City of San Rafael's Housing Element update process has been built upon the efforts
undertaken for the General Plan as a whole. Activities undertaken to date on the General Plan
and the Draft Housing Element, specifically in regard to the involvement of low income persons
and their representatives, have included:
(1) In October 1999, staff initiated outreach on the General Plan work, meeting with 49
community groups, and over 600 people. In addition to business, housing, neighborhood
and environmental groups, staff met with organizations such as CHEDA/Club Deportivo,
the Federated Coast Miwok, the Grupo de Mujeres and Horizontes de Padres Latinos, a
Head Start Parents Group, Homeward Bound (homeless), La Raza youth group, the
Latino Marin Soccer League, the Teen Center, a class of fifth graders, and the Youth
Leadership Institute. It was clear at that early point that affordable housing would be an
important issue for the new plan. The high cost of housing was having an impact on
businesses, school districts, and public safety. Participants complained about rising rents
and crowded apartments.
(2) Since May 2000, the General Plan 2020 project has been guided by a 19 -member
Steering Committee appointed by the City Council. The members represent a broad
cross-section of community interests. Throughout the process of drafting a new plan, and
Housing Element, the Steering Committee was committed to hearing from residents
about their ideas; this is reflected through the summary below of outreach efforts to
involve the broader community.
(3) In the Fall of 2000, the General Plan 2020 Steering Committee met with 42 community
groups to identify the most important planning issues in San Rafael. "Housing Needs"
ranked third in the survey, just after "Traffic" and "Education." The Grupo de Mujeres,
Homeward Bound, the Housing Consortium, the Marin Association of Realtors, and the
Pickleweed Park Advisory Committee participated in this outreach.
(4) In the Fall and Winter of 2000-01, the City held two community meetings on the issue
of "Rising Residential Rents." The meetings were held in English, Vietnamese and
Spanish. Approximately 100 people attended the first session, and over 200 people
attended the second meeting, representing the following groups:
San Rafael Tenants Association
Canal Ministry Neighborhood Leaders Program
Center for Independent Living
Marin Family Action Center
Marin Vision
Legal Aid
Canal Community Alliance
Marin Child Care Council
Senior Access
Marin Headstart
Fair Housing of Marin
Marin Literacy
325
Marin Continuum on Housing
Housing Consortium (group of non-profit housing providers)
At the meeting, discussion groups reviewed (1) Rent Stabilization; (2) Housing
Conditions; (3) Tenant Assistance; and (4) Housing Supply (General Plan policies and
housing sites). Participants learned about the General Plan 2020 project, and the role that
the Housing Element has providing affordable housing. As a result of the `Rising Rents'
meetings, the City Council directed staff to, as part of the General Plan 2020 work,
identify additional housing sites and policies to assist in the creation of new housing, and
to further encourage partnerships with non-profit agencies as well as private owners to
secure regulated affordable units, including new and creative approaches.
(5) In November and December 2000, the City held three visioning sessions to discuss the
future of San Rafael. Over 170 people attended the first Town Meeting, 25 youth
attended a second Visioning Session at the Teen Center, and nearly 40 people
participated in a visioning workshop held in Spanish at Bahia Vista School. One of the
questions asked was "What does our housing stock look like?" The answers from the
visioning sessions were used to draft a vision statement outlining the City's aspirations
for the future.
(6) In Spring 2001, 45 people joined the Steering Committee to draft General Plan policy
recommendations. The 15 -member Neighborhoods and Homes Task Group included
residents from throughout San Rafael, representing renters as well as homeowners, older
as well as younger residents. In May 2001, the draft policies were shared at an Open
House at which various options were outlined for community consideration and feedback.
(7) In January 2002 over 100 people participated in the San Rafael Community Design
Charrette. Of the 12 working groups, one had a Vietnamese translator, and one had a
Spanish -translator. Over two days, six potential `change' areas were studied in depth by
teams of community members and volunteer architects. Mixed-use, live/work and
affordable housing emerged as major land uses in all six areas.
(8) In Spring 2002, eighteen community groups, including 214 people, helped to evaluate
the housing potential of various sites. As part of this outreach, staff met with high school
students, the Chamber of Commerce, the Siena Club, and several neighborhood groups.
(9) In October 2002, the Steering Committee hosted a community meeting on the draft
Housing Element. Approximately 100 people attended, over half from one neighborhood
concerned about the identification of a school as a potential housing site.
(10) In November 2002 and January 2003, staff met with the Chamber's housing advocates
and the Pickleweed Park Advisory Board to hear their suggestions on the draft housing
policy.
(11) On February 10 and 24, 2004, the Planniniz Commission held a Dublic hearing on the
Draft Housing Element, at which 13 DeoDle spoke. In addition, the Citv received a
review letter from the California Department of Ilousina and Communitv Development
(HCD) as hart of the State's review of the Draft Housina Element. In resDonse to the
Dublic comments and the review letter. revisions were made to the Draft Housine
Element, which the Plannine Commission considered and forwarded to the City_ Council
with a recommendation for adoption.
326
(12) On October 4, 2004, the City Council held a Dublic hearina on the Draft IIousina
Element at which eiaht DeoDle spoke, voicing concerns about the amount of housing
exo«vth proiected, the need to better describe San Rafael's potential housina sites, and the
Dotential constraint on the development of housina posed by the uroDoses Priority
Selection Process and the newly increased Traffic Mitigation Fees. In addition, on
October 29, 2004, the City received commends from HCD on the Plannina Commission's
revised draft Element. On November 15, 2004, the City Council reviewed the final edits
to the Element that addressed the issues raised, and adopted the new housing element as
Dart of the City new General Plan 2020.
In addition, the City of San Rafael's Housing Element update process has benefited from the
efforts undertaken for the Marin Housing Workbook (see Marin Housing Workbook Chapter
One). The Marin Housing Workbook process, from its inception, was developed through an
open, inclusive process. The 4,000 persons and organizations on the mailing list include all
housing -related non -profits in Marin County and persons from a mailing list provided by the
Marin Housing Authority. In addition, recommendations considered as part of the "best
practices", contained the document, were made by groups such as the Marin Housing Element
Coalition, Greenbelt Alliance and Non -Profit Housing of Northern California. A study session
was also conducted with HCD staff and the County's Planning Directors.
RELATIONSHIP OF THE HOUSING ELEMENT TO OTHER GENERAL PLAN ELEMENTS
The General Plan serves as the `constitution' for development in the city. It is a long-range
planning document that describes goals, policies and programs to guide decision-making. Once
the General Plan is adopted, all development -related decisions must be consistent with the plan. If
a development proposal is not consistent with the plan, the proposal must be revised or the plan
itself must be amended. State law requires a community's General Plan to be internally
consistent. This means that the Housing Element, although subject to special requirements and a
different schedule of updates, must function as an integral part of the overall General Plan, with
consistency between it and the other General Plan elements.
A comprehensive update of the City of San Rafael General Plan 2000 is currently being
undertaken. This provides a significant opportunity for the community to evaluate land use and
other issues comprehensively as they relate to the Housing Element. The development potential
and programs of the updated Housing Element will be consistent with the land use and
development projections of General Plan 2020. Land use and development projections of the
General Plan are also linked to planned facilities and infrastructure capacity. Specific issues
addressed in other sections of the General Plan, but which are linked to and supported in the
Housing Element, include: (1) the design of housing; (2) housing and circulation; and (3) support
services and infrastructure for the community.
POPULATION AND EMPLOYMENT TRENDS
The San Rafael Planning Area currently has a population of 68,582 people (100% count from the
2000 U.S. Census). Over the next 20 years, between 2000 and 2020, ABAG projects that San
Rafael will grow at an average annual rate of 0.5%, which amounts to about 425 people per year
or roughly 170 households per year.
The projections shown below are for the San Rafael Planning Area based on the Association of
Bay Area Governments (ABAG) Projections 2003 report.
327
Exhibit A: Bav Area. Marin Countv and San Rafael Plannine Area Proiections
Changes
Location 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020 2000-2020
Bay Area Regional Total
Population
6,783,762
7,193,900
7,527,500
7,840,200
8,168,300
1,384,538
Households
2,466,020
2,581,380
2,702,090
2,824,030
2,950,970
484,950
Average Household Size
2.69
2.73
2.73
2.72
2.72
0.03
Employed Residents
3,605,675
3,721,100
3,963,700
4,294,960
4,543,590
937,915
Jobs
3,753,670
3,848,870
4,199,670
4,509,840
4,752,590
998,920
Employed Residents.`Job
0.96
0.97
0.94
0.95
0.96
0.00
Jobs/Household
1.52
1.49
1.55
1.60
1.61
0.09
Marin County
Population
247,289
254,500
264,100
271,200
275,700
28,411
Households
100,650
102,690
106,590
109,780
112,110
11,460
Average Household Size
2.34
2.37
2.37
2.36
2.44
0.10
Employed Residents
140,955
145,300
154,600
158,700
161,400
20,445
Jobs
122,960
125,290
134,100
144,590
151,930
28,970
Employed Residents Job
1.15
1.16
1.15
1.10
1.06
-0.08
Jobs/Household
1.22
1.22
1.26
1.32
1.36
0.13
Percent of Bay Area Population
3.6%
3.5%
3.5%
3.5%
3.4%
0.00
Percent of Bay Area Jobs
3.3%
3.3%
3.2%
3.2%
3.2%
0.00
San Rafael Planning Area
Population
68,582
70,900
73,600
75,300
76,000
7,418
Households
27,122
27,840
28,880
29,600
30,090
2,968
Average Household Size
2.44
2.6
2.47
2.46
2.44
0.00
Employed Residents
38,176
39,580
42,060
42,950
43,470
5,294
Jobs
44,340
45,420
48,010
50,260
51,840
7,500
Employed Residents, Job
0.86
0.87
0.88
0.85
0.84
-0.02
Jobs/Household
1.63
1.63
1.66
1.70
1.72
0.09
Percent of County Population
27.7%
27.9%
27.9%
27.8%
27.6%
0.00
Percent of County Jobs
36.1%
36.3%
35.8%
34.8%
34.1%
-0.02
Source: Projections 2003, Association of Bay Area Governments, 2003
San Rafael's population is projected to continue to grow by about 10 percent over the next 20
years. This is slower than the Bay Area as a whole, but in line with the expected growth in Marin
County as a whole, which, other than San Francisco, is the slowest growing county in the Bay
Area. Similar to current conditions, San Rafael is expected to contain about 28 percent of the
County's population and about 36% of the County's jobs in the year 2020. Approximately
11,630 new jobs are projected to be created in the next 20 years in the San Rafael Planning Area,
with many anticipated to be in the relatively lower paying services and retail sectors.
San Rafael is the County seat and business center for Marin. It is expected to have more jobs
than housing as compared to more suburban and rural communities in the area. According to
ABAG, San Rafael's jobs to housing ratio is projected to increase from 1.63 jobs/household in
2000 to 1.84 jobs/household in 2020. San Rafael's current population occupations include 45%
professional, 25% sales, 16% service, 7% construction, and 6% production and transportation.
There are many benefits of having a balance between jobs and employed residents, including a
labor supply more closely matched to local employment needs, less congested freeways, reduced
fuel consumption and improved air quality, reduced expenditures on major transportation
projects, and savings in travel time for both businesses and individuals. However, a 1.0 to 1.0
ratio between jobs and employed residents does not guarantee a reduction in commute trips.
Although Marin County is expanding its jobs base, many residents still commute elsewhere to
328
work, while many of the people who work in San Rafael are living in other communities due to
high housing costs and availability, or other lifestyle choices. So, even with a 1:1 ratio of jobs to
housing, cities or counties can continue to exchange workers regardless of a correlation of
employed residents to total jobs. Therefore, one focus of the Housing Element is to address the
issue of matching housing costs and types to the needs and incomes of the community's
workforce.
Future growth projections for population and jobs will result in a continuing strong demand for
housing. Both the population and number of housing units are expected to continue increasing,
but not as quickly as the number of jobs in the county. Countywide, the annual increase in
population over the next twenty years is expected to be at a modest 0.57 percent, while the
increase in jobs is expected to be higher, at 1.31 percent. Concurrently, it is also projected that
the County's population will continue to age, and there will be a continuing demand for a variety
of housing types, including those for smaller households.
HOUSING CONDITIONS
As of January 2000 (per Census 2000) there were 22,963 housing units in San Rafael. Of these,
46 percent were single-family detached units, 9 percent and single-family attached units, 10
percent in structures of 2-4 units, and 34 percent in structures with 5 or more units. Multifamily
housing comprises 44 percent of the housing stock in San Rafael.
Although about 17 percent of all housing units in San Rafael were built before 1950, the single-
family housing stock is generally in good condition. Based on exterior appearance, it is likely
that few homes (less than one percent) need to be rehabilitated or demolished. The good
condition of the stock is a reflection of the high home values in the area. While few homes need
rehabilitation, some, being older, smaller homes, are considered less than adequate in today's
market and so have undergone extensive additions and remodeling. There are specialized
rehabilitation needs in the community for lower income, disabled or elderly households. Low
interest rehabilitation loans are available to low income owners. Marin Housing administers the
program. Funding is provided thorough Community Development Block Grants and
contributions from cities.
As homes are remodeled and expanded to meet the needs of new owners, neighborhoods change
their character and appearance. While there are positive aspects to improved appearance and
functions of remodeled homes and apartments, there can also be concerns that the physical
changes are not done in a manner appropriate to the neighborhood context. San Rafael adopted
zoning provisions in 1992 providing for design review of larger second story additions. While
the city has not experienced many `tear downs' (existing houses replaced with larger homes) or
`monster homes' (expansions and new homes significantly out of scale with adjacent neighboring
homes), there has been some concern expressed by neighbors that the City should have more
control over the appearance and size of proposed changes to single-family homes.
A field survey of the San Rafael Redevelopment Project Area, which includes primarily
multifamily units, conducted in March 2002 found that 16.3% of the buildings had dilapidated
and/or deteriorated exterior building conditions, 18.7% of the buildings had defective design, and
34.7% of the parcels had poor site conditions. Redevelopment Agency programs are targeted
toward addressing these conditions.
City Code Enforcement personnel assigned to the Canal neighborhood inspect specific properties
based on referrals from other City departments (Police, Fire, Building) and upon receiving
complaints from tenants. Because the City focuses on cleaning up the worst buildings first, most
329
of the buildings inspected contain numerous housing code violations. Owners of buildings are
reluctant to undertake the necessary repairs undergo several re -inspections by Code Enforcement
staff. The City has collected over $35,000 in fines for Uniform Housing and other code
violations from property owners in the Canal neighborhood. Apartment inspections for units
outside the targeted area had been the responsibility of the Marin Health Department. However,
the City has recently taken over this function from the County, and proactive code enforcement
will be expanded to cover other areas in the City.
HOUSEHOLD CHARACTERISTICS
Household Tvves
The Bureau of the Census defines a household as all persons who occupy a housing unit,
including families, single people, or unrelated persons. Persons living in licensed facilities or
dormitories are not considered households. The table below shows U.S. Census data on
households by type in San Rafael in comparison to other Marin County communities.
San Rafael has a significant diversity of households, with 57% families, 32% single -person
households, and 11% non -family households. Similar to Marin County as a whole, 24% of all
households in San Rafael are age 65 or greater.
Exhibit B: Household by Tvae by Jurisdiction (2000)
Households By Type By Jurisdiction (2000)
Source: 2000 U.S. Census
HousinLF Tenure and Vacanev Rate
As shown below, it is currently estimated that about 52% of the housing units in San Rafael are
owner -occupied and 45% are renter -occupied, with the remaining units being vacant.
330
Family
Family
Single Person Single Person
Non -Family
Non -Family
Total
Total HH
Jurisdiction
Households
Age 65+
Households
Age 65+ Household (2+)
(2+) Age 65+
Households
Age 65+
Belvedere
657
247
258
146
41
16
956
409
Corte Madera
2,472
536
937
196
367
60
3,776
891
Fairfax
1,813
151
1,029
245
464
43
3,306
540
Larkspur
2,901
758
2,650
903
591
71
6,142
1,732
Mill Valley
3,420
699
2,098
761
629
99
6,147
1,559
Novato
12,419
1,379
4,661
1,714
1,444
158
18,524
4,151
Ross
626
146
97
40
38
14
761
200
San Anselmo
3,191
559
1,511
386
565
60
5,267
1,005
San Rafael
12,776
2,785
7,187
1,446
2,408
121
22,371
5,453
Sausalito
1,663
326
1,945
331
646
58
4,254
715
Tiburon
2,408
623
1,026
351
278
43
3,712
1,017
Marin Unincorporated
16,333
3,520
6,642
1,994
2,459
327
25,434
5,841
Marin County Total
60,679
12,830
30,041
9,613
9,930
1,171
100,650
13,614
Source: 2000 U.S. Census
HousinLF Tenure and Vacanev Rate
As shown below, it is currently estimated that about 52% of the housing units in San Rafael are
owner -occupied and 45% are renter -occupied, with the remaining units being vacant.
330
Exhibit C: Housine Units by Tenure by Jurisdiction (1990 and 2000)
Housing Units by Tenure by Jurisdiction (1990 and 2000)
2000
1990
Renter
Owner
Vacant
Renter
Owner
Vacant
Belvedere
103
223
741
73
68%
Percent
22%
71%
7.0%
Corte Madera
74
1,087
2,490
140
71%
Percent
29%
67%
3.8%
Fairfax
112
1,250
1,842
133
59%
Percent
39%
57%
4.1%
Larkspur
271
2,811
2,911
243
48%
Percent
47%
49%
4.1%
Mill Valley
139
2,072
3,883
178
64%
Percent
34%
63%
2.9%
Novato
470
6,947
11,289
546
66%
Percent
37%
60%
2.9%
Ross
44
45
679
51
82%
Percent
6%
88%
6.6%
San Anselmo
141
1,766
3,364
195
65%
Percent
33%
63%
3.7%
San Rafael
577
9,240
11,055
846
52%
Percent
44%
52%
4.0%
Sausalito
257
2,103
1,990
285
46%
Percent
48%
45%
6.5%
Tiburon
181
1,107
2,166
170
67%
Percent
32%
63%
4.9%
Unincorporated
7,364
16,581
1,891
27%
Percent
29%
65%
7.4%
Total County
64,024
36,015
58,991
4,751
35%
Percent
36%
59%
4.8%
Source: Califomia Department of Finance; U.S. Census, 2000; Baird + Driskell
The vacancy rates for housing in San Rafael have decreased since 1990, when the Census
recorded a vacancy rate of 4.0 percent. As shown below, in 2000, the total vacancy rate was
recorded at 2.5 percent. However, the effective vacancy rate for rental housing units is 1.7
percent, which excludes units that are unavailable as long term rentals.
331
2000
Total
Renter
Owner
Vacant
Total
1,037
239
717
103
1,059
10000
23%
68%
9.7%
100%
3,717
1,038
2,738
74
3,850
100%
27%
71%
1.9%
100%
3,225
1,275
2,031
112
3,418
100oo
37%
59%
3.3%
100%
5,965
3,081
3,061
271
6,413
100%
48%
48%
4.2%
100%
6,133
2,121
4,026
139
6,286
100%
34%
64%
2.2%
100%
18,782
6,009
12,515
470
18,994
100oo
32%
66%
2.5%
100%
775
98
663
44
805
10000
12%
82%
5.5%
100%
5,325
1,751
3,516
141
5,408
100%
32%
65%
2.6%
100%
21,141
107346
12,025
577
22,948
100%
45%
52%
2.5%
100%
4,378
2,166
2,088
257
4,511
100%
48%
46%
5.7%
100%
3,443
1,121
2,591
181
3,893
100%
29%
67%
4.6%
100%
25,836
7,381
18,053
1,971
27,405
102%
27%
66%
7.2%
100%
99,757
36,626
64,024
4,340
104,990
100%
35%
61%
4.1%
100%
The vacancy rates for housing in San Rafael have decreased since 1990, when the Census
recorded a vacancy rate of 4.0 percent. As shown below, in 2000, the total vacancy rate was
recorded at 2.5 percent. However, the effective vacancy rate for rental housing units is 1.7
percent, which excludes units that are unavailable as long term rentals.
331
Exhibit D: Vacanev Status for Vacant Housing Units by Jurisdiction (2000)
Vacancy Status for Vacant Housing Units by Jurisdiction (2000)
Source: U.S. Census, 2000; Baird + Driskell
In general, a higher vacancy rate is considered necessary by housing experts to assure adequate
choice in the marketplace and to temper the rise in home prices. A 5.0 percent rental vacancy rate
is considered necessary to permit ordinary rental mobility. In a housing market with a lower
vacancy rate, tenants will have difficulty locating appropriate units and strong market pressure
will inflate rents. Thus, the 1990's have seen a significant tightening in the local housing market,
a phenomenon that has been experienced in many Bay Area communities. Nationwide, there was
a sharp drop in multifamily housing construction during the 1990's which contributed to low
vacancy rates and rising rents. The reason for the drop was due to the loss of federal tax credits,
local resistance to apartment construction, litigation and liability issues, and population changes
(study conducted by University of Southern California demographer and planner Dowell Myers).
In addition, the lower the vacancy rate the greater the tendency for landlords to discriminate
against potential renters. Fair Housing of Marin is a civil rights agency that investigates housing
discrimination, including discrimination based on race, origin, disability, gender, and children. Its
caseload consists almost entirely of renters. The organization receives approximately 1,200
inquiries a year, of which about 250 are discrimination complaints that are fully investigated.
Fair Housing of Marin also educates landowners on fair housing laws, provides seminars in
English, Spanish, and Vietnamese on how to prepare for a housing search and recognize
discrimination, and education programs on the importance of community diversity in schools,
which includes an annual "Fair Housing" poster contest.
Overcrowdino
Overcrowded housing is defined by the US Census as units with more than one inhabitant per
room, excluding kitchen and bathrooms. The incidence of overcrowding has increased
significantly over the last 20 years due to the increase in immigrant newcomers in the Canal
neighborhood, cultural acceptance of extended households, and the economic necessity of sharing
housing. The percentage of overcrowded households in San Rafael has increased from 1.9% in
1980, to 5.6% in 1990, and to 10.6% in 2000. According to the 2000 Census, citywide, 1.4% of
owner -occupied units are overcrowded and 21.3% of renter -occupied units are overcrowded.
332
Effective
Rented or
For Seasonal/
For
Vacancy
For
Vacancy %
For
Sold/Not
Occasional/
Mirgrant
Other
Total
Rate for
Rent
for Rentals
Sale
Occupied
Rec Use
Workers
Vacant
Vacant
All Units
Belvedere
10
4.0%
4
11
59
0
19
103
9.7%
Corte Madera
20
1.9%
9
9
14
1
21
74
1.9%
Fairfax
42
3.2%
13
8
27
0
22
112
3.3%
Larkspur
70
2.2%
18
18
94
0
71
271
4.2%
Mill Valley
36
1.7%
24
20
28
0
31
139
2.2%
Novato
151
2.5%
120
75
51
0
73
470
2.5%
Ross
6
5.8%
3
3
11
0
21
44
5.5%
San Anseimo
34
1.9%
9
19
31
0
48
141
2.6%
San Rafael
181
1.7%
108
40
111
0
137
577
2.5%
Sausalito
68
3.0%
12
36
106
0
35
257
5.7%
Tiburon
36
3.1%
18
23
77
0
27
181
4.6%
Unincorporated
152
2.0%
86
138
1,293
5
297
1,971
7.2%
Total County
806
2.2'%
424
400
1,902
6
802
4,340
4.1%
Source: U.S. Census, 2000; Baird + Driskell
In general, a higher vacancy rate is considered necessary by housing experts to assure adequate
choice in the marketplace and to temper the rise in home prices. A 5.0 percent rental vacancy rate
is considered necessary to permit ordinary rental mobility. In a housing market with a lower
vacancy rate, tenants will have difficulty locating appropriate units and strong market pressure
will inflate rents. Thus, the 1990's have seen a significant tightening in the local housing market,
a phenomenon that has been experienced in many Bay Area communities. Nationwide, there was
a sharp drop in multifamily housing construction during the 1990's which contributed to low
vacancy rates and rising rents. The reason for the drop was due to the loss of federal tax credits,
local resistance to apartment construction, litigation and liability issues, and population changes
(study conducted by University of Southern California demographer and planner Dowell Myers).
In addition, the lower the vacancy rate the greater the tendency for landlords to discriminate
against potential renters. Fair Housing of Marin is a civil rights agency that investigates housing
discrimination, including discrimination based on race, origin, disability, gender, and children. Its
caseload consists almost entirely of renters. The organization receives approximately 1,200
inquiries a year, of which about 250 are discrimination complaints that are fully investigated.
Fair Housing of Marin also educates landowners on fair housing laws, provides seminars in
English, Spanish, and Vietnamese on how to prepare for a housing search and recognize
discrimination, and education programs on the importance of community diversity in schools,
which includes an annual "Fair Housing" poster contest.
Overcrowdino
Overcrowded housing is defined by the US Census as units with more than one inhabitant per
room, excluding kitchen and bathrooms. The incidence of overcrowding has increased
significantly over the last 20 years due to the increase in immigrant newcomers in the Canal
neighborhood, cultural acceptance of extended households, and the economic necessity of sharing
housing. The percentage of overcrowded households in San Rafael has increased from 1.9% in
1980, to 5.6% in 1990, and to 10.6% in 2000. According to the 2000 Census, citywide, 1.4% of
owner -occupied units are overcrowded and 21.3% of renter -occupied units are overcrowded.
332
Countywide, less than 1% of owner -occupied units are overcrowded and 10% of renter -occupied
units are overcrowded.
As noted in the County of Marin's Consolidated Plan, San Rafael's Canal Area is one of three
areas in the County with a high concentration of low-income persons. In 2000, 15% of Canal
residents had incomes below the poverty level, and 38% of Canal residents had incomes below
50% of the County median income. The Canal has the highest incidence of residential
overcrowding in the County. The 2000 Census reported that 49% of the units in the Canal are
overcrowded. The average household size in the Canal is 3.85 persons, as compared to 2.42
persons citywide.
In general, overcrowding and discrimination are more likely to occur when the rental vacancy
rate is very low because property owners can be selective in choosing potential tenants.
Overcrowding is expected to be an increasing statewide problem as the number of units produced
is anticipated to be less than the demand for housing projected to be needed by the natural growth
of California's population (births over deaths).
HOUSING COSTS, HOUSEHOLD INCOME, AND THE ABILITY TO PAY FOR HOUSING
The City of San Rafael is a part of a housing market area that makes up Marin County as a whole.
Existing trends and future conditions county -wide affect housing prices and affordability in San
Rafael. The housing characteristics of San Rafael, and some of San Rafael's neighborhoods, are
quite different from the county as a whole. In addition, San Rafael's median household income
was $60,994 according to the 2000 Census as compared to the countywide median household
income in 2000 of $71,306.
The graph on the next page illustrates household income based on 2003 Marin County Income
Limits established for various affordable housing programs. Following that is a graph that shows
a breakdown of current households in San Rafael by age of householder and income category
based on the 2000 Census. While middle age households (35-54 years of age) comprise the
majority of households in San Rafael, proportionately the most significant very low income
housing need is in younger households (under 34) with lower salaries (early wage earners), and
seniors (65 years plus) on SSI or retirement.
333
Exhibit E: Household Income Based on 2003 Marin Countv Income Limits
9,000
8,000
7,000
6,000
5,000
4,000
3,000 -
z,000 .
1
1,000
0
Extremely Low Very Low Income Low Income Moderate Income
Income
Sales Prices and Rents
Above Moderate
Income
From 1993 to 2000 the median home sales price in Marin County increased from $314,250 to
$523,000. The median price for a single-family detached home price in Marin County in 2000
was $599,000, requiring an income over $150,000 per year to qualify for a loan. The tables below
show average rents in San Rafael in 1999 and 2000 as compiled by RealFacts, Inc., and home
sales compiled by the Marin County Assessor's Office. Rents increased substantially during this
period, but have reportedly stabilized in the past year due to economic recession and uncertainty.
Overvavins Households
Housing that costs 30% or less of a household's income is referred to as "affordable housing."
Because household incomes and sizes vary, the price which is considered "affordable" for each
household also varies. For example, a large family with one small income would afford a
different type of housing than a double -income household with no children.
Households that pay more than 30 percent of their income on housing are considered to be
"overpaying" for housing. It is estimated that at a minimum about 33% of all households in San
Rafael are considered to be "overpaying" households (7,684 or 22,963 households). Of those
overpaying, 62 percent are renters (4,802 households) and 38 percent are owners (2,882
households).
In San Rafael, a 4 -person household is considered to be very -low income if it earns up to $45,750
per year and low-income if it earns less than $73,200 per year. Utilizing U.S. Census statistics on
overpaying households, this section approximates lower-income categories with a $50,000
334
o Over 65
o55-64
■ 35-54
o Under 34
Above Moderate
Income
From 1993 to 2000 the median home sales price in Marin County increased from $314,250 to
$523,000. The median price for a single-family detached home price in Marin County in 2000
was $599,000, requiring an income over $150,000 per year to qualify for a loan. The tables below
show average rents in San Rafael in 1999 and 2000 as compiled by RealFacts, Inc., and home
sales compiled by the Marin County Assessor's Office. Rents increased substantially during this
period, but have reportedly stabilized in the past year due to economic recession and uncertainty.
Overvavins Households
Housing that costs 30% or less of a household's income is referred to as "affordable housing."
Because household incomes and sizes vary, the price which is considered "affordable" for each
household also varies. For example, a large family with one small income would afford a
different type of housing than a double -income household with no children.
Households that pay more than 30 percent of their income on housing are considered to be
"overpaying" for housing. It is estimated that at a minimum about 33% of all households in San
Rafael are considered to be "overpaying" households (7,684 or 22,963 households). Of those
overpaying, 62 percent are renters (4,802 households) and 38 percent are owners (2,882
households).
In San Rafael, a 4 -person household is considered to be very -low income if it earns up to $45,750
per year and low-income if it earns less than $73,200 per year. Utilizing U.S. Census statistics on
overpaying households, this section approximates lower-income categories with a $50,000
334
income limit for the very -low-income parameter and a $75,000 limit for the low-income
parameter.
According to the U.S. Census, 6,511 households earning less than $75,000 per year, or 55.4% of
all "lower-income" households, are overpaying for housing. Approximately 65% of very -low
income households are overpaying for housing. The table below indicates that the incidence of
overpaying is particularly severe among very -low income renters, of which 70% are overpaying
for housing. Nearly half of all lower-income owner households are overpaying for housing, with
a roughly equal incidence among very -low and low-income households. Very few moderate -
income renters are overpaying for housing, but 38% of moderate -income owners are overpaying.
Exhibit F: Households Overnavine for Housine by ADnroximate Income Categories
Households Overpaying for Housing by Approximate Income Categories
"Very -low Income": Less than $50,000
"Low -Income": $50,000 to $74,999
"Moderate -Income" $75,000 to $99,999
Number at
Number
Percent of
Number of
Number
Percent of
Number ol
Number
Percent of
Households
Overpaying
Households
Households
Overpaying
Households
Households
Overpaying
Households
Renters 6,127
4,312
70.4%
1,980
406
20.5%
1,140
84
7.4%
Owners 2,224
1,137
51.1%
1,424
656
46.1%
1,518
577
38.0%
Total 8,351
5,449
65.2%
3,404
1,062
31.2%
2,658
661
24.9%
Swim U.S. Coisus _'000
Exhibit G: Rents in San Rafael by Unit Type in Apartment Complexes of Over 50 Units (1999-2000)
Type of
Jan -Mar
April-
July-
Oct-
Jan-
April-
July-
Oct-
Last Four
Average Average % Change % Change Jan
Unit
1999
June
Sept
Dec
Mar
June
Sept
Dec
Quarters
1999
2000
Jan 2000 - 1999 -Dec 2000
Bed/Bath
1999
1999
1999
2000
2000
2000
2000
Change (+/-)
Dec 2000
0/1
$828
$848
$893
$919
$949
$952
$984
$990
7.7%
$872
$969
4.32%
19.57%
1/1
$1,146
$1,154
$1,182
$1,196
$1,223
$1,267
$1,331
$1,413
18.1%
$1,170
$1,309
15.54%
23.30%
2/1
$1,282
$1,274
$1,298
$1,318
$1,367
$1,425
$1,447
$1,635
24.1%
$1,293
$1,469
19.60%
27.54%
2/2
$1,469
$1,472
$1,480
$1,509
$1,544
$1,588
$1,703
$1,791
18.7%
$1,483
$1,657
16.00%
21.92%
2 TH
$1,785
$1,797
$1,803
$1,803
$1,806
$1,900
$2,005
$2,057
14.1%
$1,797
$1,942
13.90%
15.24%
3/2
$1,614
$1,630
$1,645
$1,680
$1,700
$1,748
$1,878
$2,031
20.9%
$1,642
$1,839
19.47%
25.84%
3 TH
$2,198
$2,238
$2,258
$2,258
$2,258
$2,292
$2,672
$2,672
18.3%
$2,238
$2,474
18.33%
21.57%
Average
$1,295
$1,300
$1,321
$1,341
$1,369
$1,416
$1,490
$1,594
18.9%
$1,314
$1,467
16.44%
23.09%
Overall
94.9%
96.9%
98.1%
97.2%
97.5%
97.9%
98.1%
98.8%
1.6%
97.7%
98.1%
1.33%
4.11%
Occupancy
Vacancy
5.1%
3.1%
1.9%
2.8%
2.5%
2.1%
1.9%
1.2%
3.2%
1.9%
Source: RealFacts, Inc., 2001
335
Exhibit H: Marin Real Estate Sales (Year End 2000)
Total Single Family Homes Sold: 3,899
Mean / Median Home Sale Price: $661,667 / $523,000
Mean Home Living Area: 1,772 sq. ft.
Source: Marin County Assessor - Recorder, 2001
The tables below translate each of the income categories into `affordable rents' and `affordable
home prices.' These are the rents and home prices that a household earning that level of income
could be expected to pay if they were to spend 30 percent of their income on housing. The exact
amount that they could pay would of course depend on the amount of down payment they could
afford and the specific terms of their mortgage. These are rough calculations, meant as
`indicators' only. They demonstrate the "gap" between market prices and affordability at various
income levels.
Given the household income trends and housing cost trends discussed previously, it is reasonable
to conclude that the incidence of overpayment for very low, low and moderate -income
households may increase in the future. It should be noted as well that owners are given tax
breaks for mortgage interest payments while renters are not. In fact, by far the largest (and often
least recognized) federal housing subsidy is for mortgage deductions.
Single zhomes are out -b'zf r-eaeh for ...any people ih4ie : '0111 ki Ecin Rafael, Acit
housing pr-ioes above e
000. Even high end moderate ineeme households do not eam
suffleient ineeffle to Elualifly for- a fneftgage. Although, some smaller- a4aehed &A%er-ship housin
(�es/eondarvk-iums) ean be affordable to moderate ineeme households. Average mad
rate r -ental housing is affordable at the moderate ineeme level. 14 ean be eeneluded &OM
analysis that new nt„ 1 1, ,g at rnar`3t Fates ean pr-ev:ate a eFt:,. of the Git.,'s moderate
ire 1NAr/.r:
With average housine price in San Rafael above $600.000, sinl4le-family homes are out of reach
for many people who work in the Citv. Even hieh end moderate income households do not earn a
sufficient income to aualifv for a morteaae. While some smaller attached ownership housing
(townhomes/condominiums) can be affordable to moderate income households but still remain
largely out of reach. as shown in Citv survevs averaee market rate rental housins is affordable at
336
Conventional Detached Dwellings
Condominiums/Townhouses
Jurisdiction
# Sales
Mean Price
Median # Sales
Mean Price
Median
Belvedere
30
$2,372,707
$2,000,000
2
$1,305,000
$1,305,000
Corte Madera
111
$661,609
$625,000
47
$391,755
$390,000
Fairfax
95
$447,680
$429,000
13
$298,038
$283,000
Larkspur
95
$815,018
$820,000
64
$379,799
$347,500
Mill Valley
167
$994,050
$800,000
55
$455,026
$425,000
Novato
628
$526,263
$478,560
372
$274,863
$274,863
Ross
25
$1,465,800
$1,325,000
San Anselmo
166
$583,111
$549,000
4
$306,625
$289,000
Sausalito
85
$1,237,091
$1,025,000
59
$467,339
$411,500
San Rafael
480
$640,239
$562,500
287
$325,084
$270,000
Tiburon
115
$1,610,295
$1,300,000
37
$790,669
$675,000
Unicorporated
861
$830,685
$657,000
101
$441,667
$400,000
Marin County Total
2,858
$772,354
$599,000
1,041
$357,781
$315,000
Total Single Family Homes Sold: 3,899
Mean / Median Home Sale Price: $661,667 / $523,000
Mean Home Living Area: 1,772 sq. ft.
Source: Marin County Assessor - Recorder, 2001
The tables below translate each of the income categories into `affordable rents' and `affordable
home prices.' These are the rents and home prices that a household earning that level of income
could be expected to pay if they were to spend 30 percent of their income on housing. The exact
amount that they could pay would of course depend on the amount of down payment they could
afford and the specific terms of their mortgage. These are rough calculations, meant as
`indicators' only. They demonstrate the "gap" between market prices and affordability at various
income levels.
Given the household income trends and housing cost trends discussed previously, it is reasonable
to conclude that the incidence of overpayment for very low, low and moderate -income
households may increase in the future. It should be noted as well that owners are given tax
breaks for mortgage interest payments while renters are not. In fact, by far the largest (and often
least recognized) federal housing subsidy is for mortgage deductions.
Single zhomes are out -b'zf r-eaeh for ...any people ih4ie : '0111 ki Ecin Rafael, Acit
housing pr-ioes above e
000. Even high end moderate ineeme households do not eam
suffleient ineeffle to Elualifly for- a fneftgage. Although, some smaller- a4aehed &A%er-ship housin
(�es/eondarvk-iums) ean be affordable to moderate ineeme households. Average mad
rate r -ental housing is affordable at the moderate ineeme level. 14 ean be eeneluded &OM
analysis that new nt„ 1 1, ,g at rnar`3t Fates ean pr-ev:ate a eFt:,. of the Git.,'s moderate
ire 1NAr/.r:
With average housine price in San Rafael above $600.000, sinl4le-family homes are out of reach
for many people who work in the Citv. Even hieh end moderate income households do not earn a
sufficient income to aualifv for a morteaae. While some smaller attached ownership housing
(townhomes/condominiums) can be affordable to moderate income households but still remain
largely out of reach. as shown in Citv survevs averaee market rate rental housins is affordable at
336
the lower and moderate income level. Thus, new rental housing at market rates can provide a
portion of the City's lower and moderate income housing need
The City has conducted telephone rent surveys in 2002, 2003, and 2004 to monitor rental prices
in San Rafael. The following table shows rental rates for various classes of apartment buildings
in the city. Class A units are tvpically the most recently constructed units, and would reflect the
cost of rent for new units.
Exhibit I: Rent Survey Results, 2003 and 2004
Source: San Rafael Redevelopment Aeencv, 2004
65% of Median Income'
1 person $1,047
2 person $1,189
3 person $1,339
4 person IUM
Source: San Rafael Redevelopment Aeencv, 2004
Affordable Rents. 2004
Class A
Class B
Class C
1 296
Ione Bedroom
1 474
$1,445
Averaqe 2004
$1,275
$1,110
$1,060
Averaqe 2003
$1,340
$1,200
$1,120
Bldgs Reportinq
1 9
8
9
Percentage decrease
1 -4.85%
-7.50%
-5.32%
1Two Bedroom -1 BA
_
Averaqe 2004
1UN
$1,400
$1,410
Averaqe 2003
$1,550
$1,525
$1,425
Bldgs Reportinq,
1 6
7
9
Percentaae decrease
1 -6.45%
L
-8.20%
-1.05%
Two Bedroom -2 BA _
Averaqe 2004
$1,615
$1,400
$1,4851
Averaqe 2003
$1,600
$1,575
$1,550
Bldqs Reportinq
1 5
2
5
Percentaqe decrease
1 0.94%
-11.11%
-4.19%1
L
Three Bedroom
Averaqe 2004
$1,815
$1.800
$1,7751
Averaqe 2003
1 $1,900
$1,775
1 870
Bldqs Reportinq
1 3
5
61
Percentaae decrease
1 -4.47%
1.41%
-5.08%
Source: San Rafael Redevelopment Aeencv, 2004
65% of Median Income'
1 person $1,047
2 person $1,189
3 person $1,339
4 person IUM
Source: San Rafael Redevelopment Aeencv, 2004
Affordable Rents. 2004
70% of Median Income80% of Median Income
$1,130
1 296
$1,28
1 474
$1,445
$1,659
$1,663
$1,900
' Refers to Marin County FY 2004 Median Income Schedule
The 2004 rental survey demonstrates that Class A apartments in San Rafael were affordable to
lower and moderate income households earning between 65-80% of County median income. One
and two bedroom units were affordable to 65-70% households. Three bedroom units are scarcer
337
and have hil?her rents. Three bedroom units are currentiv affordable to households earnini; 80%
of Countv median income. The foreeoing analvsis assumes that two persons reside in one -
bedroom units, three persons in two bedroom units and four persons in three bedroom units.
Exhibit J: Abilitv to Pav (Sale and Rental Housinel
Estimate of the Ability to Pay for Rental Housing In San Rafael (2000)
Source: Baird + DriskelUCommunity Planning; Michael Burke, Frank Howard Allen Realtors (3rd Quarter 2000)
Estimate of the Ability to Pay for Sales Housing in San Rafael (2001)
Average
Ability to Pay
Household Size and
Monthly
Rent Qa 30% of
Expected
Rent (3rd
"Gap" for
Income Category
Income
Monthly Income
Unit Size
Qtr 2000)
Smaller Unit
Single Person
Home Price at
Median Priced
Thumb" Price
Median Priced
Thumb" Price
Extremely Low Income
$1,638
$491
1 BR
$1,117
-$626
Very Low Income
$2,336
$701
1 BR
$1,117
-$416
Low Income
$3,738
$1,121
1 BR
$1,117
$4
Median Income
$4,671
$1,401
1 BR
$1,117
$284
Moderate Income
$5,608
$1,683
1 BR
$1,117
$566
Two Persons
-$191,400
Very Low Income
$2,338
$28,050
$112,200
Extremely Low Income
$1,871
$561
1 BR
$1,117
-$556
Very Low Income
$2,671
$801
1 BR
$1,117
-$316
Low Income
$4,271
$1,281
1 BR
$1,117
$164
Median Income
$5,342
$1,603
1 BR
$1,117
$486
Moderate Income
$6,408
$1,923
1 BR
$1,117
$806
Four Persons
Extremely Low Income
$2,338
$701
2 BR
$1,403
-$702
Very Low Income
$3,338
$1,001
2 BR
$1,403
-$402
Low Income
$5,342
$1,603
2 BR
$1,403
$200
Median Income
$6,675
$2,003
2 BR
$1,403
$600
Moderate Income
$8,008
$2,403
2 BR
$1,403
$1,000
Source: Baird + DriskelUCommunity Planning; Michael Burke, Frank Howard Allen Realtors (3rd Quarter 2000)
Estimate of the Ability to Pay for Sales Housing in San Rafael (2001)
Source: Baird + Driskell/Community Planning; Marin County Assessor - Recorder, 2001
338
Gap Between
Gap Between
"Rule of Thumb"
"Rule of
"Rule of
Home Price at
Median Priced
Thumb" Price
Median Priced
Thumb" Price
Household Size and
Monthly
Annual
Four Times
Single Family
and Median
Townhouse and
and Median
Income Category
Income
Income
Annual Income
Detached Unit
SFD Unit
Condo Unit
TH/C Unit
Single Person
Extremely Low Income
$1,638
$19,650
$78,600
$562,500
-$483,900
$270,000
-$191,400
Very Low Income
$2,338
$28,050
$112,200
$562,500
-$450,300
$270,000
-$157,800
Low Income
$3,738
$44,850
$179,400
$562,500
-$383,100
$270,000
-$90,600
Median Income
$4,671
$56,050
$224,200
$562,500
-$338,300
$270,000
-$45,800
Moderate Income
$5,608
$67,300
$269,200
$562,500
-$293,300
$270,000
-$800
Two Persons
Extremely Low Income
$1,871
$22,450
$89,800
$562,500
-$472,700
$270,000
-$180,200
Very Low Income
$2,671
$32,050
$128,200
$562,500
-$434,300
$270,000
-$141,800
Low Income
$4,271
$51,250
$205,000
$562,500
-$357,500
$270,000
-$65,000
Median Income
$5,342
$64,100
$256,400
$562,500
-$306,100
$270,000
-$13,600
Moderate Income
$6,408
$76,900
$307,600
$562,500
-$254,900
$270,000
$37,600
Four Persons
Extremely Low Income
$2,338
$28,050
$112,200
$562,500
-$450,300
$270,000
-$157,800
Very Low Income
$3,338
$40,050
$160,200
$562,500
-$402,300
$270,000
-$109,800
Low Income
$5,342
$64,100
$256,400
$562,500
-$306,100
$270,000
-$13,600
Median Income
$6,675
$80,100
$320,400
$562,500
-$242,100
$270,000
$50,400
Moderate Income
$8,008
$96,100
$384,400
$562,500
-$178,100
$270,000
$114,400
Source: Baird + Driskell/Community Planning; Marin County Assessor - Recorder, 2001
338
SPECIAL NEEDS AND "AT RISK" HOUSING
Overview
In addition to overall housing needs, the City must plan for housing for special need groups. To
meet the community's special housing needs (including the needs of the local workforce, seniors,
people living with disabilities, farmworkers, the homeless, people with HIV/AIDS and other
illnesses, people in need of mental health care, single parent families, single with no children, and
large households), San Rafael seeks creative new ways to increase the supply, diversity and
affordability of this specialized housing stock. Below is a summary of special needs in San
Rafael.
Exhibit K: Summary of Special Needs Households in San Rafael
Summary of Special Needs Households in San Rafael
Total
Owner Renter Households
Households Households or Persons
Households
Overcrowded Households
178
2,200
2,378
Senior Households
3,892
1,100
4,992
Female Headed Households
3,482
4,057
7,539
Large Households
637
1,471
2,108
Persons
Persons Living with Disabilities 10,364
Farmworkers 15
San Rafael's "Share" of Estimated Countywide Homeless Population 809
Source: U.S. Census, 2000; Marin Continuum of Housing and Services (2001)
Special needs housing stock is 54.7 % of all the established deed restricted affordable housing
units throughout Marin County. If all the units in the pipeline are constructed, the total affordable
housing stock would increase by 49%.
There is a range along a continuum of housing for special needs, beginning with independent
living (owning or renting), to assisted living (licensed facilities), to supportive housing,
transitional housing, and finally emergency shelter. Further, the vast majority of special needs
housing is service enriched. In other words, services are offered to residents to help them
maintain independent living as long as possible.
The Marin Housing Authority administers Section 8 Payment Program certificates that house
4,917 people (in 1,859 units). The waiting list for the Section 8 Program can be as long as five
years due to the number of individuals and families who are in need of subsidized housing. The
Shelter Plus Care Program provides 65 rental subsidies linked with supportive services to 78
individuals who are homeless with a mental health disability. Lastly, there are 98 rental subsidies
for 114 people living with HIV/AIDS that are served through the Housing Opportunities for
People With Aids Programs (HOPWA). Additional programs offer services to specific special
needs populations housed through Marin Housing Authority which assist tenants in maintaining
their housing. These programs target services to frail seniors, families to become self-sufficient,
and at risk populations with a substance abuse and or mental health disability.
339
Additional evidence of need is illustrated by the waiting list for the Section 8 Program, which the
Marin Housing Authority opened in Spring, 2000 with the following results: (1) 2,486
households submitted applications; (2) 1,715 or 68% live or work in Marin County; (3) 126
households or 7.3% were from San Rafael; (4) in Marin County, half of the applications were
from families, one-quarter from disabled/handicapped, one-tenth from elderly households, and
one -ninth from single person households; and (5) 60% of the applications were from non -
Hispanic /Caucasian families, 26% from African American families, 14% from Hispanic
families, 9% from Asian families, and 1% from Native American families.
Exhibit L: Programs Administered by Marin Housing (2000)
Programs Administered by Marin Housing (2000)
Type of Housing Program
San Rafael
Countywide
Section 8 Rental Assistance
834
1,859
Conventional Public Housing
40
496
MHA -Owned Rental Housing
28
83
Rebate for Marin Renters
17
64
Mortgage Credit Certificates
72
268
Residential Rehabilitation Loans
76
533
Shelter Plus Care
24
65
Housing Assistline
812
2,174
Housing Opportunities for People with AIDS (HOPWA)
58
114
Rental Deposit Guarantees
46
91
Note: These figures do not include all subsidized units in Marin
County as many projects are owned and/or managed by nonprofit
organization
Source: Marin Housing, 2001
Seniors
The greatest increases in population age groups over the next 40 years are expected to be elderly
and young adult households, which tend to have the lowest income levels. According to the 2000
U.S. Census, 23.5% of all households in Marin County are age 65 or older. The Marin
Commission on Aging (MCA) predicts that by the year 2020 one out of every three Marin
residents will be 60 years of age or older. MCA predicts this age group will nearly double in size
from 40,000 to 74,000 persons by 2020. Three out of four individuals of the "oldest old", 85
years of age or greater, are expected to be women.
With the overall aging of society, the senior population (persons over 65 years of age) will
increase in most communities. Consequently, the need for affordable and specialized housing for
older residents will grow. The 2000 U.S. Census reported 4,992 senior households in San Rafael,
comprising 22.3 percent of all households. Of these, 3,892 senior households are owner occupied
(or 78 percent) and 1,100 are renter occupied (or 22 percent). Eleven percent of the population in
San Rafael are seniors living alone. Many seniors are living in larger homes which provided
sufficient housing for past needs but which may exceed needs now.
340
Exhibit M: Number of Households Headed by Seniors (2000)
Number of Households Headed by Seniors (2000)
(Householder Age 65 or More)
Total senior households percentage is the percentage of ALL households
Source: U.S. Census, 2000
Typical housing types that meet the needs of seniors include smaller attached or detached housing for
independent living (both market rate and below market rate); second units; shared housing; age -
restricted below -market -rate rental developments; congregate care facilities, such as Smith Ranch
Homes; residential care homes licensed by the state; and skilled nursing homes such as Fifth Avenue
Convalescent Homes. Recent housing for seniors built in San Rafael include 62 affordable units at the
Maria B. Frietas Senior Housing development, 56 assisted living units at 111 Merrydale, and the 62
unit expansion at Aldersley Retirement.
Congregate housing is long-term supportive housing in a group setting, which includes
independent living sleeping accommodations in conjunction with shared dining and recreational
facilities. Residents of congregate care facilities occupy individual apartments, most of that
341
Renter
Owner
Total Senior
Households
Households
Households
Belvedere
90
297
387
Percent
23%
77%
40%
Corte Madera
63
752
815
Percent
8%
92%
22%
Fairfax
121
379
500
Percent
24%
76%
15%
Larkspur
666
974
1,640
Percent
41%
59%
27%
Mill Valley
431
1,040
1,471
Percent
29%
71%
24%
Novato
751
3,029
3,780
Percent
20%
80%
20%
Ross
6
179
185
Percent
3%
97%
24%
San Anselmo
129
803
932
Percent
14%
86%
18%
San Rafael
1,100
3,892
4,992
Percent
22%
78%
22%
Sausalito
148
509
657
Percent
23%
77%
15%
Tiburon
170
768
938
Percent
18%
82%
25%
Unincorporated
771
4,538
5,309
Percent
15%
85%
21%
Total County
4,446
17,160
21,606
Percent
21%
79%
21%
Total senior households percentage is the percentage of ALL households
Source: U.S. Census, 2000
Typical housing types that meet the needs of seniors include smaller attached or detached housing for
independent living (both market rate and below market rate); second units; shared housing; age -
restricted below -market -rate rental developments; congregate care facilities, such as Smith Ranch
Homes; residential care homes licensed by the state; and skilled nursing homes such as Fifth Avenue
Convalescent Homes. Recent housing for seniors built in San Rafael include 62 affordable units at the
Maria B. Frietas Senior Housing development, 56 assisted living units at 111 Merrydale, and the 62
unit expansion at Aldersley Retirement.
Congregate housing is long-term supportive housing in a group setting, which includes
independent living sleeping accommodations in conjunction with shared dining and recreational
facilities. Residents of congregate care facilities occupy individual apartments, most of that
341
include kitchens, although these may be minimal. The facility has a centralized dining room and
kitchen where at least one hot meal per day is provided. Other services may include maid service,
security and emergency services, recreation rooms, nursing assistance, and beauty salons. A
variation of congregate housing is called "life care." Elderly persons buy into a life care
development with an initial non-refundable accommodation fee plus a monthly fee. The price
guarantees occupancy in a particular size of apartment and typically one meal a day. Tenants may
also move into a "personal care" unit (no kitchen, three hot meals provided) or nursing facility if
health support needs change. One version of life care allows purchase of a condominium unit so
that the member owns a real asset.
Many supportive housing developments for the elderly have been built using HUD's Section 202 and
202/8 programs, which provide direct loan financing. Non-profit organizations have been
instrumental in marshaling the resources to construct and operate the developments, but housing
authorities and for-profit developers are also potential development project sponsors.
Elderly households can be defined, in part, by the age distribution and demographic projections of a
community's population. This identifies the maximum need for elderly housing. Particular needs,
such as the need for smaller and more efficient housing, for barrier -free and accessible housing, and
for a wide variety of housing with health care and/or personal services should be addressed, as should
providing a continuum of care as elderly households become less self-reliant. According to a private
study conducted by Haran Hall Limited, the average senior unit in the Bay Area houses 1.2 persons as
compared to the current average household size in San Rafael of 2.42.
Familv Housing and Housing for Large Households
Large households, defined in the Census as households with five or more persons, also have
special housing needs. According to the 2000 U.S. Census there are 2,108 large households in
San Rafael, accounting for 9.4 percent of all households in the City. Of these households, 637
large households are owner occupied (5.3 percent of owner units) and 1,471 are renter occupied
(14.2 percent of renter units). Large households tend to have difficulties purchasing housing
because large housing units are rarely affordable and rental units with three or more bedrooms are
not as common as one and two bedroom units.
342
Exhibit N: Number of Large Households (2000)
Number of Large Households (2000)
(Households with Fine or More Persons)
Total large households percentage is the percentage ofALL households
Source: U.S. Census, 2000
People Living with Disabilities
The 2000 U.S. Census reported 7,831 individuals age 5-64 with a disability in San Rafael,
accounting for 14 percent of the population. Approximately 45 percent of people living with
disabilities aged 21-64 are not employed. In addition, there are 2,533 disabled seniors in San
Rafael, comprising 35.5 percent of people over age 65. Overall, 10,364 individuals, or 18.5
percent of San Rafael's total population, are identified as disabled.
The design of housing, accessibility modifications, proximity to services and transit, and group
living opportunities represent some of the types of considerations and accommodations that are
343
Renter
Owner
Total Large
Households
Households
Households
Belvedere
10
33
43
Percent
23%
77%
4%
Corte Madera
50
176
226
Percent
22%
78%
6%
Fairfax
32
87
119
Percent
27%
73%
4%
Larkspur
42
144
186
Percent
23%
77%
3%
Mill Valley
68
208
276
Percent
25%
75%
4%
Novato
697
920
1,617
Percent
43%
57%
9%
Ross
14
103
117
Percent
12%
88%
15%
San Anselmo
30
184
214
Percent
14%
86%
4%
San Rafael
1,471
637
2,108
Percent
70%
30%
9%
Sausalito
4
24
28
Percent
14%
86%
1%
Tiburon
43
170
213
Percent
20%
80%
6%
Unincorporated
447
1,231
1,678
Percent
27%
73%
7%
Total County
2,908
3,917
6,825
Percent
43%
57%
7%
Total large households percentage is the percentage ofALL households
Source: U.S. Census, 2000
People Living with Disabilities
The 2000 U.S. Census reported 7,831 individuals age 5-64 with a disability in San Rafael,
accounting for 14 percent of the population. Approximately 45 percent of people living with
disabilities aged 21-64 are not employed. In addition, there are 2,533 disabled seniors in San
Rafael, comprising 35.5 percent of people over age 65. Overall, 10,364 individuals, or 18.5
percent of San Rafael's total population, are identified as disabled.
The design of housing, accessibility modifications, proximity to services and transit, and group
living opportunities represent some of the types of considerations and accommodations that are
343
important in serving this need group. Incorporating barrier -free design in all new multifamily
housing is especially important to provide the widest range of choice. Doing so is required by the
California and Federal Fair Housing laws. Special consideration should also be given to the issue
of income and affordability, as people with disabilities may be in fixed income situations.
Chapter 671, Statutes of 2001 (Senate Bill 520) requires localities to analyze potential and actual
constraints upon the development, maintenance and improvement of housing for persons with
disabilities and to demonstrate local efforts to remove governmental constraints that hinder the
locality from meeting the need for housing for persons with disabilities. The has mechanisms
either through the variance or exceptions process to modify standards to accommodate persons
living with special needs. The City will conduct an evaluation of its zoning ordinance and other
policies to identify and eliminate potential barriers to the construction of housing for people with
disabilities.
San Rafael provides reasonable accommodation for persons with disabilities with respect to
zoning, permit processing and building laws, and makes this information available to the public.
The City does not restrict the siting of group homes nor require a minimum distance between
group homes. Group homes with 6 or fewer occupants are permitted by right in single-family
homes, and the City does not have any occupancy standards in the zoning code that apply
specifically to unrelated adults. Group homes with over 6 persons are allowed in all residential
districts with a Use Permit. The approval process for a Use Permit for a group home is the same
as for any other residential development and requires public notice and approval by the zoning
administrator or a public hearing and approval by the Planning Commission. For a detailed
description of this of this permitting process, see the discussion of Potential Governmental
Constraints and Opportunities.
People living with disabilities who are on fixed incomes may require a wide range of different
housing, depending on the type and severity of their disability as well as personal preference and
life-style. Housing designed "barrier -free," with accessibility modifications, on-site services,
mixed income diversity, proximity to services and transit and group living opportunities represent
some of the types of considerations and accommodations that are important in serving this need
group. Examples of recently built affordable projects in San Rafael include the 11 unit low
income Ecology House, which is a national model for people with environmental sensitivities,
and 1414 Lincoln, which is 7 units for the disabled.
The City's zoning code has been determined to be in compliance with the Americans with
Disabilities Act. San Rafael allows displacement of required on-site parking if it is to
accommodate ADA accessibility facilities (ramps, etc.) and offers reduced parking standards for
any development, including housing for the disabled, wherever reduced need can be
demonstrated. The Building Department administers Title 24 provisions consistently for all
disabilities -related construction and responds to complaints regarding any violations.
As the population ages, handicapped -accessible housing will become even more necessary.
Consideration can be given to handicapped dwelling conversion (or adaptability) and appropriate
site design. Buckelew, Allegria, MARC and the Marin Center for Independent Living serve
people living with disabilities. The Marin Center for Independent Living, for example, serves
approximately 4,000 people a year throughout Marin County. Most of their clients live under the
poverty level, the average client earning about $7,200 a year.
344
Sinsle Parent and Female -headed Households
Female -headed households need affordable housing with day care and recreation programs
on-site or nearby, in proximity to schools and with access to services. Households with female
heads, like large households, may have difficulty in finding appropriate -sized housing. And
despite fair housing laws and programs, discrimination against children may make it more
difficult for this group to find adequate housing. Women in the housing market, especially the
elderly, low and moderate income and single -parents, face significant difficulties finding housing,
and both ownership and rental units are extremely expensive relative to the incomes of many
people in this population category.
According to the 2000 U.S. Census there are 2,011 households headed by a female in San Rafael,
accounting for 9 percent of all households in the city. Of these, 1,156 have children under the age
of eighteen.
San Rafael is home to a "safe house" providing transitional housing for women and a safe place
to live when leaving an abusive partner and establishing a new life. Marin Services for Women
provides drug and alcohol recovery services for women and their families. Their programs
include primary treatment (including a residential treatment program), community education on
women and addiction, and transitional housing. The organization provides 12 housing units for
women coming out of primary treatment programs. These affordable housing units do not
include space for children. The housing is transitional, and clients generally stay 6 to 12 months.
In order to be eligible for housing, women must be in recovery, maintain sobriety, and maintain
their apartment. They check in with Marin Services for Women staff once a week. Marin
Services for Women also provides jobs services, including linkages with vocational programs.
The current waiting list for the residential treatment program or the transitional housing averages
about 30 people a month. Priority is given to pregnant women. There is a significant dropoff rate
from the waiting list, because if people have to wait, they are much less likely to seek help.
Marin Services for Women could easily double their clients, because the need is clearly there.
The demand for treatment has increased tremendously since Proposition 36 passed in 2000.
Marin County is in process of implementing that law, which requires some people charged with
drug possession to undergo treatment instead of imprisonment. This has resulted in a lack of
residential treatment capacity countywide, and an increase in outpatient treatment, whether that is
appropriate or not.
The ability for recovering substance abusers to remain sober can be affected by the inability to
find affordable housing. The high cost of housing, poor credit, and in some cases a criminal
record can make finding long-term housing difficult. In addition, most traditional female jobs
pay less resulting in fewer resources to pay for housing.
Farmworkers
State law requires that housing elements evaluate the needs of farmworker housing in the local
jurisdiction; however, ABAG did not assess the regional need for additional farmworker housing
in the Bay Area. Most if not all San Rafael residents employed in farming occupations are
employed in wholesale and horticulture businesses and there are no localized needs for seasonal
or other types of farmworker housing. There was no migrant worker housing identified in San
Rafael in the 1990 Census. (The 1990 Census reported only 17 housing units in the entire county
345
to be for migrant farm workers.) The 2000 U.S. Census reported 15 individuals employed in
farming, fishing, and forestry occupations residing in San Rafael.
Local Workers
Public employees and local workers can also have special housing needs in communities with
particularly high housing costs. Although they may commute from other places in the region, we
can define employees as a group with special housing needs, developing appropriate policies and
programs to address those needs.
Already the mismatch between the location of jobs and housing is straining the region's roadways
and environment. As the cost for housing near job centers has risen, workers have sought more
affordable housing in communities farther and farther away from their jobs, compounding traffic
congestion. This trend is common in many regions in California.
A recent survey by Marin County found that 50% of County employees and 80% of public safety
employees live outside of Marin. The make-up of the City's firefighter roster shows that of the
75 firefighters 64% live outside of Marin County.
In 2000, the public employees union (MAPE/SEN) conducted a survey of over 1,500 represented
employees working for 14 different agencies, including the County of Marin. The survey found
over 52 percent owned a residence, and 57 percent of those would like to move closer to work.
Almost 23 percent of those completing the survey failed to identify themselves as eligible for
some sort of housing subsidy or support when indeed they would be eligible. More than half the
renters considered owning a home as their top priority. Down payments and mortgage payments
appeared as roughly equal obstacles preventing employees from living close to work. Many
public agency jobs pay salaries in the very low and low-income category.
Of the respondents, 74 percent were eligible for a subsidized housing program of some sort
according to the income levels established by HUD. By examining County income levels for
Union members with a family of one, the Union determined that 94 percent of those employees
qualify for assistance, with 57 percent qualifying for Section 8 rental subsidies. The difference
between 74 percent and 94 percent may represent the added benefits of spousal income,
something the survey could not track. The most frequently reported income was $35,000 per year,
which would qualify for a Section 8 subsidy. Over half the respondents had incomes of less than
$45,700, which for a family of two also makes them qualified for Section 8 subsidies.
Commutes averaged from 34 - 37 minutes and ranged from 5 minutes to 3 hours. Given that this
figure represents one direction, members reported spending over an hour per day commuting.
This is slightly above federal statistics from the last census data for Northern California. Impacts
can occur in lost worker productivity, lack of connection with the community, and difficulty in
employee recruitment and retention.
Individuals and Families Who Are Homeless
Homeless individuals and families have perhaps the most immediate housing need of any group.
They also have one of the most difficult sets of housing needs to meet, due to the transient nature
of the population and both the diversity and complexity of the factors that lead to homelessness.
Community opposition to the siting of housing that serve homeless clients is also a potential
impediment.
346
Based on discussions with Homeward Bound, the homeless population (persons either homeless
or at imminent risk of homeless) is growing countywide. The homeless population in California is
estimated at approximately one percent of the state's total population. About a third consist of
homeless families. Homeless circumstances vary considerably. Homelessness and near -
homelessness is an important countywide concern. The key findings of a 2001 report prepared by
the Marin Continuum of Housing and Services (a collaboration of over twenty Marin
organizations providing housing and related services) were as follows:
(1) Approximately 3.5% of Marin's population was either homeless or in imminent
risk of becoming homeless at some point in 2001.
(2) 1,909 households comprising 2,885 people were homeless in Marin at some point
in 2001, with 689 of those being children (24%).
(3) 2,413 households comprising 5,768 people were at imminent risk of losing their
housing during 2001.
(4) Over one third of homeless and at -risk households were families with children.
(5) 30% of the homeless and at -risk households were working families. Household
incomes averaged $922 per month (16% of the median income).
(6) 3,051 Marin children were either homeless or at imminent risk of homelessness
in 2001.
Although homelessness is a countywide issue and the population is transient, it is difficult to
estimate an exact number of homeless persons in San Rafael. The most reasonable way to
approximate San Rafael's homeless population is to ascertain the San Rafael Planning Area's
"share" based upon its proportional population (28% of the County's population). Thus, San
Rafael's "share" of the homeless population is estimated to number 515 households comprising
779 individuals. The City has several facilities serving homeless needs including: Ritter House,
which provides day services (showers, phone, food, clothing); several residential facilities for
treatment of alcoholism; two shelters (1 transitional); a hotel voucher program; one shelter for
women; and St. Vincent's Dining Hall, which provides free meals.
In addition, the Police Department has developed a model program of having a Police Officer
(with a Ph.D.) trained to work with mentally ill homeless persons in finding treatment and
assistance in finding a place to live. Downtown, there are several single room occupancy
buildings providing valuable affordable housing for the very low income.
The following are strategies for the City to participate in addressing the needs of people at risk of
homelessness in the county: (1) provide more affordable housing; (2) provide opportunities for
second units; and (3) provide additional financial support to homeless service providers. The City
should also continue to participate in local and countywide programs to provide for a continuum
of care for the homeless including emergency shelters, transitional housing, supportive housing
and permanent housing.
Tho Ew-.. IaI$c\' Zo-.ix g-Qfdir.:.\-zjo ental• 0— inpad .nems to the , ,,..,...uet
hemeles shelteFs. Under the City's current zoning_plan, homeless a -shelters eexld beare
allowed in areas zoned for office or commercial uses with a Conditional Use Permit. Under a
Use Permit, the City can apply standards for homeless shelters as conditions of approval
addressing a variety of issues related to: (1) exterior design (such as landscaping, lighting and
parking); (2) interior features (such as safes, laundry, and shower facilities); and (3) shelter
operations (such as house rules or shelter operation). The existence of the CUP requirements
may well act as a Governmental constraint on the development and placement of homeless
347
shelters. To study and address this issue, the City has created Housing Proeram H -16d. which
requires the City to analyze zoning for homeless shelters.
Homeless shelters, both permanent and temporary (seasonal shelters, up to six months) are listed in
San Rafael's zoning ordinance. Transitional housing is not subject to zoning restrictions. The table
below summarizes the districts where homeless shelters are permitted as a conditional use ("C").
If the space is blank, the use is not permitted. Permanent homeless shelters are allowed in many of
San Rafael's commercial districts, and temporary shelters are allowed throughout the city.
Exhibit O: Homeless Shelters by Zoning District
Shelter Type
R DR MR HR
PC
GC NC O
C/O
R/O
FBWC
Permanent
C
C
C
C
Temporary
C C C C
C
C C C
C
C
C
2/3
2/3
5/M
I
LI/O CC I/O
Shelter Type
4SRC HO CSMU
MUE
MUW WEV
R/O
Permanent
C
C C
Temporary
C C C
C
C C
C
C
C C
District Key
4SRC: Fourth Street Retail Core
R: Single-family HO: Hetherton Office
DR: Duplex Residential CSMU: Cross Street Mixed Use
MR; Multi -family Medium Density 2'3 MUE: Second/Third Mixed Use East
HR: Multi -family High Density 23 MUW: Second/Third Mixed Use West
PD: Planned Development District WEV: West End Village
GC: General Commercial 5/M R/O: Fifth/Mission Residential/Office
NC: Neighborhood Commercial I: Industrial
O: Office LI/O: Light Industrial Office
C/O: Commercial;Office CCI/O: Core Canal Industrial'Office
R/O: Residential Office
FBWC: Francisco Boulevard West Commercial
San Rafael provides most of the emergency shelter facilities in Marin County, including a free
dining hall, a day services center, and several transitional housing facilities.
"At Risk" Housing
Government Code Section 65583 requires each city and county to conduct an analysis and
identify programs for preserving assisted housing developments. The analysis is required to
identify any low income units which are at risk of losing subsidies over the next 10 years. The
table on the next page lists assisted housing developments in San Rafael. Based on this analysis,
there are no units at risk during the planning period of the Housing Element. Further, while
Martinelli House, Nova House and Pilgrim Park Apartments have federally assisted mortgages
that will be exuiring within the ten years, these three develouments are owned by non-urofit
348
groups that have publicly stated their intentions to continue to overate their Droverties as
affordable housing after the expiration of those mortgages.
While there are no assisted units at risk due to expiring Federal mortgages, the continued
reduction of the Federal project -based Section 8 program could have a significant negative impact
on existing assisted housing developments.
Exhibit P: Assisted Housing Developments in San Rafael, 2003
Project Name
1050-1070 Cresta
Highlands of Marin
1351 Lincoln
1606 Third St.
11-241-44
161 & 165 Novato St.
39 Mary St.
5 Golden Hinde
175-292-36,37
55 Fairfax
626 Del Ganado
178-113-23
710 Fourth St
Belvedere Place
162 Belvedere St.
Carmel Hotel
831 B Street
Centertown
Third & C Streets
Ecology House
Gordon's Opera House
1337 Fourth St
Hickory House
Owner Name
Northbay Properties II
EAH
(Non-profit)
R. Copple
1299 Fourth St, Ste. 207
San Rafael CA 94901-3028
Canal Community Alliance
(Non-profit)
Catholic Charities (Non-profit)
Marin Housing Authority
BRIDGE Housing
(Non-profit)
Marin Housing for Handicapped
(Non-profit)
MCIL
(Non-profit)
BRIDGE Housing
(Non-profit)
Homeward Bound
(Non-profit)
Centertown Assoc.
(Non-profit partnership)
Ecology House, Inc.
(Non-profit)
Art Works Downtown
(Non-profit)
Exodus
No. of Units
33
6
(Developmentally
Disabled)
5
8
8
40
(Senior disabled)
40
12
Subsidy
Bonds
Sec. 811
1996 HOME, Mortgage,
Rev. Bonds
Date of
Termination
2029
2016
RDA, MCF 2040
RDA 1993 in pereputity In perpetuity
100% VL, CDBG,
HOME
Public Housing (1)
RDA Loan, 2057
CDBG,HOME
FHA, Section 202 Section 8 2007
5
RDA, CDBG
2027
26
RDA, TCAC, HOME,
2055
MCF
29
RDA, CDBG
2028
60
RDA owns land -75-
2064
year lease. TCAC,
DCBG, RDA loan
I I
Sect. 811, CDBG,
2029
HOME
17
RDA
2039
6
CDBG Private
(2)
349
I
Lone Palm
Maria B. Freitas
Marin Hotel
1111 Fourth St
Martinelli House
1327 Lincoln Ave
11-183-07
Mills St. Shelter
Nova House
393 Nova Albion
One H St
Parnow Friendship
Pilgrim Park Apts.
96 Pilgrim Way
179-222-31
Rivera
455 Canal
Roger Green
7 Mariposa
Rotary Manor
1851 Fifth Ave.
10-291-66
San Rafael Commons
302 Fourth St.
14-092-22
St. Vincent's
822 B St.
(Non-profit)
Continuum Housing
Mercy Charities
(Non-profit)
Homeward Bound
(Non-profit)
Mercy Charities
(Non-profit)
Homeward Bound
(Non-profit)
MARC
(Non-profit)
Continuum Housing
EAH
(Non-profit)
Pilgrim Park, Inc.
(Non -profit -church)
EAH
(Non-profit)
Buckelew
(Non-profit)
Rotary Manor
1851 Fifth Ave.
San Rafael CA 94901
(Non-profit)
BRIDGE Housing
(Non-profit)
St. Vincent's
(Non-profit)
(Disabled)
60
60
19
66
(Senior disabled)
40
6
20
72
61
28
10
99
mortgage
RDA, TCAC 2047
Sect. 202, HOME 2040
RDA 2015
FHA Section 236 (J), 2014
CDBG
CDBG
Sect. 202, CDBG,
HOME
RDA S 100,000
Sect. 202, CDBG
FHA Section 236
CDBG, Tax Credits
HOME, RDA
RDA, owned by non
profit
83 RDA Reg. Agreement
Tax Credit & Bonds
Sect. 236 (J) (I)
7 RDA
(2)
2012
2028
PRAC expires
2017
2010
2057
2040
2017
2056
2041
Sundance Marin Housing Authority 28 NA -Public Housing (1)
95 Medway RDA
Town Center Rafael Town Center Investors 38 RDA 2025
998 Fourth St
Turina House EAH 28 Tax credit 2057
10 La Brea Wy (Non-profit)
Venetia Oaks Marin Housing Authority 36 Public Housing (1)
No. San Pedro Rd.
(1) The Marin Housing Authority (MHA) owns and manages two public housing developments at 5 Golden Hinde and Sundance, 95
Medway Drive. These developments are dependent on federal subsidies to maintain their operating budgets, but there is no risk that
the units will convert to market rate as long as the federal government continues financial support.
(2) Owned by non profit housing groups with private mortgages. No Federal funds so no risk of expiring covenants.
Source: San Rafael Community Development and Economic Development Departments, 2003
Based on a study in 2001 conducted by Barbara Collins, Marin County Affordable Housing
Strategist, there are 3,226 deed restricted affordable housing units currently in Marin County.
There are an additional 1,597 proposed units in various stages of the development process. Of
those, 945 are planned for the City of San Rafael, with most of those units incorporated into the
Hamilton Reuse Plan. For planning purposes, deed restrictions for 33.1 % of the established
350
affordable housing stock will expire in the next 15 years. Countywide, developments which are
"at risk" of expiring through to the year 2007 contain 825 units eligible to convert to market rate
units based on funding restrictions, with some exceptions. Of the 825 units, 58 units are
designated in the Below Market Rate program managed by Marin Housing Authority, and are
generally restricted permanently with a slight cost increase to cover resale or legal expenses.
Beginning in the year 2007 through 2012 there will be 266 units "at risk" of converting to market
rate in Marin County. Of these, 91 are BMR units subject to resale controls.
Program actions to preserve "at risk" units include working with the property owners and/or other
parties to ensure that they are conserved as part of the City's affordable housing stock. A key
component of the actions will be to identify funding sources and timelines for action, as described
in the programs section.
EVALUATION OF THE CURRENT HOUSING ELEMENT
Overview
The City's current Housing Element was adopted in 1989. The first step in updating the Housing
Element is to conduct a thorough and critical evaluation of the 1989 Housing Element. What
worked well? What didn't? And what could be done better? What's missing?
State law requires that three major areas of consideration be addressed through the evaluation
process and reflected in the updated Housing Element:
(1) Appropriateness of Goals, Objectives, and Policies (65588(a)(1)). A description of how the
goals, objectives, policies, and programs of the updated element incorporate what has been
learned from the results of the prior element.
(2) Effectiveness of the Element (65588(a)(2)). A review of the actual result of the earlier
element's goals, objectives, policies and programs. The results should be quantified where
possible (e.g., rehabilitation results) but may be qualitative where necessary (e.g., mitigation
of governmental constraints).
(3) Progress in Implementation (65588(a)(3)). An analysis of the significant differences
between what was projected or planned in the earlier element and what was achieved.
Below in Attachment A is a detailed, program -by -program evaluation of the 1988 Housing
Element. There are many factors which affect the success or apparent failure of a policy or
program, including what the City has done and what other agencies or groups have done to
implement the program. Other factors affecting program success include the effects of the
economy in general, decreasing availability of state and federal funding for new below market
rate housing, or lack of opportunity to implement the program.
Summary of Accomplishments
The City of San Rafael is sensitive to the many converging and competing interests, desires and
views in the City relating to development of housing, preservation of the character of San
Rafael's neighborhoods and ease of getting around, and protection of environmentally sensitive
areas.
To encourage housing in the Downtown, General Plan incentives were adopted in 1988 and 1996
that: (1) allow height and density bonuses for affordable housing; (2) encourage mixed-use
development by modifying development potential calculations; (3) reduce the parking
351
requirement for downtown units; (4) provide live/work opportunities; and (5) provide for single -
room occupancy units.
In addition, in 2001, the General Plan was amended to review inclusionary requirements to better
target new rental housing to very low and low-income households.
San Rafael supports the development and acquisition of affordable housing units by non-profit
and for-profit developers. Since 1991, the San Rafael Redevelopment Agency has provided
financial assistance that has resulted in an additional 212 affordable rental units and the
preservation of 744 rental units restricted to very low and low-income persons. All of these units
have ongoing affordability restrictions monitored by the Redevelopment Agency. Community
Development and Redevelopment Agency staff works closely with housing advocates and
developers to create financially viable projects. Financial support is available in a variety of
forms, including loans, grants, tax credits and outright purchases.
352
Exhibit P:
Affordable Housing Units Built or Approved by Jurisdiction (1988-1998)
353
Very Low
Low
Moderate
Total
Income
Income
Income
Units
Belvedere
3
8
0
11
ABAG 1988-1998 Need
1
1
1
3
Percent of ABAG Need Met
300%
800501,
0%
367%
Corte Madera
7
27
15
49
ABAG 1988-1998 Need
74
66
88
228
Percent of ABAG Need Met
9%
41%
.17%
21%
Fairfax
19
71.
12
102
ABAG 1988-1998 Need
54
41
52
147
Percent of ABAG Need Met
35%
173%
23%
60%
Larkspur
8
49
28
85
ABAG 1988-1998 Need
156
123
164
443
Percent of ABAG Need Met
5%
40%
17%
19%
Mill Valley
8
9
21
38
ABAG 1988-1998 Need
28
22
28
78
Percent of ABAG Need Met
29%
41%
75%
49%
Novato
0
50
856
906
ABAG 1988-1998 Need
777
648
864
2,289
Percent of ABAG Need Met
0%
8%
99%
40%
Ross
0
0
0
0
ABAG 1988-1998 Need
2
2
2
6
Percent of ABAG Need Met
0%
0%
0%
0%
San Anselmo
0
14
1
15
ABAG 1988-1998 Need
9
8
9
26
Percent of ABAG Need Met
0%
175%
11%
58%
San Rafael
56
196
255
507
ABAG 1988-1998 Need
738
527
703
1,968
.percent of ABAG Need Met
8%
37%
36%
26%
Sausalito
3
7
6
16
ABAG 1988-1998 Need
56
41
59
156
Percent of ABAG Need Met
5%
17%
10%
10%
Tiburon
16
3
0
19
ABAG 1988-1998 Need
65
54
65
184
Percent of ABAG Need Met
25%
6%
0%
10%
Unincorporated
153
230
178
561
ABAG 1988-1998 Need
44
34
47
125
Percent of ABAG Need Met
348%
676%
379%
449%
Total County
273
664
1,372
2,309
ABAG 1988-1998 Need
2,004
1,567
2,082
5,653
Percent of ABAG Need Met
14%
42%
66%
41%
Source: Housing Need Determinations, ABAG,
September 1988;
Local Jurisdictions, 2000
353
The Redevelopment Agency planning period runs to 2004-05. Between 1999 and 2005 the RDA
is anticipated to collect $8,454,000 in housing funds and is expected to spend $8.4 million leaving
a balance of $54,000 at the end of 2005. In 2005-06 the RDA anticipates receiving another
$930,000. The RDA has not yet budgeted that money but it is anticipated that $500,000 would be
spent which would leave an anticipated balance of $484,000 at the end of 2005-06. In summary,
the RDA anticipates receiving $9.384 M and spending $8.9 M from 1999 to 2005-06.
SB 1045 adopted in the 2003-04 legislative session requires all redevelopment agencies to
contribute to the Educational Revenue Augmentation Fund (ERAF). The ERAF contribution for
the San Rafael Redevelopment Agency is estimated to be $170,000 for 2002-03 and $305,000 for
2003-04. Current Agency bonded indebtedness may require the Agency to borrow a portion of
these funds from the Agency's low and moderate income housing fund to be repaid over a period
of ten years.
Future actions by the State Legislature may result in additional ERAF contributions from
redevelopment agencies. The Legislature and Governor's office have also proposed utilizing all
unallocated redevelopment agency low and moderate income housing funds to contribute to the
State's budget. Removing all unallocated housing funds from the San Rafael
Redevelopment Agency would jeopardize future housing projects where the funds have not yet
been allocated and would negatively impact the Agency's ability to initiate and complete
affordable housing projects and activities.
The Redevelopment Agency works closely with the development community to assist in the
creation of new housing units. The type of assistance varies by project. The Agency staff is
available during the pre -development process to provide technical assistance in the areas of
zoning, parking, site constraints and environmental cleanup. Once the pre -development and due
diligence processes are completed, the Agency can provide direct financial assistance. In the past
Agency assistance has included purchasing the land, long term ground leases at favorable rates,
Agency grants, and Agency loans with favorable repayment terms. Agency staff also provides
assistance on tax credit applications and issues tax exempt bonds for tax credit projects.
In addition to the services outlined above, the San Rafael Redevelopment Agency provides direct
loans and grants to non profit organizations that are acquiring and rehabilitating affordable
housing units. The chart entitled Assisted Housing Projects, San Rafael 2003 lists the projects
that have been assisted by Redevelopment Agency funds to date. The Agency Implementation
Plan for 2000/01 to 2004/05 lists the following projections for very low and low income units in
the Redevelopment Project Area and the City of San Rafael: (1) Housing Units Rehabilitated —
212; (2) New Units — 301; and (3) Units Assisted — 5.
The Planning Commission and City Council have unanimously supported new housing
development. Housing development in the past 12 years has provided a significant amount of
affordable housing including Centertown, Maria B. Freitas Senior Housing, and Ecology House.
San Rafael's Redevelopment Agency tracks the `below market rate" units and ensures that they
are providing housing for households of the targeted incomes. Because of the City's inclusionary
and density bonus policies, about 25 percent of the new housing in San Rafael is affordable to
households earning below the median household income level.
In short, implementing San Rafael's housing policies is a team effort, grounded by General Plan
policies and empowered by a vision that affordable units are an essential part of San Rafael's
housing stock. The City continues to support a multi -faceted approach to housing that builds
354
upon these successes, maximizes the chances for broad community consensus and fulfills the
State of California's requirement that adequate housing potential exists to meet specified housing
needs.
Kev Findings from the Evaluation of the Citv's Current Housing Element
In general, the goals, policies, and programs in the 1988 Housing Element have provided a
comprehensive set of actions to meet the City's affordable housing needs and provide a diversity
of housing types. The entire General Plan, including this revised Housing Element, reaffirms City
goals by: (1) acting as a guide for municipal decisions which affect the quality and quantity of
housing; (2) maintaining housing growth within limits of available services; and (3) maintaining
San Rafael's present quality of life by balancing the availability of housing with other
environmental and neighborhood considerations.
San Rafael's housing strategies are to:
(1) Preserve and strengthen San Rafael's neighborhoods so that they continue to
improve over time.
(2) Be proactive in new housing so that changes continue to enhance San Rafael,
making it an ever -increasingly attractive place to live; and
(3) Target resources for effective partnerships involving neighborhoods, businesses,
civic and service organizations, and the County in addressing housing needs.
The City's strong commitment to meeting the needs for affordable housing is demonstrated
through permit streamlining, financial support, and community involvement. Housing policies are
written so that affordable housing is targeted to a variety of economic levels, integrated into
projects and dispersed throughout the community. Implementation of a policy is handled on a
case-by-case basis to provide flexibility in responding to unique site or project circumstances.
Support is also provided by elected officials and a business community who understand the
critical role affordable housing has in making San Rafael a balanced and healthy community.
Because San Rafael has little remaining vacant land available for large-scale development,
building on smaller or under-utilized sites scattered throughout the city will be important in
meeting its housing needs. These "infill" sites must be developed in a way that best adds value to
a neighborhood. Encouraging new housing development at appropriate densities, promoting
mixed -uses where housing can be incorporated into areas of commercial -only or industrial -only
uses, and supporting continued development of second units will help make better use of our land
resources and help to address San Rafael's housing needs.
355
Housing policies must be integrated with related issues such as land use, design, traffic capacity,
economic development, adequate infrastructure, and others. For example, design policies for
multifamily housing will help to ensure enhancement of neighborhood identity and sense of
community so that new housing will have a sensitive transition of scale and compatibility in form
to the surrounding neighborhood. Linkages with land use strategies that encourage use of transit
are also supported in housing policies.
The following findings and recommendations are based upon the review of current policies and
programs as contained in the program evaluation (see below):
(1) Continue the City's proactive role in protecting neighborhoods and existing
housing, and in assuring that new housing continues to enhance the City's
diversity, economy and quality of life.
(2) Broaden affordability requirements in new housing developments. Establish higher
percentages of affordable units when traffic allocation and density bonuses are
requested.
(3) Require new nonresidential development to contribute to production of affordable
housing, such as providing housing on- or off-site, subsidizing mortgages and/or
rents and payment of in -lieu fees.
(4) Support housing, either as redevelopment or infill, to improve certain areas of
town.
(5) Encourage second units as a means of dispersing small, affordable units throughout
the community by modifying zoning regulations and processing requirements.
(6) Require that illegal units are abated/removed or legalized.
(7) Expand allowances for mixed-use and infill housing development near transit and
in commercial areas in order to create housing near workplaces.
(8) Encourage development at higher densities within easy walking distance to transit
where reduced automobile usage and parking requirements are possible.
(9) Continue to support housing for population groups who require special assistance,
such as homeless persons, people living with disabilities, seniors, large families,
single -parent households; and to link housing to health and human services
programs.
POTENTIAL NON-GOVERNMENTAL CONSTRAINTS AND OPPORTUNITIES
State law requires an analysis of potential and actual governmental and non-governmental
constraints to the maintenance, improvement, and development of housing for all income levels.
The Housing Element must identify ways, if any, to reduce or overcome these constraints in order
to meet the City's housing needs.
Land and Financine Costs
The price of housing has risen since the late 70's at a much faster rate than household income.
Contributing factors are the costs of land, materials, labor, financing, fees and associated
development requirements, sales commissions, and profits. Another factor is the increasing
perception of housing as a commodity for speculation. The typical cost to build an average
quality wood frame single-family detached home is about $150 to $200/square foot, and more for
more expensive custom-built homes. Construction costs for an average multiple family unit are
generally about 20-25% less per square foot.
356
Vacant land within the City of San Rafael is limited (there are currently 24 vacant lots currently
on the market). Since the demand for housing in the City is very high, the value of potential
residential land is increasing and has become a substantial factor in the cost of providing housing.
Local realtors report that current market prices for buildable lots for single-family dwellings
average about $500,000 for a half -acre lot ($11.48/square foot). Land costs may exceed this
amount in areas that provide more amenities or in the most desirable locations. Land costs for
multifamily development heavily depend upon allowable densities, construction constraints, and
potential fees for rezoning, general plan amendments and environmental impact review and
mitigation efforts. According to local developers, fair market land values for multifamily
development can be approximated at $30,000 to $35,000 per unit. Thus, one acre, properly
zoned, with a 25 -unit density allowance, would cost approximately $700,000 ($16.07/square
foot).
Infrastructure Availabilitv
Infrastructure, services and utilities needs for future development are addressed in the San Rafael
General Plan. They do not represent a constraint to development as policies and programs are in
place to assure that adequate infrastructure and services will adequately serve new in -fill
development consistent with the ABAG Regional Housing Needs. Traffic, in particular, continues
to be a community -wide concern. Sites closer to services and transit offer opportunities to
provide housing with limited impacts on traffic. The City's traffic allocation program exempts
housing development from participating in the program.
The Marin Municipal Water District is a special purpose district with the responsibility for
providing water services throughout Central and Southern Marin County. There have been
restrictions placed on new water connections in the past. These restrictions were an interim
constraint during drought conditions. Currently, there is no moratorium on new hook-ups.
However, to be eligible for water service a property must front on an existing water main and the
structure to be served must be within 125 feet of the main. A member of the City Council acts as
a liaison between the City and the District.
Financing
Financing for above moderate or market rate housing is not restrained for those who can qualify.
It is difficult, however, for first-time home buyers without capital or equity to qualify for
financing without incomes near $100,000. For example, the income required for a $400,000
mortgage at 7.5% is about $100,000, which requires a monthly payment of about $2,800.
Nationwide, there was a sharp drop in multifamily housing construction during the 1990's which
contributed to low vacancy rates and rising rents. According to a study conducted by University
of Southern California demographer and planner Dowell Myers, the reason for the drop was due
to the loss of federal tax credits, local resistance to apartment construction, litigation and liability
issues, and population changes. Until the 1990's single-family and multifamily permits were
fairly evenly matched in California, but recently multifamily has represented only 22 percent of
the total. Rental construction has become increasingly costly due to the same factors as single-
family houses. For these reasons many developers prefer to use scarce land to build units for sale
in order to realize an early profit and minimize risk. Units for sale are also easier to finance
during construction.
357
Communitv Concerns
Potential opposition to affordable housing exists in many communities throughout Marin and the
Bay Area. It is important in this regard to identify sites for special needs and affordable housing
that fit with community character and have minimum impacts. Design plays a critical role in
creating new developments that blend into the existing neighborhood, especially in higher density
developments that might otherwise seem out of place. Good design can help ensure that high
density developments are not bulky or out -of -scale. Through sensitive design, a building's
perceived bulk can be significantly reduced to create a development that blends with the existing
character of the neighborhood. Design strategies which the City has used to minimize the
perception of bulk and create a blending with the community do not necessarily increase costs.
These include:
(1) Minimize building heights;
(2) Break-up the building "mass" in its architecture and detailing;
(3) Vary the roofline;
(4) Create a three-dimensional facade (rather than a massive, flat facade);
(5) Step -back the building height, with the lowest part of the building towards the street
and adjacent properties, locating the highest part of the building towards the center
of the property;
(6) Site the building appropriately in relation to surrounding buildings;
(7) Use architectural design, landscaping, materials and colors that fit with the area;
(8) Use landscaping to blend the buildings with the natural setting;
(9) Provide for open space and pathways throughout the development.
The Marin Consortium for Workforce Housing was established to build public understanding and
support for workforce housing. The Consortium focuses public concern on potential
environmental impacts, quality of design, and the quality of long-term management of the project.
The Housing Element includes a program to work with other entities to help address this potential
constraint. In addition, the City's environmental and design review procedures assist in achieving
project acceptability and allow for neighborhood participation.
Working with Non -Profit Housing Developers
Community Development and Redevelopment Agency staff work closely with housing advocates
and developers to create financially viable projects. Financial support is available in a variety of
forms, from loans and grants to tax credits and outright purchase.
The key to the success of non-profit developers lies in three areas: First, in their ability to draw
upon a diversity of funding sources and mechanisms to make their developments work
financially; second, in their commitment to working cooperatively and constructively with the
local community, including local officials as well as neighborhood residents; and third, in their
long-term commitment to ensuring excellence in design, construction and management of their
developments, creating assets that are valued by the people who live in the developments as well
as their neighbors and others in the community.
All affordable housing developments in San Rafael have been the result of collaborative efforts
between the government, affordable housing developers and the philanthropic community. In
most cases, the City and/or Redevelopment Agency works collaboratively with non-profit
developers to provide technical assistance, funding through Redevelopment housing funds, City
in lieu fees, CDBG funds and the issuance of tax exempt bonds. The State and Federal
358
governments provide funding through the HOME program and tax-exempt bond allocations. The
philanthropic community provides additional funding and the non-profit housing groups construct
and manage the housing.
Financing Incentives for Workforce and Special Housing Needs
There are a wide variety of resources provided through federal, state and local programs to
support affordable housing development and related programs and services. The single largest
(and often least recognized) federal program is mortgage interest tax deduction, estimated at $54
billion in 1996 for the nation. The California Housing Plan (2000) reports that federal assistance
for affordable housing was only $17.2 billion nationwide the same year. This assistance was
primarily used to maintain and operate the existing supply of affordable housing. Outlays for new
construction were considerably lower.
California localities receive federal subsidies for affordable housing through a number of
programs. Like State programs, federal programs often change in terms of program details,
application procedures, and amount of subsidy dollars available. State agencies also play an
important role in providing housing assistance by allocating federal housing funds and/or making
loans available to affordable housing developments. The three principal agencies involved are the
State Treasurer's Office, the California Housing Finance Agency (CI1FA), and the California
Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD).
Local government resources, especially through the Redevelopment Agency, have also played an
important role in supporting housing development. Highlights of Redevelopment Agency
achievements are described in the previous section. When developments are able to demonstrate a
financial commitment and contribution from local sources—especially if coupled with regulatory
support through policies such as fast-track processing, fee waivers, and/or density bonuses—they
are better able to leverage funding from other `outside' sources.
Additionally, all funding sources require separate reporting and data collection. When multiple
funding sources are used (usually necessary), additional burdens are placed on developers to track
the information required and report on a timely basis with limited staffing.
POTENTIAL GOVERNMENTAL CONSTRAINTS AND OPPORTUNITIES
Land Use Controls and Development Standards
The City of San Rafael regulates the use of land within the City limits through the General Plan,
the Zoning Ordinance, the Subdivision Ordinance and the Building Code. The General Plan
provides overall densities and development policies for specific areas of the community. The
Zoning Ordinance implements the General Plan and provides greater specificity on densities,
height and yard regulations, etc. The City's Zoning Ordinance was revised in 1996 to include
new Downtown zoning districts. Zoning has been used as a site-specific tool to derive the density
and intensity of proposed land uses. Below is a summary of multifamily and mixed-use zoning
standards.
San Rafael's zoning allows densities higher than all other communities in Marin County. These
requirements should be viewed in light of the fact that San Rafael is the hub of the County,
centrally located from West Marin to the East Bay, and from north counties to San Francisco.
San Rafael's multiple -family ("IIDRI") District allows 1 unit per 1,000 square feet of land area,
359
Exhibit Q
compared to 1,500 square feet in most Marin cities' multifamily zoning districts. This translates
to 43 units per net acre as compared to 29 units per acre as allowed in most Marin cities. In
Downtown, densities of 62 units per acre are allowed in order to encourage more residential
development in the city center.
San Rafael has allowed even greater density on selected sites. San Rafael Commons, for
example, was built at 90 units per acre, with the higher density allowed because it was an
affordable senior project. In addition, the City granted a reduction in the parking requirements
recognizing the lower parking demand of senior housing. San Rafael's highest density single-
family ("R5") District allows lots as small as 5,000 square feet in size, which is the smallest
single-family lot zoning allowed in Marin County. San Rafael also has a P -D (Planned
Development) zoning district that allows for maximum development flexibility, providing that the
project is consistent with General Plan policies.
City of San Rafael Zoning Standards for Multi -Family and Mixed Use Residential Districts
$uwrr City of S; Rafael'Lunlug Ordhmurr
360
Minimum
Seth A.
Building
Mlnlmum
Lot Arca
Width
Front
Side
Rear
Height
Building
Lot
Line
Classification
Permitted Use
(square fret)
(ft.)
(ft.)
(ft.)
(ft.)
(ft.)
Coverage
Arra/111
DR
Duplex Residential
Duplex
5.(11)
50
15
3
10
3U
40'XG
2.5(K)
MR5
Multi ramily Resldemial
Multi -family
6,000
60
15
10
5
36
40%
5.001)
MR3
M(�LIM-family Residential
MUllt-ramliy
6.00)0
60
15
10
5
36
50%
3.(7(1)
MR2.5
M uM family Residential
Multi -family
6,000
60
15
l0
5
36
50%
2,5(K)
MR2
lvluM family Residential
Multi-ramily
6,000
60
15
10
5
36
50%
2.000
HRI.8
lAuM-famlly Residential
Multi -family
6,000
60
15
3
5
36
60%
1,800
HR1.5
Mulb-family kesldential
Multi -family
6,000
60
15
3
5
36
60%
1,500
HR1
Mulb-family kesidential
Multi-famlly
6,000
60
15
3
5
36
60%
1,000
GC
benhal Comt6rcial
Mixed Use
5,000
60
NR
NR
NR
36
NR
n/a
NC
Neighborhood Commercial
Mixed Use
5,000
60
NR
NR
NR
30
NR
1.800
C/O
Comm erclal/Office
Mixed Use
5,000
NR
NR
NR
NR
36
NR
1,000
R/O
Reside ntlal/Office
Mixed Use
5,000
60
NR
NR
NR
36
NR
1.000
4SRC
Fourth Street Retail Core
Mixed Use
5,000
NR
NR
NR
NR
3654
N R
600
HO
Hetherton Office
Mixed Use
5.000
NR
NR
NR
NR
46.66
NR
1100
CSMU
Cross Street Mixed Use
Multl-famlly
5,000
NR
NR
NR
NR
36-54
NR
600
2/3 MUE
Second/Third Mixed Use East
Mixed Use
5.000
60
5
NR
NR
54
NR
GOO
2/3 MUW
Second/Third Mixed Use West
Multi-famlly
5,000
60
5
NR
NR
36-42
NR
I,l)DO
WEV
West End Village
Mixed Use
5,000
26
NR
NR
NR
30
NR
1.000
5/M R/O
Fifth/Mbslon
Multi -family
5,000
60
NR -15
NR
NR
42
NR
1.000
NR = No Restriction
$uwrr City of S; Rafael'Lunlug Ordhmurr
360
Land use controls can be viewed as a constraint in that they determine the amount of land to be
developed for housing and establish a limit on the number of units that can be built on a given
site. General Plan 2020 and subsequent Zoning Ordinance amendments will provide additional
sites for multifamily housing by allowing housing in more commercial areas, and by allowing
densities that make affordable housing feasible.
San Rafael has developed parking standards intended to provide reasonable off-street parking
standards for various types of housing. A generalized comparison of parking standards in Marin
County is shown below. San Rafael's standards have been developed carefully to reflect parking
usage locally and to ensure adequate on-site parking for new residents.
The City also has established a parking district in the downtown to encourage residential uses.
For instance, no parking is required for up to 3 units in the parking assessment district, provided
the units are an infill addition to an existing nonresidential structure, and that the units are 2
bedroom or less and no larger than 900 square feet in size.
Exhibit R: Parking Standards in San Rafael
Downtown Parking Other Areas of Most Common
Residential Use Type Citywide Assessment District Downtown Standard in County
Accessory Dwelling Unit (Studio/One-Bedroom)
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
Duplex
1.5
I.0
1.0
2.0
Mixed Use
By Use
By Use
By Use
n/a
Multi -Family: Studio (depends on size of unit)
1.0-1.5
1.0
1.0
1.0-1.5
Multi -Family: One -Bedroom
1.5
1.0
1.0
1.5
Multi -Family: Two -Bedroom (depends on size of unit)
1.0-1.5
1.0
1.5
2.0
Multi -Family: Three -Bedroom
2.0
2.0
2.0
2.0-2.5
Guest Parking
0.2
0.0
0.0
0.20-0225
Senior Housing'
0.75
0.75
0.75
1.0
Single Family Dwellings
2.0
2.0
2.0
Source: City of San Rafael Community Development Department; Marin Housing Workbook (2001)
On- and off-site improvements can include curbs, gutters, storm drainage, street widening and
paving, driveways, and sidewalks for a typical residential project. Street lighting, traffic control
devices, street trees, bus facilities, and bicycle facilities may also be required. More expensive
improvements can be necessary where the site includes special environmental resources,
mitigation of slide hazards, inadequate downstream drainage, or other special conditions
pertaining to the site. The improvements required by San Rafael are fairly standard when
compared with other cities in Marin County.
Based on the assessment, the City's standards, such as San Rafael's parking standards, compare
favorably to other jurisdictions, and do not pose a constraint to development. For example, in
1996, San Rafael conducted an extensive analysis of Downtown parking standards. The resulting
changes reduced the parking requirement in the Downtown area because the demand for parking
is not as great as in more suburban areas. San Rafael's standards are also tailored to the size of
the unit. Program H -1 8f speaks to continuing to assess and identify more flexible parking
standards.
361
Second Units
A second dwelling unit is a small unit in addition to the main house on a single-family lot.
Second units have the following benefits:
(1) They provide flexibility for the owner of the main home (they can be used as an
apartment for elderly parents, or a source of income);
(2) When rented they help make home -ownership affordable for the owner of the home;
(3) They can provide flexibility for seniors or other homeowners who rent their primary
dwelling because they still want to live in the same neighborhood;
(4) They provide lower cost housing because the units tend to be small and there are no
extra land costs (surveys show that half of the units collect $0 rents);
(5) They are easier to fit in to existing neighborhoods since they are small and are often part
of the main house.
Over the past 14 years 74 second units have been approved, estimated as follows: 11% (8) studio
units; 82% (61) 1 -bedroom units; and 7% (5) 2 -bedroom units.
San Rafael's second unit regulations allow second units parcels with a minimum lot size of 5,000
square feet and require owner occupancy of the principal or second unit. The floor area of the
second unit can be up to 40% of the gross square footage of the principal dwelling, but can be at
least 500 square feet. The maximum size is 800 square feet, unless a Use Permit is granted,
which can allow a maximum size of 1,000 square feet. If added to a principal single-family unit,
the height limit is 30 feet. If located in a detached accessory building, the height limit is 15 feet
unless a Use Permit is granted. Studios and 1 -bedroom units require one parking space; 2 -
bedroom units require two spaces. Parking may be uncovered, and, under certain circumstances,
may be tandem. The second unit must have a separate entrance from the principal unit and
cannot be located on the same side as the front entrance of the principal unit. Second units must
comply with design guidelines. In particular, a second unit must maintain design consistency
with the existing structure so that the architectural detailing, window style, roof slope, building
materials and exterior colors are similar.
The type of permit and level of review required for a second unit depends upon the size, height,
and location of the second unit. If the second unit is located on the ground floor of the principal
unit, meets the standards discussed above, and conforms to setbacks, only a building permit, with
plan check by the Planning and Building Divisions, is required. An Environmental and Design
Review Permit is required for a second unit that (1) exceeds 500 square feet and are located
above the ground floor of the principal unit, (2) is located above the ground floor of a detached
accessory building, or (3) is located in a detached accessory building that does not meet required
side or rear setbacks. A Use Permit is required for a second unit that is in an accessory building
that does not meet required side or rear setbacks or is above 15 feet in height.
In 2003, there were 10,599 single-family homes in San Rafael; approximately 9,000 are on lots
that meet the minimum lot size requirement of 5,000 sq. ft. Current and future market conditions
are also expected to have an impact on second unit construction. The high demand for affordable
apartments, coupled with poor economic conditions that compel many homeowners to look for
additional sources of income, is expected to spur an increase in second unit development over the
next few years. In addition, changing demographics, as described earlier in this element, will
create a long-term increase in demand for "granny" units for aging parents (In 2000, 1,613 people
over 65 lived alone in their homes).
362
With the recently adopted zoning changes to our Second Dwelling Unit Ordinance that eliminated
the Use Permit fee and public hearing process to streamline the process considerably, and that
reduced the parking requirement, the City expects, based on initial inquiries, an increase in the
number of homeowners interested in adding a second unit to their home. The expected
cumulative effect of these conditions will be to increase annual production, resulting in additional
second units to be added to the housing stock over the current planning period.
In June of 2001, the City of San Rafael conducted a survey of 74 property owners of approved
second units. The results of the 2001 survey and the 1990 survey are shown below. The 2001
survey revealed that an overwhelming majority of second units are 1 -bedroom units with one
resident. An analysis of the rent levels demonstrates that nearly half of the second units are
affordable to very low and low income households, and support the assumptions made that a
significant proportion of new second unit production will be affordable to very low, low and
moderate income households.
363
Exhibit S: Survey of Second Units (Results from 1990 and 2001 Surveys)
San Rafael has continuously promoted second units as a housing option. Efforts include
providing a comprehensive handout about `how to have a second unit,' including information
about second units on the City's website, promoting the second unit program through the Sail
Rafael Focus City newsletter, offering staff consultation for adding or legalizing a second unit,
and pursuing an amnesty program for legalization of illegal second units. General Plan programs
include continuing to promote and publicize second units through departmental handouts and the
City's website.
Building Code
San Rafael uses the Uniform Building Code (UBC), which sets minimum standards for residential
development and all other structures. The standards may add material and labor costs, but are felt
to be necessary minimums for the safety of those occupying the structures. Modification of the
code in order to reduce the cost of housing would not be appropriate if it affects safety or
adversely impacts neighboring properties.
The City's zoning code has been determined to be in compliance with the Americans with
Disabilities Act. San Rafael allows displacement of required on-site parking if it is to
accommodate ADA accessibility facilities (ramps, etc.) and offers reduced parking standards for
any development, including housing for the disabled, wherever reduced need can be
demonstrated. The Building Department administers Title 24 provisions consistently for all
disabilities -related construction and responds to complaints regarding any violations.
The City has made several amendments to the Code applicable to residences, requiring fire
sprinklers in all buildings and Class A fire -retardant roofs for fire protection. Due to the
prolonged dry season and the City's topography, these are warranted upgrades. The City's sewer,
storm drain, and other engineering standards conform to Marin County standards, and the City
requires only minimum road widths and improvements in new developments. On-site drainage
and frontage improvements are required for residential development where they do not exist.
Costs vary depending on the size of the lots.
364
1990 Survey
2001 Survey
%
Number of Approved Second Units
32
74
Number of Survey Responses
20
30
41%
Number of Units Occupied
17
23
77%
Number of Renter -Occupied Units
NA
22
96%
Number of Owner -Occupied Units
NA
1
4%
Number of Studio Units
2
3
11%
Number of One -Bedroom Units
13
23
82%
Number of Two -Bedroom Units
2
2
7%
Number of Units with One Resident
NA
18
78%
Number of Units with Two Residents
NA
5
22%
Percent Affordable to Very Low and Low Income
82%
46%
Households
Percent Affordable to Moderate Income Households
18%
13%
Range of Rents
$0-$875
$0-$1,895
Average Rent
$504
$905
Range of Estimated Incomes
$16,000 - $30,000
$16,000 - $62,901+
Source: City of San Rafael Community Development Department, 2003
San Rafael has continuously promoted second units as a housing option. Efforts include
providing a comprehensive handout about `how to have a second unit,' including information
about second units on the City's website, promoting the second unit program through the Sail
Rafael Focus City newsletter, offering staff consultation for adding or legalizing a second unit,
and pursuing an amnesty program for legalization of illegal second units. General Plan programs
include continuing to promote and publicize second units through departmental handouts and the
City's website.
Building Code
San Rafael uses the Uniform Building Code (UBC), which sets minimum standards for residential
development and all other structures. The standards may add material and labor costs, but are felt
to be necessary minimums for the safety of those occupying the structures. Modification of the
code in order to reduce the cost of housing would not be appropriate if it affects safety or
adversely impacts neighboring properties.
The City's zoning code has been determined to be in compliance with the Americans with
Disabilities Act. San Rafael allows displacement of required on-site parking if it is to
accommodate ADA accessibility facilities (ramps, etc.) and offers reduced parking standards for
any development, including housing for the disabled, wherever reduced need can be
demonstrated. The Building Department administers Title 24 provisions consistently for all
disabilities -related construction and responds to complaints regarding any violations.
The City has made several amendments to the Code applicable to residences, requiring fire
sprinklers in all buildings and Class A fire -retardant roofs for fire protection. Due to the
prolonged dry season and the City's topography, these are warranted upgrades. The City's sewer,
storm drain, and other engineering standards conform to Marin County standards, and the City
requires only minimum road widths and improvements in new developments. On-site drainage
and frontage improvements are required for residential development where they do not exist.
Costs vary depending on the size of the lots.
364
The City enforces energy conservation standards enacted by the State. The standards may
increase initial construction costs, but over time will result in energy savings. San Rafael also has
a very active Code Enforcement program intended to respond to code violations and the early
stages of deterioration. The program requires remedial actions or abatement to maintain the
safety of housing units.
Permit Approval Process
Like all local jurisdictions, the City of San Rafael has procedures and regulations for project
review and approval. A project proposed in San Rafael is typically involved in some combination
of the following review processes: environmental review, design review, use permits, building
permits, subdivision maps, and rezonings.
Exhibit T: Planning Permits Required for Housing Development, 2003
Level of
Type of Permit Review Type of Development Facilitation Comments
Design Review Permit, Staff Flag lot homes Design Review Board (if needed),
Administrative addresses access and visibility
issues
Design Review Permit, Zoning
Hillside homes, 2 unit
Design Review Board (if needed),
Minor Administrator
development
addresses environmental and
design compatibitility issues
Design Review Permit, Planning
Ridgeline homes, 3+ unit
Design Review Board, addresses
Major Commission
development
environmental and design
compatibility issues
Use Permit, Administrative Staff
Mixed Use residential,
Zoning standards address design
most districts
and compatibility issues for
development in commercial and
industrial areas
Use Permit Planning
Mixed use residential
For compatibility issues in
Commission
development in
commercial and industrial areas
Neighborhood
Commercial District
Planned District Zoning City Council
Development on lots five
To encourage cluster development
acres or larger in size
to avoid sensitive areas and to
encourage innovative design by
allowing flexibility in property
development standards.
Project Selection Process City Council
Review of larger projects
For implementation of land use
(10-15+ units) and
and circulation policies; affordable
allocation of remaining
housing a priority criteria in
traffic capacity and
evaluation.
achieve desired
community goals.
Undue delays in processing project applications increase a developer's costs. In San Rafael,
many permits are processed concurrently at the discretion of the applicant. Housing developments
that propose 15% or greater affordable units are prioritized for processing, but are subject to the
same public involvement process as other applications.
365
Other methods the City uses to assist with timely review of development applications include:
procedural application checklists for clarity; option of pre -application feedback by the Design
Review Board; early involvement of neighborhood residents to provide information and identify
potential issues; Development Coordinating Committee (interdepartmental) identification of
issues; and concurrent processing of applications. The costs and timing of processing are the
result of State requirements, local procedures, the quality of project submittals and local resident
review.
In 1989, the City approved a "Neighborhood Meeting Procedure" intended to formalize early
meetings with neighborhood groups on specific development applications. This procedure has
proven extremely successful in identifying key project issues and appropriate project
modifications that in the long run reduce the time in processing an application through the public
hearing process.
Neighborhood Meetings are required of larger projects to allow for early review of and input on
development proposals. The City requires a developer of larger projects to meet with the
neighbors to hear their concerns and suggestions. The meetings are open to the public, and
interested parties such as housing advocates typically attend. While the meeting is not co-
sponsored by the City, the project planner attends to provide information as needed about the
review and approval process. The neighborhood meeting process has proven effective in early
identification of issues, and better communication between the developer and neighbors.
San Rafael has found that involving the community early in the development process helps
residents understand community housing needs, engages them in the design process, and results
in more acceptance and a better project for the neighborhood. Early involvement by the
affordable housing groups and the Workforce Housing group provides an opportunity for projects
that are sensitive to neighborhood design concerns while providing a housing product that
addresses the needs of the local workforce.
• - .,ffi eapaeity has be o a limiting faete - tl,, gheut Mar-inCounty and �:rtany other- paAs
of theBay-Ma Na. Ea. PaF 1 has developed speeif : standards for- tF ffie level of _o, -,.__e Fehealth and safiaty .
reasons,
eensistent with State 1 , . ats. The City has identified tfaffie
impaet areas and has established pr-qjeet approval pr-eeedures for- pr-9jeets in these areas. This
o ,, ' eea approval ua Yr.......a.,.
Gufrently, the D :t.. D.- .,t D.- e.7. a (PPP) pelf applies to pr-ejeets .,ffeeting the T
0
Freitas n.,., -T ye,; l�terehange ei+wal Ilu- identifies .,f-er-d ale housing Bets , ,;tl, „
:nin;r.r.. 3'f 1°/ , ar.��R other- types „f.,reje„ta, am fr�jaets "wlilih cIvall 7caiver-ier-ity—in
areas where there is limited eir—euiatien ec'ipaeity. la addition, a linita.d number of "be tfip
IIYD has b3e ., st..,,ng : e..tiye for- f - .1„ bic hz/4&i..b M bz buil`. it h resulted i 92 .,ff^,.dable
.,its , nstn.,.ted sinee its ; ,-.t;,,,, _
Traffic Capacity and Growth Allocation
Traffic capacity and limitations on transportation infrastructure have become severelv limiting
factors throughout the Citv, as well as the Countv and manv other parts of the Bav Area. To
properly manage traffic capacity in a wav that best serves the Citv's health, safety. and welfare,
and consistent with state law requirements. San Rafael has developed suecific standards for traffic,
366
levels of service. To effectivelv manage these levels of service while also promoting smart
growth within the citv. San Rafael developed several mechanisms by which traffic capacity is
regulated and infrastructure limitations are mitigated.
First, in 1988 the Citv initiated its Prioritv Project Procedure (PPP), which allocates traffic
capacity to proposed development proiects based on traffic impact, community need, and
available infrastructure. Currently. applies to proiects affecting the interchanges at I-
580/Hivhwav 101/Bellam Ave.. Luca Vallev Road/Smith Ranch Road/Highwav 101, and Freitas
Parkwav/Highwav 101. Under the current General Plan, affordable housing proiects with a
minimum of fifteen percent (15%) affordable units are among the tvpes of proiects given priority
in the identified traffic impacted areas. In addition, a limited number of bonus trio allocations are
reserved for proiects providing a significant amount of affordable housing. Since PPP was
initiated in 1988, over 600 housing units have gone through the development process and been
built in the affected areas, North and East San Rafael, resulting in the creation of over 92
affordable units.
As part of General Plan 2020, Tthe Citv will has efooesed amend PPP, and redesignateinee it the
Project Selection Process (PSP) program. As proposed, PSP will apply citvwide, rather than
being limited to proiects in North and East San Rafael. The program lists `affordable units' as a
specific benefit category (it is in fact the first benefit listed), and projects proposing a higher
percentage of affordable housing units receive a higher rating. Specifically. PSP would increase
the proportion of affordable units as part of its rating system from the current 15% as follows:
Proiect size
Pgycentaee of affordable units for rating of:
Minimal
Acceptable Preferred Excellent
2-10 units*
10%
11-13% 14-15%
> 16%
11-20 units
15%
16-18% 19-20%
> 21%
21+ units
20%
21-23% 24-25%
> 26%
* Given the exemptions noted above for smaller proiects, it is unlikelv that proiects of this
size will be renuired
to go through the PSP process
Further, the PSP program as proposed exempts the following proiects:
■ Small proiects generating less than 10 peak hour trips (approximately 10 single-
family homes or 15 multifamilv units) will be exempt from, and thus not affected bv.
the PSP program.
■ Housing proiects where 100% or more of the units are restricted to be affordable to
low and moderate -income households.
Under PSP. San Rafael allows proposed proiects to submit for PSP review regardless of
the status of the proiect, be it in conceptual stage or fullv approved. In other words.
Projects do not have to go through a two-step review process of receiving proiect
approval before submitting an application for PSP, therebv streamlining the proiect
review timeline.
As proposed, the above -discussed PSP program seeks to strike a balance between the sometimes -
conflicting needs of the Citv. The Circulation Element of General Plan of 1988 and General Plan
2020 identified traffic congestion as one of the top concerns of San Rafael residents and business
owners. As a result, the Citv Council has had to balance San Rafael's limited traffic capacity
against other communitv needs, including but not limited to the need to develop housing for all
income levels. Absent a means by which to regulate the rate of growth, traffic capacity would
367
increase in a manner that would not ensure that some of that capacity is designated for affordable
housing, and the City's identified levels of service would be hushed well -below acceptable levels.
The current plan's implementing programs for feF-the Priority Proiects Procedure (PPP)P&P and
the Public Facilities DeveloDment Fee (traffic mitigation fee) Ordinance gives the City Council
the flexibility and the policy tools necessary to help Dromote affordable housing while also
mitigating traffic impacts and protecting the City's health. safety and welfare. Further. the City
Council has the discretion to override the PSP Drogram where it deems it necessary for the benefit
of the City.
General ProcessinLy Times
(a) Subdivisions: Three to six months or more depending on the level of review (i.e.,
Subdivision Committee or Planning Commission).
(b) Rezonings: Rezonings are usually part of a larger project proposal and take greater than
6 months to process.
(c) Use Permits/Variances: Usually take two to three months.
(d) Building Permit Applications: Usually take two to four weeks.
The Design Review process usually is two to three months. There are design criteria for
residential development. These criteria are contained in the City's various neighborhood plans,
the General Plan, and hillside residential and other design standards contained in the Zoning
Ordinance available online at http://ordlink.com/codes/sanraVindex.htm.
The following is an analysis of the permit approval process for residential development in San
Rafael. This analysis addresses properties designated by the General Plan for residential
development. All properties with residential land use designations have corresponding zoning;
accordingly the rezoning process is not assessed in this analysis. Similarly, almost all of the
remaining residentially zoned properties are infill lots, and subdivision is not an issue.
Unless it is developed under PD (Planned District) zoning, a single discretionary permit is required
to develop single-family and multifamily housing in San Rafael — the Environmental and Design
Review Permit. The Planning Commission grants Environmental and Design Review Permits after
a public hearing. The Planning Commission's action may be appealed to the City Council. The City
Council considers appeals from Planning Commission actions at public hearings. The Design
Review process elements and timeline are described in the table on the next page.
There are two exceptions that require additional discretionary review. Presently, second units and
dwelling units in commercial districts require Use Permits in addition to Design Review, in order to
address potential conflicts of housing in an urban setting. For residential use in a commercial
district, an Administrative Use Permit is reouired: the permit specifies Derfommnce standards that
ensure comDatibility of use. The Duroose of the use Dermit is to consider the aDDroDriateness of
residential use given. the surrounding non-residential land uses and to attempt to mitigate any
Dotential conflicts or nuisances. Because Use Permit applications are processed simultaneously with
Design Review applications and follow the same timeline. there is no additional delay. In unusual
circumstances, such as a substandard lot size, a Variance application may be required. Variances
are also processed simultaneously on the same schedule as Design Review. San Rafael also has an
exception process to grants minor adjustments to certain zoning standards, such as height.
Processing time for single-family or multifamily projects is dependent on whether an
Environmental Impact Report (EIR) is required. San Rafael follows the procedures set forth in
368
the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and Guidelines. Hillside sites are more
expensive to develop due to known geotechnical and access problems. Environmental protection
requirements, including protection of endangered species, tree removal, habitat loss, etc. may add
significant time to the development process and additional cost where it is necessary to evaluate
the effects of the project and mitigate adverse impacts. Fees charged by the City for CEQA
processing cover the City's processing costs.
CEQA Section 15332 ("Infill Development Projects") allows San Rafael to categorically exempt
from CEQA review infill development consistent with the San Rafael General Plan and Zoning
requirements. The City also applies CEQA Exemption Section 15303 for new construction or
conversion of small structures. Other agencies, such as the MMWD, the BAAQMD and the the
RWQCB, also impact processing time.
Environmental and design review implements General Plan policies by guiding the location,
functions and appearance of development to respect and protect the natural environment and
assure that development is harmoniously integrated with the existing qualities of the city.
Environmental and design review applications are approved or denied by the Planning
Commission, Zoning Administrator, or Community Development Director depending upon the
scope and nature of the project.
Exhibit U: Design Review Process Elements and Timeline
Task Time
Application Filed
Project sponsor submits completed application plans forms,
supporting documents and fees. Plans consist of
1 day
architectural drawings at the schematic level, landscape
drawings and grading plans. A geotechnical analysis and/or
traffic report may be required as supporting documents.
Completeness Review
Staff reviews application and circulates plans to City
departments to determine whether additional information is
15 days
required, and for recommended conditions of approval.
Completeness Notice
Notice sent to sponsor advising that project is complete or is
incomplete and additional information is required.
1 day
Follow -Up Submittal
If the application has been determined to be incomplete, the
sponsor will submit follow-up information as requested.
The time to complete this task is determined by the project
varies
sponsor. If the application was found to be complete, this
task is skipped.
Environmental Review
The application is reviewed to determine whether the
project is exempt from CEQA or if an Initial Study is
1 day to
required. Most projects are found to be exempt. If a
Negative Declaration is prepared, environmental review can
6 months
take the full 6 months allowed by law.
Staff Report
A detailed evaluation is conducted and a staff report is
prepared.
30 days
Public Hearing
369
A public notice is sent 10 days (if exempt) before the
hearing to property owners within 300 feet of the project 10 days
site. The Planning Commission conducts a hearing and
takes action to approve or deny the project.
Source: City of San Rafael Community Development
Department
Public notice and hearing are not required for issuance of an Administrative Environmental and
Design Review permit. For upper -story additions, a courtesy notice is sent to adjacent property
owners and the neighborhood and/or homeowner association(s). The Community Development
Director may refer an application to the design review board and reserves the authority to refer
any project that is judged not to be a routine matter to the planning commission.
Environmental and design review applications for "minor" physical improvements are subject to
a public hearing. Major physical improvements are first reviewed by the Design Review Board
(which is an advisory body) and then by the Planning Commission.
A significant number of Environmental and Design Review applications for single-family homes
are reviewed at the staff level or by the Zoning Administrator. The Planning Commission reviews
major development — not minor work/upgrades, and only for design review (not use permit).
While the time involved in review of design review applications can add to development costs,
the City undertakes design review of projects to ensure their "fit" with the community. While
Design Review may require more processing time and impose some additional requirements, it is
not considered a constraint because it is important that new projects blend with the community,
becoming a natural and integral part of the existing neighborhood fabric, both visually and
structurally. Design Review requirements generally provide an opportunity for design issues to
be raised early in the review process, thus helping to assure community acceptance of a project
proposal, which can reduce delay due to project appeals and other forms of community
objections.
The City endeavors to reduce unnecessary costs associated with the design review process by
providing initial consultations with the Community Development Director. Sketches of the design
of a proposed structure or alteration are submitted for informal staff review so that an applicant
may be informed of environmental and design review board policies prior to preparing working
drawings. In addition, the applicant of a development subject to major environmental and design
review may submit an application for preliminary review by the Design Review Board.
Preliminary review focuses on the conceptual design approach, and gives both the design review
board and the applicant the opportunity to work together before a formal public hearing takes
place.
San Rafael's design standards strive to provide objective criteria for design review. They cover
site design, architecture, and landscape design. The majority of San Rafael's design standards
relate to the design and placement of architectural and site features and do not add to the cost of
building and development. Other design standards, such as the requirement to underground
utility connections, to provide screening of refuse areas, to provide units that are accessible to the
disabled, to use high-quality building materials, and the preference to use natural building
materials in the exterior design may add to development and material costs.
370
Any incremental development costs, however, are considered necessary in order to maintain the
quality of housing, to ensure that new construction blends in with the existing design of the
neighborhood, and to improve residential areas where substandard design and construction may
be prevalent. Over the years since design standards have been in effect they have not been found
to adversely affect the supply of new affordable housing. Conversely, clear design standards
have been found to be helpful in gaining neighborhood approval of new housing, thereby
reducing processing time. In addition, the City has found that design standards are instrumental
in gaining community wide acceptance of higher density development that includes affordable
housing.
San Rafael's experience has been two -fold in regards design guidelines. The first is that as a
community with little vacant land, more focus has been given to the appearance of new buildings;
the design review process has been continually refined to ensure effective input and review of
proposed projects. The City's Hillside Design Guidelines won a national planning award when
adopted in the early 1990s - these guidelines are invaluable in streamlining the site and building
design process. Secondly, San Rafael has not required proscriptive design standards, allowing
instead for creative design approaches and solutions, such as a triplex BMR built in a high-end
single-family subdivision. In San Rafael, design guidelines have proven to be helpful, and not a
detriment, to the design of new housing.
The City does not require a Conditional Use Permit for multifamily developments.
However, the Cit, does require an Administrative Use Perinit, with specific performance
standards. for residential uses in commercial districts. An Administrative Use Permit is
processed concurrently with other planning applications, and based on the past approvals
since 1992 there has been no processing or approval delav associated with such permits.
The Git�, dees net mquir-e a Use PeEmit for- multifitmily de,. slc"grt, thus the foeus on the design
pr-eeess. (An dmiinzz. rra`ive Use Do,-m:t :Fequir-edfor- ,. ixe , residential
�e 219p1rel}t; a clitytir.o y of thisst -e .,,1: ed p e :11 be ineluded in the Element's o o�
Multiple applieations-fer the -same -pre}eet (i.e. SubdMsion a -z U32 Pen:nit) are pr-eeessed
eeneuffently, the timeframes ., e mci.-drz—ar i, andnot eumulati e. A seg : eemplianee with the
Pefmit ct-&D–mlin–kn , A eta the City a tly ,.,-.,iides handouts detailing submittalfequir-ements
for- development appheations.
The following programs provide the direction needed for successful development applications:
Program H -3b for the preparation of residential design guidelines with the purpose of providing
specific criteria to review applications efficiently, Programs H -4a and H -4b to identify the
purpose of neighborhood meetings and the need to prepare information to the public on housing
needs, and Program H -21c to identify ways in which the City will process affordable housing
projects efficiently. Design guidelines for Downtown and for Montecito/Happy Valley
Neighborhood continue to provide neighborhood assurance that development will be continue to
be an improvement and not a detriment to the community."
Part of the issue in being proactive in regard to housing is the availability of City staff to
implement housing programs. For more than 10 years the City has funded a Housing Specialist
position to assist City and Redevelopment Agency staff. In addition, the Marin County Housing
Element recommends the creation of a Housing Assistance Team (HAT), coordinated by the
Marin County Affordable Housing Strategist that would be available to assist the staff in all
jurisdictions. The HAT tasks could include:
(1) Assistance to San Rafael City staff in Implementing Housing Element programs;
371
(2) Assistance and support in maintaining Housing Element certification; and
(3) Technical assistance on housing matters.
The Housing Element recommends the following programs to address issues related to the timely
processing of development applications:
(1) Update Housing Design Review Criteria. This program would refine and update
the City's design guidelines and handouts.
(2) Modify Second Dwelling Unit Development Standards and Procedures. Consistent
with State law (AB 1866), this program eliminates the requirement for Use Permit
applications for second units, consistent with State law.
Local Permit Fees
Costs associated with the permit Drocess may act as a constraint to the development of affordable
housing, including affordable housing. Line item Dermit costs are related to the cost of staff time
processing applications and inspections. These fees vary depending on site conditions, location
and the tvDe and design of development, the need for environmental review. In the Dast. the City
has also assessed traffic improvement mitigation fees for Droiects in three impact areas of the
City. Fees are assessed on development Droiects that increase afternoon Deak hour traffic, with
each Droiect Daving a Drorata share of designated area wide improvements based on the number
of afternoon Deak hour trips expected Droiected to be generated by the proiect. The traffic
mitigation fees in these impact areas differ based on the needs and cost for the traffic.
improvements. The fees are adiusted annually. The traffic mitigation fees are Daid to fund area -
wide traffic improvements that enable development to occur within a safe and acceptable traffic,
level of service standard. These fees are currentiv between $1,000 and $3,000 Der residence
depending on the neighborhood traffic improvements required.
The City has about the same Dermit fees when compared to other cities in the county. Traffic,
Impact Fees, in total, have been less than manv other cities, as shown in the following table on
the next page. As the table shows, many cities, unlike San Rafael, charge high capital facilities
fees (e.g.. Community Facilities Fee, Fire Facilities Fee). In addition. the maior fees in Marin
County are the Marin Municipal Water District's connection fees, compared with other water
agencies in the Bay Area. To lessen the burden planning and building Dermit fees have on
affordable housing Drocess, the City has adopted Resolution 11025 which provides for a fee
waivers for Planning and Building permit fees for affordable housing Droiects. Fees can vary
depending on site conditions, location and the tvDe and design of development, the need for
environmental review, etc.
Costs , eted with the pet=fn t p e:,c5 "., j F as a eenstfaint to t1, development of of f , fable
heusing� ?rrr- i.em pen:nit eests are related to the eest of staff time preeessing ai-p�ax`iens-and
inspeeti3m. Thi Cit, ,assesses t. ff;. mr„t mitigation f'o s � eets n dwee
impaet Fees afe � assessed ,le ..p re1„t „Y_ �t 1.� 1,iner-easeafterneen pea1 t�
F ff e, with a eh „ nt .. yiag a tIn` ni
the nunlbf aftemeen 1 1, trips+ d � b + .a b the ..t The ti.eff;e
oc¢2[ xxo c[I c7cDccTc�[o-Dl�c�r"Q[G�G1It-Prole
mitigation fees in these impaet areas dif'fo b.7 e ., the needs and ..t for- the tf f' e
„tom The Fees are ed;_usted C—xv-Rally. Th t. ff' mitigation foe afe paid to fundn
e tiw
,rcvc uir is impco-taments that efiable aeyel.,pme„t t Gu ..:thin a cam and . ptable traffie
level of ser-,Aee-standard. These feac arc zrdrr ,
depending on the neighborheedtra 2.imlwtutamentsr-equir-
372
t_r The City has about the zemic rcFmit fees =her. aormparea to et4e . side in the , „t j. Tmpaat
total,fees, in >
as shomi in the -'-I- - 14 next page. The City has
adopted a r-eseltition establishing ., fee , for Pkmni-g a-nd Building pe mit fees
v.-: ;gar}• ae„ending , n site , nditi ns t,.,.atie.. andthe t,Te and ,design
of development, the need fer emir-onmental r-eview, etc-.
Exhibit V: Survey of Total Impact Fees for Selected Cities
(Based on 2, 000 square foot single family home)
Comm
City Facilities Drainage Fire Housing Parks Traffic School Sewer Water Total
Livermore
n/a
$614
n/a
$11,973
$3,405
$5,683
$12,245
$9,353
$2,859
$45,159
San Marcos
$40
$6,584
$727
$4,875
$10,894
$7,843
$6,580
$2,400
$3,381
$43,310
Cotati
n/a
$1,355
$400
$14,000
$2,138
$250
$4,100
$5,600
$6,515
$35,468
Santa Rosa
$2,555
$5,660
n/a
$9,707
$2,855
$2,834
$4,100
$3,727
$3,690
$35,149
Carlsbad
$6,421
$540
n/a
$2,925
$5,436
$7,500
$4,100
$2,755
$5,005
$34,684
Brentwood
$1,872
$2,397
$1,013
n/a
$1,050
$5,845
$10,512
$4,881
$6,729
$34,287
Novato (proposed)
$2,421
$1,874
$782
$3,364
$4,401
$5,861
$4,100
$4,480
$5,482
$32,965
Windsor
$1,383
$1,943
$503
n/a
$7,198
$6,071
$4,100
$10,138
$7,150
$32,489
Poway
n/a
$1,570
$381
$2,000
$2,720
$660
$7,700
$5,931
$7,274
$28,235
San Diego
$14,916
n/a
n/a
n/a
$100
n/a
$4,100
$2,500
$4,504
$26,120
Oceanside
$1,301
$1,105
n/a
$7,875
$2,200
$1,848
$4,100
$3,793
$3,098
$25,320
Chula Vista
$2,618
n/a
n/a
n/a
$4,375
$7,015
$4,100
$2,220
$4,427
$24,755
San Rafael
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
$1,509
$3,182
$4,100
$1,595
$10,241
$20,583
Source: David Rosen
& Associates
tnnnnl
The City has Dronosed adopting a Resolution that would expand aDDlication of the traffic
mitigation fee to all areas of the City and would increase the fee to meet the arowina
thoroughfare and infrastructure improvement needs. SDeciiically, the DroDosed fees will be
imposed Citvwide rather than in the Dreviouslv designated three impacted areas, and the fees will
increase to $4,246 Der A.M. Dlus P.M. Deak hour triD. The fees are Daid to fund area wide traffic
improvements that enable development to occur within a safe and acceptable traffic level of
service standard. As with application and Dermit fees, the Citv waives traffic impact fees for
affordable housina units. Even increasina the traffic mitigation fee in the table above, San Rafael
would continue to rank amona the lowest of the surveyed, comparable cities. In a 2004 Public
Works survev. staff found the following Traffic Mitigation Fee charged by jurisdictions in the
Bav Area:
• County of Marin: $5,315 Der Dm Deak hour trip in the Northgate Activitv Center
■ County of Marin: $4.113 Der Dm Deak hour trip in the West Sir Francis Drake Blvd.
area
■ Larkspur: $3.399/Dm Deak hour trip
■ Tiburon: $1.008 to $5.712 Der triD. denendina on the location
■ Davis: 3.500 to $5.227 for a single-family home
■ San Tose: $4.700 to $15.700 for a sinale-familv home
■ Fremont: $2.126 for a single-family home
■ Orinda: $4.289 for a single-familv home
■ Pleasanton: $8.739 for a single-familv home over 1.500 so. ft.
373
San Rafael: $7.473 for a single-family home (based on a $4.246 fee for AM and PM
peak hour tries) .area
The traffic mitigation fees are necessary in order to fund circulation imurovements necessary to
improve safety and relieve congestion during the time Deriod covered by General Plan 2020.
General Plan 1020 Droiects Dlanned develoument citvwide through 2020, lists needed
transDortation imurovements, and identifies funding sources. including the Traffic Mitigation Fee.
to Day for those imurovements. Without this funding, the City would be unable to fund the
infrastructure imurovements necessary to suDDort DroDosed develoument, including housing
Droiects, the result being a significant and unacceptable decrease in the traffic levels of service
identified in the Circulation Element of the General Plan.
Affordable Housing Requirement
Since 1988, the City has had a requirement that market rate units contribute to the develoument of
affordable housing ("inclusionary housing"). This program has resulted in the develoument of
576 deed -restricted affordable units. The inclusionary Drogram has been one of the City's most
successful urograms in creating Dermanent affordable housing.
Some members of the develoument community have stated that the affordable units will have to
be "subsidized" by the market rate units, which will result in higher prices for the market rate
units, and thus act as a constraint on the develoument of housing. However, no data has been
presented showing this to be the case in San Rafael. Further, the City's housing studies indicate
that the main determinant on the cost of housing in San Rafael, as well as elsewhere in Marin,
continues to be the price that the market is willing to Day. In addition, affordable units have some
economic benefit to the uroDerty owner/developer, despite their restricted return,:
1) The current BMR -restricted sales Drices exceed the Der -unit cost of develoument in San
Rafael.
2) Through aDolication of State Density Bonus requirements, the affordable housing
requirements for larger Droiects will actuallv create more market rate units than would
otherwise be allowed under San Rafael's develoument and zoning schemes, thus further
reducing any Durported "subsidy". For examDle, a 20 -unit Droiect would be required to
Drovide 4 affordable units, and would thereby qualify for the State density bonus, which
could allow an additional 5 market rate units. Under the Citv's inclusionary Drogram,
additional density bonuses are also available to any developer that agrees to dedicate
affordable units above the minimum requirements of the Ordinance.
San Rafael is no longer unique in requiring develoDers of market rate housing to DarticiDate in
addressing_ the affordable housing dilemma. The County of Marin and the Cities of Novato, San
Anselmo, Mill Valley. Fairfax and Larkspur have all adoDted inclusionary housing urograms. A
2003 survey of inclusionary housing by California Coalition for Rural Housing and Non -Profit
Housing Association of Northern California demonstrated that 107 iurisdictions in the State had
inclusionary zoning requirements. The record of these iurisdictions, as well as San Rafael itself,
indicates that inlusionary zoning requirements do not act as a constraint on the develoument of
market rate housing, and serve an imDortant Dublic uumose of Dromoting the develoument of
affordable housing.
374
Article 34 Referenda
California Law (Article 34) requires jurisdictions to place public housing projects on the ballot
for local approval before construction. In 1977, San Rafael voters passed by a 73% majority, a
referendum allowing construction of 120 publicly -financed housing units for senior citizens.
Eighty-three of these non -market rate units were built in the San Rafael Commons project. The
election indicates a general willingness to approve Article 34 referenda in San Rafael.
By requiring referendum approval of all low rent housing projects "developed, constructed, or
acquired in any manner" by any state or public body, Article 34 of the State's Constitution poses
an obstacle to the delivery of housing suited to the needs of lower income households. In general,
Article 34 applicability depends on three criteria. First, a state or public body must be involved in
the project. Private sponsors developing low rent housing projects with federal or private money,
for instance, are not subject to Article 34. Second, the State or public agency must develop,
construct or acquire the project. Public agencies which lease low rent housing are not covered by
Article 34. The third requirement is that the project be a low income rental development. The
development of mixed income rental housing which is not 50% or more low income has been
held by California courts not to require a referendum.
State legislation exempts from the referendum requirement the following types of projects: (1)
privately owned housing which is less than 50% low income rental; (2) privately owned housing
which is not financed or subsidized by a State or local public agency; (3) cooperative housing,
and any other type of owner -occupied housing; and (4) newly constructed, privately owned one -
to -four family dwellings not located on adjoining sites.
REGULATORY AND FINANCIAL INCENTIVES
In order to promote the develop_ ment of affordable housing within San Rafael, the City has
adopted numerous incentives. These include:
• Fee waivers (see Housing Program H-92), including specifically traffic impact, ulannin2,
and building fees for affordable housing Droiects. The City has also aDDroached Marin
MuniciDal Water District about the Dossibilitv of reducing connection fees for such
Droiects.
• Priority under the City's PSP urogram and an exemption from aDDlication of PSP for
100% affordable Droiects.
• Pursuant to the City's inclusionary housing ordinance, density bonues above and beyond
those mandated by state law:
• Height bonuses Dursuant to Dolicies established in the City's General Plan 2020 Land Use
element.
• Pursuant to Housing Program H-18LT. reduced Darkin2 standards.
These incentives make clear San Rafael's commitment to uromotina the development of
affordable housing.
375
AVAILABLE LAND AND ABILITY TO MEET "FAIR SHARE" HOUSING NEEDS
In response to Housing Element law, the City is required to provide an inventory of known sites
available for housing development as well as vacant and/or underdeveloped sites that can
accommodate San Rafael's housing development needs determined by ABAG between January,
1999 and June, 2007. The City completed an inventory of built or approved developments since
January of 1999 (see table below), and conducted a survey of vacant, underutilized and
redevelopment areas of the City to assess needs and opportunities for additional housing
development.
Multiple family housing at higher densities, especially in coordination with a non-profit housing
sponsor, can provide opportunities for lower income workforce affordable housing to be built.
One incentive that the City offers to encourage affordable housing is to allow those developments
that meet affordability criteria to develop their projects at higher densities. This allows cost items
such as land, site design and long-term management and maintenance costs to be shared across a
larger number of units, thereby bringing down the per-unit cost, and making it easier to achieve
affordability goals. Projects which receive such density "bonuses" must guarantee units at below
market rate prices for a specified period of time. The City will also exempt residential -only
Droiects containing exclusively deed -restricted affordable residential units from the City's Priority
Selection Process.
The City has to satisfv two requirements when completing its site analysis. First, the City must
identifv and/or designate adequate sites to meet the City's total housing needs, as established by
ABAG. Second, the City must ensure that there are adequate sites at sufficient densities to
accommodate the City's need for very low and low (lower income) and moderate income
housing. Based on existing rents it is assumed that market rate rentals, as described on page 337,
are affordable to lower- and moderate -income households. Other than second units, which are
proportionately skewed to lower and moderate income households (see survev on page 361), it is
generally assumed that a density of about 25 units/acre is needed to create opportunities for very
low and low income housing to be built (based on current affordability levels, construction costs,
long-term management/maintenance costs, competitiveness for financing, and land costs). San
Rafael's track record and Droposed site analvsis indicate that both historically and going forward
it has zoned sufficient lands at sufficient densities to promote the develop_ ment of housing, and
specifically the creation of very low and low income units.
For example, the City's Dast Derformance in meeting regional housing needs is excellent. The
City has had a voluntary inclusionary housing policy since 1980 and a mandatory inclusionary
reauirement since 1988, and has provided density bonuses since before the adoption of California
Government Code Section 65915 mandating density bonuses for certain affordable housing
Droiects. Lower and moderate income housing can be accommodated in every zoning district.
Examples of recent Droiects developed at 25 units or more Der acre include the followine:
376
Thee e t e "ti es fie . h el. to nde .,tan the ..ae +e , e
,..., ua� , o p,..r�pe� ��t� �,..n�r�.�_�, � are +t,e
adequate sites to meet the Git�,'s total housing needs?And (2) are thefe adequeAe sites
suff;eie nt densities to et the Gity's eea e , t and low (la
j:rr.-:e) :.n.. rnaderate
ineeme housing? Based on &Eisfing r-ents it is assumed that mafket rate r-entals (as desefibed on
pages 13 15 of the Housing Element Baekground seetion) are aff-er-dable to moderate ineeme
households. Other- than seeend ssmum2d that a densit), of about 25 units/aere
is needed to er-eate opportunities for very le and le ineeme housing to Lc 17.0t -(lased on
eufFent of �..a. Mbit,, levels, eanstFuetion eests, ,,, „ +arm. zr;age e„+i,Y „+e e sts
eempetitiveness for
, and land eests).
The G:+y of San Rafe ha3 Zn fl elle...+ +,..,et. ree,.,.a ; meeting et t'3uoCng :fie Gity
has had veluntar-y nrya J YoariAg pall sinee 1999 and a rmn— elusionar-y
'. ent sinee 1988, and granted density benuses before they beeafne State law. Lower- and
vxeder-Ate inFeme housing earl3eaEeerneted i�re��e>eningdist�ic)r�sr.:l►1�c cf�eeer�t
t.rvjevw u..velvt,.,u at 25 uiaas e
Exhibit W: Downtown Housins. 1992 — 2004
Low Moderate
Income Income
12 12
Market Rate
at/or above Net
25 units/acre TOTAL Density Note
12 60 71 62% density bonus
3 2 25
2 5 18
19 19 75
Lone Palm Apts.
011-256-35 24 12 12 12
Very
Project Name,
Albert Lofts
Low
Location or Name
APN
Income
Centertown
011-254-19
24
815 C Street
Source: Communitv
Clocktower
011-275-01
729 Lincoln at
Fourth Street
Boyd Court
011-300-01 to
1115 B Street
25
Rafael Town Cntr
011-222-04
998 Fourth and
Court Streets
Low Moderate
Income Income
12 12
Market Rate
at/or above Net
25 units/acre TOTAL Density Note
12 60 71 62% density bonus
3 2 25
2 5 18
19 19 75
Lone Palm Apts.
011-256-35 24 12 12 12
840 C Street
Albert Lofts
013-012-33 17 94
931 Second Street
Muir Terrace
011-310-01 to 1 12
1110-1126 Mission
-13
Ave.
Source: Communitv
Develonment Department. 2004
30 44 Mixed-use project
25 69 25% density bonus
113 164 12' ht bonus
66% density bonus
Mixed-use project
60 61 40% density bonus
76 Mixed-use project
13 43 Tandem parking
San Rafael's highest density multifamily residential districts and many of its mixed-use zones
allow 43 or more units per net site acre (one unit per 1,000 square feet of land area). Individual
apartment projects typically are developed at the higher end of the allowed density range. Senior
housing developments have the highest densities due to lower parking needs and smaller unit
sizes. Since 1996, when land use and zoning changes were adopted to zone most of Downtown
at a density greater than 25 units/acre, over 300 new units have been built, all of them at above 25
units/acre, with a third of those BMR affordable units, including 24 reserved for very low income
households.
377
As noted above, the General Plan 2020 Steering Committee conducted an extensive survey of
possible sites for additional housing in San Rafael. An original list of 87 sites was narrowed
down to 36 sites. Community groups helped to identify constraints and opportunities for those 36
sites. In a Community Design Charrette held January 2002, over 100 people looked at six areas
in depth, and housing was identified as a potential use in each of those areas. Information on the
survey work is available in the reports Conzmunity Design Charrette Report, Housing
Opportunity Loop Out Results, and Sununmy Housing Comments from 10/24/02 Community
Meeting
The resulting recommendations to redesignate and rezone many of the nonresidential areas of San
Rafael for mixed-use development provide many more opportunities for additional medium and
high density housing. For example, high density residential use is proposed to be allowed in
office and general commercial land use districts, where residential is currently prohibited. The
allowed density in these two districts is 25+ units/acre. The Land Use Element contains a
program to make the necessary zoning changes .
In San Rafael, there are many underdeveloped sites where new housing is possible. Nearly all of
these sites are privately -owned, thus the difficulty of identifying the intentions of the private
sectorfor specific -site development. Areas where new housing can readily be developed are
identified on the following sites table which summarizes additional unit development potential in
mixed-use areas.
Exhibit X: Residential Potential in General Plan Land Use Districts.
LAND USE DISTRICT
Single -Family Residential
(includes hillside and large
lot)
Med. Density Residential
High Density Residential
General Commercial (1)
Lindaro Mixed Use (1)
Marine (1)
Neighborhood Commercial
Office (1)
Downtown
TOTAL
Source: San Rafael Community Development Department, September 2003.
(1) Land use districts where housing will be a new allowed use.
(2) For residential districts, includes only vacant lots. For mixed-use districts, lots less than 0.5 acres (0.2 acres Downtown),
lots more than 50',o developed, and lots developed with gas stations, hotels or public utilities are excluded. All shopping
centers included.
(3) Mid -point of the density range for the zoning district, except for single-family residential which assumes one unit/acre.
San Rafael is a city with very little remaining vacant land, much of it in environmentally sensitive
areas. The following tables summarize units built or approved from January, 1999 to date
compared to the regional housing need, and identify sites and areas having the potential to
provide housing to help meet the demand for housing, as well as meet State law and regional
housing need requirements. A brief description of the areas or sites identified is also included
378
VACANT/
UNDERDEVELOPED
ZONING
POTENTIAL
TOTAL ACRES
ACRES (2)
DENSITY (3)
ADDN. UNITS
6,410
159
1
159
563
13
10
130
279
1
25
25
206
107
25
2,627
13
2
10
22
93
17
10
167
38
25
10
252
196
16
25
391
111
55
25-47
1,318
395
5,091
Source: San Rafael Community Development Department, September 2003.
(1) Land use districts where housing will be a new allowed use.
(2) For residential districts, includes only vacant lots. For mixed-use districts, lots less than 0.5 acres (0.2 acres Downtown),
lots more than 50',o developed, and lots developed with gas stations, hotels or public utilities are excluded. All shopping
centers included.
(3) Mid -point of the density range for the zoning district, except for single-family residential which assumes one unit/acre.
San Rafael is a city with very little remaining vacant land, much of it in environmentally sensitive
areas. The following tables summarize units built or approved from January, 1999 to date
compared to the regional housing need, and identify sites and areas having the potential to
provide housing to help meet the demand for housing, as well as meet State law and regional
housing need requirements. A brief description of the areas or sites identified is also included
378
after the tables. As can be seen in the tables, the City has adequate sites to meet its regional
housing needs with the land use and zoning changes that are part of San Rafael General Plan
2020.
379
EVALUATION OF SPECIFIC SITES AND AREAS FOR HOUSING DURING THE TIMEFRAME OF
THE HOUSING ELEMENT (1999-2007)
The exhibit above demonstrates that San Rafael, with lots currently available and with those areas
Pending rezoning concurrent with the adoption of the new Housing Element, has sites can_ able of
providing 490 units above the remaining total housing need. In addition. San Rafael has sites that
will provide 411 units above the remaining affordable housing need.
As demonstrated in Exhibit X. San Rafael has designated and/or is Proposing to rezone sufficient
vacant and underutilized sites to accommodate 5.091 additional housing units, of which the Citv
anticipates that 1.468 units will be available to be developed in the Housing Element time frame.
Both numbers more than address the Citv's remaining regional housing need of 928 units. The
most important issue is whether targets for each affordabilitv level can be met, especially those
for vein low, low, and moderate income households.
Given land costs in San Rafael, the Citv Droiects that housing for lower- and moderate -income
households will most likelv be developed in high densitv and mixed use areas, where the Citv's
zoning Provides for maximum densitv ranges of 32 to 62 units Der acre. Further. with the densitv
and height bonuses available under the Citv's inclusionary housing program. Droiects mav_ be
built at even higher densities. Based on the Citv's sites analvsis, sufficient vacant and
underutilized lots exist in High Densitv Residential Districts. Downtown, the Northgate Town
Center and Marin Square to accommodate develoDment of aDDroximately 932 units. Based on
the Citv's survev of market rents, rental units are affordable to lower and moderate income
households. In addition, nolicv H-19 (Inclusionary Housing Requirements) requires that at least
half of all BMR units be affordable to lower-income households, and that half of all BMR rental
units must be affordable to very low income households.
The residential Potential in these areas alone well exceeds San Rafael's remaining regional
housing need for 800 units for very low (418), low (130), and moderate income households (252).
To sDecifical1v facilitate the develoDment of housing affordable to lower- income households, the
Citv is implementing various measures, including the Provision of financial assistance (Programs
under Dolicv H-9 - Funding for Affordable Housing) and regulatory incentives, including height
and densitv bonuses (Dolicv LU -14 Height Bonuses and H-21 Densitv Bonuses), a revised
inclusionary housing ordinance implementing Drogram H -19a - Inclusionary Housing. Under the
new Affordable Housing Ordinance, to be adopted concurrent with General Plan 2020, the Citv
will require inclusionary fees for fractional units. these fees will be used by the Citv to suDDort
affordable housing activities.
The &ihi it above .to.. enst,-ates t1.,.,t E&1. Rafael, with lots , ently available an with these areas
Element,
has sites eapable e
1 Anitsabove eT�rrrai �ti b totalhousing need. In addi -, ✓= Ra %el has sites
mill p-�✓tiae 360 units .,boye theY-emaininga ff r 7 1.1E h3ttir:g Beed.
Below is a diseussion of eaeh of the areas or- sites, as identified in the tables above, thatA�
pfevide eppeFtunifies fer- the City to meet its fegional housing needs. The develelpffiefit potential
shewn in the tables above is based en the pFepei4ies' availability for- development, land
designations, evmer-ship, size and other- physieal ehar-aeter-isties, and relative laek of
envifenmental , nst.-aints All of these f e*0731AT9 iM, Taftai}t in -3 g
the regional housing"�.3 planning period (t46ci�, 2007). Sites pending zo^irbcr-cc'aii
i e..,,t , .:11 most ..,..,,bably be z•41aJ2 a€te>2007. Beeause Ste- Pmc el : �tl,.. e.fly
fully developed k'..,,..da figs, o eh of the belew listed sites (..mess „tt,on,.;moo
ted) has adequate . s to t..ans t and ;„ b ee.,te,.s, a 11 au puNis andt .
382
Single-Familv Sites and Second Units (Currently Available)
■ Single -Family Sites. There are approximately 159 vacant single-family lots in San Rafael.
Many have access and physical constraints, such as steep hillsides and narrow roadway
access, which must be addressed as part of the site's development approval. New sinele-
family homes in the new Redwood Villaee subdivision are selling out before construction is
comuleted. indicating a strong housine market for sinale-familv homes.
New or Legalized Second Units. Based upon recent revisions to its Second Unit Ordinance
that reduce the time and cost of adding second units to existing single-family lots, San Rafael
anticipates a significant increase in the number of second units that will become available in
the housing market during the housing planning period covered in this Housing Element. For
example, in the first six months since the amendments to the City's Second Unit Ordinance,
twelve (12) second units have received building permits, compared with none during the
previous six-month period. In addition, the number of inquiries regarding second unit
construction and availability has increased substantially. Pursuant to Sala Rafael General
Plan 2020 Housing policies H-12 (Illegal Units) and H-25 (Second Units), staff will actively
promote and provide technical assistance to property owners seeking to construct second
units.
Based upon the above-described upward trend in second unit construction, coupled with the
availability of approximately 9,000 single-family homes that meet the minimum lot size
criteria of 5,000 square feet, the City conservatively estimates that thirty-four (34) second
units per year will be built and/or legalized during the time frame of this Housing Element. A
recent survey conducted by the City of San Rafael demonstrates that half of the legal second
units in San Rafael are currently rented at very low and low-income affordability levels.
Based on this information, the City conservatively estimates that 25 percent of the new or
legalized second units will be affordable to very low income households, 25 percent
affordable to low income households, and the remaining 50 percent affordable to moderate
income households.
Finally, because these units will be added to already existing single-family home
developments, they will have ready access to all essential public facilities and services.
Multifamily Sites (Currently Available)
• Medium and High Density Sites. San Rafael General Plan 2020 has designated,
and the City has zoned or will zone concurrent with adoption of General Plan 2020, 563 net
acres of land for Medium Density Residential use and 279 net acres of land for High Density
Residential use. Multifamily housing is allowed by right in medium and high density zoning
districts. The City has identified approximately six (6) vacant sites large enough to
accommodate new medium and high density residential developments, including:
225 Picnic Avenue — This three -acre medium density site is zoned MR3, or 1 unit per
3,000 square feet of lot area, and could therefore accommodate approximately 44
housing units. The site is bordered by high-density condominiums and single-family
residences. The topography of the site is gently sloping near the road with a steep slope
and plateau behind. A new housing development at 225 Picnic would be subject to San
Rafael's proposed increased inclusionary zoning requirements and could also qualify for
density bonuses (above and beyond state requirements) thereunder. The site also
provides ready access to all essential public facilities and services.
383
• Former San Rafael Sanitation District Site — This 2.5 -acre site on the west side of Windward
Way is zoned MR -2, allowing 1 unit per 2,000 square feet of lot area, and could therefore
accommodate approximately 54 housing units. The site would be subject to the City's
proposed increased inclusionary zoning requirements, and could also qualify for density
bonuses (above and beyond the state requirements) available thereunder.
Lincoln Avenue Site (adiacent to Caltrans Park & Ride lot) — This high density, 3/4 -acre site is
zoned HR 1.8, or 1 unit per 1,800 square feet, allowing for approximately 18 housing units.
The site is currently vacant and is located adjacent to the CalTrans Park & Ride lot near the
Highway 101 on -and -off ramps at the top of Puerto Suello. Although the site is steep and has
high noise levels, the high demand for housing in San Rafael has resulted in multifamilv
development on similar sites, as shouwn by the manv apartments in the vicinity. The Citv has
been approached by an owner's representative who intends to submit a planning application.
The development would be subject to San Rafael's proposed increased inclusionary housing
requirements, and would potentially qualify for density bonuses (above and beyond the state
requirements) available thereunder.
Elks Club — The 10.5 acre Elks Club site on Mission Avenue has approximately three level
acres of land behind an existing building. This site is zoned "Planned Development" (P.D.)
based on General Plan Land Use policv LU -10, which requires P.D. zoning for development
on lots larger than five acres in size, except for the construction of a sinale-familv residence.
Pursuant to P.D. zoning regulations, the proposed uses of a site must be consistent with the
General Plan land use designation. The Elks Club site has a General Plan land use
designation of High Densitv Residential (15 — 32 units/acre), which would allow for the
development of 45 to 96 units on this site. Thus, pursuant to the P.D. zoning and the General
Plan land use designation, commercial, office and/or industrial uses are not allowed. This site
may only be redeveloped for high-densitv multifamilv housing use. Given the location of this
site at the foot of San Rafael Hill and its close proximity to Downtown, high densitv housing
would be appropriate for this site. Further, the P.D. zoning specifically exempts residential
use from the use permit requirement, and therefore high density residential development can
occur on this property as a matter of right.
The Elks Club has been zoned P.D. because this zoning allows for the most flexibilitv in site
design. The P.D. zoning designation allows for the most efficient and flexible site design
which will best accommodate anv potential issues related to hillside development and the
future of existing buildings on the site which, while not historic landmarks. are listed on the
San Rafael Historical/Architectural Survev. (1986). These buildings are concentrated on a
portion of the site and would not affect the abilitv of a developer to locate housing on the
remaining level areas of the property.
Staff is in the process of drafting a studv that summarizes all of the public and private
initiatives that have been undertaken to revitalize the central part of San Rafael, which is an
area that includes the Elks Club site. The document is being prepared at the request of
Ecumenical Association for Housing ("EAH"), a local non-profit housing developer that is
activelv working with the Elks Club Board on a housing proposal. EAII plans to use the
studv as part of a forthcoming tax credit application for housing on the site. Development of
this site would be subiect to San Rafael's proposed increased inclusionary zoning
requirements, and could oualifv for the densitv bonuses (above and bevond the state
requirements) available thereunder.
ON
Ellis Club The —Eflas Club Site on Mission Avenue has appFoxiFnate15, three level aeres of land behind an existing
building. G,.r.e««t„ ..ea nI\!►.Cil' LNvtri,.« (on) c f: gFea«e. aexibir«., this site :s air. orN/J kai a VZk a.,.,.. w
., designation. aNOWifig C . 45 «.. 05 Mift D.Z.Yceie i•,«�_. ci_v«_cr«H: SAW ,lA F,.. ,L,: et to e., Rafael's proposed
ineFmg-i' irih * I . — quiFeFAents, and eould qualif�, fer density bonuses (above and be),@;;d the state
a San Rafael City School's Coro Yard. This 2.6 -acre site is zoned for high-density residential
use, and could support from 39 to 83 housing units. The San Rafael School District is actively
pursuing a Request for Proposal to develop an affordable housing project at this location.
The City estimates, based upon recent development trends and activity, that approximately 75%
of the available medium density sites will be developed for rental housing, as will approximately
100% of the available high density sites. Both medium and high density sites will be required to
provide for very low, low, and moderate housing through application of San Rafael's proposed
increased inclusionary zoning requirements (General Plan 2020 policy H-19), and may qualify for
subsidies or other additional incentives to help promote the development of additional affordable
housing units (General Plan 2020 policies H-9, H-14, H-17, H-18, H-21, H-22, and H-23).
Mixed -Use Sites (Currently Available)
—Downtown Housing. San Rafael's Downtown area is currently zoned to accommodate
mixed-use projects at a range of housing densities. Densities between 32-62 units/acre are
allowed in the Fourth Street Retail Core (14 acres), Second/Third Street Mixed-use (37
acres), and Hetherton Office areas (6 acres). Other areas in Downtown allow densities
between 15-32 units/acre (see table LU -3). Such mixed-use development projects are
supported by General Plan 2020 Policies NH -21, EV -13, H-18, H-21, H-22 and H-23. As an
urban area served by transit, Downtown has the lowest parking requirements in San Rafael,
as low as one space per one -bedroom unit. In addition, General Plan policy LU -14 allows
for a one-story height bonus in Downtown for qualifying projects that include an affordable
housing component. For example, the recently built 113 -unit Rafael Town Center received a
12 -foot height bonus for an increase in the number of affordable housing units. From 2000 —
2004, an average of 82 affordable units per year have been built in Downtown. As
demonstrated in Exhibit X the City moiects that as many as 1,318 additional housing units
could be developed Downtown.
Market conditions support the development of underutilized sites, as exemplified in recent
proiects in Downtown. San Rafael will capitalize on the strategies that have contributed to the
success of the existing infill and mixed-use proiects. 'These factors include reduced parking
standards for Downtown units (units under 900 scivare fet require only one space), height and
density bonuses, in exchange for a greater number of affordable units, and use of tax credits. City
and Redevelopment Agency staff work closely with the developers on removing constraints, such
as toxics and traffic.
Based on past development activity, increased incentives for housing, redevelopment
opportunities, and property availability, the City estimates that approximately 10 percent of the
housing development potential in downtown could occur during the planning period of the
Housing Element (100 units per year through 2007 at densities over 25 units/acre). Exhibit AA
below The table bele• provides lot size, constraints, unit projections, timeline for development,
and incentives for sample sites in Downtown. Also included on the list is a recently -approved
project, a*d-several projects in the development or redevelopment "pipeline',.—" and examples of
typical Dox�,.nto«m sites that could be redeveloped for housing.
385
Exhibit AA — Example Downtown Development Sites
012-75-01
-02
43
Owner proposed 14 units to
14
(4)
Lower
(6)
Second Street
Zoning
Income
Site/
Size Density
3 units
'otential
City
Current Use APN
(acres) 'units/acre
Development Potential (1)
(2)
Constraints Timeline
Incentives
Approved Site
to City review, and is being
924 B Street 011-26-112
0.11 72
Approved application for 7
7
NA NA
Height
Mixed use
apartments and
Listed on
variance
011-262-19
0.3
6 SROs
50 units. Redevelopment of
Historic
Reduced
(5)
(6)
Street
Survey
parking
Potential Sites With Applications Pending (See n. 3 below)
1295, 1217
012-75-01
-02
43
Owner proposed 14 units to
14
(4)
2-12
(6)
Second Street
replace three bungalows.
months
3 units
012-75-02
Project was withdrawn prior
(5)
to City review, and is being
redesigned for resubmittal.
1112 Second
011-262-19
0.3
73
50 units. Redevelopment of
73
Potential
(5)
(6)
Street
an iron works shop with 50
hazardouse
Zappetini Iron
units. The property owner
materials
Works
continues to meet with the
site
City concerning this project
(4)
and is now involving the
adjacent property owner in a
joint development proposal.
750 Lindaro
013-021-53
1.89
-
90 units. The property
90
(4)
(5)
(6)
San Rafael
owner has proposed
Corporate
replacing one approved
Center
office building with a
residential project. This
application is being
prepared, with work
underway on a traffic
analysis and building design.
Rezoning required.
809 B and
011-256-12
—0.2
73
32 units. The property
73
(4)
(5)
(6)
Second Streets
owner has proposed a
Commercial
mixed-use redevelopment
building
project that will replace a
small commercial building,
parking lot and two houses.
Preliminary design review is
scheduled for early
December 2004.
1203 Lincoln
011-184-09
—0.2
43
27 units. The property
43
Listed on
(5)
(6)
Motor court
owner has proposed to
historic
redevelop an older 25 -unit
survey
motor court with 37 units.
(4)
Preliminary design review is
scheduled for early
December.
Potential Sites — Examples of Typical Downtown
Sites Available for Housing Development
637 Mission
014-08-101
—0.2
43
9 nnnnits
7
(4)
(5)
(6)
Avenue
Residential
use
905 D Street
011-25-107
—0.2
43
9 emits
42
(4)
(5)
(6)
Retail use
820 B Street
011-262-15
—0.2
72
IS units
77
Listed on
(5)
Redevelopment
431
St. Vincent's
Dining Hall
1200 Fifth
Avenue
Bank
724 Fourth St.
D&S Auto
011-211-05 0.4
011-227-06 —0.2
1524-30 011-202-12,- 0.4
Fourth Street 13
Use car lots
Historic project
Survey (6)
(4)
43 17 units 25 (4) (5) (6)
72 14 uliits 14 (4) (5) (6)
Possible
hazardous
materials
43 17 units 14 (4) (5) (6)
Possible
hazardous
materials
807 Third 011-274-03 0.4 72 29 units 72 (4) (5) (6)
Street
Goodwill
store
902 Lincoln & O11-275-09 —0.2 72 14 units 72 (4) (5) (6)
Third
Retail store
898 Lincoln 011-278-01 0.5 72 36 units 54 (4) (5) (6)
Video Droid
Shaver at 011-245-38 0.9 43 39 units 29 (4) (5) (6)
Latham Streets
Pac Bell
switching
station
West America 011-245-26 1.2 43 52 units 48 (4) (5) (6)
Bank
1523 Fourth St.
1030 Third 011-263-21 0.7 72 50 units 42 (4) (5) (6)
Bank
1) Program H -18b (Efficient Use of Multifamily Housing Sites) states that residential -only projects should be approved at the mid- to high range
of the zoning densities. In addition, San Rafael has a track record of approving residential projects at the high end of the density range.
2) Multifamily development at higher densities (25+ units/acre) are affordable to lower and moderate income income households, as shown in
City surveys of rental rates. In addition, Housing and Community Development staff indicated that housing at 25+ units per acre may be
considered affordable to lower and moderate income households. (source: Rob Maus, Housing and Community Development.)
3) Housing Element law requires the City to identify adequate sites which will be made available through appropriate zoning, development
standards, and services to meet the City's quantified objection in its Housing Element. In essence, the City creates the framework that will
promote and allow for the development of housing. As noted above, the build -out potential for Downtown is 1,318 units. However, it is the
private sector, not the City, which is responsible for housing construction. The sites above should be viewed as example sites representative of
the approximately 550 similar parcels available in Downtown for housing development.
4) The sites listed above are in Downtown with the zoning and infrastructure in place for housing development. In addition, the City has staff
dedicated specifically to facilitate the construction of housing in San Rafael.
5) Processing time is typically 2 to 12 months, depending on the level of CEQA review required. The private development community
determines when specific sites will be developed, However, development in Downtown has averaged approximately 82 units per year over
the past four years.
6) Each of the above -proposed projects would be subject to the City's proposed increased inclusionary zoning requirements, and could qualify
for density bonuses (above and beyond state requirements) available thereunder. Other City actions include:
■ PSP incentives for affordable housing (LU -3 Project Selection Process)
■ Tax credit assistance (H -9e Funding Resources)
■ Redevelopment Agency assistance (H -9a Housing Set -Aside Fund, H -18h Staff Consultation)
■ Exemption from traffic mitigation , building, and planning fees for affordable housing (H -9g Waiver or Reduction of Fees).
■ Height bonuses (LU -14 Height Bonuses).
■ Reduced parking standards (H -18g Revisions to Parking standards). In addition, Zoning Chapter 18, Parking Standards,
provide for reduced parking requirements for residential development in Downtown.
387
Additional mixed-use sites include:
&&—, 1WS3111 e e..tt... ..ea is XNZrrriedate mixed use eet.. at o-
range
on-vantevon, alwev., densities between 15 32 uniWaem (see table 6U 3). Sueh miwpd ure- dowelopment pmjeets are
supported by ne..e.el Plea 9079- Del:e:e.. N14 91 E ' `1, "', 19, 1.1 91 u 99 e a u 91. kc z : I►bar. arca z2rt2d-by
t.e..s:« Downtown has the le...=1 7irhi .; YW%-3me'Pry !L S= Rafael.
.. :ZI PIZ:: pakey LU 1-4
allows fBF a ene stei=y height bemus iR TOAMAMWAAM f�BF qualifying prejeets that iny-.110P An A
rdable housing
eompefient. Fe. example, 'he reeently built 113 unit Rafael Tay.4; Gente; reepived A 11 feet height bonus fOF an
Based a est development eat:..:«.. ..e,7 : ..t:..e.. C hCAi:.g, rimer:elepment opportunities, and pmpeFtY
availability, the City estimates that appmximately 10 pefeent of the housing development potential in deAmteAm
eeuld eee..F dUF:.,e thl pLwmi b pe fed of d e ue..a:..e Element (100 ....:ts peF yem tl.Fe..e4. 2007 at de.,a:t:a.. e..e.
.. t7n`.A k�T• Yr3pesed a .a1 high density housing developments
including a el:.let:..e Zee sites a entt.. 6e.•'iMg �7:bZ1 ,
redeveloping Ar. h\K waFk..�r,c�-sho^p-i to 96. trr-_N\Rmately 50 ..,:« .,..,:e..« ..hanging .. :..«:«..., e..« ., ..,1
f*e.« effiee de..etepment tee ....,tel,. 50 unit pFe:ee« 'and ak3uvr..a kArh pcd .b
IN « l, IIaee f the above ed p eta would be .bjeet to the r':t., edifieFease+ l,glhk�marj e�
I or
41
ents, and v7AW qW, fbF density bonuses (above and beyend state fvquiFemeats) availghle thprP.11nder
■ Public Parking Lots Downtown. There is the potential for over 300 units to be
developed over the nine downtown public parking lots. Housing policy H-18 and
Program H -18e support this type of "air rights" development. One-third of the potential
units could be built during the timeframe of the Housing Element (to 2007), with all
affordable to moderate -income households or below.
Loch Lomond Marina. The site is currently designated as Marine Related (no
residential permitted) and Neighborhood Commercial (residential use allowed at 6.5 to
15 units/acre). It currently has a marina and yacht club, a boat launch and day use
parking, and neighborhood retail and service uses, including a neighborhood market.
BCDC iurisdiction is limited to the first 100 feet from the Bav: neither housin:; nor
commercial development is within this area. The proposed project has been designed to
be consistent with the Citv's wetlands policies, and the developer has used the findinp-s
from preliminary Geotechnical studies to prepare preliminary site design plans.
Approximately nine gross acres of this underutilized site could be used for housing. At a
density of 11 units/acre and with the available density bonuses, 99 units will be modeled
and could be built, with 20 percent of those units affordable at below market rate per the
City's inclusionary housing requirements (see Policy H-19). General Plan 2020 changes
include 1) a smaller area of the site designated as Marine Related and a concurrent larger
area designated Neighborhood Commercial, and 2) an increase of six feet in building
height to 36 feet for a mixed use building in the Neighborhood Commercial District.
The Loch Lomond Marina is adjacent to several single-family neighborhoods that have
concerns that the medium density would be in conflict with existing development
patterns. The site is zoned PD (Planned District) -WO (Wetlands Overlay), which allows
for the greatest site design flexibility and for protection of the wetlands on the perimeter
of the lot. An application for a two-phase 88--unit-project with single-family homes,
town homes, and apartments, as well as a new retail/office building was submitted
winter 2004, and environmental review is underway.
■ Neighborhood Commercial. Sat: Rafael General Plan 2020 designates 38 net acres of
land for Neighborhood Commercial use, with potential for over 250 additional housing
388
units. The City estimates that about 30 units could be built during the timeframe of the
Housing Element. All such units are expected to be rental housing at moderate -income
household affordability levels or below. An example of an underutilized Neighborhood
Commercial site is the Dandy Market in North San Rafael. The site is zoned
Neighborhood Commercial (1,800 sq. ft. of lot area/unit). An older neighborhood store,
Dandy Market was originally built to serve a small single-family neighborhood. Recent
development in the area includes 133 homes, two small apartment buildings and an
assisted living project, creating an increased demand for retail and an incentive for
redevelopment of the site. General Plan 2020 changes to the NC District, including an
increase in the height limit to 36 feet and the deletion of the `pro rata rule' which limited
the amount of residential that could be built in a mixed use building will be part of the
implementing zoning changes to be adopted concurrently with the General Plan.
Currentiv Nonresidential Sites Where )housing Will Be Allowed (Sites Pendine Land
Use/ZoninLy Change as hart of San Rafael General Plan 2020)
Dominican University. The 55 -acre Dominican University campus is currently zoned
Planned District (PD). Pursuant to the PD designation, the proposed residential use is an
accessory use to the university program, and the proposed housing would be allowed
pursuant to a rezoning of the site and the adoption of a revised master plan. The
University has indicated that an interest in building approximately forty (40) units of
clustered affordable staff housing on an undeveloped area of its campus. These units
will be available to lower and moderate -income staff households. The Dominican
campus is part of a currently existing residential neighborhood, so the proposed housing
units would have ready access to all essential public facilities and services.
• ,
and has the petential for- appr-eximate!5,200 housing units, with the eiipeetatien that all
of the pr-opesed units woul availo',6)-e to moderate or- belew ; e level households.
San Rafael Qen3ml Plan 2020 Pokey N14 61 s efts t..ansit o iented ("srnaFt g ..hl,„)
lio1V�"Cb
t3ar- the planned eofnFauter- tfansit mil stop along the railroad tfaeks tMde
highway 101. A potential eenstfaint on the development of this site is the r-equir-emen
that Countyveters appy -eve all new develepment on Civie Center- grounds. It is
. kne,A ffl m4 e., sueh sue ., development proposal might be . lare,l o the r,,.,,,".;ae ball„�
for—,,eter• appr-m)a, al . ;t di ffi ilt to pfejeet whether- any of the otential Q
Center- hr/1®iN rani:... ..l,l be available ,1.,, ing the time ffame .,ddfesse,l in this 1..,,,sing
• Marin Square. The 6.3 -acre Marin Square Shopping Center is currently zoned General
Commercial. San Rafael General Plan 2020 will allow high density residential (32
units/acre) in the General Commercial district with an Administrative Use Permit. The
site was recently sold to a residential developer, who has had several meetings with the
City to discuss a proposed 200 -unit residential DToiect to replace the outdated shopping
center. The owners have indicated that they will submit an application in early 2005.
The Marin Square site is Dart of an already -developed area, so the proposed housing
units would have access to all essential Dublic facilities and services. All units are
expected to be rental housing available to households with moderate -or -below income
levels. and new development would be subiect to San Rafael's proposed increased
inclusionary zoning requirements and could qualify for density bonuses (above and
beyond the state requirements) available thereunder.
Industrial/Light Industrial Area aAround Davidson Middle School. San Rafael
General Plan 2020 creates the Lindaro Mixed Use district, encompassing approximately
13 acres of land and 38 parcels. The lots will be rezoned to LMU (Lindaro Mixed Use,
at 2,000 sq. ft. lot area/unit) as part of the adoption of General Plan 2020, and live/work
housing will be allowed in this district. Several of the sites being rezoned are currently
underutilized, and all sites are in close proximity to Downtown and have ready access to
essential public facilities and services. San Rafael projects that approximately 15
housing units will be created in this area during the timeframe of this Housing Element;
all are expected to be rental housing at moderate -income household affordability levels
or below.
General Commercial District in Northgate Town Center. San Rafael General Plan
2020 designates 206 acres of land for General Commercial use. The Northgate Town
Center is included within this designation. with 17 lots (including three shopping
centers), this area has the potential to Supp_ ort development of a significant number of
housing units. Concurrent with adoption of General Plan 2020, the GC (General
Commercial) zoning district will be amended to allow for high densitv housing at 1,000
sa. ft. of lot area/unit. Residential development in commercial districts require an
Administrative use Permit. In addition. General Plan 2020 allows for a two-story height
bonus for affordable housing in the Northgate Town Center. In discussions with the
Citv about upgrades at the 39 -acre Northeate Mall, the owners have expressed an
interest in building housing on a portion of the parking lots on the site. Residential
development on a portion of the mall's parking lots is not dependent on closure of the
mall. In addition, several non-profit housing organizations have expressed an interest in
building affordable housing in the parking lot area. As such, San Rafael Droiects that
approximately 200 housing_ units could be built in the Northgate Town Center during the
timeframe of this Housing Element. All units are expected to be rental housing available
to households with moderate -or -below income levels, and new development would be,
sub iect to San Rafael's proposed increased inclusionaiv zoning requirements and could
qualifv for densitv bonuses (above and bevond the state requirements) available
thereunder.
.T.!!rS!!77!!'!f T.t/�TT}RTR!!R[7:�T: rT[sRT.f 7rM.Tef7sr�iJreefu�r�i ��:r-�er�r�rr-rmn �
T.I .rth r ToAm /"` ♦ T .d' .:th th., I"`:t. ..1.....t . .,.i., "t th
ewneFs have a .."a " ifiteFest in h..:l:% ,g Yi►viio 3n a pei4ien-ei the r-rli.::b I9ts eR the site. !ft
addifieii, non pfePt- have _ -- ____'_ _.. _..t"_ _st :„ h._:1.1:__g "FP_Fdable housing in the VwIll g 13t area. As
seal;, ✓�. iLa ��"t a'(,rmiw.�:"'.�a�c:-b ..-r.�s-ee�-ke-buil :r. tr. rlar'.'�^"t" T"..m �"..t"..
dUFing the __. _. F _ f this Housing 1:1"___ _t All ;t"aFe , eted try :riici-c %/%/o to
ffepesed inereased ifickA,.N*ir,&7j mits and could qualify foF density bonuses (abew
h".,,....+ the state _ enta) rtlrfl.AT3 to rn2icvF.ac" .
Office District in Northgate Town Center. San Rafael General Plan 2020 designates 196
net acres of land for Office use. Office uses within the Northgate Town Center are included
within the Office land use designation. Concurrent with adoption of General Plan 2020, the
O (Office) zoning district will be amended to allow high-density housing at 1,000 sq. ft. of lot
area/unit. In addition, General Plan 2020 allows for a two-story height bonus for affordable
housing in the Northgate Town Center. One property owner has informally proposed
converting an existing office building to residential use, and several other office sites have
[c1.6B1
recently changed ownership, which could lead to increased interest in possible use changes
under the Office land use designation. As office buildings become outdated, the potential for
conversion or redevelopment increases in this area. As such, San Rafael projects that 70
housing units could be built under the Office designation in the Northgate Town Center
during the timeframe of this Housing Element. All such units are expected to be rental
housing available to moderate -to -below income level households, and new development
would be subject to San Rafael's proposed increased inclusionary zoning requirements and
could qualify for density bonuses (above and beyond the state requirements) available
thereunder.
• Lincoln Avenue Park & Ride Lot. This 0.9 acre site near the top of Lincoln Avenue and the
on- and off -ramps ramps to highway 101 is designated Public/Quasi-Public. Concurrent with
adoption of General Plan 2020, the PQP (Public/Quasi-Public) zoning district will be
amended to allow high-density housing at 1,000 sq. ft. of lot area/unit. The development
would be subject to San Rafael's proposed increased inclusionary housing requirements, and
would potentially qualify for density bonuses (above and beyond the state requirements)
available thereunder.
•___Medway/Vivian Area. The Medway/Vivian area in the Canal neighborhood is the
commercial center of a high-density neighborhood. The current light industrial and low
intensity retail businesses underutilize the land in an area in need of affordable housing and
resident -serving retail and services. The General Plan 2020 land use map expands the
Neighborhood Commercial district to replace part of the Light Industrial/Office area on nine
lots along Medway and Vivian, thereby encouraging redevelopment with uses that would
better serve the residents. Concurrent with adoption of General Plan 2020, the Light
IndustrialiOffice sites will be rezoned to NC (1,800 sq. ft. of lot area/unit). The
Redevelopment Agency reports that at least two non -profits have investigated the
redevelopment of sites in this area for mixed use with housing. Based upon the redesignation
of this area and the expressed interest in developing affordable housing units in this location,
San Rafael projects that approximately fifteen (15) housing units will be developed during the
timeframe of the Housing Element. All are expected to be rental housing available to very
low, low, and moderate -income households.
Other Sites (Bevond 2007)
Marine Sites Along the Canalfront. San Rafael General Plan 2020 designates 93 net acres
of land for Marine -Related use. Concurrent with adoption of General Plan 2020, the M
(Marine) zoning district will be amended to allow for medium -density housing at 2,000 sq. ft.
of lot area/unit. Over the past few years, several property owners have explored building
housing on their Canalfront property. One such example is the 0.8 -acre Third Street Boat
House site, which has recently changed ownership. This site is just east of east of Montecito
Plaza shopping center, and is ideal for residential use. San
Housing rrle ^' All such units are expected to be rental housing available to moderate -to -
below income level households, and new development would be subject to San Rafael's
proposed increased inclusionary zoning requirements and could qualify for density bonuses
(above and beyond the state requirements) available thereunder.
■ Marin Countv Civic Center. This site consists of 55 acres, cart of which is underutilized,
and has the potential for aimroximately 200 housine units, with the expectation that all of the
391
proposed units would be available to moderate or below income level households. San
Rafael General Plan 2020 Policv NH -61 sun_ ports transit -oriented ("smart growth") housing
near the planned commuter transit rail Ston along the railroad tracks under highwav 101. A
potential constraint on the development of this site is the requirement that Countv voters
approve all new development on Civic Center grounds. It is unknown when such a
development Dr000sal might be Dlaced on the Countvwide ballot for voter approval, making
it difficult to Droiect whether anv of the potential Civic Center housing units would be
available during the time frame addressed in this housing element.
School District Sites. Throughout San Rafael, there are several potentially available sites
owned by the local school districts. In collaboration with the school districts, the City has
explored the possibility of developing affordable housing units on some or all of these
locations. To facilitate this development, San Rafael General Plan 2020 has designated all
school sites to allow for residential land use and, concurrent with adoption of General Plan
2020, all school district sites will be zoned in a manner consistent with the surrounding
neighborhood uses. Such potentially available school district sites include:
Glenwood School (Vacant Lot). This 12 -acre vacant lot located adjacent to
Glenwood Elementary School will be rezoned to accommodate low-density
residential use consistent with the surrounding neighborhood use, and could support
from 24 to 78 housing units. Any new development would be subject to San Rafael's
proposed increased inclusionary zoning requirements and could qualify for density
bonuses (above and beyond the state requirements) available thereunder.
Santa Margarita Elementary School Site. A 5.5 -acre portion of the site located on
Del Ganado Road is zoned for low density housing, and could support 11 to 36 units.
However, the Dixie School District currently leases this site to a private entity,
making unlikely any development of this site during the timeframe of this Housing
Element.
Marin County Office of Education Site. A 6.4 -acre portion of this site, located on
Las Gallinas Avenue is zoned for low density residential, and could support from 13
to 42 new housing units. Any new development would be subject to San Rafael's
proposed increased inclusionary zoning requirements and could qualify for density
bonuses (above and beyond the state requirements) available thereunder.
Housing Units Built or- Appr-oved in San Rafael (1999 2007)
A 9 E D R F
Very L Moder-ate " A€€or4ahle Awe Total
LOW Iflee ineeme Housing" N4edMte
I*eo fne Unit Total income
me
R-43;4, 'Poi/ Elvia' I':onsilig 140ed 445 a-47 36? 4-,2-t4 sq6 21899
n nn�n
#7►.vi: ,, frits Built eF ".....,...,.a (1999 .-7 34 3$6 447 464- 998
3943)
14ausing Units Currently Under o.,..;e... 9 4- -5-3,
Remaining Units Needed 44-8 4n 45 765 364 44,N
a'Y,
- "- =D*F
The land —, -0-1—H . 0 development, oir-oulation and housing polioies of the 9w RCf elacl General
Plan r ,
shopping, sei-Aoes and the ffeeway whefe people oan have easy aooess to neafby amenities.
T,,.,, -easel aot;,.;t7f 'C.. Op .^,. ..te 1..o tions ; also s oi4e.7 in the Sw Rafael general
7020 t.... e.,te e vibfaney and .4t„1:ty in these anao. Thir/appr,...,.L will e e that i...,,,si.... :
neighbor—hoods3 Com. F @ 1 Phwn 202eentain"
fni�Eed use developments and fedevelopment oppeftunities elose to shopping and transit.
Housing Need (2003-2007-)
A B E D E F 6
Estimated
/phi
Very Wig"
Nee Inco Moder-ate Potential
fne fne Die (44
SITES AVAILABLE UNDER GWIRE T T .A—I% Y USE/ ZONgNG
44-8
172-
475
7"
— "4u4r
�c
A
A
A
A
z6
26
-5A
4$2
393
146
4-M
663
Above
Modern Density
e Mange
ineefffe Total (3)
364 11-9
159
A
U.11
4-59 varies
4$W varies
868
— D4=E
Multifamily Residential Sites
40
A
40 TBD
e.,,aining v..,.a t cites at medium Densit),
Remaining
4-9
�C 6o-5- 5 "
T-lac
Sty f&iri .S Vacant Sites t High2-5 Densit..
A
z2-5 15 32 tbLao
Subtotal a•em Multifamily Residential cite.. 4-222
4-9
141.
Cumulative Total (i-emaining units needed) 541-
446
n7
Mixed use Sites
3AA
A
300 25llae
Pukli-c Psrsse_ib Lots Downtown (Air- Rights Development) -5A
A
-5A 25 Ul ae
Subtotala.e.,, Mixe,a use cite.. 3-5A
A
�5A
Cumulative Total (remaining units needed) m
— "—zr B4=G
1-96
377
=-D*E
393
SITES PENDING LAND LISE{ZON}NG-CHANGE-A5-PAR —OF -T -HE SAN-RAFAEL-GENERAL-PI AN 2428
Very
a
(Range in
Low Lew A4edexate
a Reusing"
Mode
mer o
hneeo lne0 lneeme
Unit
rate
Per -
4'-otal Uni�iT
fm nye
Potential
ince
Gress Aere)
(4-)
e
Mixed use Sites
Loch T e .,.1 AiT.,.ine
-0
80
3
4-00 -1-8--1Neighbor-hood
Commei-eial
3y��
6v 5 15 u/as
Subtotal ftem Mixed use Sites
tl
pp��
80
1�30/
4-300
Cumulative Total (r-emaining units
needed)
141
-- A
}52
m
lle...ed
!"'......entiy Nonresidential Sites Wher-e Housing Will BeAllowed
A AI..F:., /''..Unty 01,46 Center- (see Policy Al (.1)
2W
2W TBD
4-5
4-7 6v.5-i.r-Was
SetlaI
Light indust ial/Offiee o
4-7
4-5 6.5 15 tb/ae
Me.l.,.e../1li..ian
General r,,., mer-eiel in IsIm heete r,,.,,.,,ereiel Area
20
298 1 e1�ae
O ffiee in Ale.:theete n,,mmer-ei 1 Are.,
70
W 1 e1 [ frac,
Subtotal fiem huf fe.,th. Nonresidential cites VA e. -e UousinR Will Be
-589
- --
M -S
Alewed
Cumulative Total Above the Regional Neel (sites available through
-fig
IK
-26-!1-
WO-7)
— Adv
er egrm�l::;11240211IWA i ui1y i -,-,-z;7 24
a
Cl JAMAR ol~ R TENTIAHOU c1A G cir-Fc IA[ &AN oAGAI•~1
(BEYOND 2007-)
-E-NUIN..LgNr_ro_Trona
rnucll]l:~17AT1ONS
``
Very
Estimated
IIAbove
Density Range
(Range in
Low.,,�,,�, 114eder-ate
e-Hou,�.s��ing"
114ederat
#umber -e€
TLow
Ifleo Iffee income
U*R
a
Total Units Per -
me nye
Potential
incom
Gross Aerej
(47)
A DD
NonFesiae„tial Sites
r......entl y
Light T. dust//l Fl:..e, n.,h/lluasi Duk rremc'`Wtlt SR R.Nl S:altioi
-138
}..-g 15 32 ../.ac
Marine Sites Along /' Calf e.,t
a-5
24 6.5 15 Wae
96
1 C Z�o
96 1C
Marin C
Marin Square
2�?
2-P1 G 2-s-r.�lac
Seheel Dist..i,.t Sites
40
49 TBD
3
-- Arc
�3
=$*b
(1) SPEGICIGPRE)G AMs; RE4TAI Uoi4SP�JP JTL`CWITH `Dal,971 eVER 5 1211TS!AGRE.
394
2`rY kLtll TION ^r. SPED r.IG SITES AND
AREAS FORME)USING DURI \TC Ttrx TMIE,FRAME
THE HOUSING E6EAIENT (1999 2007)
nzF'-60{r': is ,k DisGussr^"lvr: GF EAG18 i GF -1lFRiA&-G�, kS 1JJITIPIED I?I TI IE TABi✓E AB9N'E,
THAT
T 7A41 r PPnI /TT1E nnnnnT✓NITIEc rg TLTC . 7T\/ Tn A I=T ITO Tl LEGIE)N A T uT
nT CING I TEM/l
TI IS Ilc vl r nnAACA1T nnmcAlTr A r can{V11 IN Ti i� T"P1 c A nVE 1S SED ON THE PP,4)PE�1JS
A-VAI:AD111TY CnR DE\/EI GPMEAIT' 1 VID UOE DMGNATIGNS, 9WNUISMIN TOl`E AwTcrrND ^ar�rm'1ER
PT R'SiG A T 9 I RELATIVE
1E ATI /C T=AC=K nC ENVIRONMENTAL
N IRONTa ENT A T !'nATC�Tn A TATTC` A T T
rX-T`K'55 l"lA^TnRS An�Cr111APeRTAAITIN ASSURING
SITE 1C7 A\/�`TI /" rf�lRITI THE
vD E!`_fnAT A T LinT iC�TI�Tv 1i✓✓JJ l La SITE
JJUtI1✓, J�aJ�u. JFTE/J PPU, IDf It lra
I eNGEP TERM G9N8rrlEn A T-I()N' {TRT T MIST PR9B A nT V RE AVAILABLE
B E AFTER 2007
—8e A T:FEREr/l-, SiNo{ n FI,ARTT \/ T !1m. Ti IJl: 19 TIIC P^TENTT A T �CTn/�P 159
\/ A n A AIT C+INGI C
FAMILY LOTS IN SAN �? AET . MAN*
H A\/E SS l7TIDT11*SIGAL G()N k1lITS, SUCH
AS STu.C..,P tllli[�If\CC` AAifI AIA RRnII/RnAfl{1/A\/GAT/`!l[.Il y' THAT MUST
ICT nC Annn P_SSED AS
PAPT 9F ni_iE SITE'S TlC\/Cf nPAAEAIT APnPn\/AI �J lJ
NEw nR LEGALIZED SECO ND 1
T. NIT . TI IE 91T\rrV 11AS- OIOi'TUD SIGNIFIG A NT GI1 A A GES Tn
FFS SEEOND UNIT 9
n91N A NGE Tn•PC GOT 1O;OT21T Y.'IT11 P CGENT STATE TC I A {ii GII A NGE
T II!ESE G!1ANG�viT/' 11=1= ricO`r'-iDE A NoivivER GF P4GEA'NTIV ✓°S-1'r�vTT�SEG-01
UlIIT9 T9 BE
1 1
811 T nP 1 C!_A 1 ZED (CLEC Pnl r('l EG II 12 AND 14 271111 MATELi "✓'1 UNITS PE4
YEAR 18 PCA;SeNARICTn ASSUNIcf rl^rvcAl:r A:r TE_ncPAPE GURPENTr V
A PTTm-r e INN kTJJI 9,900 SI:riai:;rt F "AN4!LY IIOiiES -IIA 171--T TIiD 1/a11111.A7 iAI�.r-h()T- SIZE;
GRITERIA eF5,000 SQUARE CECT AND TI IAT REGENT
GRE)INANGS !`IIAAI/� 50 [1E�'j GC TLIE
�1 JJ `.J V GT.-TTTG
TIME ANDC-OETOF ADE) 1G A SEEOND I3?4iT-. BASED GNA R—FIT ✓VMA EV �!'TCTI
DRV T-1 1E CITY OF S,k4 RAF A r.r HAILF OF TIID :J GAIT SEcMID UNITS Itl SAN D A 1. A EI A nc
R ENTER A T VER*
60{1/AND 69W IAI! eNE A CCnRTI A IIir 1T`I P) /CI C. R ksEE) RAI Ti_TIC
rA7EnRAAATION TLIE GFF*GE)?4'ER\/ATTI/ETV EBTIAAATEs TriAT 25- or TI=C A1T'`lIe
, J / .] fVIC
r cn A T TZc^ sE.n0XID U1 [ITS `%,'TT T BE A ccnRT\ A B E TG VER* T eIAH GeME 1leusE1nT DS
)
250, A C.EnR9 A BI c Tn T nU! lNGGAAC rinl 9EHE)l 1101 VID T11E PT`)A A IAl1A 03;
Oho. lN nn:9ERTn ENC -e Tn A /'_E ATE\i/ nn
%Efn�J:."UJ J'G1'ID'J1IIT9, TIiu I7nI1CiATn L'T EAACAITnE(`nAAAi�`liTlil C'TAEC AC`C`iC`TAAinC
E_nP PPnnEPTY n{IIAIEPB {3'L�T1I D5�1^ `� I�.�J`.I, I JJ 1111 ✓
AP11, ril wr!/.1 �Jrre (:-''111 kvxTl' I, A v/ 11-
DOMINICAN
1
DOMINICAN U IYJUTI,� JJAII11icmi T,.. iaAm,"J.Tv is P,.f.1 [:`-TlNG TO Ii UIUJ C'./ZTFPE-D
A CCnRI ARCSTAFF 19SING RAITC!AAUC. TT IS ESTIMATED TI IAT /n JmITS !! 1 .o
BEPPcGVl9F9:FG-14)"'ER 6449 ?499FRATE Tf!nE STAFF.
THE SPE^IFIGSeFT
REMAINING !TAnAATTQITce ATAfDDI.-%%,a I\ THE AnPEAAGEE()F
IJ,�iiD DPlJIaAh�TPTJ 1T1 TIi� Q "*' D A E A Er ('_rwrER A r Dr AAT TnTn Enn AdET�7I TA i IILI°IriT1'-
RY,/DaITIA6 is 561 A nRES AND EnP I71g.1 DaUTY IiS%SIDEMTi A' 18 279 Ann Es
HOWEVER, T lgmFT A E V G AATT LAND R A AA TATEs AS
FP49IG kT✓J. IT IS MTINI A TEnA� n SED RAT
RECEJ, IT DU,'S60PN4FFNTT G:F!N'!T-*, TIT A T APP CeXIM,kTFLY 75% Of TT'1F Aar/7S7Tj= A B , -.
SITES >>T 1AJJIUM I)PIJTI„'-I' r ne�EL9PEn T7zv-iiIT `r RENTAL HeUSSING, AA AND TI r A
SITES
AT 1110II DENSITY Wi T BE DEVET A nnEr) Enn RENTAL HO SING TT ISPP^'EviziiE^v
THAT7`alu I191Ti TT r�-S PING � RC A ECnRDAnT E Tn "ART\ERATE NGeME 11GUSC.THOL
395
GR BELOW. SOME Or TMIGE PI.TSEr MA*
A r ce LI A 1/n ennonT,-\nITIE.E n^o lrnnv 1 ellr AAM
i el1Z'� r INGE)IVIS ROULaIICi EITHER OF THE CTTVTS
1
A1G 1 8le?4 .A i) V uel i81NG REQUIREMENTS
EMENTS (SEE P9
rGV u 1 0) 9 DEVEi eriMENT eC
I e{1rnr1 !NG9"Ac 11!11 ICING BY 1 SINN JJCSIDISE n" eTHE MEANS (SEE 11()1 IGIES H 9, H
v
44-,44-4,7, L 14, L 212, kriD L '3}
DOWNTOWN J'- .l IO. T'1I�(;nz-,- ;;TIOi.iIT DJ'nl nn"ACArm nnmcATmr �L I1'I TI1S
iill�D ttr� 18e. IT I� J TIAI�.TSD :II." m A neT TT 1 not en TLSn
i,HC)U8R G DEVE14)NI ATT r1(1TENTT A L1?L Tl1WNT-11TI/AT GEA4r6D-GGLUn DMING THE
Ill A AIA ING PERIGn OF Ti IE I-IGUSING L'1 CAACAIT (1 nn 1J, [ITS PSR1/SA n TI lf)eUGI 17007 AT
D21SM313 OVE-It 5 S A A A VR�
TIIIZ
URNITC!!4:,1".�E). OT iMPAI`AESTIMATE,TIVE BUT
DT im TCS
l --ll
BASED eAi AG:F!1/14
'r, ArennASED fNGEnTrVES FGR
G -ReU7A4a
,
REDEVE14)P ENT rlPP T'-�-IIT1EC, AND PRencnTA/ A T/ A 11 A DII.JNTTY. Ds/T.rSE BETWEEN
32 17 1 1Arrmo /Anne Ann AL; ' / M TI I.r.� P'AI31�'�F�I'�MT TET A IT (lens ( A GREE)
SEG9?il)/TI11RD STPE�'R)IM �M X37 Atwocol, AAlnHET- rcnTGN OFFIGc AncAo /6
A nncc\ 11T1 rcn cr Innnl rt.Trrwrn A nc 1� ��� TIIS v^\'rAfTeU/Ai A I r nu/�rJ`r�l�i'T b� ^IiT`)/%?=r%I
1 C 32 14NITc/A^nn /ccn TAT lrL l.E 3\ A "Anwr� nTr_rn.nc cn"An ec Trrn nnr 1r�roo
1711 ,
SUPPeRTING IRISD UDS i11JJ�`S 1`TI? 21, EV 13,14 14,u 21, u 22 A AIn u 23
. D--PuBuc Pmmm�iG Leqps DeWNTO n Ti E -E lc TILE nnmcwiTr A T nnn nArnn 300 rUmTS T9
BE DEVELE)PED EVER ^93AItINTE) 'il[�'v✓n n A RKR4G r nmc. Ho lsrwln Dnr iey 14 18 a, l49
n"r-ROGRA I I -I IME S'-TPST TIIIO TVPr ^z�I- +R-P4GIITS" DJ' ELePMENT. ONE THIRD 9F
THE PeTENTIAL'.. NITS C .YD DE-DUILT D7-P,44C T:1S Ti"n,nm"ME 0" TI IS HeUS�NG
nc�lW.
'1\t.. TIIL SITS IS P-P.0rC9 D V7lMRTllk E121 P2,1- ".r'. rsV►'EP-A4�
Dr AAT 2020 Te A T TOW 100 T n.TITc 11 riTLI 20.0 en TLTOM TU \ F eRD A DT A T BE eW
Nil.nI(ET n ,tT-s PER THE JTV'9 RIGI I SIGN A nv HC=) Tcn.rn REQUIREMENTS (SEE Dnr rnv LT
W.L. THE UST A nnc A ec ee 691D DMIGN,\TSD IN THE SA -N
IS T-I!F PGT-FA4T-I,6,1= Ai�6,1=Fee evER 250-imID1 -leN A1AL CTS GIS1P4C JiIITC. IT IC 5c7.'I:' kTED TI:.4rT
ABG6T49
'UMTS GODUJ DE DUiLT DUMIG Tnc TIA"cnn A AAE OP TI IE T E) SING E CAACAIT.
ALL 1P_Z DIPSST'n^-rcv T^vvniE R ITAL II^r SIATn A T 114
99En ATC TAI!`11ME He ISEIIllf Tl
A CFGPcl) 1 JTZ/ f`rnr o nn BELOW-.
AR A RIN MOUNT* !'' VIC CENTER. Der !ev hT E SAN D A A cT G Ar n A T Dr AAr
1 R i THE T' ��Erl�aza�rl
2020 c! rnnen:rc Tn A ATcrT A
"^nIPITE /"SM A nT G eWTLr�r\ ueI SR4G_T.rc_A_n TI IE P:.A?k NEB
Ge� MUTER T -pct mrT AJiT 11 sTILep IAI THE �y!G itC T -FR 9T-� I!E E k✓T. Elm 9FT-I"IE
F REEw A 1l. A T-9444en Inn n R 1L UI1IT9 A'pcF,-pq rJaD:I'. Ai=L ApvE E :TFGT-En T -e BE' -AT
396
TAI f)UCTRI A ■ I 'GlIT iwlllu ST-Rm A 1 A n/lut.iA DAVIDSON .
n
A ",- ri;iiATC17.' It 110Jf]Y.iV ; 1i11� u�lRI11�� �D D'l'I?iC' 1IG TIRA>;rP,�4{�!�'lJr TIII;
flousmO ar_mE?IT III THE Inl^" 6Q_f.'..IT D/.\'iD✓in
11I'11DF_X,r_ 9C. IDOL. Au "r RE+ +LE;r_ S-_ TO B'E* N- .L 1107!✓'. C AT-4/109MATS I11001AE
Iioucraiouj /.ITOR71.31L7TV LO/ZlZ OR 2Z-
�^i1T
AA7 - 'C CGY DC QD D'URRIC TI[E TI1/u..-n/.t.i✓Jr�T�I1,D Hoja tl ; ELcmiC11T M T11B
1AIBL3�TllI/.:JGrrI �. �1; "/Lr.��//.infv/I,�11. I W / nc cvncrTcr� Tri nc : IiTI,L :IO�1v
/.T NtQ MAT IticotAE iIoLu--/.I3Ja /.rrORDADIL/.Tlr L/'1'G.,C On DELOIT/.
CENE1V.s r` -RCat L ix!1�_R-T4Ial T>; . Tim,- N55., /f.:P,cAcr, Or
L-, V I T)M Al AT D T)I T11F S AN
RA
FA
A CT GENE) A T DT A Al 2020 F9 GENET) A T
CE) AA ACRG; A in
Is -201. A (`J1 m. Ti 1f � eR:FI TIS A TC C9N! AERGi A I /� TI A C TCS TNGI I 9Fit
WITHIN :1 E C21M4, llC/ ll^*A*AEnllnrA T T A11D USE DELI NATIeNAND HAST -111E
C^nT"C77C7T S7Q*'T�!FiCt.11T tIU1.4B-1?R O U?IIT.9. IT 1�1„�^IC!'TCTI Tf I A T AAI A I'l(IITI/lAI A 1 Inn
E961= )-$I�L'�'lIUT III THE NN9RTi GAT -F CLAM ERGi7TG AREA Ill P NG THE
TIIIACCT] A ARC !1C
Tn;✓ Heus R4G Ei=Fm EAIT. A T T AR:E ExPEEGT-FE) RENT -A[:; 11GUSPi! A ad A`
OFFICE IN NeRTHG A Tri ClAIARIA ER l A i 4P"t.. TiiE NET A lmon C A GE GF 1 -MID Dv'/.GNTED PI ME
SA�4R,kF, rE6 GEAIER,k6 P6A?J 22OFeROFFicE lS 19,dkGR s.`JrFICC ,t'Y'0 WIT.'IiTi TIis
N9 THG A TC CE)M AERG! A i A4C � /.PE 111OWDZD WITHIN THE
nr-IGE =1ID U E DSI^aNATIO1N
1TISPRe
A17 ^E-DUILT R IDM 711E OFF 1GE BESIGNATI G?
1
TiiC �ATII ATC. CI]/"J���l�CC A fll II]IAI ITT!C TIAACCI] SOF Tl lu II9
11C (Alli Til CAA CAIT. A1=6
LEVELS
S 9 1
3
C1 /111/ fi[C GTTifTI
OPPORTUNITIES FOR ENERGY CONSERVATION
Housing Elements are required to identify opportunities for energy conservation. Since the
deregulation of energy companies in 1998, the price of energy has skyrocketed. With such an
increase in prices, energy costs can be a substantial portion of housing costs. Effective energy
conservation measures built into or added to existing housing can help residents manage their
housing costs over time and keep lower income households operating costs affordable. There are
a number of programs offered locally, through the local energy provider (PG&E) and through the
State of California, provide cost-effective energy saving programs. Due to deregulation in
California, utility costs have skyrocketed. State budget cuts could negatively effect some of these
programs as a result.
The California Human Development Corporation in Rohnert Park runs a "weatherization"
program for low income households and additional programs may be forthcoming with recent
increases in energy costs. The City has made information regarding energy conservation
available to the public. There are several significant other areas in which the City of Novato is
encouraging energy conservation in new and existing housing:
(1) Through application of State residential building standards that establish energy
performance criteria for new residential buildings (Title 24 of the California
Administrative Code).
(2) Through the Housing Rehabilitation Loan Program that assists in the rehabilitation
of older housing units, which can include energy efficiency improvements.
K*YA
(3) Through appropriate land use policies and development standards that reduce energy
consumption, such as promoting more compact, walkable neighborhoods, with
housing close to transit, jobs, community facilities and shopping; encouraging in -fill
development; planning and zoning for multi -use and higher density development;
permitting common walls and cluster development; and promoting passive and
active solar design elements and systems in new and rehabilitated housing.
Energy conservation programs are also operated by private utilities and State and Federal
agencies. For example, State and federal appliance standards now require manufacturers to
produce and sell appliances according to specified energy -consumption performance criteria, and
the Energy Crisis Intervention Program, funded by the State Department of Economic
Opportunity, helps low income residents pay delinquent energy bills to avoid interruption of
service.
PG&E also sponsors programs such as the Project Help/Direct Weatherization program that
provides free attic insulation, weather stripping and caulking, water heater blankets and low flow
shower heads for low income households. The PG&E "walk-through audit" provides a
comprehensive assessment of energy conservation needs and costs related to home appliances,
structural design and insulation.
Through these and other conservation measures the City seeks to help minimize the percentage of
household income that must be dedicated to energy costs as well as minimize the use of
nonrenewable resources.
FAIR HOUSING
The City of San Rafael provides support to Fair Housing of Marin through the CDBG program.
Fair Housing flyers are available at City Hall, City Hall at the Mall and the City libraries.
Information on housing opportunities in the City of San Rafael and the County of Marin is
available through the Housing Assistline. The Housing Assistline is funded by the Marin
Community Foundation and local cities. The Assistline is located at Marin Housing (Housing
Authority) and is staffed by Marin Housing workers and trained volunteers. Some of the
Assistline staff are bilingual. The Assistline provides information and referrals on affordable
housing including Section 8, Public Housing, housing for persons with special needs, Below
Market Rate rental and ownership programs, the low cost rehabilitation program, housing
discrimination and landlord tenant law. The Assistline number is posted in San Rafael City Hall
in the Foyer, the City Clerk's office, the Community Development Department, the
Redevelopment Agency, the City libraries and City Hall at the Mall.
Mediation Services provides bilingual assistance in the area of landlord tenant law. The
Redevelopment Agency provides $20,000 annually to this organization. In 2001 and 2002, the
City sent bilingual letters to all tenants in buildings over four units informing them of Mediation
Services and encouraging them to. The City does not anticipate sending another letter due to the
cost and small number of calls received as a result of the letter. The Legal Self Help Center of
Marin provides assistance on all legal matters including landlord tenant and Fair Housing law.
The Center is funded by the Marin Community Foundation and the County courts.
398
EXHIBIT BB: QUANTIFIED OBJECTIVES
1999-20071—
4
0
210
Very Low
Low
Moderate
Above Moderate
42
10
Income
Income
Income
Income
TOTAL
New Construction
H -9a Housing Set -Aside Fund.
163
82
156
0
401
H-1 4d Review Zoning for Live/Work Opportunities.
0
0
15
0
15
H -14e Single Room Occupancy (SRO) Units.
0
0
30
0
30
H -18d Air Rights Development.
0
25
25
0
50
H -22a Higher Density Infill Housing Near Transit.
20
20
160
0
200
H -23a Encourage Residential Uses in Commercial Areas.
72
72
288
288
720
H -24b Employee Housing Opportunities.
0
0
40
0
40
H -25a New Second Units.
26
26
50
0
102
Rehabilitation
H -1 0c Provide Ongoing Affordability Restrictions.
H-1 Oe Canal Affordable Safe and Healthy Housing.
H -11c Rehabiliation and Energy Loan Programs.
Conservation
H -10b Condominium Conversion Ordinance.
H -14f Co -Housing, Cooperatives, and Similar Development.
H -20a BMR Resale Regulations.
H -20b BMR Rental Regulations.
H -20c "At Risk" Units.
141
65
4
0
210
20
20
2
0
42
10
0
0
0
0
0 10 0 0
TOTAL 492452 339320 7-90770 349288
i
Based uvon nroiected implementation of Housine Policv H-18 and Droerams thereunder.
Ictal::
All units
10
10
All units
All units
EXHIBIT B
MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
SAN RAFAEL GENERAL PLAN 2020
INTRODUCTION
The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) requires a public agency to adopt a reporting or
monitoring program when approving a project or changes to a project, in order to mitigate or avoid
significant effects on the environment (Public Resources Code section 21081.6). The program is
based on the findings and the required mitigation measures presented in an Environmental Impact
Report (EIR) that has been prepared on the project and certified by the lead agency. The reporting or
monitoring program must be designed to ensure compliance during project implementation.
Pursuant to the CEQA Guidelines, a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP) must
cover the following:
The MMRP must identify the entity that is responsible for each monitoring and reporting task, be
it the City of San Rafael (as lead agency), other agency (responsible or trustee agency), or a
private entity (i.e., the project sponsor).
The MMRP must be based on the project description and the required mitigation measures
presented in the environmental document prepared for the project and certified by the lead
agency.
The MMRP must be approved by the lead agency at the same time of project entitlement action
or approvals.
MMRP's are typically designed in chart and checklist format for ease of monitoring and reporting.
LOCATION AND CUSTODIAN OF DOCUMENTS
Consistent with the California Environmental Quality Act, an EIR was prepared to address the impacts
of the proposed San Rafael General Plan 2020. This document, entitled Satz Rafael General Plan
2020 EIR consists of two volumes (Draft EIR dated February 2004, and Response to Comments to the
Draft Environmental Impact Report and to the Draft General Plan 2020 dated August 2004), and is on
file with the City of San Rafael Community Development Department, along with all the other
documents which constitute the record of proceedings.
PURPOSE AND USE OF THE MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
The purpose of the monitoring and reporting program is to provide the City of San Rafael with a
simple guideline of procedures to ensure that the mitigation measures required under the Final EIR are
implemented properly.
Since each required mitigation measure must be implemented, a monitoring and reporting chart was
created, which is attached to this report. This chart provides the following information and direction
for use.
1) The required mitigation measures are listed in the first column, corresponding to the list of
measures provided in the Final EIR.
35
2) The second column lists the agency or entity responsible for implementing the mitigation
measure.
3) The third column lists the timing as to when the mitigation measure is to be implemented.
4) The fourth column provides guidance on monitoring and reporting actions to ensure that
implementation procedures are followed.
California Government Code section 65400 provides that after adoption of a plan (such as a city
General Plan) planning agencies (such as the City of San Rafael) provide an annual report on the
status of the plan and progress in its implementation, including the progress in meeting its share of
regional housing needs.
The CEQA Guidelines (section 15097) state in part where the project at issue is the adoption of a
general plan ..., the monitoring plan shall apply to policies and any other portion of the plan that is a
mitigation measure or adopted alternatives. The monitoring plan may consist of policies included in
plan -level documents. The annual report on general plan status required pursuant to the Government
Code is one example of a reporting program for adoption of a city or county general plan.
As listed in the fourth column this NIMRP relies on the city's General Plan Annual Report to report on
the status of the policies and programs adopted in response to the Final EIR mitigation measures.
9M
EXHIBIT C
CEQA FINDINGS OF FACT
and
STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING
CONSIDERATIONS
OF THE CITY COUNCIL
OF THE CITY OF SAN RAFAEL
for the
SAN RAFAEL GENERAL PLAN 2020
November 15, 2004
I.
INTRODUCTION
San Rafael's current General Plan, General Plan 2000, was adopted in 1988. In 1998,
the City determined that a comprehensive update of the General Play: 2000 was needed to
address changed conditions since adoption of the 1988 plan to maintain a plan current in
policy, program implementation, and budget direction. (DEIR for General Plan 2020
("DEIR"), p. II -2.)
The Project is General Plan 2020, a comprehensive update of General Plan 2000. The
following is a list of the topical elements that have been prepared or updated in General
Plan 2020:
• Air and Water Quality
• Circulation
• Conservation
• Culture and the Arts
• Community Design
• Economic Vitality
• Governance
• Housing
• Infrastructure
• Land Use
• Neighborhoods
• Noise
• Open Space
• Parks and Recreation
• Safety
The Air and Water Quality, Conservation, Culture and the Arts, Community Design,
Economic, Governance and Infrastructure Elements are new elements of General Plan
2020. Several of these elements are addressed in General Plan 2000 as follows:
Conservation policies are located in the Natural Environment Element; Community
Design policies are located in the Land Use, Downtown, Francisco Boulevard West, East
San Rafael, Canal, Bayfront and Marin Island, and the Montecito/Happy Valley sections;
and Infrastructure policies are located in the Land Use Element. The existing
Neighborhood Element has been revised to consolidate the General Plan 2000 policies as
well as the policies in the eight existing neighborhood plans. The new Neighborhood
Element replaces all existing neighborhood plans. (DEIR, p. II -2.)
An Environmental Impact Report ("EIR") for General Plan 2020 was prepared pursuant
to the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA") (Pub.
Resources Code, § 21000 et seq.) The EIR identified several significant environmental
effects that could result from implementation of General Plan 2020. CEQA therefore
requires the City to make certain findings before adopting General Plan 2020. (Pub.
Resources Code, § 21081.) As discussed more fully below, these Findings of Fact have
been prepared pursuant to the requirements of CEQA.
2
II.
DEFINITIONS
"ABAG" means Association of Bay Area Governments.
"ADA" means Americans with Disabilities Act.
"BAAQMD" means Bay Area Air Quality Management District.
"BART" means Bay Area Rapid Transit.
"Cal -EPA" means California Environmental Protection Agency.
"Caltrans" means California Department of Transportation.
"CAP" means Clean Air Plan.
"CDA" means Marin County Community Development Agency.
"CDFG" means California Department of Fish and Game.
"CDMG" means California Department of Mines and Geology.
"CEQA" means California Environmental Quality Act.
"CIP" means Capital Improvements Program.
"CMA" means Congestion Management Agency.
"CMP" means Congestion Management Plan.
"CMSA" means Central Marin Sanitation Agency.
"CUPA" means California Unified Program Agency.
"dB" means decibel(s).
"dBA" means A -weighted sound levels.
"DOT" means Department of Transportation.
"DTSC" means California Department of Toxic Substance Control.
"EIR" means Environmental Impact Report.
"EPA" means United States Environmental Protection Agency.
"FEMA" means Federal Emergency Management Agency.
"FIRM" means Flood Insurance Rate Map.
"GGBHTD" means Golden Gate Bridge Highway and Transportation District.
"GGT" means Golden Gate Transit.
"ISO" means Insurance Service Office.
"LAFCO" means Local Agency Formation Commission.
"Lan" means day -night noise level.
"Leq" means equivalent noise level.
"LGVSD" means Las Gallinas Valley Sanitary District.
"Ln,a," means highest noise level measured over a given period of time.
"LOS" means Level of Service.
"MCFCD" means Marin County Flood Control and Water Conservation District.
"MCSTOPPP" means Marin County Stormwater Pollution Prevention Program.
"MGD" means million gallons per day.
"MMWD" means Marin Municipal Water District.
"MTC" means Metropolitan Transportation Commission.
"MWHOA" means Marinwood Homeowners Assocation.
"NCRA" means North Coast Railroad Authority.
"NEPA" means National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. § 4321 et seq.).
"NFIP" means National Flood Insurance Program.
"NGVD" means National Geodetic Vertical Datum.
"NOP" means Notice of Preparation.
"NPDES" means National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System.
2
"NPRA" means Northwestern Pacific Railroad Authority.
"PG&E" means Pacific Gas and Electric Company.
"PM" means particulate matter.
"PM2.5" means particulate matter equal to or less than 2.5 microns in diameter.
"PM10" means particulate matter equal to or less than 10 microns in diameter.
"PPM" means parts per million.
"PSP" means Project Selection Process.
"PUC" means Public Utilities Commission.
"RWQCB" means Regional Water Quality Control Board.
"SCWA" means Sonoma County Water Agency.
"SMART" means Sonoma Marin Area Rail Transit.
"SRSD" means San Rafael Sanitation District.
"STIP" means State Transportation Improvement Program.
"TAC" means Toxic Air Contaminants.
"TCM" means Transportation Control Measures.
"TMDL" means total maximum daily load.
"UBC" means Uniform Building Code.
"USAGE" means United State Army Corps of Engineers.
"USFWS" means United States Fish and Wildlife Service.
"UWMP" means Urban Water Management Plan.
"VMT" means Vehicle Miles Traveled.
III.
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
Overview
In 2000, Marin County had a population of 247,289. With a 2000 population of 56,063,
the City of San Rafael is the largest city in Marin County, and the second largest city,
after Santa Rosa (population 147,595), in the North Bay. The California Department of
Finance estimated that the population of San Rafael in 2003 was 57,146. (DEIR, p. III -
17.)
Population growth in San Rafael has fluctuated over the decades. With the end of World
War II, the new Bret Harte and Sun Valley neighborhoods increased the City's
population 62 percent, from 8,573 in 1940 to 13,852 in 1950. Between 1970 and 1980,
San Rafael's population nearly doubled to 44,700 with the annexation of neighborhoods
in north San Rafael, including Terra Linda. From 1990 to 2000, the City's population
increased at an annual rate of 1.5 percent. Fifty-six percent of this growth can be
attributed to an increase in household size from 2.31 people per household to 2.42 per
household, and 44 percent can be attributed to construction of new housing. The
population in San Rafael's Sphere of Influence in 1990 was 60,387, increasing 13.5
percent to 68,572 in 2000; 94 percent of this increase was within San Rafael's city limits.
DEIR Exhibit III.4-1 shows the households, population, total employment, and the
number of employed residents for the existing conditions, for General Plan 2020, and for
General Plan 2000. (DEIR, p. III -17.)
General Plan 2020 assumes a projected amount of growth, and is not a build out plan.
Build out assumes construction of the maximum amount of development allowed under
the Land Use Element. By using projected growth, the City recognizes that little vacant
land remains for development, that redevelopment of an existing building is more
difficult to achieve and thus occurs at a slower pace than developing vacant land, and that
incremental growth through redevelopment is small. The growth projections should be
viewed on a citywide basis. (DEIR, pp. III -17 to III -18.)
Project Objectives
General Plan 2020 is a comprehensive update of General Plan 2000. The Project is
designed to meet a number of objectives, including:
• Address changed conditions since the adoption of General Plan 2000 in 1988;
• Include recent policy recommendations from the Economic Vision, Vision North San
Rafael, and Canal Voice;
• Meet legal requirements for a General Plan, Housing Element, compliance with
regional standards and regulations, and environmental review;
• Create a simple, easy -to -read document; and
D
• Adopt zoning changes, design guidelines and other implementing resolutions related
to key provisions of the Plan.
(DEIR, p. III -1.)
Discretionary Actions
Four additional types of changes are anticipated in conjunction with the adoption of
General Plan 2020.
Certain zoning amendments will be made to implement General Plan policies, as listed
below.
a. Amendment to section 14.04.020 (Land Use Regulations) to allow bed and
breakfast inns in certain R districts to implement LU -21 Hotels, Motels and Inns.
b. Amendment to section 14.05.010 (Specific purposes) to modify the purpose
statements for General Commercial (GC), Office (0) and Francisco Blvd. West
Commercial (FBWC) districts to allow residential use, to modify the purpose
statement for Hetherton Office (HO) district to allow more residential and retail
uses, to change the Commercial/Office (C/O) district to allow residential use on
the ground floor, and to modify the Neighborhood Commercial (NC) district to
allow up to three stories for a mixed-use building, to implement NH -35a Zoning
Ordinance and LU -24 Land Use Map and Categories.
c. Amendment to section 14.05.020 (Land Use Regulations), to allow residential -
only and residential -mixed use in the Office (0) district and residential use in the
General Commercial (GC) district and Francisco Blvd. West Commercial
(FBWC) District and to allow residential -only development in the
Commercial/Office (C/O) District to implement LU -24a Zoning Ordinance
Amendments.
d. Amendment to section 14.05.030 (Property Development Standards) (GC, NC, O,
C/O, RIO, FBWC) to designate a residential density for the General Commercial
(GC), Office (0) and Francisco Blvd. West Commercial (FBWC) districts, to
allow a 36 -foot height limit for mixed-use buildings in the Neighborhood
Commercial (NC) District, to clarify the allowed height and height bonus for
hotels, and to revise the reference for the Lincoln Avenue height bonus to note
that all height bonus regulations are in section 14.16.090 to implement LU -24a
Zoning Ordinance Amendments, LU -13 Building Heights and LU -14 Height
Bonuses.
e. Amendment to section 14.05.022 (Land Use Regulations), to allow for
residential -only development, and for more ground floor retail in the Hetherton
Office (HO) District to implement NH -35a Zoning Ordinance.
f. Amendment to 14.06.010 (Specific purposes), 14.06.020 (Land Use Regulations)
and 14.06.030 (Property Development Regulations) to add the Lindaro Mixed Use
(LMU) district and related regulations, and to delete the reference to a use permit
requirement for traffic intensification to implement LU -24a Zoning Ordinance
Amendments.
7
g. Amendment to 14.07.030E (Trip Allocations) to delete the reference to Trip
Allocations, which will no longer be necessary with the deletion of Appendix B in
General Plan 2000.
h. Amendment to 14.08.010 (Specific Purposes), 14.08.020 (Land Use Regulations)
and 14.08.030 (Property Development Standards) to combine the two marine
zoning districts into one district, to allow residential and expanded retail and
office uses in the Marine Related District and to establish a residential density to
implement LU -24a Zoning Ordinance Amendments and NH -48a Zoning
Ordinance.
i. Amendments to section 14.09.010 (Specific Purposes), 14.09.020 (Land Use
Regulations) and 14.09.03 (Property Development Standards) to allow residential
development in the Public/Quasi-Public Zoning District to implement LU -24a
Zoning Ordinance Amendments.
j. Amendment to Section 14.16.030 (Affordable Housing Requirements) to govern
the application of in lieu fees for residential and nonresidential development, to
implement H-1 9a Inclusionary Housing, H-21 s Implement State Density Bonus
Law, and H -24a Jobs/Housing Linkage Ordinance (see FEIR, pp. IX -469, IX -
473, IX -474 for further discussion of in -lieu fee). The ordinance will establish the
requirements for provision of affordable housing (or in limited cases an in -lieu
fee) in new residential development, include new regulations requiring the
provision of affordable housing or an in -lieu fee for new non-residential
development to mitigate the addition of new lower -wage jobs, and provide
allowances for density bonuses for new residential development based on
requirements of state law.
k. Amendments to section 14.16.150 to delete formula limiting mixed use residential
development, to delete subsection (B) (3) governing mix of allowed
development in a mixed use project, and to replace the floor area ratio (FAR)
table with revised floor area ratio (FAR) maps, to implement H -23b(2) Zoning
Standards for Encourage Mixed Use.
1. Amendment to section 14.16.190 (Height Bonus) to include height bonuses in
North San Rafael Town Center area and at Marin Square/Gary Place, and to add
height bonus information currently contained in other sections of the Zoning
Ordinance, to implement LU -14 Height Bonuses.
m. Amendment to section 14.17. 100 to revise subsection (B) (Applicability) to
identify the level of review for housing development in a mixed-use project, and
to revise the live/work standards, to implement H -23a Zoning Standards to
encourage Mixed Use.
n. Amendment to section 14.22.020 to delete subsections (B) and (C), to avoid
duplication of information provided in the land use tables for each zoning district.
o. Delete Chapter 14.26 (Trip Permits) as General Plan 2020 will not include an
Appendix B nor a methodology to track parcel -specific trip allocations.
p. Amendments to the Zoning Map to include new Lindaro Mixed Use Zoning
District, rezone the Marine Commercial lots to Marine Related, and to make other
zoning map amendments for consistency with General Plan 2020, to implement
LU -24a Zoning Ordinance Amendments.
8
2. The various design guidelines that are currently used by project planners will be
consolidated into one design document. Adopted guidelines to be included are the
Downtown Design Guidelines and the design policies from the Montecito/Happy
Valley Neighborhood Plan. In addition, Francisco Blvd. Design Guidelines will be
included. The guidelines will apply to commercial and residential buildings citywide.
3. Traffic Mitigation Fees will be updated to reflect the circulation roadway
improvements in General Plan 2020.
4. To implement policy LU -3 Project Selection Process, the implementing resolution for
the Priority Projects Procedure will be revised to require that the process apply
citywide and to include AM peak hour trips as well as PM peak hour trips.
(DEIR, pp. III -15 to III -16.)
Project Location
The City of San Rafael is located within the County of Marin, one of the nine counties of
the San Francisco Bay Area Region. The City is located 17 miles north of San Francisco,
along the western edge of San Francisco Bay. San Rafael's Planning Area encompasses
51 square miles, including 21 square miles of water area and 30 square miles of land area.
The General Plan Planning Area (Planning Area) includes all of San Rafael's
incorporated lands plus land areas outside the City limits that are designated by the Local
Agency Formation Commission (LAFCO) as within San Rafael's Sphere of Influence.
These areas include California Park, Country Club, Bayside Acres, and Los Ranchitos;
unincorporated areas on the Sun Valley slope; China Camp State Park; the Santa Venetia
area; and the Marinwood and Lucas Valley area (developed and undeveloped portions).
(DEIR, p. III -1.)
LAFCO currently includes the properties of St. Vincent's School for Boys and the
Silveira Ranch within the San Rafael Sphere of Influence. Consistent with City Council
Resolution No. 11237, the City has requested that LAFCO remove the St. Vincent's and
Silveira Ranch properties (St. Vincent's/Silveira properties) from San Rafael's Sphere of
Influence. Also consistent with the Resolution, General Plan 2020 would not include
those lands within the Planning Area nor policies addressing the future of these
properties, as the Marin Countywide Plan will determine future land uses. (DEIR, p. III -
1.)
Project Description
The project is a comprehensive update of General Plan 2000. The goals, policies, and
programs of General Plan 2020 reflect seven themes:
• Keep San Rafael's 'hometown' character — San Rafael is a place unlike any other,
mixing the old and new while retaining a sense of history, providing a
comfortable sense of belonging to a special place.
9
One of the strengths of San Rafael is that it has retained a unique sense of
identity, through decades of new construction, changing businesses, and a
changing socio-economic climate. San Rafael policies seek to retain and build on
this `hometown' character by balancing the preservation of valued historic and
environmental assets with the energy and excitement that comes from new
initiatives, buildings and businesses.
• Foster San Rafael's accessible and responsive government — San Rafael has an
involved and committed citizenry dedicated to seeking solutions and improvement.
Over the past two decades, San Rafael's City government has evolved towards a
community-based governance model where residents have increasingly become
more familiar with and involved in City government. Through volunteerism,
neighborhood partnerships, civic cooperation, advisory groups and task forces,
and review of projects, the San Rafael public has increasingly engaged in
government.
• Improve the appearance of the neighborhoods — San Rafael is a city of
neighborhoods, both residential and commercial, and new, attractive and
graceful buildings complement and enhance existing neighborhoods.
As San Rafael is essentially a built -out community, meaning that most new
development will occur on sites where an existing building is expanded or
replaced, project design has become a critical element of review. New buildings
can reinforce a neighborhood's character, provide landmarks and public spaces,
and increase the value of an area. San Rafael policies expand the possibilities for
design guidance and for projects to improve neighborhoods.
• Sustain the diversity of the local economy — The strength of San Rafael's local
economy is its central location as a full service city with a wide range of goods,
services, jobs and housing opportunities.
During the past twenty years of economic growth, San Rafael experienced
considerable jobs growth as major retailers moved to the city, and new office and
light industrial buildings were constructed. Because of its proximity to San
Francisco and the East Bay, and because of the diversity of the local economy,
San Rafael has a relatively stable local economic base. Nonresidential
development, particularly retail uses, helps fund needed City services. San Rafael
policies allow for limited economic growth in particular areas.
• Increase the housing supply — New homes add to the vitality of San Rafael, retain
diversity, provide housing for people who work here, reduce traffic, and can best
be provided in mixed use commercial and infill areas.
San Rafael has long experienced an affordable housing crisis. One way to meet
local housing needs is to build more housing. San Rafael policies particularly
support new housing in commercial areas.
10
• Manage the traffic — San Rafael maximizes opportunities to improve traffic flow
and increase opportunities for walking, biking and using transit.
Residents want to ensure that new development does not result in negative traffic
impacts. Needed improvements are described in the Circulation Element.
Parking is also an issue, particularly in areas where older projects do not have
sufficient on-site parking.
Treasure the open spaces — Over the years, San Rafael residents have purchased
and dedicated natural areas to save them as open space, resulting in surrounding
hills that will remain natural backdrops to the community.
Due to community efforts in the early 1970s to purchase threatened open space
areas, San Rafael's hillsides and many of its wetland areas are preserved for
perpetuity. Policies support wetland protection (and expansion), open space
management, and appropriate public uses in environmentally sensitive areas.
(DEIR, pp. III -4 to III -5.) These themes are further described in the Vision of San Rafael
in 2020, and in the policy direction of the plan. General Plan 2020 is organized by four
topic areas, with 15 chapters, or elements, as described below.
Topic Area: Our Use of Land
Land Use Element — Required element. This element would establish the planned land
use pattern for San Rafael based on historic development and the community's vision for
the future. The City of San Rafael is a nearly built -out community with limited
development opportunities. Growth would be managed through policy LU -3, Project
Selection Process, which would be an expansion of the City's current Priority Projects
Procedure that provides for City Council review and approval of traffic allocations for
high priority projects. The program would apply to projects of a certain size or larger
city-wide (including Central and Downtown San Rafael) rather than projects only at the
101/580 interchange or the 101/Freitas interchange. In addition, the evaluation criteria
would be modified to reflect current City Council goals. (DEIR, p. III -5.)
Policies would continue to promote housing throughout the City, neighborhood retail
centers, industrial areas, and regional shopping areas, and an urban Downtown. Updated
Land Use policies would promote infill redevelopment on underutilized sites in
commercial areas and near transit, while maintaining the historic neighborhood and
nonresidential land use patterns of the community. Mixed use would be allowed, in more
areas of the city, as housing would be and added use in three commercial districts
(Office, General Commercial and Marine -Related) and one industrial district (Lindaro
Mixed Use). The land use map and policies also show areas appropriate for providing
housing units consistent with State law requirements. (DEIR, p. III -5.)
11
Building heights are described in LU -13, Building Heights, and LU -14, Height Bonuses.
An increase in height from General Plan 2000 limits is proposed in the following two
districts:
• Neighborhood Commercial — to allow an additional six feet (up to 36 feet) for a
residential/retail mixed use building.
• General Commercial — in the North San Rafael Town Center area, to allow either a 12
or 24 feet height bonus for affordable housing. The Planning Commission
recommended, and the City Council concurred, a 24 -foot height bonus.
(DEIR, p. III -7.)
Land use categories are described in LU -24, Land Use Map and Categories. The
following General Plan 2000 Land Use categories are proposed to be modified:
o Agriculture — land use category deleted
• General Commercial — residential use added
o Office — residential use added
• Hetherton Office — more ground floor retail uses allowed, and residential -only uses
allowed
• Lindaro Mixed Use — new land use category allowing live/work residential use in an
industrial area
o Marine Related — residential use added
o Retail/Off ce — residential use expanded
o Parks and Open Space — the land use category was separated into two districts of
Parks and of Open Space.
• Conservation — the `overlay' designation indicating privately owned areas with
significant environmental characteristics was separated from "Parks/Open Space" to a
separate land use category.
(DEIR, p. III -7.)
The General Plan 2000 Land Use Map is proposed to be revised in the following places
(See FEIR, Exhibit I1I.3-2 (p. IX -633), for a complete list of proposed land use changes,
including General Plan 2000 and General Plan 2020 designations, by location and
assessor's parcel number):
• School sites — all school sites would have a residential designation consistent with that
of the surrounding neighborhoods, instead of some having a Public/Quasi-Public
designation.
• Industrial lots around Davidson Middle School — lots would be designated Mixed Use
Lindaro to allow live/work residential use.
o Medway / Vivian area — light industrial/office areas would be redesignated to
Neighborhood Commercial to allow for more neighborhood -serving commercial uses.
• Loch Lomond Marina — Neighborhood Commercial designation would be expanded to
allow for site design flexibility for redevelopment of the site. Sensitive habitat areas
would be designated Conservation. The Planning Commission recommended that the
12
Land Use Map would be revised for larger M District and a concurrent reduction in
the size of the Neighborhood Commercial District. (FEIR, p. IX -465.)
• Brookdale Avenue — sites would be redesignated from medium to high density
reflecting changes with Highway 101 expansion.
• Golden Gate Transit Bus Yard — site would be designated Light Industrial/Office
instead of Public/Quasi-Public.
o Canalways — a portion of the site would be designated Conservation. Policy would
allow for Light Industrial/Office development (for additional information regarding
this designation, please see FEIR, pp. IX -22 to IX -27, IX -501, IX -527 to IX -529). It
is not possible at this point to identify the size of the area available for development in
the Conservation Land Use District portion of the site. Only with a thorough site-
specific environmental assessment, as would be conducted if a development proposal
were submitted, could the City identify the appropriate extent of development on the
site. Residential use is not recommended for the site given the environmental and
traffic constraints. Because residential use is a 24-hour use, with pets that could have
a negative impact on species in the habitat areas, it is not recommended for this site.
(FEIR, p. IX -501.)
• Vista Marin — hillside area would be designated Open Space.
• San Rafael Airport — site would be designated Airport/Recreation. Policy would allow
for airport and other restricted uses. (FEIR, p. IX -463 to IX -464, IX -525.)
• Woodland Avenue — lots would be redesignated from High Density to Low Density
and Medium Density to reflect current land use pattern.
o Gold Hill Grade — lots re -designated as Open Space to reflect recent zoning change.
• Marin Ballet — the Planning Commission recommended a change from Low Density
Residential to Public/Quasi-Public to reflect current use of the site.
• Laurel Glen Homeowners open space parcel — the Planning Commission
recommended a change from Conservation to Open Space to reflect the subdivision's
condition of approval establishing the open space area.
• Lucasfilm properties —187 acres at Grady Ranch redesignated from Conservation to
Open Space and 52 acres as Light Industrial/Office to reflect the approved project.
0 316 and 328 Clorinda — two lots from Hillside Residential to Open Space to reflect
subdivision approval establishing these sites as dedicated open space.
• 3833 Redwood Highway — redesignated from Light/Industrial/Office to General
Commercial to correct a mapping error. (The site is General Commercial in General
Plan 2000.)
(DEIR, pp. III -7 to III -8; See also Exhibit III.3-2, III.3.-3, and III.3-4, for a summary of
proposed land use changes (FEIR, pp. IX -631 to IX -633).)
Housing Element — Required element. General Plan 2000 policies proposed to be
carried forward in General Plan 2020 continue to provide a wide range of housing
densities to allow a variety of housing types to meet the different needs of San Rafael's
population. Policies would also continue to encourage innovative financing, below
market rate housing, density and height bonuses for affordable housing, and community
partnerships to assist in the development of affordable housing and to prevent
discrimination in San Rafael's housing market. (For further information on affordable
13
housing need, see FEIR, pp. IX -468, IX -471, IX -474, IX -478.) Housing policies would
also support public participation during project review and require new units to be
compatible with the surrounding neighborhood. Second dwelling units would continue to
be encouraged, consistent with State law provisions. (DEIR, p. III -12.)
Policy changes include an increase in the inclusionary requirement up to 20 percent
required affordable units in a project, compared with 10 percent in the current plan.
Other changes are to encourage the construction of new mixed-use and higher density
housing near transit and services, and revise the housing conservation policy consistent
with State law. See Appendix B of General Plan 2020 for a list of housing sites,
consistent with State requirements for meeting San Rafael's regional share of housing
needs. (DEIR, p. III -12, FEIR pp. IX -479 to IX -487.) (For further information on
inclusionary and affordable housing, see FEIR, pp. IX -474, IX -475.)
Neighborhoods Element — New optional element. The General Plan 2000
Neighborhood Element would be revised to consolidate current residential policies,
policy recommendations in Vision North San Rafael, and policies in various adopted
neighborhood plans. The General Plan 2020 Neighborhood Element would replace all
existing neighborhood plans. Site-specific policies would be included in the
Neighborhoods Element. For example, General Plan 2000 design policies located in the
Land Use, Downtown, Francisco Boulevard West, East San Rafael, Canal, Bayfront and
Marin Island, and the Montecito / Happy Valley sections are included in the appropriate
neighborhood section of General Play: 2020. (DEIR, p. III -12.)
Community Design Element — New optional element. The City's historic structures and
surrounding natural landscapes add to the uniqueness and identity of San Rafael. This
element would provide policies and programs to guide development of the City's built
environment and create an appealing, functional, and safe city. The Community Design
Element policies and programs would identify features in the surrounding landscape and
ensure that the built city enhances those features, and provide direction for the
preservation of views to the hillsides, the ridgelines, the Bay, the canal, and surrounding
areas. Policies would also encourage design attention to protect and strengthen the
character of neighborhoods and to design along major transportation corridors so that
they may contribute to the quality of life in the City. Policies would also address the
need for design guidelines and continued public involvement in the design review
process. (DEIR, p. III -12.)
Topic Area: Our Foundation
Economic Vitality Element — New optional element. The Economic Vitality Element
would establish policies supporting economic development and diversity in San Rafael.
The element would include policies to implement San Rafael's Economic Vision. The
focus of the element would be on sustaining a strong forward-looking economy through
retaining existing and seeking new businesses, encouraging infill and enhancing the
City's business areas. (DEIR, p. III -12.)
14
Circulation Element — Required element. The Circulation Element would establish
policies affecting the movement of people, goods and vehicles within and through the
City. The central focus of the Circulation Element is on creating a more diversified, safe,
cost-effective, and resource -efficient transportation network. The Circulation Element
would also provide the framework for accommodating increased traffic from planned
development in accordance with the Land Use Element. (DEIR, p. III -12.)
Policies in the Circulation Element would modify General Plan 2000 Level of Service
standards to recognize constraints on Highways 101 and 580 and at specific local
intersections, list needed roadway improvements to maintain level of service standards,
and stress improving the City's transportation mode split to increase the use of public
transit, bicycles, and other alternative modes. In addition to improving existing regional
transit options, policies would encourage the development of commute rail service
through San Rafael operating on the Sonoma Marin Area Rail Transit (SMART)
Authority's right-of-way. Other policies encourage the use of traffic calming devices to
provide safe and enjoyable streets for all users, and mixed-use development to allow
residents to live close to jobs and other services and thereby reduce the number of
automobile trips. Another change is that Appendix B in General Plan 2000 is not
included in General Plan 2020. Traffic allocation would be proposed to occur instead
through a modified Priority Projects Procedure, entitled Project Selection Process (PSP),
and implemented through policy LU -3, Project Selection Process. (DEIR, p. III -13.)
The Steering Committee discussed at length the various modes of transportation,
including expected improvements versus the investments required, the impacts of the
modes on the safety and efficiency of each other, and the desired outcomes of the
improvements in the context of the overall issues of traffic congestion. Not surprisingly,
given the importance of mobility in the community, the Circulation Element has seven
goals, more then any other element. As policies were drafted and organized (and
recognized) the framework of the element took a coherent shape, and the goals were
organized thusly:
Leadership. Because San Rafael is the largest city in Marin, located at the
crossroads of two highways, and because traffic is the number one issue in the
community, recognize first the crucial role the City has in promoting in Marin
County, the North Bay and Bay Area improvements that will help with regional
auto congestion.
Mobility for All. Accepting that most trips are taken by car, develop a
circulation system that is more inclusive of other modes of transportation. The
Circulation Goals cover the LOS standards, improvements for all modes,
encouraging alternatives to the car, and improving transit.
Safe and Efficient Street System. The Circulation Goals focus on traffic
calming and roadway design.
Connections. Policies address non -auto connections between neighborhoods.
15
Bikeways. The Circulation Goals also reference the Master Plan.
Parking. Policies addressing the Downtown Parking District and neighborhood
parking issues are included here.
(FEIR, p.IX-545 to IX -547.)
Infrastructure Element — New optional element. The Infrastructure Element would
provide policies and programs for the planning, construction, management, and
maintenance of public facilities provided by the City of San Rafael related to roads,
drainage, telecommunications, water and power systems, and other facilities. Policies
and programs would also address such issues as functional and technological adequacy,
disabled accessibility, and public parks and buildings. (DEIR, p. III -13.)
Governance Element — New optional element. This Element identifies policies and
programs to support community involvement in local government, partnerships with
educational efforts, collaborative efforts with community groups, and sound fiscal practices.
(DEIR, p. III -13.)
Topic Area: Our Quality of Life
Culture and Arts Element —New optional element. This Element identifies policies and
programs to encourage, promote, and provide arts and cultural activities. The element
would also provide for the expansion of library services, and for the protection and
maintenance of historic buildings and archaeological resources. (DEIR, p. III -13.)
Parks and Recreation Element — Optional element. The Parks and Recreation Element
would provide policies and programs which identify San Rafael's park facilities, describe
the community's recreation needs, and establishes policy direction on park and recreation
improvements. (DEIR, p. III -13.)
Safety Element — Required element. The Safety Element focuses on reducing the
potential risk of death, injury, damage to property, and economic and social disruption
resulting from fire, flood, seismic and geologic hazards, and other public health and
safety hazards, including hazardous materials. General Plan 2020 (Appendix E) includes
a Geotechnical Review Matrix, which establishes geotechnical review standards for new
development.
The Safety Element provides policies for the type, location, intensity, and design of
development (including public improvements) in areas of potential hazards. These
policies focus on making informed decisions about land use and development near these
hazards. The Safety Element also provides policies to ensure adequate fire protection,
paramedic, and police services, including disaster preparedness planning and an urban
search and rescue program. The element provides for the completion of the remaining
San Rafael Basin storm drain improvement project that would achieve flood protection
16
objectives established by the City, and supports levee upgrades to provide flood
protection by the Bay. (DEIR, pp. III -13 to III -14.)
Noise Element — Required element. Vehicular traffic on roadways is the single largest
source of unacceptable noise. Average noise levels are highest along Highways 101 and
580 and along major traffic corridors. Airplanes and mechanical and construction
equipment are also contributors. The Noise Element includes standards to protect people
from excessive, unnecessary and unreasonable noises in the community. The Noise
Element provides policies to minimize the noise impacts of anticipated commute rail
service, address noise impacts from existing sources, minimize the exposure of new
residents and workers to excessive levels of noise, and prevent adverse levels of noise
from being generated by new sources. Noise Element policies would minimize noise
impacts from increased traffic levels by supporting mixed-use development, enforcement
of speed limits, and street improvements and traffic calming techniques. (DEIR, p. III -
14.)
Topic Area: Our Natural Resources
Open Space Element — Required element. The Open Space Element policies would protect
San Rafael's open spaces to ensure their continued preservation. Policies would also
identify additional open spaces to preserve, encourage management of open spaces, and
address appropriate access to and use of open space. The open space policies in the Natural
Environment Element of General Plan 2000 are included in this new element. (DEIR, p.
III -14.)
Conservation Element — Required element. The Conservation Element policies would
protect natural resources to ensure their economic and recreational value, as well as their
ecological value. Policies address water, air quality, and wildlife and cover the following
topics: wetlands; diked baylands; creeks and drainageways; native plants; animals and
habitat; and resource management. Policies for vegetation, wildlife, wetland, creeks, and
shoreline protection would be applied through the project review process for development
projects that require discretionary approval, such as subdivision or design review
applications. Policies would also promote the restoration and/or rehabilitation and
enhancement of damaged habitats. The conservation policies in the Natural Environment
Element of General Plan 2000 are included in this new element. (DEIR, p. III -14.)
Air and Water Quality Element — New optional element. Air and Water Quality policies
would promote actions to maintain high quality air and water in San Rafael. The Air and
Water Quality Element would require that San Rafael meet all local, State and federal
standards for water quality, including potential pollutant runoff into the storm drain system,
the San Francisco Bay, creeks, drainageways, and the San Rafael Canal. Policies would
also seek to mitigate the effects of vehicular pollution by supporting public transit and the
reduction of the use of single occupancy vehicles, and promote land use design practices
that incorporate walking and biking options. (DEIR, p. III -14.)
17
IV.
BACKGROUND
To develop the work program for the update of General Plan 2000, the San Rafael
Community Development Department held a series of outreach meetings between
January and August 1998, meeting with 49 community groups and over 600 people.
Participants were asked what issues need to be addressed in the General Plan update, how
to publicize the work of the General Plan Steering Committee and how to involve the
community in the project. Several preliminary themes emerged from the meetings:
traffic, the high cost of housing, enthusiasm for the recent changes Downtown, and
quality of life issues. The suggestions from the meetings were used to draft a work
program for the Planning Commission's review and adoption by the City Council.
In May 2000, the City Council appointed a 19 -member Steering Committee to "prepare a
recommended General Plan for the City of San Rafael." As part of that charge, Council
asked that San Rafael General Plan 2000 be updated to reflect recent neighborhood plans
and visions, and changed circumstances in the community. The Steering Committee
members were appointed as community members involved in a wide variety of activities
throughout the city. Over the next three years, the Steering Committee held 39 meetings
in neighborhoods throughout the city. (DEIR, p. I-1.)
As part of the community process, the Committee first prepared the General Plan Report
Card on the accomplishments of General Plan 2000 and reviewed trends occurring in the
City and region. In the fall of 2000, the Steering Committee members met with
community groups to identify the most important planning issues in San Rafael. The
meetings revealed that people generally felt San Rafael was doing very well with public
safety; and that the top planning issues were traffic, education, housing needs, and the
transportation system. The Steering Committee also held three visioning sessions to
discuss the future of San Rafael. The results from the visioning sessions were used to
draft the vision statement outlining the City's aspirations for the future and to prepare
draft General Plan goals. (DEIR, pp. I-1 to I-2.)
In December 2000, the City Council appointed 45 people representing a broad range of
San Rafael's different constituencies to assist the Steering Committee in preparing
"citywide policy recommendations to implement the General Plan goals." Four Task
Groups were formed: Quality of Community Life, Getting Around Town, Economic
Vitality, and Neighborhoods and Homes. The Task Groups wrote draft policies and
provided an opportunity for community members to review and comment on the draft
policy directions being developed. The Task Groups presented their recommendations to
the City Council in June 2001. (DEIR, p. I-2.)
The Steering Committee next turned its focus to land use and traffic modeling. In
January 2002 the committee hosted a Community Design Charrette to obtain information
and ideas from other community members regarding their visions for future development
and change in San Rafael. In this charette six potential `change' areas, the Canalfront,
Loch Lomond, Marin Square, Medway, Northgate, and Woodland Avenue, were studied.
Mixed-use, live/work and affordable housing emerged as a major land use in all six areas.
18
With this information, the Steering Committee tested future land use scenarios for traffic
congestion, evaluated housing opportunity sites, drafted fifteen General Plan elements,
and met with community groups. (DEIR, p. I-2.)
In addition to hosting community meetings and speaking with civic and neighborhood
groups throughout the planning process, the Steering Committee publicized its work
through San Rafael's City Focus newsletter, and through the City website by including
information about meetings, draft documents and ways to provide input. In August 2003,
the Steering Committee presented its recommended Draft General Plan 2020 to the City
Council. (DEIR, p. I-2.)
On May 5, 2003, the City published an Initial Study, which confirmed the need for an
EIR and determined the topics for analysis (also called impact areas). The Initial Study
identified the following areas as potentially being significantly impacted by the project:
Land Use, Population, Employment and Housing; Transportation and Circulation; Air
Quality; Noise; Public Services and Utilities; Cultural Resources; Visual Quality;
Biological Resources; Geology, Soils, and Seismicity; Hydrology, Water Quality, and
Flood Hazards; Agriculture. (DEIR, p. I-2.)
In compliance with CEQA, the City of San Rafael sent a Notice of Preparation (NOP) on
May 5, 2003 to government agencies, special service districts, organizations, and
individuals with an interest in or jurisdiction over the project. This step ensured early
consultation on the scope of the EIR. The comment period lasted for 30 days after receipt
of the NOP, at which point the Planning Commission held a public scoping meeting for
the project on May 27, 2003. (DEIR, p. I-2.)
Comments provided by the public and public agencies in response to the NOP were
received by the City and were considered during the preparation of the Draft EIR. The
DEIR was distributed on February 9, 2004 to the public and to public agencies for a 45 -day
public review period as required by State law. The DEIR's public review period ended on
March 24, 2004. (DEIR, p. I-5.) The Planning Commission held a hearing on the Draft EIR
on February 24, 2004.
A Final EIR was prepared to respond to the comments that were received on the Draft
EIR. The Final EIR was released for public review on August 9, 2004. On August 24,
2004, the Planning Commission adopted a resolution recommending that the City
Council certify the Final EIR. The City Council held a public hearing on September 15,
2004, allowing further public comment on the Final EIR. Responses to comments on the
Final EIR received at the hearing or in writing were also prepared and included in the
staff report prepared for the City Council meeting of November 15, 2004.
19
V.
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
For the purposes of CEQA, and the findings herein set forth, the administrative record for
the Project consists of those items listed in Public Resources Code section 21167.6,
subdivision (e). The record of proceedings for the City's decision on the Project consists
of the following documents, at a minimum:
• The NOP and all other public notices issued by the City in conjunction
with the Project and responses to the NOP and notices;
• The Draft Environmental Impact Report for the San Rafael General Plan
2020;
• All comments submitted by agencies or members of the public during the
45 -day comment period on the Draft EIR, and comments on the Final EIR;
• All comments and correspondence submitted to the City with respect to
the Project;
• The Final Environmental Impact Report for the San Rafael General Plan
2020, including the Planning Commission staff report, minutes of the
Planning Commission public hearing; Resolution of the Planning
Commission relating to the EIR; City Council staff report; minutes of the
City Council public hearing; comments received on the Draft EIR; the
City's responses to those comments, supplemental pages of the EIR
containing new and amended text added in response to comments made;
technical appendices; and all documents relied upon or incorporated by
reference;
• The mitigation monitoring and reporting program for the Project;
• All findings and resolutions adopted by the City in connection with the
Project, and all documents cited or referred to therein;
• San Rafael General Plan 2020 Background Report;
• City of San Rafael Draft General Plan 2020;
• All San Rafael plans relied upon or incorporated into Draft General Plan
2020;
• City of San Rafael General Plan 2000 Final Environmental Impact Report;
• City of San Rafael General Plan 2000;
►1l
Marin Municipal Water District Urban Water Management Plan 2000
• All reports, studies, memoranda, maps, staff reports, or other planning
documents in the City's files relating to the Project, as prepared by the
City, consultants to the City, or responsible or trustee agencies with
respect to the City's compliance with the requirements of CEQA and with
respect to the City's action on the Project;
• All documents submitted to the City by other public agencies or members
of the public in connection with the Project, up through the point in time
in which formal action on the Project was taken by the City Council on
November 1, 2004;
• Any minutes and/or verbatim transcripts of all information sessions, public
meetings, and public hearings held by the City in connection with the
Project;
• Any documentary or other evidence submitted to the City at such
information sessions, public meetings and public hearings;
• All resolutions adopted by the City regarding the Project, and all staff
reports, analyses, and summaries related to the adoption of those
resolutions;
• Matters of common knowledge to the City, including, but not limited to
Federal, State, and local laws and regulations;
• Any documents cited and relied upon in the Draft EIR or Final EIR;
• Any documents expressly cited in these findings, in addition to those cited
above; and
• Any other materials required for the record of proceedings by Public
Resources Code section 21167.6, subdivision (e).
(DEIR, pp. I-4, I-5.)
The official custodian of the record is Linda Jackson, Community Development
Department, Planning Division, City of San Rafael, P.O. Box 151560, San Rafael, CA
94915-1560
?I
VI.
FINDINGS REOUIRED UNDER CEOA
Public Resources Code section 21002 provides that "public agencies should not approve
projects as proposed if there are feasible alternatives or feasible mitigation measures
available which would substantially lessen the significant environmental effects of such
projects[.]" (Emphasis added.) The same statute states that the procedures required by
CEQA "are intended to assist public agencies in systematically identifying both the
significant effects of projects and the feasible alternatives or feasible mitigation measures
which will avoid or substantially lessen such significant effects." (Emphasis added.)
Section 21002 goes on to state that "in the event [that] specific economic, social, or other
conditions make infeasible such project alternatives or such mitigation measures,
individual projects may be approved in spite of one or more significant effects thereof."
The mandate and principles announced in Public Resources Code section 21002 are
implemented, in part, through the requirement that agencies must adopt findings before
approving projects for which EIRs are required. (See Pub. Resources Code, § 21081,
subd. (a); CEQA Guidelines, § 15091, subd. (a).) For each significant environmental
effect identified in an EIR for a project, the approving agency must issue a written
finding reaching one or more of three permissible conclusions. The first such finding is
that "[c]hanges or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project
which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in
the final EIR." (CEQA Guidelines, § 15091, subd. (a)(1).) The second permissible
finding is that "[s]uch changes or alterations are within the responsibility and jurisdiction
of another public agency and not the agency making the finding. Such changes have
been adopted by such other agency or can and should be adopted by such other agency."
(CEQA Guidelines, § 15091, subd. (a)(2).) The third potential conclusion is that
"[s]pecific economic, legal, social, technological, or other considerations, including
provision of employment opportunities for highly trained workers, make infeasible the
mitigation measures or project alternatives identified in the final EIR." (CEQA
Guidelines, § 15091, subd. (a)(3).) Public Resources Code section 21061.1 defines
"feasible" to mean "capable of being accomplished in a successful manner within a
reasonable period of time, taking into account economic, environmental, social and
technological factors." CEQA Guidelines section 15364 adds another factor: "legal"
considerations. (See also Citizens of Goleta Valley v. Board of Supervisors ("Goleta IT')
(1990) 52 Cal.3d 553, 565.)
The concept of "feasibility" also encompasses the question of whether a particular
alternative or mitigation measure promotes the underlying goals and objectives of a
project. (City of Del Mar v. City of San Diego (1982) 133 Cal.App.3d 410, 417.)
"`[F]easibility' under CEQA encompasses `desirability' to the extent that desirability is
based on a reasonable balancing of the relevant economic, environmental, social, and
technological factors." (Id.; see also Sequoyah Hills Homeowners Assn. v. City of
Oakland (1993) 23 Cal.AppAth 704, 715.)
22
The CEQA Guidelines do not define the difference between "avoiding" a significant
environmental effect and merely "substantially lessening" such an effect. The City must
therefore glean the meaning of these terms from the other contexts in which the terms are
used. Public Resources Code section 21081, on which CEQA Guidelines section 15091
is based, uses the term "mitigate" rather than "substantially lessen." The CEQA
Guidelines therefore equate "mitigating" with "substantially lessening." Such an
understanding of the statutory term is consistent with the policies underlying CEQA,
which include the policy that "public agencies should not approve projects as proposed if
there are feasible alternatives or feasible mitigation measures available which would
substantially lessen the significant environmental effects of such projects." (Pub.
Resources Code, § 21002.)
For purposes of these findings, the term "avoid" refers to the effectiveness of one or more
mitigation measures to reduce an otherwise significant effect to a less than significant
level. In contrast, the term "substantially lessen" refers to the effectiveness of such
measure or measures to substantially reduce the severity of a significant effect, but not to
reduce that effect to a less than significant level. These interpretations appear to be
mandated by the holding in Laurel Hills Homeowners Association v. City Council (1978)
83 Cal.App.3d 515, 519-521, in which the Court of Appeal held that an agency had
satisfied its obligation to substantially lessen or avoid significant effects by adopting
numerous mitigation measures, not all of which rendered the significant impacts in
question less than significant.
Although CEQA Guidelines section 15091 requires only that approving agencies specify
that a particular significant effect is "avoid[ed] or substantially lessen[ed]," these
findings, for purposes of clarity, in each case will specify whether the effect in question
has been reduced to a less than significant level, or has simply been substantially lessened
but remains significant.
Moreover, although section 15091, read literally, does not require findings to address
environmental effects that an EIR identifies as merely "potentially significant," these
findings will nevertheless fully account for all such effects identified in the Final EIR.
CEQA requires that the lead agency adopt mitigation measures or alternatives, where
feasible, to substantially lessen or avoid significant environmental impacts that would
otherwise occur. Project modification or alternatives are not required, however, where
such changes are infeasible or where the responsibility for modifying the project lies with
some other agency. (CEQA Guidelines, § 15091, subds. (a), (b).)
With respect to a project for which significant impacts are not avoided or substantially
lessened, a public agency, after adopting proper findings, may nevertheless approve the
project if the agency first adopts a statement of overriding considerations setting forth the
specific reasons why the agency found that the project's "benefits" rendered "acceptable"
its "unavoidable adverse environmental effects." (CEQA Guidelines, §§ 15093, 15043,
subd. (b); see also Pub. Resources Code, § 21081, subd. (b).) The California Supreme
Court has stated, "[t]he wisdom of approving ... any development project, a delicate task
23
which requires a balancing of interests, is necessarily left to the sound discretion of the
local officials and their constituents who are responsible for such decisions. The law as
we interpret and apply it simply requires that those decisions be informed, and therefore
balanced." (Goleta H, 52 Cal.3d at p. 576.)
These findings constitute the City's best efforts to set forth the evidentiary and policy
bases for its decision to approve the Project in a manner consistent with the requirements
of CEQA. To the extent that these findings conclude that various proposed mitigation
measures outlined in the Final EIR are feasible and have not been modified, superseded
or withdrawn, the City hereby binds itself to implement these measures. These findings,
in other words, are not merely informational, but rather constitute a binding set of
obligations that will come into effect when the City adopts a resolution approving the
Project.
VII.
TIERING AND THE USE OF A PROGRAM EIR
The San Rafael General Plan 2020 Draft EIR is considered a Program EIR as allowed by
section 15168 of the CEQA Guidelines. (DEIR, p. I-3.) Program EIRs are typically
prepared for an agency plan, program, or series of actions that can be characterized as
one large project. Tiering refers to the concept of a multi-level approach to preparing
environmental documents, typically starting with a Program EIR. (CEQA Guidelines, §
15152). The CEQA Guidelines require a State or local agency to prepare a Program EIR,
rather than a Project EIR, when the lead agency proposes the following:
• Series of related actions that are linked geographically;
• Logical parts of a chain of contemplated events, rules, regulations, or
plans that govern the conduct of a continuing program; or
• Individual activities carried out under the same authorizing statutory or
regulatory authority and having generally similar environmental effects
that can be mitigated in similar ways.
(CEQA Guidelines, § 15168, subd. (a).)
In a Program EIR, CEQA allows the general analysis of broad environmental effects of
the program with the acknowledgment that subsequent site-specific environmental review
may be required for particular aspects of portions of the program at the time of project
implementation. The Program EIR serves a valuable purpose as a first-tier environmental
analysis. The Program EIR can be incorporated by reference into subsequently prepared
environmental documents to address issues such as cumulative impacts and growth
inducing impacts, allowing the subsequent documents to focus on new or site-specific
impacts (CEQA Guidelines, § 15168, subd. (d)).
Although the legally required contents of a Program EIR are the same as those of a
Project EIR, in practice there are considerable differences in level of detail. Program
24
EIRs are typically more conceptual and abstract. They contain a more general discussion
of impacts, alternatives, and mitigation measures.
A Program EIR is considered advantageous for (a) its exhaustive consideration of effects
and alternatives beyond the format typically set for an individual action, (b) its
consideration of cumulative impacts, and (c) its broad effect on applicable policy during
the early stages of the project, when the lead agency has more flexibility to deal with
basic problems or cumulative impacts. The Program EIR identifies broad impacts and
identifies mitigation measures that would need to be implemented with future tentative
map applications. The Program EIR will help determine the need for subsequent
environmental documentation. Parameters by which a lead agency can determine the
need for additional environmental documentation are contained in the CEQA Guidelines.
(See CEQA Guidelines, § § 15160 to 15170.)
As tiering is defined, future site-specific projects might be able to use the impact
conclusions drawn in this EIR without needing a new EIR. To qualify a project must:
• be consistent with General Plan 2020 (projects requiring general plan
amendments or rezoning cannot use tiering),
• be consistent with applicable local land use plans and zoning for the area in which
the future project is located, and
• not trigger the need for a subsequent EIR or supplement to an EIR.
(DEIR, p. I-3.)
VIII.
SIGNIFICANT EFFECTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES
The Final EIR identified a number of significant and potentially significant
environmental effects (or "impacts") that the Project will cause. Some of these
significant effects can be fully avoided through the adoption of feasible mitigation
measures. Other effects cannot be avoided by the adoption of feasible mitigation
measures or alternatives, and thus will be significant and unavoidable. Some of these
unavoidable significant effects can be substantially lessened by the adoption of feasible
mitigation measures. Other significant, unavoidable effects cannot be substantially
lessened or avoided. For reasons set forth in Section XIII, infra, however, the City has
determined that the significant, unavoidable effects of the Project are outweighed by
overriding economic, social, and other considerations. This section presents in greater
detail the Council's findings with respect to the environmental effects of the Project.
As discussed above, the EIR for the Project is considered a Program EIR. Pursuant to
CEQA, a program EIR allows the general analysis of broad environmental effects of the
program with the acknowledgment that subsequent site-specific environmental review
may be required for particular aspects of portions of the program at the time of project
implementation. (CEQA Guidelines, § 15168, subd. (d).) Therefore, the EIR identifies
broad impacts and identifies mitigation measures that would need to be implemented with
fixture tentative map applications.
25
A. LAND USE, POPULATION, EMPLOYMENT, AND HOUSING
Impact IV.1-1: Conflict with Annlicable Land Use or Other Plans.
Development under the Draft General Plan 2020 would not conflict with
other adopted plans. This would be a less -than -significant impact. (DEIR, p.
IV. 1-7).
Finding:
Under CEQA, no mitigation measures are required for impacts that are less than
significant. (Pub. Resources Code, § 21002; CEQA Guidelines, §§ 15126.4, subd. (a)(3),
15091.)
Mitigation Measure:
None required. (DEIR, p. IV. 1-8).
Explanation:
Several land use and neighborhood plans have been adopted for areas within and
surrounding the Planning Area. Implementation of General Plan 2020 could potentially
result in a conflict with such an adopted land use plan, policy or regulation of an agency
with jurisdiction over the Planning Area. Land use and environmental plans which apply
to the San Rafael Planning Area include:
• San Rafael Zoning Ordinance
• Marin Countywide Plan
• Marin County Zoning Ordinance
• Montecito/Happy Valley
Neighborhood Plan
• Vision North San Rafael
(DEIR, p. IV. 1-7.)
• Northgate Activity Center Plan
• Neighborhoods 13/14 Plan
• East San Rafael Neighborhood Plan
• Gerstle Park Neighborhood Plan
• Peacock Gap Neighborhood Plan
Conflicts with these plans and regulations would represent a significant impact.
However, as described below, implementation of General Plan 2020 programs and
policies identified below would reduce any potential impacts to a less -than -significant
level. (DEIR, p. IV. 1-7.) No additional mitigation measures are required.
San Rafael Zoning and Subdivision Ordinances — In certain circumstances, General Plan
2020 proposes new or altered land uses that would not be consistent with the land uses
allowed by the current San Rafael Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance. In addition, a
number of changes would be made concurrent with adoption of General Plan 2020,
including allowing housing in commercial districts, which could result in potential
26
inconsistencies. Places of the biggest impact would be Medway/Vivian where light
industrial uses would become nonconforming. However, General Plan 2020 also
includes policies and programs, such as Program LU -24a, Zoning Ordinance
Amendments; LU -24b, Subdivision Ordinance Amendments, and LU -24c, Live/Work
Regulations which would amend the Zoning and Subdivision Ordinances, as well as the
live/work regulations, in order to reduce or eliminate such inconsistencies. This would
be a less -than -significant impact. (DEIR, pp. IV. 1-7 to IV. 1-8.)
Marin County Zoning Ordinance and Countywide Plan — The Marin County General
Plan covers all or portions of several neighborhoods within the Planning Area, including
the Country Club, Bayside Acres, California Park, Sun Valley, Rafael Meadows, Santa
Venetia, Lucas Valley, Marinwood, and Smith Ranch neighborhoods. The City has
reviewed with County staff the Marin County Zoning Ordinance and the Countywide
Plan for potential conflicts with General Plan 2020. The land use map is consistent with
the Countywide Plan and zoning. In addition, Policy LU -7, Land Use Planning in
Surrounding Jurisdictions; and Program LU -7a, Development Adjacent to San Rafael, in
General Plan 2020 would reduce potential land use conflicts by monitoring development
in and working with the surrounding jurisdictions. This would be a less -than -significant
impact. (DEIR, p. IV. 1-8.)
Neighborhood Plans — The previously adopted neighborhood plans for Montecito/Happy
Valley, Gerstle Park, Peacock Gap, Northgate Activity Center, Neighborhoods 13/14,
East San Rafael, and the Vision North San Rafael represent efforts by area residents and
the City to address specific design, housing, economic, land use, and transportation issues
relevant to each neighborhood. Adopted neighborhood plans were consolidated into the
Neighborhoods Element in General Plan 2020. The scope of several neighborhood -
specific policies was expanded to apply citywide; some outdated or already -implemented
policies were not carried forward. The neighborhood plans have been reviewed and
found to be consistent with the plan. This would be a less -than -significant impact.
(DEIR, p. IV. 1-8.)
Significance After Mitigation:
Through implementation of General Plan 2020 programs and policies, potential impacts
related to conflicting adjoining development would be less than significant without
mitigation.
Impact IV.1-2: Incompatible Land Uses and Changes to NeiLyhborhood Character.
Development consistent with General Plan 2020 would result in changes in
land use type, density, scale, and character in numerous City neighborhoods.
Policies and programs in General Plan 2020 would reduce potential conflicts
between new and existing uses, including design and traffic conflicts. This
would be a less -than -significant impact. (DEIR, p. IV. 1-8.)
27
Finding:
Under CEQA, no mitigation measures are required for impacts that are less than
significant. (Pub. Resources Code, § 21002; CEQA Guidelines, §§ 15126.4, subd. (a)(3),
15091.)
Mitigation Measure:
None required. (DEIR, IV. 1-12.)
Explanation:
Under the Project, potential future development in the Northgate Town Center/Civic
Center area, Medway Commercial area, Loch Lomond Marina, Lindaro Mixed Use Area,
and the Marin Square area would result in the most significant changes. In many of these
areas, General Plan 2020 would allow additional housing and retail in the community
over existing conditions. Changes to these areas may include the introduction of new
land uses, greater density, increased scale of existing and new development, and overall
changes to neighborhood character which could potentially result in conflicting adjacent
land uses or exceeding local transportation infrastructure capacities. However, numerous
policies and programs in General Plan 2020 would reduce such potential conflicts
through the use of design guidelines, and development review. These programs include:
Program LU -la Five Year Growth Assessment; Policy LU -2 Development Timing;
Program LU -3a project Selection Process; Policies H-23 Mixed Use, and NH -155 New
Development and LU -14 Height Bonuses; Program LU -15a Land Use Compatability;
Policies NH -62 Bicycle and Pedestrian Walkway, NH -63 Bus Pads, NH -64 Bike Path,
NH -65 North San Rafael Promenade; Program MH -61b Safe Walkways; Policies H-22
Infill Near Transit and H-23 Mixed Use; Policy NH -152 Residential Use Near Civil
Center Rail Stop; Policies NH -59 Design Considerations for Development in the Vicinity
of the Civic Center, NH -60 Civic Center Expansion; Policies NH -135 North San Rafael
Town Center, NH -136 Town Center Activities, NH -137 Northgate Mall, NH -138
Outdoor Gathering Places, NH -140 Design Excellence, NH -144 Pedestrian Scale, and
NH -145 Mall Entrance; NH -139 Incentives; policies H-23 Mixed Use, and NH -155 New
Development; Programs LU -14d Height Bonuses, LU -15a Land Use Compatibility, and
EV -18c Land Inventory; Policy CD -11a Visual Compatibility. Each of these policies and
programs is described on pages IV. 1-9 to IV. 1-12 of the DEIR. (DEIR, p. IV. 1-8 to IV 1-
12.)
The owners of the Loch Lomond Marina property have recently submitted a development
application for the site, which they have been preparing and discussing with the
community for over a year. They have attempted to design the proposal in response to
General Plan 2020 policies. (For additional information regarding the phased
development at the Marina, please see FEIR, pages IX -19 to IX -21.) Given the focus on
the Marina as a likely site for some redevelopment activity, General Plan 2020 includes a
site-specific policy (policy NH -121) that contains more detailed criteria that, if adopted, a
future development proposal would have to be evaluated against:
i►
NH -121. Loch Lomond Marina. Retain the Loch Lomond Marina uses, and enhance recreational use of
the marina waterfront. Preserve and improve access to the marina and the water's edge as a welcoming
place for the public to enjoy the boating activities and the waterfront. As the focal point of the site, the
marina shall continue to be a distinct, accessible area. If the property owner proposes to redevelop the site,
create a beautiful waterfront development that maximizes the site's location facing San Francisco Bay,
consistent with the following guidelines and requirements:
a. Land Use. Encourage a mixed-use development that includes all of the following land uses:
■ Marina and marina -support facilities, with boat berths, a public boat launch, day use boat trailer
parking, a yacht club, boat retail and services, amenities for boaters, restaurant and shops, and
parking. Sufficient dry boat storage to meet the needs of local residents should be retained.
■ Waterfront -oriented recreation along the marina, spits and breakwater. Recreational activities
include picnicking, kite flying, walking, biking, fishing, bird watching, and enjoying the views.
For example, bird watching and fishing opportunities should be enhanced. Access for fishing
should be provided in a way that extends a welcome to visitors.
■ Neighborhood -serving commercial uses that meet the needs of residents and visitors in the area
should be included for their convenience and for trip reduction.
■ Residential, with a mix of housing types, that meets design and housing objectives. To increase
the affordability of market -rate units, a majority of the dwelling units on the property shall be
attached housing and/or small single-family homes. The different types of housing should be
integrated into one neighborhood, and should be designed to be compatible with the marina and
recreational uses. Because of the limited area for marine uses on the site, residential use is not
allowed in the Marine Related District. In order to accommodate the optimal site plan for the
marina and housing, the land use district boundaries on the site shall be considered approximate
and may be adjusted through the master plan for the Planned District zoning.
b. Site Design. Achieve an extraordinary design in an innovative development that enhances the
neighborhood, San Rafael, and the bayfront. New development should draw inspiration from the
marina and waterfront, provide a community gathering place with neighborhood shopping and
recreational opportunities, and include attractive housing, consistent with the following guidelines:
1. Views of the marina and waterfront should draw people into the site and retain their value to the
surrounding community.
■ The view to the waterfront down the entryway into the site at the Lochinvar intersection is the
major public view corridor. To enhance this corridor and to achieve an open, welcoming and
inviting entrance to the marina, this corridor may include street right-of-way, open space and
parking. Buildings adjacent to the view corridor should be lower scale, or incorporate larger
setbacks or stepbacks of upper floors.
■ The frontage along Pt. San Pedro Road should be warm and welcoming, encouraging access
through the site's principal entryway.
■ Buildings should be carefully sited and designed to enhance or minimize impacts to views of
the Bay, the Marin Islands, wetlands and the marina.
2. Improved pedestrian and bicycle access through the site to the marina and breakwater should be
part of the site's design.
A recreational area along the waterfront should be included to differentiate the marina functions
from the new neighborhood. This public area shall serve as a community -gathering place, and
provide activities accessible to children and adults both in the immediate neighborhood and in the
surrounding area. A play area with playground equipment suitable for preschool and elementary
school ages, with a water play feature is recommended and an active recreational area, such as a
sports court (i.e., bocce ball or volleyball) is desired.
29
4. The streets and alleyways should be designed for slow driving speeds, and there should be an
enhanced transit stop on Pt. San Pedro Road.
(FE1R, pp. IX -17 to IX -18 and IX -512 to IX -517.) With successful implementation of
these programs and policies, this would be a less -than -significant impact. (DEIR, pp.
IV.1-8 to N.1-12.)
Significance After Mitigation:
With successful implementation of General Plan 2020 policies and programs, potential
impacts of development conflicts would be less than significant without mitigation.
Impact IV.1-3: Growth and Concentration of Population.
Development consistent with General Plan 2020 would not induce substantial
growth and concentration of the City's population. This would be a less -
than -significant impact. (DEIR, p. IV.1-12.)
Finding:
Under CEQA, no mitigation measures are required for impacts that are less than
significant. (Pub. Resources Code, § 21002; CEQA Guidelines, §§ 15126.4, subd. (a)(3),
15091.)
Mitigation Measure:
None required. (DEIR, p. IV. 1-13.)
Explanation:
As of Census 2000 the San Rafael Planning Area had a population of 70,587. It is
estimated that with a full buildout of the City as proposed in General Plan 2020, the
Planning Area would have a population of 79,104. This would be a 12 percent increase
over then next 16 years for a total of 8,517 additional residents. (DEIR, p. IV.1-12.)
The County of Marin had a Census 2000 population of 247,289. The Planning Area
population therefore represented 29 percent of the County population. Marin County
estimates that in 2020 it will have a population of 275,500, an 11 percent increase.
Therefore, in 2020, the Planning Area population would still represent 29 percent of the
County population. Population growth in the Planning Area would be consistent with
growth in Marin County. (DEIR, p. IV. 1-13.)
The Census 2000 population for the nine Bay Area counties was 6,783,762. According
to the Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG) Projections 2003, the Bay Area is
expected to have a population of 8,168,300 in the year 2020. This would represent a 20
percent increase. In 2000, the Planning Area represented one percent of the Bay Area
O
population. With development consistent with General Plan 2020 the Planning Area
would represent 0.9 percent of the projected Bay Area population in the year 2020.
Therefore, population growth in the Planning Area would be consistent with ABAG's
regional projections. (DEIR, p. IV. 1-13.)
ABAG's Projections 2003 projects a 2020 Planning Area population of only 76,000.
This projected population is 3,104 less than the population projections for General Plan
2020. However, General Plan 2020 population projections are otherwise consistent with
ABAG's regional projections and are consistent with growth in Marin County. (DEIR, p.
IV.1-13.)
Thus, while development consistent with General Plan 2020 would potentially induce
some population growth in the Planning Area, such growth would not be considered
substantial, particularly when placed in the regional context. Nor would such
development represent a further concentration of population. This would be a less -than -
significant impact. (DEIR, p. fV.1-13.)
Population growth consistent with that projected for General Plan 2020 would result in
secondary impacts related to public services and utilities. (DEIR, p. IV. 1-13). These
impacts are described below under Section E. Public Services and Utilities. See also the
discussion under Growth Inducing Impacts, Section IX below.
Significance After Mitigation:
Population growth consistent with that projected for General Plan 2020 would result in
secondary impacts related to public services and utilities and would be less than
significant without mitigation.
Impact IV.1-4: Emvlovment Growth Rate.
Development consistent with General Plan 2020 would add additional jobs to
the Planning Area. This would be a less -than -significant impact. (DEIR, p.
IV.1-13.)
Finding:
Under CEQA, no mitigation measures are required for impacts that are less than
significant. (Pub. Resources Code, § 21002; CEQA Guidelines, §§ 15126.4, subd. (a)(3),
15091.)
Mitigation Measure:
None required. (DEIR, p. IV. 1-13.)
31
Explanation:
Employment in the San Rafael Planning Area grew 14 percent from 1990 to 1998, or
about 1.75 percent per year. That rate of growth is expected to decline as the City
reaches complete buildout. From 1998 to 2020, employment is expected to grow only
three percent, an annual growth rate of about 0.14 percent. This would not result in any
direct significant impacts. Secondary impacts are described in Section IV.5 Public
Services and Utilities of the DEIR. (DEIR, p. IV. 1-13.)
Significance After Mitigation:
The impact of additional jobs due to development would be less than significant without
mitigation.
Impact IV.1-5: Jobs -to -Housing Ratio.
Development consistent with General Plan 2020 would slightly decrease the
jobs -to -housing ratio. This would be a less -than -significant impact. (DEIR, p.
IV.1-14.)
Finding:
Under CEQA, no mitigation measures are required for impacts that are less than
significant. (Pub. Resources Code, § 21002; CEQA Guidelines, §§ 15126.4, subd. (a)(3),
15091.)
Mitigation Measure:
None required. (DEIR, p. IV. 1-14.)
Explanation:
The Planning Area's jobs -to -housing ratio is currently estimated (for 1998) at about 1.74
jobs per housing unit. Development consistent with General Plan 2020 would be
expected to increase employment in the Planning Area to 47,394 and housing to 31,234,
in the year 2020, which would result in a jobs -to -housing ratio of 1.52. This represents
an improvement in the jobs -to -housing ratio, offering opportunities for more local
workers to reside in the community, which has the potential to reduce future traffic
generation. Secondary impacts related to traffic are described in the DEIR, Section IV.2
Transportation. The decrease in the jobs -to -housing ratio would not result in any direct
significant impacts. (DEIR, p. IV. 1-14.)
Significance After Mitigation:
The decrease in the jobs -to -housing ratio would not result in any direct significant
impacts and would be less than significant without mitigation.
32
Cumulative Land Use, Population, Emplovment, and HousinLy Impacts
The cumulative development scenario for land use includes the development allowed
under General Plan 2020. Development within the Planning Area would occur with the
implementation of General Plan 2020. As the Planning Area and the surrounding cities
and unincorporated areas develop, a greater intensification could result in cumulative
land use compatibility impacts. However, implementation of General Plan 2020 would
result in less -than -significant cumulative land use impacts.
The population, employment, and housing analyses use data for the City as provided in
the project description and analyzes these data in a regional context using data available
from Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG). Thus this analysis considers
development implications on a regional level and encompasses cumulative impact
considerations for the Planning Area.
Development consistent with General Plan 2020 would result in 12,708 additional
residents over the population in 1998 (8,517 since Census 2000), 5,104 additional
households, and 1,812 additional jobs. As described in Section IY.1 Land Use,
Population, Employment, and Housing development consistent with the Draft General
Plan 2020 would have less than significant land use, population, employment and
housing impacts. The proposed project's incremental effects on land use, population,
employment and housing would not be cumulatively considerable.
Finding:
Under CEQA, no mitigation measures are required for impacts that are less than
significant. (Pub. Resources Code, § 21002; CEQA Guidelines, §§ 15126.4, subd. (a)(3),
15091.)
Mitigation Measure:
None required. (FEIR, p. IX -649.)
Significance After Mitigation:
Cumulative land use, population, employment, and housing impacts would be less than
significant, and the Project's incremental effects on land use, population, employment
and housing would not be cumulatively considerable. (FEIR, p. IX -649.)
B. TRANSPORTATION AND CIRCULATION
Intersections
33
Impact IV.2-1: Level of Service at Intersections Improved to Acceptable Levels with
General Plan 2020.
Implementation of General Plan 2020 without improvements would result in
unacceptable LOS at intersections. However, General Plan 2020
improvements would result in acceptable LOS at these intersections.
Therefore, this would be a less -than -significant impact. (DEIR, p. IV.2-25.)
Finding:
Under CEQA, no mitigation measures are required for impacts that are less than
significant. (Pub. Resources Code, § 21002; CEQA Guidelines, §§ 15126.4, subd. (a)(3),
15091.)
Mitigation Measure:
None required. (DEIR, p. IV.2-30.)
Explanation:
For unsignalized intersections, impacts are considered significant if the intersection:
■ with baseline traffic volumes is operating at an acceptable LOS (LOS A,
B, C, D, or E) and deteriorates to an unacceptable operation (LOS F), or
■ with baseline traffic volumes is already operating at LOS F and there is an
increase in the delay of five seconds or more.
(DEIR, p. IV.2-25.)
For signalized intersections, the citywide standard is LOS D. The standard is LOS F at
the intersection of Mission Avenue and Irwin. The standard is LOS E at the following
locations:
■ Downtown
■ Irwin and Grand Avenue between Second Street and Mission Avenue
■ Andersen and West Francisco
■ Andersen and Bellam
■ Freitas at Civic Center/Redwood Highway
■ Merrydale at Civic Center Drive
(DEIR, p. IV.2-25.)
Some of the intersections listed in DEIR Exhibit IV.2-12 would operate at unacceptable
LOS under both AM and PM peak hour conditions. Some intersections would operate at
unacceptable LOS under only one peak hour. DEIR Exhibit IV.2-13 lists intersections
and peak hours that would experience unacceptable LOS under General Plan 2020
conditions without improvements, but would be changed to an acceptable LOS with
34
General Plan 2020 improvements. (DEIR, p. IV.2-25.) The improvements are described
in Exhibits IV.2-12 to IV.2-14 of the DEIR.
With implementation of the improvements listed in Exhibit IV.2-14, LOS at the
intersections and peak hours listed in Exhibit IV.2-13 would be acceptable. Therefore,
with implementation of the improvements, the impact would be considered less -than -
significant. Impacts associated with the LOS at Second Street and A Street, Third Street
and Union Street, Lincoln Avenue and US 101, and Mission Avenue and Irwin Street are
addressed separately in Impacts IV.2-2 to 5, below. (DEIR, p. IV.2-26.)
Implementation of the improvements listed in Exhibit IV.2-14 are anticipated to occur
during the planning period. If implemented in conjunction with anticipated development,
LOS at the 21 combinations of intersections and peak hours listed above would be
acceptable. Therefore, with implementation of the improvements, the impact would be
considered less -than -significant. (DEIR, p. IV.2-26.)
Implementation of the proposed improvements is considered feasible based on
anticipated funding sources from transportation mitigation fees, State and Federal grants,
and local funding, past successes in accomplishing planned transportation improvements,
and General Plan 2020 policies LU -2 Development Timing and C-6 Proposed
Improvements, which require the installation of improvements concurrent or prior to
approval of new development projects which are dependent upon the improvements to
retain acceptable LOS. (DEIR, p. IV.2-26.)
The City was successful in implementing most of the transportation improvements called
for in General Plan 2000. These improvements were estimated in 1986 to cost
approximately $35 million. Inflated to present values, this would equate to
approximately $55.7 million in improvements in year 2004 dollars. Between 1988 and
the present, approximately $30 million in transportation improvements were made,
including the extension of Andersen Drive, the Merrydale/1 0 1 Overcrossing, the
connection of Lincoln Avenue and Ranchitos Road, and improvements at the Civic
Center/N. San Pedro Road intersection. Approximately half of the $30 million in funding
came from traffic mitigation fees and developer contributions from new development
projects and half from the Redevelopment Agency and from federal and state
transportation funds. (DEIR, pp IV.2-26 to IV.2-27.)
Nearly $58 million in improvements would be needed to maintain desired LOS. Of this
amount, $38.6 million is anticipated from traffic mitigation fees, the rate of which will be
increased in conjunction with adoption of the new General Plan. The remaining $19.3
million is anticipated from Redevelopment Agency and from federal and state funds. In
addition, the City's traffic mitigation fee account currently has a balance of almost $9
million. A reduction in previous level of Federal and State funding is anticipated due to
budget constraints. At present, the State Transportation Improvement Program (STIP)
funds are programmed through the year 2009; STIP funding for additional projects would
be available after 2009. (DEIR, p. IV.2-29; as shown in City Council Resolution
adopting General Plan 2020, updated Exhibit 19).
35
The timing of implementation of anticipated transportation improvements is critical to
retain acceptable LOS. Many improvements would not be required unless anticipated
development in the vicinity occurs. General Plan 2020 Policy LU -2, Development
Timing, would preclude the approval of new development projects that would require
transportation improvements to retain desired LOS unless the transportation improvement
has committed funding and the environmental review process for the improvement has
been completed. This policy would assure that development would not occur in advance
of anticipated transportation improvements with a resulting deterioration in LOS beyond
acceptable levels of congestion. In addition, policy LU -3, Project Selection Process,
expands on the current Priority Project Procedure, which provides a system for the City
to prioritize development projects where traffic capacity is limited. The process presently
applies only in North and East San Rafael; a major component of the new policy and
implementing program is to include development in Downtown and central San Rafael in
the evaluation process. (DEIR, pp IV.2-29 to IV.2-30.)
Significance After Mitigation:
Through implementation of General Plan 2020 policies and programs, improvements
would result in acceptable LOS at these intersections and would be less than significant
without mitigation.
Impact IV.2-2: Level of Service at Second Street and A Street with General Plan
2020.
Implementation of General Plan 2020 without General Plan 2020
improvements would result in LOS F in the AM and PM at this intersection,
and with General Plan 2020 improvements would result in LOS C in the AM,
and LOS E in the PM at this intersection. This would be a less -than -
significant impact. (DEIR, p. IV.2-30.)
Finding:
Under CEQA, no mitigation measures are required for impacts that are less than
significant. (Pub. Resources Code, § 21002; CEQA Guidelines, §§ 15126.4, subd. (a)(3),
15091.)
Mitigation Measure:
None required. (DEIR, p. IV.2-30.)
Explanation:
The intersection of Second and A Streets is one of two intersections operating at LOS F
in the AM and PM peak hours in baseline operations. This intersection would also
operate at LOS F in the AM and PM peak hours in General Plan 2020 without planned
36
circulation improvements. General Plan 2020 improvements would result in acceptable
LOS. (DEIR, p. IV.2-30.)
As described above in Impact IV.2-1, General Plan 2020 policy LU -2, Development
Timing, precludes the approval of new development projects that require transportation
improvements to retain desired LOS, unless the transportation improvement has
committed funding and the environmental review process for the improvement has been
completed. This policy assures that development will not occur in advance of anticipated
transportation improvements with a resulting deterioration in LOS beyond acceptable
levels of congestion. With implementation of General Plan 2020 improvements, the
delay would be less than under Baseline conditions, and result in LOS C (AM) and LOS
E (PM) at this intersection. General Plan 2020 Policy C-5 defines LOS E as acceptable
in the Downtown area, which includes the intersection of Second Street and A Street.
Therefore, this is considered a less -than -significant impact. (DEIR, p. 1V.2-30; for an
additional discussion of policy C-5, please see pages IX -12 to IX -13 of the FEIR.)
Significance After Mitigation:
General Plan 2020 Policy C-5 defines LOS E as acceptable in the Downtown area, which
includes the intersection of Second Street and A Street. Therefore, this is considered a
less -than -significant impact.
Impact IV.2-3: Level of Service at Third Street and Union Street from General
Plan 2020.
Implementation of General Plan 2020 would result in increased delay, and
degradation in intersection LOS. Intersection LOS would change from
acceptable LOS under Baseline conditions to unacceptable LOS under the
proposed project. This would be a significant impact. (DEIR, p. IV.2-30.)
Finding:
No mitigation is available to render the effects less than significant. The effects therefore
remain significant and unavoidable.
Mitigation Measure:
IV. 2-3: There are no additional feasible mitigation measures that would further
reduce this impact.
(DEIR, p. IV.2-31.)
Explanation:
The intersection of Third Street and Union Street would, during the PM peak hour,
operate at LOS D under Baseline conditions and General Plan 2020 conditions without
37
General Plan 2020 improvements. With implementation of General Plan 2020
improvements, traffic operations at this intersection would degrade to an unacceptable
LOS E during the PM peak hour. Improvements at this intersection include: two
northbound left turn lanes, a left turn lane pocket into Whole Foods Market, a new
westbound right turn pocket, the extension of east bound and westbound left turn pockets,
sidewalk on the east side of the Montecito Shopping Center entryway, and an increase in
the signal cycle time for pedestrians. LOS E would be experienced by north/southbound
(Union Street) traffic, and not by east/west bound traffic on Third Street. The
unacceptable traffic operations are a result of safety improvements to the intersection,
especially the increase in the signal cycle time for pedestrian crossings. The increase in
signal cycle time increases the average delay experienced by vehicles traveling through
the intersection by increasing the length of the red light phase. (DEIR, pp. IV.2-30 to
N.2-31.)
Policy C-4, Safe Roadway Design, allows LOS standards to be exceeded for safety
considerations. Decreasing the signal cycle length would improve traffic operations.
However, this mitigation would potentially impair pedestrian safety at this intersection.
Thus, this impact is determined to be significant and unavoidable. (DEIR, p. IV.2-31.)
The City found that, when promoting pedestrian and bicycle modes and mixed use
development, (policies intended to preserve the neighborhoods and reduce car traffic),
certain improvements are needed to ensure public safety. For example, the Public Works
Department is designing roadway improvements at Third and Union to improve
pedestrian safety and traffic flow.
Some roadway improvements to improve bicycle and pedestrian access and/or safety
could cause an intersection LOS to decline below the LOS standard. Using the same
example, the intersection LOS at Third and Union is projected to decline to LOS E, in
part because of the high number of pedestrians crossing Third Street and the need to
provide longer intersection timing for pedestrian crossings.
Policy C-4 would apply in this situation, as the City Council would need to exempt the
intersection from LOS standards and approve the intersection capital project, since the
improvements are needed to improve the safety of pedestrians, as well as to improve
traffic flow for cars turning into Union or out of Montecito Shopping Center. However,
the intent of the policy is not to exempt such an intersection from any LOS standards. An
implementation program has been added so that an appropriate LOS standard would be
set when Council makes an exemption pursuant to this policy.
Regarding the pedestrian overcrossing option, the cost due to ADA requirements (an
elevator would be needed for handicapped access) is prohibitive compared with the
planned intersection improvements. Additionally, an overcrossing would not improve the
current delays out of Montecito Shopping Center and turning left onto Union Street, No
Changes Recommended.
(FEIR, p. IX -548 to IX -549.)
38
Significance After Mitigation:
Policy C-4, Safe Roadway Design, allows LOS standards to be exceeded for safety
considerations. Mitigation to reduce signal delay time, such as decreasing the signal
cycle length, would impair pedestrian safety at this intersection. This impact remains
significant and unavoidable. (DEIR, p. IV.2-31.)
Impact IV.2-4: Level of Service at Lincoln Avenue and US 101 Southbound Ramps
with General Plan 2020.
Implementation of General Plan 2020 would result in increased traffic
volumes, delay, and degrade intersection LOS. General Plan 2020 would
result in a change in intersection LOS for the PM peak hour from E under
Baseline conditions to LOS F under the proposed project. This would be a
significant impact. (DEIR, p. IV.2-31.)
Finding:
No mitigation is available to render the effects less than significant. The effects therefore
remain significant and unavoidable.
Mitigation Measure:
IV.2-4: There are no additional feasible mitigation measures that would further
reduce this impact.
(DEIR, p. IV.2-31.)
Explanation:
Lincoln Avenue is a major roadway and is San Rafael's local north/south connector
between Central and North San Rafael, and an alternative to Highway 101. The roadway
carries between 13,000 and 24,000 vehicles per day between the southbound 101 offramp
and Hammondale and Second Street. (FE1R, p. IX -543.) The intersection of Lincoln
Avenue and US 101 Southbound Ramps would operate at LOS F in the PM peak hour
under General Plan 2020 conditions, even with General Plan 2020 improvements.
General Plan 2020 Policy C-5, Traffic Level of Service Standards, would exempt
freeway ramp intersections from the LOS standard because delay at these locations is
affected by regional traffic and not local measures. However, exempting this intersection
from LOS standards as a matter of policy is not considered to reduce the impact to a less -
than -significant level. This impact would therefore be considered significant. (DEIR, p.
IV.2-31; for an additional discussion of policy C-5, please see pages IX -12 to IX -13 of
the FEIR.)
we
The City has examined possible mitigation measures to reduce this impact and has
determined that, in order to improve operations and the LOS at the ramps, the City would
have to widen the southbound approach to provide two southbound left turn lanes and two
through lanes, widen the northbound approach to provide two northbound through lanes,
and widen the on-ramp to provide two lanes for an adequate merge area. However, the
improvements would require substantial right-of-way acquisition and roadway widening,
particularly to meet geometric requirements for adequate merge/diverge area on 101. The
costs of reconfiguring the intersection would be substantial, as would be the impacts of
eliminating land uses to accommodate roadway widening. Furthermore, the City does not
have a policy that would support eliminating existing land uses to accommodate right-of-
way acquisition for freeway improvements. Thus, the potential mitigations are determined
to be infeasible. For these reasons, this impact is determined to be significant and
unavoidable. (DEIR, p. IV.2-31; for additional discussion, please see page IX -558 of the
FEIR.)
Significance After Mitigation:
Significant and unavoidable. (DEIR, p. IV.2-31.)
Impact IV.2-5: Level of Service at Mission Avenue and Irwin Street with General
Plan 2020.
Implementation of General Plan 2020 would result in increased traffic
volumes and delay at this intersection; the intersection would continue to
operate at LOS F with additional delay. This would be a significant impact.
(DEIR, p. IV.2-32.)
Finding:
No mitigation is available to render the effects less than significant. The effects therefore
remain significant and unavoidable.
Mitigation Measure:
IV.2-5: There are no additional feasible mitigation measures that would further
reduce this impact.
(DEIR, p. IV.2-32.)
Explanation:
The intersection of Mission Avenue and Irwin Street would operate at LOS F during the
PM peak hour under Baseline conditions and under General Plan 2020 conditions, with
or without General Plan 2020 improvements. PM peak hour delay increases from 98.9
seconds in Baseline to 107.6 seconds for 2020 without improvements, and 114.4 seconds
for 2020 with improvements. The increased delay with improvements is due to planned
40
systemwide operations improvements in signal timing. When traffic operations are
improved systemwide, individual approaches to intersections may be impacted, and an
intersection LOS degraded. The planned systemwide improvements Downtown would
impact certain approaches to the Mission and Irwin intersection. As noted in the
Significance Criteria section, LOS F is the standard at this intersection, and Draft
General Plan 2020 policy C-5 would exempt freeway ramp intersections from the LOS
standard because delay at these locations is affected by regional traffic and not local
measures. However, exempting this intersection from LOS standards as a matter of
policy is not considered to reduce the impact to a less -than -significant level. This impact
is therefore considered significant. (DEIR, p. IV.2-32; for an additional discussion of
policy C-5, please see pages IX -12 to IX -13 of the FEIR.)
The City has examined possible mitigation measures to reduce this impact and has
determined that, in order to improve operations and the LOS at the ramp, the City would
have to widen Mission Avenue to provide an additional eastbound left turn lane (for two
eastbound left turn lanes), widen Irwin to provide an additional through lane onto 101
(for three through lanes) and retain one right/through lane, and widen the on-ramp to
three lanes with an extension of one of the lanes to provide adequate merge area.
However, the improvements would required modifying the 101 viaduct's support
structure on Mission Avenue, acquisition of right-of-way along Belle and Mission and
Irwin, demolition of existing buildings at the intersection, and relocation of the sound
wall further east. The costs of modifying the 101 viaduct would be substantial, as would
be the costs of acquiring the right-of-way along Belle, Mission and Irwin. In addition,
the City does not have a policy that would support eliminating existing land uses to
accommodate right-of-way acquisition for freeway improvements. Thus the potential
mitigations are determined to be infeasible. For these reasons, this impact is determined
to be significant and unavoidable. (DEIR, p. IV.2-32.)
Significance After Mitigation:
Significant and unavoidable. (DEIR, p. IV.2-32.)
City Roadway Segments
Impact IV.2-6: Unacceptable Citv Roadwav Seement Level of Service Resulting
from General Plan 2020.
Implementation of General Plan 2020 would result in LOS on some City
roadway segments degrading from acceptable to unacceptable LOS. This
degradation would occur despite implementation of improvements included
in General Plan 2020. Therefore, this would be considered a significant
impact. (DEIR, p. N.2-33.)
Finding:
41
No mitigation is available to render the effects less than significant. The effects therefore
remain significant and unavoidable.
Mitigation Measure:
IV. 2-6: There are no additional feasible mitigation measures that would further
reduce this impact.
(DEIR, p. IV.2-34.)
Explanation:
Implementation of General Plan 2020 would result in traffic operations on A Street and
on Freitas Parkway degrading from acceptable LOS under Baseline conditions to
unacceptable LOS under General Plan 2020. (DEIR, p. IV.2-33.)
The unacceptable traffic operations would occur even with implementation of
improvements included in General Plan 2020. According to significance thresholds
described in the Significance Criteria section, this degradation from acceptable to
unacceptable conditions is considered a significant impact. (DEIR, p. IV.2-33.)
The City has considered various possible additional mitigations to reduce these impacts
and has determined that, in order to improve operations and reduce LOS at on these
segments, the City would have to widen A Street to provide an additional lane or,
alternatively, modify signal timing, and widen Freitas Parkway and overpass and realign
the 101 southbound and northbound on- and offramps. Widening A Street would require
extremely expensive right-of-way acquisition, due to the development pattern of
buildings close to the street. In addition, the impacts of losing the land uses in
Downtown would be substantial. Changing the traffic signal coordination to improve
operations on A Street would result in not meeting the City's policy to maintain the LOS
standard for Second and Third Streets in Marin County Congestion Management
Agency's Congestion Management Plan. The expansion of Freitas and redesign of the
Freitas interchange would require right-of-way acquisition on Freitas between Las
Gallinas and Del Presidio and modifications to North San Rafael's main storm drainage
way along Freitas. In addition, because of the original design of the Freitas interchange,
reconfiguration would be extremely challenging and expensive. Therefore, the potential
mitigations are determined to be infeasible. For these reasons, this impact is determined
to be significant and unavoidable. (DEIR, p. IV.2-33.)
Significance After Mitigation:
Significant and unavoidable. (DEIR, p. IV.2-34.)
42
Imr)act IV.2-7: Citv Roadwav SeEment Level of Service Resultine from General
Plan 2020.
Implementation of General Plan 2020 would result in the continuation of
traffic operations at LOS E or F on some City roadway segments. However,
implementation of General Plan 2020 would not worsen traffic operations to
the point of exceeding significance thresholds. Therefore, this would be a
less -than -significant impact. (DEIR, p. IV.2-34.)
Finding:
Under CEQA, no mitigation measures are required for impacts that are less than
significant. (Pub. Resources Code, § 21002; CEQA Guidelines, §§ 15126.4, subd. (a)(3),
15091.)
Mitigation Measure:
None required. (DEIR, p. IV.2-35.)
Explanation:
There are roadway segments that would continue to operate at LOS E or F. However,
these segments do not exceed the significance thresholds of either a decline from an
acceptable LOS to an unacceptable LOS, or for a segment already operating at an
unacceptable LOS a decrease in travel speeds of five miles per hour or more. (DEIR, p.
IV.2-34.)
For seven roadway segments that would operate at LOS E or F in baseline,
implementation of General Plan 2020 would result in both the AM peak hour and PM
peak hour traffic operations improving (i.e., vehicle speed increasing) or staying the
same. For six roadway segments that would operate at LOS E or F in baseline,
implementation of General Plan 2020 would result in traffic operations improving during
one of the two peak hours. (DEIR, p. IV.2-34.)
For seven segments, implementation of General Plan 2020 would result in an
improvement or no degradation in traffic operation. For the six segments where the
implementation of General Plan 2020 would result in a degradation of traffic operations
(i.e., a decrease in vehicle speed), the decrease in vehicle speed does not exceed the
significance threshold of five miles per hour described in the Significance Criteria
section. Because implementation of General Plan 2020 does not result in an
unacceptable impact, this would be a less -than -significant impact. (DEIR, p. IV.2-34.)
43
Implementation of General Plan 2020 would result in both the AM peak hour and PM
peak hour traffic operations degrading (i.e., vehicle speed decreasing), compared to
Baseline conditions on the following serrients:
■ Southbound A Street between 4` and 2"a
■ Southbound B Street between 5`h and 2"a
The decrease in vehicle speed on these two roadway segments does not exceed the
significance threshold of five miles per hour described in the Significance Criteria
section. (DEIR, p. IV.2-35.)
Because implementation of General Plan 2020 would result in an overall improvement in
traffic operations on these roadway segments during one or both of the two peak hours,
with the exception of two segments in Downtown where the decrease in miles per hour is
2.5 or less, and the decrease in vehicle speed on the following roadway segments would
not exceed the significance threshold, this would be a less -than -significant impact.
(DEIR, p. IV.2-35.)
Significance After Mitigation:
Less than significant without mitigation. (DEIR, p. IV.2-34.)
Impact IV.2-8:
Congestion Management Agency Arterial Levels of Service. Implementation
of the project would result in increased traffic volumes, delay, and a minor
decrease in LOS along some arterials for which the Congestion Management
Agency has established LOS standards. This would be a less -than -significant
impact. (DEIR, p. IV.2-35.)
Finding:
Under CEQA, no mitigation measures are required for impacts that are less than
significant. (Pub. Resources Code, § 21002; CEQA Guidelines, §§ 15126.4, subd. (a)(3),
15091.)
Mitigation Measure:
None required. (DEIR, p. IV.2-35.)
Explanation:
The CMA is responsible for setting standards and thresholds for the Second, Third, and
Fourth Street arterials. The CMA has selected LOS D as the standard for urban and
suburban arterials. Portions of Second Street, Third Street, and Fourth Street were
analyzed using CMA LOS methods; LOS on these roadways is presented in DEIR
44
Exhibit IV.2-17. It should be noted that the LOS shown for these roadways differs from
the results presented in DEIR Exhibit 1V.2-15 because different LOS analysis methods
and different criteria (i.e., vehicle speed versus V/C ratios) are used. All of the roadways
shown in DEIR Exhibit IV.2-17 have baseline and Draft General Plan 2020 operations
(including improvements) at LOS C or better. Therefore, this would be a less -than -
significant impact. (DEIR, p. IV.2-35; see p. IX -569 to IX -571 of the FE1R for Exhibit
19 showing major planned circulation improvements.)
Significance After Mitigation:
Through implementation of General Plan 2020, these impacts would be less than
significant without mitigation.
Freewav Facilities
IV.2-9: Level of Service along US 101 and I-580 Mainlines Resulting from General
Plan 2020.
Implementation of General Plan 2020 would cause some freeway segments to
deteriorate below LOS E. This would be a significant project specific impact.
This would also be a significant cumulative impact. (DEIR, p. IV.2-38.)
Finding:
No mitigation is available to render the effects less than significant. The effects therefore
remain significant and unavoidable.
Mitigation Measure:
IV.2-9: There are no additional feasible mitigation measures that would further
reduce this impact.
(DEIR, p. IV.2-40.)
Explanation:
Changes in LOS from acceptable E or better to unacceptable LOS F, or for segments at
LOS F in baseline changes resulting in an increase in the V/C of 0.01 or more would be
considered a significant impact. (DEIR, p. IV.2-38.)
DEIR Exhibit N.2-18 indicates that:
■ Northbound US 101 north of Miller Creek during the PM peak hour would
change from acceptable LOS D under existing conditions to LOS F with
implementation of General Plan 2020.
45
■ Eastbound I-580 at the Richmond Bridge during the PM peak hour would change
from acceptable LOS D under existing conditions to LOS F with implementation
of General Plan 2020.
■ Westbound I-580 at the Richmond Bridge during the AM peak hour would
change from acceptable LOS D under existing conditions to LOS F with
implementation of General Plan 2020.
■ Westbound I-580 to northbound US 101 at the interchange would remain at LOS
F in the AM and PM peak hours under General Plan 2020 conditions, with an
increase in V/C for both AM and PM.
(DEIR, p. IV.2-38.)
The increase in commute traffic is consistent with recent findings by the CMA. Between
1999 and 2002, the average daily traffic on the Richmond Bridge has increased ten
percent. Of morning commuters from the East Bay, 76 percent are destined for Marin
County, and 24 percent go on to Sonoma County. Over half (57 percent in the AM
commute, and 52 percent in the PM commute) of the traffic on the freeways is generated
or ended outside of San Rafael, for example, by people who live in Novato and work in
San Rafael. In 2002, a Marin County congestion monitoring report determined that 29
percent of Marin's highways experienced moderate congestion, and ten percent
experienced severe congestion, depending on the segment. (DEIR, p. IV.2-38.)
The CMA "grandfathered" US 101 and I-580 at LOS F facilities, and has completed a
multimodal plan to increase the management of the demand for many of these segments.
This analysis of change in LOS includes increases in traffic due to development under
General Plan 2020 as well increases in traffic due to development throughout the Bay
Area. Traffic due to development as a result of General Plan 2020 would represent
between 0.0 percent and 3.6 percent of the traffic volume in 2020 conditions. In some of
the highway sections, this increase alone would represent a significant project specific
impact. When this increase is considered along with development throughout the Bay
Area, this would represent a significant cumulative impact. Implementation of General
Plan 2020 would make a cumulatively considerable contribution to the cumulative
impact. (DEIR, p. IV.2-40.)
The analysis of future conditions on freeway facilities assumes the Marin 101 Gap
Closure Project. Improvements beyond the Gap Closure Project would be needed to
reduce the impact to a less -than -significant level. The City has examined possible
mitigation measures to reduce this impact and has determined that, in order to improve
operations and reduce LOS, the US 101/1-580 interchange would have to be redesigned
with a reconfiguration to include additional lanes and longer merge areas and/or a
flyover. In addition, US 101 would have to be expanded with additional north bound and
southbound lanes on US 101. Impacts from interchange reconfiguration and additional
freeway expansion would be considerable because a wider right-of-way beyond that
already achieved for the Gap Closure Project would result in demolition of land uses
(such as auto dealerships, furniture/home and computer sales, etc.) essential to the well
being of the local economy and City finances. These potential mitigations would require
M
extensive design and environmental work, as well as funding for land acquisition and
construction of significant new infrastructure. Completing the design work, securing the
funding and building the project within the timeframe of the plan is not likely. Therefore,
this impact is determined to be significant and unavoidable.
(DEIR, p. IV.2-40.)
Significance After Mitigation:
Significant and unavoidable. (DEIR, p. IV.2-40.)
Impact IV.2-10: Level of Service on Freewav Off -ramps Resulting from General
Plan 2020.
Implementation of General Plan 2020 would cause some queues on freeway
off -ramps to extend into the ramp's deceleration area or onto the freeway, or
to exceed existing lane storage. This would be a less -than -significant impact.
(DEIR, p. IV.2-40.)
Finding:
Under CEQA, no mitigation measures are required for impacts that are less than
significant. (Pub. Resources Code, § 21002; CEQA Guidelines, §§ 15126.4, subd. (a)(3),
15091.)
Mitigation Measure:
None required. (DEIR, p. IV.2-41.)
Explanation:
According to significance thresholds described in the Significance Thresholds section,
changes that extend vehicle queues on the off -ramp deceleration area or onto the freeway,
or that result in a vehicle queue exceeding existing lane storage would be considered a
significant impact. (DEIR, p. IV.2-40.)
None of the queues at the freeway off -ramps would exceed the threshold. Exhibit VHl.3-
6 shows that vehicle queue exceeds existing lane storage at two off -ramps:
■ US 101 northbound at Second and Irwin
■ I-580 eastbound/US 101 northbound at Bellam
(DEIR, p. IV.2-41.)
The off -ramp approach analysis indicates that the approach vehicle queue would remain
within the off -ramp boundaries and not encroach into the deceleration lane on the
freeway. Thus, both of these queues would operate at acceptable levels, and mitigation
would not be required. This impact would be less -than -significant. (DEIR, p. IV.2-41.)
47
Significance After Mitigation:
The off -ramp approach analysis indicates that the approach vehicle queue would remain
within the off -ramp boundaries and not encroach into the deceleration lane on the
freeway and would be less than significant without mitigation. (DEIR, p. IV.2-41.)
Parking Facilities
Impact IV.2-11: Removal of On -Street Parking Spaces along Las Gallinas Avenue.
Implementation of the proposed land uses in General Plan 2020 would result
in increased traffic volumes, delay, and a decrease in intersection LOS.
Improvements would be needed to intersections. Some improvements
include the removal of on -street parking spaces to accommodate an
additional travel lane to provide more capacity for traffic. These
improvements have been included as part of the proposed project. The
removal of on -street parking spaces would be a less -than -significant impact.
(DEIR, p. IV.2-41.)
Finding:
Under CEQA, no mitigation measures are required for impacts that are less than
significant. (Pub. Resources Code, § 21002; CEQA Guidelines, §§ 15126.4, subd. (a)(3),
15091.)
Mitigation Measure:
None required. (DEIR, p. IV.2-41).
Explanation:
As noted in the Significance Thresholds Section to the DEIR, the project would be
considered to have a significant impact if it "caused a substantial reduction in availability
of on -street parking, either through removal or through increased demand for existing on -
street parking." With implementation of the Project, on -street parking spaces would be
removed from Las Gallinas Avenue between Los Ranchitos Road and Northgate Drive.
The City's Public Works Department estimates that approximately ten spaces would be
lost. On-site surveys by Public Works reveal that these parking spaces are generally
vacant during the peak. Therefore, General Plan 2020 would not be considered to cause
a substantial reduction in the availability of on -street parking, and this impact would be
less -than -significant. (DEIR, p. IV.2-41.)
W.
Significance After Mitigation:
Implementation of Draft General Plan 2020 polices and programs would not be
considered to cause a substantial reduction in the availability of on -street parking and
would be less than significant without mitigation. (DEIR, p. IV.2-41.)
Impact IV.2-12: Removal of On -Street Parkine Spaces alone Grand Avenue.
Implementation of the proposed land uses in General Plan 2020 would result
in increased traffic volumes, delay, and a decrease in intersection LOS.
Improvements would be needed to intersections. Some improvements
include the removal of on -street parking spaces during the peak period to
accommodate additional turn lanes and travel lanes, which would provide
more capacity for the increase traffic volumes. These improvements have
been included as part of the proposed project. The removal of on -street
parking spaces would be a less -than -significant impact. (DEIR, p. IV.2-41.)
Finding:
Under CEQA, no mitigation measures are required for impacts that are less than
significant. (Pub. Resources Code, § 21002; CEQA Guidelines, §§ 15126.4, subd. (a)(3),
15091.)
Mitigation Measure:
None required. (DEIR, p. IV.2-42.)
Explanation:
As noted in the Significance Thresholds Section to the DEIR, the project would be
considered to have a significant impact if it "caused a substantial reduction in availability
of on -street parking, either through removal or through increased demand for existing on -
street parking." With implementation of the Project, on -street parking spaces would be
removed from Grand Avenue between Third Street and Mission Avenue. Removal of on -
street parking would be needed to accommodate intersection turn lanes. Parking
removed to accommodate signalization would be permanently removed. Also, during the
PM peak period, parking restrictions would be needed to accommodate an extra travel
lane in each direction. Land uses in the vicinity of these parking restrictions are generally
commercial uses. Removal of parking during the AM peak period would not affect many
vehicles, as most businesses are not open. A survey of parking along Grand Avenue
indicates that during the PM peak period, enough on -street parking exists along side
streets and within off-street parking lots to accommodate the lost on -street parking
spaces. Therefore, General Plan 2020 would not be considered to cause a substantial
reduction in the availability of on -street parking, and this impact would be less -than -
significant. (DEIR, pp. IV.241 to IV.2-42.)
49
Significance After Mitigation:
Implementation of General Plan 2020 programs and policies would not be considered to
cause a substantial reduction in the availability of on -street parking and would be less
than significant without mitigation. (DEIR, pp. IV.2-41 to IV.2-42.)
Impact IV.2-13: Removal of On -Street Parking Spaces along Lincoln Avenue.
Implementation of the proposed land uses in General Plan 2020 would result
in increased traffic volumes, delay, and a decrease in intersection LOS.
Improvements would be needed to intersections. Some improvements
include the removal of on -street parking spaces during the peak period to
accommodate an additional travel lane, which would provide more capacity
for the increase traffic volumes. These improvements have been included as
part of the proposed project. The removal of on -street parking spaces would
be a significant impact. (DEIR, p. IV.2-42.)
Finding:
No mitigation is available to render the effects less than significant. The effects therefore
remain significant and unavoidable.
Mitigation Measure:
IV.2-13: There are no feasible mitigation measures that would further reduce this
impact.
(DEIR, p. IV.2-42.)
Explanation:
As noted in the Significance Thresholds Section to the DEIR, the project would be
considered to have a significant impact if it "caused a substantial reduction in availability
of on -street parking, either through removal or through increased demand for existing on -
street parking." With implementation of the Project, on -street parking spaces would be
restricted on the west side of Lincoln Avenue (southbound) during the AM peak hour,
and both sides of Lincoln Avenue during the PM peak hour. Removal of on -street
parking is needed to accommodate an extra travel lane in each direction during the peak
periods. Land uses in the vicinity of these parking restrictions are generally residential in
the northern section and commercial uses in the southern section. (DEIR, p. IV.2-42.)
A survey of parking along Lincoln Avenue indicates that, currently, on -street parking
spaces are heavily -occupied. Removal of on -street parking would be needed to maintain
acceptable LOS at nearby intersections. Not removing the parking and, therefore, not
adding a travel lane would result in LOS F operations along Lincoln Avenue as an
arterial, and LOS at intersections along Lincoln Avenue. Because on -street parking
50
spaces are heavily occupied, removal of on -street parking associated with General Plan
2020 would be considered to cause a substantial reduction in the availability of on -street
parking, and is considered a significant impact. (DEIR, p. IV.2-42.)
Available on -street parking on the nearby side streets would not compensate for the
amount of on -street parking that would be lost on Lincoln Avenue. Construction of off-
street parking facilities would be needed to replace on -street parking spaces. This would
probably involve the replacement of existing land uses with the new parking facilities.
Alternatively, removal of land uses along Lincoln Avenue would be needed to widen
Lincoln Avenue without removing on -street parking. Either replacing existing land uses
with parking facilities or removing residential uses to provide a parking lane along
Lincoln would be significant impacts. Therefore, this impact is considered significant
and unavoidable. (DEIR, p. IV.2-42.)
Significance After Mitigation
Significant and unavoidable. (DEIR, p. IV.2-43.)
Impact IV.2-14: Parking in Newlv-Develoaed Areas Citvwide.
Implementation of the proposed land uses in General Plan 2020 would result
in new land use development. This development would result in the demand
for additional parking supply. However, the zoning code would require
adequate new parking for new development. This would be a less-tl:an-
signifccant impact. (DEIR, p. 1V.2-43.)
Finding:
Under CEQA, no mitigation measures are required for impacts that are less than
significant. (Pub. Resources Code, § 21002; CEQA Guidelines, §§ 15126.4, subd. (a)(3),
15091.)
Mitigation Measure:
None required. (DEIR, p. IV.2-43.)
Explanation:
As noted in the Significance Thresholds, the project would be considered to have a
significant impact if it "caused a demand for parking that would be substantially greater
than the planned parking supply." With implementation of General Plan 2020, new land
use development would occur at various locations in the City. The new land use
development, whether it is residential or non-residential, would generate demand for
additional parking supply. The City's zoning code contains requirements for parking
supply, which would apply to the new development. The zoning code requires an amount
of new parking supply considered adequate to meet the additional demand. Policy NH -
51
134 requires that all new residential developments provide for attractive and adequate
off-street parking. Therefore, General Plan 2020 would not be considered to cause a
substantial reduction in the availability of on -street parking, and this impact would be
less -than -significant. (DEIR, p. IV.2-43, FEIR, pp. IX -510 and IX -521.)
Significance After Mitigation:
Implementation of General Plan 2020 programs and policies would not be considered to
cause a substantial reduction in the availability of on -street parking, and this would be
less than significant without mitigation. (DEIR, p. IV.2-43, FEIR, pp. IX -510 and IX -
521.)
Bicvcle and Pedestrian Facilities
Impact IV.2-15: Increased Demand for Bicvcle and Pedestrian Facilities.
Implementation of the proposed land uses in General Plan 2020 would result
in increased urban land uses and, therefore, demand for bicycle and
pedestrian facilities. However, implementation of policies included in Draft
General Plan 2020 would result in improvements in bicycle and pedestrian
facilities. This would be a less -than -significant impact. (DEIR, p. IV.2-43.)
Finding:
Under CEQA, no mitigation measures are required for impacts that are less than
significant. (Pub. Resources Code, § 21002; CEQA Guidelines, §§ 15126.4, subd. (a)(3),
15091.)
Mitigation Measure:
None required. (DEIR, p. IV.2-44.)
Explanation:
Implementation of the Project would result in additional residential and nonresidential
land use development. A portion of the people associated with the additional
development would walk and use bicycles. Thus, the demand for bicycle and pedestrian
facilities would increase. General Plan 2020 contains several policies that would
improve bicycle and pedestrian facilities and increase capacity. These policies include
Policy C-11 Alternative Transportation Mode Users; Policy C-13 School -Related
Automobile Traffic; Policy C-22 Attractive Roadway Design; Policies C-23 Connections
Between Neighborhoods and with Adjoining Communities and C-24 Connections
Between Neighborhoods and Activity Centers; Policies C-26 Bicycle Plan
Implementation and C-27 Pedestrian Plan Implementation; Program C -26c Bicycle
Parking; Policy C-28 Urban Trail Network; Policy C-4 Safe Roadway Design and
Program C -27e Pedestrian Safety; Policy C-21 Residential Traffic Calming; Policy C-25
52
Meeting Local Circulation Needs Around Highway Interchanges; Policy C-2 Regional
Transportation Funding, C-10 Alternative Transportation Mode Projects and C-26
Bicycle Plan Implementation. Each of these policies is discussed on pages IV.2-43 to
IV.2-44 of the DEIR. (DEIR, p. IV.2-43.)
Significance After Mitigation:
Implementation of policies included in General Plan 2020 would result in improvements
in bicycle and pedestrian facilities and would be less than significant without mitigation.
(DEIR, p. IV.2-43.)
Transit
Impact IV.2-16: Increased Demand for Transit Services.
Implementation of General Plan 2020 would result in increased demand for
transit services. However, implementation of policies included in Draft
General Plan 2020 would result in improvements in transit service. This
would be a less -than -significant impact. (DEIR, p. N.2-44.)
Finding:
Under CEQA, no mitigation measures are required for impacts that are less than
significant. (Pub. Resources Code, § 21002; CEQA Guidelines, §§ 15126.4, subd. (a)(3),
15091.)
Mitigation Measure:
None required. (DEIR, p. IV.2-45.)
Explanation:
Implementation of the Project would result in additional residential and non-residential
land use development. A portion of the people associated with the additional
development would use public transit. Thus, the demand for transit service would
increase. General Plan 2020 contains several policies that would improve transit service.
These policies include: Policy C-10 Alternative Transportation Mode Projects; Policy C-
11 Alternative Transportation Modes; Policy C-13 School -Related Automobile Traffic;
Policy C-14 Transit Network; Policy C-15 Transit Needs; Policy C-16 Transit
Information; Policy C-17 Regional Transit Options; Policy C-18 Local Transit Options;
Policy C-19 Paratransit Options; Policy C-20 Intermodal Transit Hubs; Housing Program
H -22a Higher Density Infill Housing Near Transit. Each of these policies is discussed on
pages IV.s-44 to IV.2-45 of the DEIR. (DEIR, pp. IV.2-44 to 1V.2-45.)
Significance After Mitigation:
53
Implementation of policies included in General Plan 2020 programs and policies would
result in improvements in transit service and would be less than significant without
mitigation. (DEIR, p. IV.2-44.)
Cumulative Transportation and Circulation Impacts
Traffic projections within the City of San Rafael and those made on regional systems
(such as US 10 1) take cumulative development in the San Francisco Bay Area into
consideration. Therefore, the traffic analysis provided in Sectio: IV.2 Transportation:
and Circulation: of the Draft EIR and discussed above, included cumulative development
considerations. (FEIR, pp. 1X -649 to IX -650.)
Finding
See Findings for Impacts IV.2-1 through IV.2-16 above.
Mitigation Measure:
See discussion of Mitigation Measures for Impacts 1V.2-1 through IV.2-16 above.
Significance After Mitigation
See discussion above for Impacts N.2-1 through IV.2-16.
C. AIR OUALITY
Impact IV.3-1: Consistencv with Clean Air Plan.
The project is consistent with the BAAQMD Thresholds of Significance that
population not exceed ABAG projections and VMT should not increase
faster than population. This would be a less -than -significant impact. (DEIR,
p. IV.3-3.)
Finding:
Under CEQA, no mitigation measures are required for impacts that are less than
significant. (Pub. Resources Code, § 21002; CEQA Guidelines, §§ 15126.4, subd. (a)(3),
15091.)
Mitigation Measure:
None required. (DEIR, p. IV.3-4.)
54
Explanation:
The Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD) has developed guidelines
and thresholds of significance for local plans. Inconsistency with the most recently
adopted Clear Air Plan (CAP) is considered a significant impact. According to the
BAAQMD, the following criteria must be satisfied for a local plan to be determined to be
consistent with the CAP and not have a significant air quality impacts:
• The local plan must be consistent with the CAP population and Vehicle Miles
Traveled (VMT) assumptions. This is demonstrated if the population growth over
the planning period will not exceed the values included in the current CAP and
the rate of increase in VMT is equal to or lower than the rate of population
increase.
• The local plan demonstrates reasonable efforts to implement the Transportation
Control Measures (TCMs) included in the CAP that identify cities as
implementing agencies.
General Plan 2020 would be generally consistent with the latest Association of Bay Area
Government (ABAG) projections that are used in the regional Clean Air Plan. VMT
from trips with origins or destinations within the Planning Area is forecast to grow at an
average annual rate of 0.80 percent through 2020. At the same time, population would
increase at an average annual rate of 0.86 percent. Since VMT growth is less than
population growth, the BAAQMD threshold of significance for consistency with the
planning assumptions of the regional Clean Air Plan would not be exceeded. (DEIR, p.
IV.3-3.)
Furthermore, General Plan 2020 contains numerous policies and programs in the Land
Use, Clean Air and Waterways, Housing, Circulation and other Elements that, if adopted
and implemented, would act to help reduce VMT and/or reduce the rate of increase in
VMT. (DEIR, p. IV.3-3.) These policies and programs include: Programs C-1 le
Reduction of Single Occupancy Vehicles, C -13a School Transportation, and C -16a
Transit Information Dissemination, and Policies C-13 School -Related Automobile
Traffic, C-16 Transit Information; C-11 c Electric Vehicle Technology; Programs C -17a
SMART Service, and C -17b Northern Ferry Terminal; and Policies C-20 Intermodal
Transit Hubs, and C-33 Park and Ride Lots; Policies EV -11 Promotion of Workplace
Alternatives, H-22 Infill Near Transit, and H-23 Mixed Use, and Programs EV -18a
Public/Private Partnerships, and EV -18c Land Inventory; Programs LU -la Five -Year
Growth Assessment, and LU -3a Project Selection Process. Each is discussed on pages
IV.3-3 to IV.3-4 of the DEIR.
Because the BAAQMD threshold of significance for consistency with the planning
assumptions of the regional Clean Air Plan would not be exceeded, this would be a less -
than -significant impact. Adoption and implementation of the Draft General Plan 2020
policies and programs would further reduce any potential impacts. (DEIR, p. IV.3-4.)
55
Significance After Mitigation:
Adoption and implementation of General Plan 2020 policies and programs would further
reduce any potential impacts and would be less than significant without mitigation.
(DEIR, p. IV.3-4.)
Freeway Facilities
Impact IV.3-2: Consistency with Clean Air Plan Transportation Control Measures.
General Plan 2020 policies would support regional TCMs that are to be
implemented by Cities. This would be a less -than -significant impact. (DEIR,
p. IV.3-4.)
Finding:
Under CEQA, no mitigation measures are required for impacts that are less than
significant. (Pub. Resources Code, § 21002; CEQA Guidelines, §§ 15126.4, subd. (a)(3),
15091.1
Mitigation Measure:
None required. (DEIR, p. IV.3-4.)
Explanation:
DEIR Exhibit IV.3-1 lists General Plan 2020 policies that are supportive of the Clean Air
Plan Transportation Control Measures (TCMs). For each TCM a description is provided
and a listing of relevant General Plan 2020 strategies given. The proposed General Plan
policies clearly support and implement regional TCMs. Therefore, this would be a less -
than -significant impact. (DEIR, p. IV.3-4.)
Significance After Mitigation:
The proposed General Plan policies support and implement regional TCMs. This would
be a less -than -significant impact without mitigation. (DEIR, p. IV.3-4.)
Impact IV.3-3: Odor/Toxics Buffer Zones.
General Plan 2020 policies and land use maps would provide adequate buffer
zones around existing and proposed land uses that could emit odor and toxic
contaminants, but do not establish buffer zones from major mobile sources of
toxic contaminants. This impact would be potentially significant. (DEIR, p.
IV.3-7.)
56
Finding:
Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the Project that avoid
the significant environmental effect as identified in the Final EIR.
Mitigation Measure:
IV. 3-3: The following wording should be added to Program AW -2a Sensitive
Receptors:
Project review for sensitive receptors (facilities or land uses such as hospitals, day care
centers, schools and residences that are occupied for substantial amounts of time by
members of the population particularly sensitive to the effects of air pollutants, such as
children, the elderly and people with illnesses) proposed within 500 feet from the edge of
the closest traffic lane of U.S. Highway 101 or I-580 should include an analysis of
mobile source toxic air contaminant health risks, based on appropriate air dispersion
modeling. Project review should include an evaluation of the adequacy of the setback
from the highway and, if necessary, identify design mitigation measures to reduce health
risks to acceptable levels.
The Planning Commission included the mitigation in program S -38a as follows:
AW -2a. Sensitive Receptors. Through development review, ensure that siting of any
new sensitive receptors provides for adequate buffers from existing sources of toxic air
contaminants or odors. If development of a sensitive receptor (a facility or land use that
includes members of the population sensitive to the effects of air pollutants, such as
children, the elderly and people with illnesses) is proposed within 500 feet of Highway
101 or I-580, an analysis of mobile source toxic air contaminant health risks should be
performed. Development review should include an evaluation of the adequacy of the
setback from the highway and, if necessary, identify design mitigation measures to
reduce health risks to acceptable levels.
(DEIR, pp.1V.3-8 to N.3-9 and FEIR, p. IX -609.)
Responsibility and Monitoring:
The City Council would be responsible for adopting the amended program, as described
in Mitigation Measure IV.3-3, as part of General Plan 2020. The Community
Development Department would be responsible for monitoring the implementation of the
amended program. (DEIR, p. IV.3-9.)
Explanation:
According to BAAQMD CEQA Guidance, for a general plan to have a less than
significant impact with respect to odors and/or toxic air contaminants buffer zones should
be established around existing and proposed land uses that would emit these air
57
pollutants. Buffer zones to avoid odors and toxics impacts should be reflected in local
plan policies, land use maps, and implementing ordinances. (DEIR, p. IV.3-7.)
The Central Marin Sanitation Agency plant on Andersen Drive and the Las Gallinas
Valley Sanitary District plant off Smith Ranch Road are identified stationary sources of
both toxic air contaminants and odors. Existing land uses separate these sources from
sensitive land uses by providing a large buffer zone comprised of non -sensitive land uses
such as parklands, open space/conservation lands, industry and light industry/office.
These intervening land uses limit potential exposure to odors and/or toxic air
contaminants. (DEIR, p. IV.3-8.)
The proposed Land Use Map and the Zoning Ordinance would continue to utilize non -
sensitive land uses to provide substantial buffer zones between identified stationary
sources of toxic air contaminants/odors and sensitive land uses. Proposed land use
changes would not affect the maintenance of the existing buffer zones and would not
increase the potential for land use conflicts related to toxic air contaminants or odors.
Avoidance of odor -related land use conflicts and protection of existing buffer zones are
addressed in the following policies and programs of the Draft General Plan 2020 Land
Use and Clean Air and Waterways Elements: LU -23 Odor Impacts; LU -23a Project
Evaluation; AW -2 Land Use Compatibility; Program AW -2a Sensitive Receptors;
Program AW -2b Buffers; Program AW -4a Project Review. Each of these policies and
programs is discussed on page IV.3-8 of the DEIR. (DEIR, p. IV.3-8.)
The above general plan policies and programs do not specifically address the siting of
sensitive receptors near mobile sources of toxic air contaminants. This would be a
potentially significant impact of the project. (DEIR, p. IV.3-8.)
Significance After Mitigation:
With adoption and implementation of the above mitigation measure the BAAQMD
thresholds of significance for air toxics and odors would be met, and this impact would
be reduced to a less -than -significant level. (DEIR, p. IV.3-9.)
Cumulative Air Oualitv Impacts
The San Francisco Bay Area is the geographic area considered for air quality cumulative
impacts. The cumulative impacts analysis includes development pursuant to General
Plan 2020 as well as development forecast by the Association of Bay Area Governments.
The BAAQMD CEQA Guidelines provide that an individual project be assessed for
cumulative impacts based on an evaluation of consistency of the project with the local
general plan and the consistency of the local general plan with the regional air plan. No
specific cumulative threshold of significance is given for general plans beyond that of
consistency with the regional air plan.
If a general plan was found to have a significant air quality impact related to
inconsistency with the regional air quality it would also have a significant cumulative
impact. As discussed in Sectio: IV.3 Air Quality, General Plan 2020 was found to be
consistent with regional air quality planning efforts and therefore would not have a
cumulatively significant impact on air quality. (FEIR, p. IX -651.)
Finding
Under CEQA, no mitigation measures are required for impacts that are less than
significant. (Pub. Resources Code, § 21002; CEQA Guidelines, §§ 15126.4, subd. (a)(3),
15091.1
Mitigation Measure:
None required. (FEIR, p. IX -651.)
Significance After Mitigation
Cumulative Air Quality impacts would be less than significant. (FEIR, p. IX -651.)
D. NOISE
Impact IV.4-1: Increased Traffic Noise.
Existing noise sensitive land uses would be exposed to minor increases in
noise levels from traffic. In addition, roadway improvement projects have
the potential to generate noise impacts due to increased traffic noise. This
would be a less -than -significant impact. (DEIR, p. IVA-13.)
Finding:
Under CEQA, no mitigation measures are required for impacts that are less than
significant. (Pub. Resources Code, § 21002; CEQA Guidelines, §§ 15126.4, subd. (a)(3),
15091.)
Mitigation Measure:
None required. (DEIR, p. IVA-13.)
Explanation:
Vehicular traffic is the largest contributor to noise levels in San Rafael. With the new
development anticipated in General Plan 2020, traffic noise would increase in most
areas. The noise from US 101 would increase by about 1 dBA or less. The same is true
for most other roadways that affect residences including Freitas Parkway, Pt. San Pedro
Road, and Miracle Mile (Fourth Street). In fact, future traffic noise would increase by
less than 2 dBA along all roadway segments. Since this increase is less than the
threshold of 3 dBA of Policy N-5, Traffic Noise from New Development (and General
59
Plan 2000 Policy N-11), the increased traffic noise would be a less -than -significant
impact. (DEIR, p. IV.4-13.)
Individual roadway improvement projects such as those listed in Policy C-6, Proposed
Improvements, have the potential to generate noise impacts due to increased traffic noise.
Significant noise increases are more likely to be caused by major realignments than from
minor changes such as traffic signal upgrades. Policy N-5, Traffic Noise from New
Development, would require that mitigation measures be incorporated into projects that
increase traffic noise levels by more than 3 dB if the exterior Ldp is 65 dBA or greater.
Noise barriers such as walls or berms are typically used to reduce noise levels in adjacent
residential areas by 5 to 10 dBA. The noise reduction provided by a barrier can offset the
expected noise increase from a new project and effectively mitigate the impact. (DEIR,
p. IV.4-13.)
Policy N-5, Traffic Noise from New Development, would also encourage revisions in a
proposed project so that the increase in noise is not more than 3 dBA. Such revisions
could include realigning off -ramps or widening roadways away from the existing homes.
In this way Policy N-5 would act as a performance standard to limit the noise increases
generated by new development projects. (DEIR, p. IV.4-13.)
This would be a less -than -significant impact. (DEIR, p. IV.4-13.)
Significance After Mitigation:
Through implementation of General Plan policies and programs, potential impacts related
to increases in traffic noise levels due to new development would be less than significant
without mitigation. (DEIR, p. IV.4-13.)
Impact IV.4-2: Increased Rail Noise.
Existing noise sensitive land uses could be exposed to substantially increased
noise levels from rail activity. This would be a significant impact. (DEIR, p.
IV.4-13.)
Finding:
Those changes or alterations required to mitigate or avoid the Project's significant effects
on the environment are within the responsibility and jurisdiction of another public agency
and have been, or can and should be, adopted by that other agency.
Mitigation Measure:
IV. 4-2: SMART shall conduct a detailed noise assessment and implement
appropriate mitigation measures to reduce potential noise and vibration
impacts to an acceptable level under City and FTA Guidelines for any rail
project within its right-of-way in the Planning Area.
M1
SMART would be responsible for conducting the noise assessment and for
implementing the appropriate mitigation measures.
(DEIR, p. IV.4-14.)
Explanation:
The Sonoma Marin Area Rail Transit (SMART) project has the potential to increase
noise levels along the existing (but currently unused) railroad corridor in the City of San
Rafael. Much of the corridor is near existing residential uses. Residences that would
most likely experience significant noise increases are located far away from major
roadways. For example, the railroad corridor east of Los Ranchitos Road and west of US
101 is bordered, on both sides, by the backyards of homes on Corillo Drive, Constance
Drive and Ranchitos Road. These backyards are currently exposed to distant freeway
noise. SMART Trains would likely be the major noise source at these homes. The same
is true for residences along the west side of the railroad tracks both north and south of
Smith Ranch Road. In general, the noise from SMART trains is less likely to generate a
noise impact where it is adjacent to US 101 south of the Lincoln Avenue on/off ramps.
(DEIR, p. IVA-13.)
Noise sources associated with the SMART project would include the train engines, wheel
squeals, train whistles, and stationary crossing bells. Policy N -9a, Future Transitway
Mitigation Measures, would require that the environmental analysis for the SMART
Project address the City's noise standards and the Federal Transit Administration (FTA)
Guidelines. The FTA Guidelines address noise and vibration from transit trains. The
SMART project environmental analysis will use these criteria to determine potential
noise and vibration impacts. Because of the uncertainties associated with the types of
vehicles and operational details, no comprehensive noise predictions are provided in
General Plan 2020 and further discussion of potential impacts of increased rail noise
would be speculative. The City will remain involved in the rail project's environmental
review process, which is currently underway. (DEIR, p. IVA-14.)
This would be a significant impact. (DEIR, p. IV.4-14.)
Significance After Mitigation:
Implementation of this mitigation measure would be beyond the jurisdiction of the City
of San Rafael. Therefore, this would remain a significant and unavoidable impact.
(DEIR, p. IV.4-14.)
Imnact IV.4-3: Stationary Noise Sources.
Existing noise sensitive land uses would be exposed to substantially increased
noise levels from stationary noise sources. This would be a less -than -
significant impact. (DEIR, p. IV.4-14.)
61
Finding:
Under CEQA, no mitigation measures are required for impacts that are less than
significant. (Pub. Resources Code, § 21002; CEQA Guidelines, §§ 15126.4, subd. (a)(3),
15091.1
Mitigation Measure:
None required. (DEIR, p. IV.4-14.)
Explanation:
New commercial projects (or significant modifications of existing facilities) have the
potential to increase noise at existing noise sensitive land uses. For example, General
Plan 2020 Policy LU -16, Convenience Shopping, encourages the retention and
improvement of existing retail stores and services in residential neighborhoods. Potential
noise sources include on-site activities, ventilation equipment and engine -generators.
Even small residential equipment such as air -conditioners can cause unacceptable noise
at adjacent residences. These projects will continue to be reviewed by the City planning
staff on a case-by-case basis. (DEIR, p. IVA-14.)
Policy N -2a, Noise Ordinance, states that the Police Department will implement the
City's Noise Ordinance that limits the noise levels generated by stationary noise sources.
Policy N-4, Noise from New Commercial and Industrial Development, would set
performance standards for noise increases caused by commercial projects. (DEIR, p.
IV.4-14 and FEIR, pp. IX -593 to IX -594.)
These policies would be applied during the environmental review of the new projects
associated with some of the proposed land use changes contained in General Plan 2020.
They would be particularly helpful in avoiding noise impacts in mixed-use developments
where residential and commercial uses are very close together. (DEIR, p. IV.4-14.)
This would be a less -than -significant impact. (DEIR, p. IVA-14.)
Significance After Mitigation:
Through implementation of General Plan policies and programs, potential impacts related
to increased noise levels from stationary nose sources would be less than significant
without mitigation. (DEIR, p. IV.4-14.)
Impact IV.4-4: Increased Airport Noise.
Existing noise sensitive land uses would not be exposed to increased noise
levels from the private use San Rafael Airport. This would be a less-thal:-
significant impact. (DEIR, p. IVA-15.)
62
Finding:
Under CEQA, no mitigation measures are required for impacts that are less than
significant. (Pub. Resources Code, § 21002; CEQA Guidelines, §§ 15126.4, subd. (a)(3),
15091.)
Mitigation Measure:
None required. (DEIR, p. IVA-15.)
Explanation:
General Plan 2020 does not propose any changes to the location of the existing private
San Rafael Airport, nor the establishment of any new airport. Properties surrounding the
airport are built -out. The airport has a conditional use permit that allows a maximum of
100 airport -based aircraft. The conditional use permit also prohibits the following:
a. Flight training.
b. Helicopters.
c. Charter flights.
d. Public uses.
e. Commercial flight activity.
f. Non -based aircraft performing landings or departures.
(DEIR, p. IVA-15.)
Under the conditional use permit, the activity at the San Rafael Airport is not expected to
increase. Furthermore, General Plan 2020 Policy NH -153, San Rafael Airport, states the
types of uses allowed on the property, including private and public recreational uses,
public utility uses and open space, and Policy N-7, Airport/Heliport, would require
consideration and mitigation of noise impacts from changes in facilities or operations at
the site. Therefore, this would be a less -than -significant impact. (DEIR, p. IVA-15.)
Significance After Mitigation:
Through implementation of General Plan policies and programs, potential impacts related
to noise sensitive land uses exposed to increased noise levels from the private use San
Rafael Airport would be less than significant without mitigation. (DEIR, p. IVA-15.)
Impact IV.4-5: Future Noise Sensitive Development.
Future noise sensitive development could potentially be exposed to noise
levels greater than those considered normally acceptable. This would be a
less -than -significant impact. (DEIR, p. IVA-15.)
63
Finding:
Under CEQA, no mitigation measures are required for impacts that are less than
significant. (Pub. Resources Code, § 21002; CEQA Guidelines, §§ 15126.4, subd. (a)(3),
15091.)
Mitigation Measure:
None required. (DEIR, p. N.4-16.)
Explanation:
General Plan 2020 contemplates new noise sensitive development as part of land use
changes and development of vacant lands. For example, General Plan 2020 Policy H-22,
Infill Near Transit, and Program H -18b, Rezone Commercial Sites, encourage new
residential development in areas near Downtown or adjacent to busy roadways. Without
requirements for mitigation, high noise levels could interfere with activities such as
conversation and sleep. (DEIR, p. IV.4-15.)
Policy N-1, Noise Impacts on New Development, would establish land use compatibility
standards that identify the acceptability of a project based on its noise exposure. Program
N -la, Acoustical Studies, would require acoustical studies for all new residential projects
within the La„ 60 dB noise contours so that noise mitigation measures can be incorporated
into project design to achieve the appropriate outdoor and indoor noise standards. Policy
N-2, Exterior Noise Standards for Residential Use Areas, would set standards for
backyards and/or common useable outdoor areas in new residential development. Policy
N-3, Planning and Design of New Development, would provide guidance on using
various types of noise abatement measures to meet the performance standards in Policy
N-1, Noise Impacts on New Development. These measures include site planning,
architectural layout of buildings, noise barriers, construction modifications and
alternatives to soundwalls. (DEIR, p. IV.4-15.) Policy NH -121, which applies to the
Loch Lomond Marina site, encourages the use of soundwalls only if necessary to achieve
the interior and exterior noise levels required in the General Plan, and then only if well
designed. (FE1R, p. IX -518 to IX -519.)
The policies discussed above would result in noise mitigation requirements for individual
projects. For example, noise studies may be required for the new residential or mixed-
use developments at the Brookdale Avenue area, the Loch Lomond Marina, and
surrounding Davidson Middle School. (DEIR, p. IV.4-15.) For additional discussion
regarding the previous acoustical studies and the results of such studies, please see
Master Response E in the Final EIR. (FEIR, pp. IX -28 to IX -31.)
There are some locations where new development anticipated in the Draft General Plan
2020 would require noise studies and, possibly, noise abatement measures to achieve
acceptable traffic noise levels. For example, vacant lands along N. San Pedro Road are
designated for Low Density and High Density Residential development. The same is true
:,
for the Low Density Residential designated lands along Pt. San Pedro Road near the Loch
Lomond Marina between Sea Way and Bellevue Avenue. Along the freeways, vacant
lands that might be developed with residences are mostly designated as Hillside
Residential. There are also small parcels designated Low and Medium Density
Residential along US 101 between Downtown and the Marin County Civic Center.
Program N -la, Acoustical Studies, would require residential projects on these parcels to
have acoustical studies that specify the noise abatement measures to achieve acceptable
traffic noise levels. (DEIR, p. IV.4-16.)
The San Rafael Rock Quarry and the McNear Brickworks are located just south of the
City limit along Pt. San Pedro Road. The existing industrial operations at these facilities
are expected to continue through 2020. Noise from these facilities must be addressed if
new development is proposed in the vicinity of these facilities. However, under General
Plan 2020, very little development would occur in the vicinity of the Quarry.
Furthermore, Policies N-1, Noise Impacts on New Development, and N-2, Exterior Noise
Standards for Residential Use Areas, as described above, would reduce potential impacts
to development in these areas by assuring that noise sensitive development is either not
sited within noise exposure areas or adequate noise abatement is included in the
development. (DEIR, p. IV.4-16.)
Notwithstanding the above, the City recognizes that noise from the quarry and brickyard
operations continue to cause annoyance at existing residential areas. Noise sources
associated with the Quarry include on-site machinery, trucks, blasting, and haul trucks
traveling on Pt. San Pedro Road west of the Quarry. To be involved in resolving
community disputes regarding impacts from Quarry and brickyard operations, the Noise
Element shall be revised to include a program that the City work with the County of
Marin, as follows:
N -10d. San Rafael Rock Quarry. Seek to minimize noise impacts of the quarry
and brickyard operations through cooperative efforts with the County of Marin
through its code of enforcement and land use entitlement processes.
(FEIR, p. IX -31.)
Since the Quarry is located outside of the City, however, there is little the City can do on
its own to require noise abatement. The San Rafael Rock Quarry is located in
unincorporated Marin County adjacent to the City of San Rafael at 1000 Pt. San Pedro
Road. The rock quarry is not within the City limits, but is within the City's sphere of
influence. As such, the City can plan for the future uses of rock quarry, but the City has
no actual land use authority. Instead, the rock quarry is within the jurisdiction of Marin
County, and Marin County has land use authority for the quarry. The City has
determined that quarry operations are likely to continue throughout the planning horizon
of General Plan 2020. (FEIR, p. IX -8.)
The San Rafael Rock Quarry and the McNear Brickworks are discussed in the
Neighborhoods Element of Draft General Plan 2020. In response to comments on
65
General Plan 2020, the Planning Commission and City Council recommended that policy
NH -147 San Rafael Rock Quarry and McNear Brickworks be revised to read as
follows:
NH -147. San Rafael Rock Quarry and McNear Brickworks.
The San Rafael Rock Quarry is currently operational, but its future is unclear at this time. The property
owner has expressed an interest in continuing operations, but approval of an updated Reclamation Plan has
not yet been obtained from the County. If operations cease during the timeframe of this plan, consider
annexation and allow redevelopment of the San Rafael Rock Quarry and McNear Brickworks, taking into
account the following factors:
a. Consider the County's approved reclamation plan in future land use considerations. The current
reclamation plan indicates a mixture of single family and townhouse units, a marina, commercial
recreation or hospitality and neighborhood serving commercial uses. A revised reclamation plan is
anticipated during the timeframe of this General Plan.
a. Create a public use park band along the shoreline, at least 100 feet in width, linking McNears Beach
Park with the public walkway along Pt. San Pedro Road.
b. Reopen the saltwater marsh to tidal action. Protect the freshwater marsh.
c. Protect freshwater ponds.
d. Preserve the site's woodland areas and incorporate some of the historic brick works into the project
design.
e. Consider redevelopment of the site at one time to eliminate incompatibilities between the existing
operation and redevelopment uses, except for the development of a possible high-speed waterway
transit stop.
NH -147X. San Rafael Rock Quarry Impacts. While recognizing the jurisdiction of Marin County
over this property, persist in efforts to minimize impacts of the existing quarry operations on
surrounding residents, such as noise, air quality, vibrations, street maintenance and truck traffic.
Responsibility: Community Development, Public Works
Timeframe: Ongoing
Resources: Staff Time
NH-147Xa. Rock Quarry Impacts. Seek to have input into County code enforcement activities, land
use entitlements or negotiations with the quarry operator that might reduce impacts on affected
properties in the City of San Rafael and on City infrastructure.
Responsibility: Community Development, Public Works
Timeframe: Ongoing
Resources: Staff Time
NH-147Xa. Rock Quarry Impacts. Participate in preparation of a new reclamation plan and
environmental impact report through the County of Marin, which should form the basis of future land
uses and possible annexation.
Responsibility: Community Development, Public Works
Timeframe: Ongoing
Resources: Staff Time
(FEIR, p. IX -8 to IX -9.), as revised by the Planning Commission and City Council
during review of the draft Plan.
This would be a less -than -significant impact. (DEIR, p. IV.4-16.)
Significance After Mitigation:
M
Through implementation of General Plan 2020 policies potential impacts related to
future noise sensitive development would be less than significant without mitigation.
Cumulative Noise Impacts
The analysis of noise impacts in the EIR is in large part based upon the traffic analysis,
which considers cumulative development in the Planning Area, Marin County
Cities/Towns and Unincorporated Areas, and the Bay Area as described above under
Transportation and Circulation. Future development within the Planning Area consistent
with General Plan 2020 would result in potential cumulative noise level increases along
major roadways and near industrial and commercial developments. Each of these noise
impacts would be dealt with separately when new noise sensitive or noise generating
developments are proposed. As discussed in Section IV..4 Noise implementation of
General Plan 2020 would not result in significant noise impacts. Implementation of
noise -related policies and programs within General Plan 2020 would reduce the project's
contribution to cumulative noise impacts to less than cumulatively considerable. As
discussed in Impact IV.4-2 existing noise sensitive land uses in San Rafael could be
exposed to substantially increased noise levels from the Sonoma Marin Area Rail Transit
(SMART). General Plan 2020 contribution to this impact would not be cumulatively
considerable.
Finding
Under CEQA, no mitigation measures are required for impacts that are less than
significant. (Pub. Resources Code, § 21002; CEQA Guidelines, §§ 15126.4, subd. (a)(3),
15091.)
Mitigation Measure:
None required. (FEIR, pp. IX -651 to IX -652.)
Significance After Mitigation
Cumulative noise impacts will be less than significant and the Project's contribution to
cumulative noise impacts will not be cumulatively considerable.
E. PUBLIC SERVICES AND UTILITIES
Impact IV.5-1: Fire Protection and Emereencv Services.
Development consistent with General Plan 2020 would increase the demand
for fire protection and emergency services, which would require one
additional paramedic unit. This would be a less -than -significant impact.
(DEIR, p. IV. 5-10.)
Z
Finding:
Under CEQA, no mitigation measures are required for impacts that are less than
significant. (Pub. Resources Code, § 21002; CEQA Guidelines, §§ 15126.4, subd. (a)(3),
15091.1
Mitigation Measure:
None required. (DEIR, p. IV.5-10.)
Explanation:
The Fire Department has determined that the projected growth pursuant to General Plan
2020 would require one additional paramedic unit, which could be added to an existing
facility. The cost for additional service would be at least partially offset by increased
paramedic tax revenues generated by new development in the City. (DEIR, p. IV.5-10.)
The City recently reviewed the structural integrity of its fire safety buildings and
concluded that seismic upgrades are needed. A bond measure to finance building
improvements is currently under consideration. While the construction of seismic
upgrades to the fire safety buildings could result in secondary impacts to water and air
quality, such impacts are unlikely. The fire station is located in an already urbanized area
and would not be expected to alter existing drainage patterns or otherwise impact water
quality. (DEIR, p. IV. 5-10.)
Furthermore, General Plan 2020 includes a number of policies and programs that would
likely limit any potential construction -related impacts to a less -than -significant level.
These policies include: Policy AW -8 Reduce Pollution from Urban Runoff; Policy AW -9
Erosion and Sediment Control; Program N -10b Mitigation for Construction Activity
Noise; Policy AW -4 Particulate Matter Pollution Reduction; Program AW -4a Project
Review. (See DEIR, p. IV.5-10.)
Because development consistent with General Plan 2020 would not result in the need for
new fire protection facilities, this would be a less -than -significant impact. (DEIR, p.
IV. 5-10.)
Significance After Mitigation:
Because development consistent with General Plan 2020 would not result in the need for
new fire protection facilities, this would be less than significant without mitigation.
(DEIR, p. IV.5-10.)
Impact IV.5-2: Wildland Fires.
Development consistent with General Plan 2020 would not significantly
increase the potential for wildland/urban interface problems. This would be
a less -than -significant impact. (DEIR, p. IV.5-10.)
Finding:
Under CEQA, no mitigation measures are required for impacts that are less than
significant. (Pub. Resources Code, § 21002; CEQA Guidelines, §§ 15126.4, subd. (a)(3),
15091.)
Mitigation Measure:
None required. (DEIR, p. W.5-11.)
Explanation:
Because the City is essentially built out, the Fire Department does not project a
significant increase in the number of wildland/urban interface problems. A potential
problem would occur should there be a significant density increase due to the
construction of second units in hilly areas with narrow streets that restrict emergency
access and evacuation. However, few second units have been built in the hillside lots
because they typically have limited flat areas to accommodate the required parking (three
spaces, two for the residence plus one for the second unit). Because of site constraints,
second unit parking requirements, and the existing very low density of hillside residential
areas (up to two units per acre), impacts related to wildland fires would be less—than-
significant. (DEIR, pp. IV.5-10 to IV.5-11.)
Significance After Mitigation:
Because of site constraints, second unit parking requirements, and the existing very low
density of hillside residential areas (up to two units per acre), impacts related to wildland
fires would be less than significant without mitigation. (DEIR, pp. IV.5-10 to IV.5-11.)
Impact IV.5-3: Release of Hazardous Materials.
Development consistent with General Plan 2020 could cause a release of
hazardous materials. This would be a significant impact. (DEIR, p. IV.5-11.)
Finding:
Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the Project that
substantially lessen, but do not avoid, the potentially significant environmental effect
associated with hazardous materials. No mitigation is available to render the effects less
o
than significant. The effects (or some of the effects) therefore remain significant and
unavoidable.
Mitigation Measure:
IV. 5-3: A new implementing program (S -I Ib) shall be prepared and incorporated
into Policy S-11 of the Draft General Plan 2020 that requires remediation
and cleanup in order to develop on sites where hazardous materials have
impacted soil or groundwater. At a minimum, remediation and clean up of
contaminated sites shall be in accordance with regional and local
standards. The required level of remediation and clean-up shall be
determined by the Fire Department based on the intended use of the site
and health risk to the public. The time frame for this program shall be
implemented in the short term and maintained on an ongoing basis.
(DEIR, p. N.5-12, and FEIR, p. IX -588.)
Responsibility and Monitoring:
The City Council would be responsible for adopting the implementing program, as listed
in Mitigation Measure IV.5-3, as part of General Plan 2020. The Fire, Police, and
Community Development Departments would be responsible for implementing and
monitoring the program. (DEIR, p. N.5-12.)
Explanation:
General Plan 2020 would allow development or redevelopment of commercial and
industrial facilities, particularly in East San Rafael and the area around Davidson Middle
School. These facilities often require the use, storage or disposal of hazardous material in
their operations. There would also be the potential for environmental, health, and safety
risks associated with the transport of hazardous materials within the entire San Rafael
Planning Area. These risks include accidents involving vehicles transporting hazardous
materials, accidental spills or leaks, releases during seismic events, and improper use,
handling, storage, and disposal of hazardous materials. Hazardous material releases may
also occur from excavation on sites that have been previously contaminated with
hazardous materials. (DEIR, p. IV.5-11.)
General Plan 2020 contains policies and standards in the Safety Element, which if
adopted and implemented could be used to reduce the potential for a hazardous materials
release. These policies and programs include: Policy S-11, Potential Hazardous Soils
Conditions; Policy S-12 Hazardous Materials Storage, use and Disposal; Policy S-13
Hazardous Waste Management; Policy S-14 Transportation of Hazardous Materials;
Policy S-34 Emergency Connectors. Each of the policies and programs is discussed on
pages IV.5-11 to IV.5-12 of the DEIR. (DEIR, pp. IV.5-11 to N.5-12.)
70
While these policies would help reduce the potential for hazardous materials release, they
eliminate the potential for hazardous materials release. Nor would these policies and
programs eliminate the potential for damage or loss from a hazardous materials release.
This would be a significant impact. (DEIR, p. IV.5-12.)
Significance After Mitigation:
While the implementing program outlined in Mitigation Measure IV.5-3 would reduce
potential impacts where hazardous materials have impacted soil or groundwater, the
potential for damage or loss from a hazardous materials release would remain a
significant and unavoidable impact. (DEIR, p. IV.5-12.)
Impact IV.5-4: Hazardous Materials. Substances. or Waste Near Schools.
General Plan 2020 land use map would allow development of industrial
facilities that transport, store, use, emit, or dispose of hazardous materials
within one quarter mile of existing school sites. This would be a significant
impact. (DEIR, p. IV.5-12.)
Finding:
Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the Project that avoid
the significant environmental effect as identified in the Final EIR.
Mitigation Measure:
IV.S-4: A new implementing program (S -9a) shall be prepared and incorporated
into Policy S-9 of General Plan 2020 that would require the City to survey
existing industrial facilities within 1/4 mile of the schools. The survey
would be used to determine the presence of hazardous materials and
evaluate the risk of an accidental release that could adversely effect the
health and safety of students and school staff. In addition, the City shall
adopt a policy in General Plan 2020 that would restrict siting of
businesses or expansion of businesses (including hazardous waste
repositories, incinerators or other hazardous waste disposal facilities) that
have the potential for a significant hazardous materials release within one
quarter mile of schools. The time frame for this policy and program shall
require short-term implementation.
The Planning Commission recommended the mitigation be added as a separate policy and
program as follows:
S -9X (Restriction of Businesses).
Restrict siting of businesses or expansion of businesses that have the potential for a significant
hazardous materials release within one- quarter mile of schools.
71
S -9a. (Survey of Facilities). Survey existing industrial facilities within one-quarter mile of the
schools. The survey would be used to determine the presence of hazardous materials and evaluate the
risk of an accidental release that could adversely affect the health and safety of students and school
staff.
Responsibility: Community Development
Timeframe: Short term
Resources: Staff time
(DEIR, pp. IV.5-13 to IV.5-14, and FEIR, p. IX -588.)
Responsibility and Monitoring:
The City Council would be responsible for adopting the implementing program, as listed
in Mitigation Measure IV.5-4, as part of General Plan 2020. The Fire, Police, and
Community Development Departments would be responsible for implementing and
monitoring the program. (DEIR, p. IV.5-14.)
Explanation:
There are existing schools within one-quarter mile of zoned industrial areas that may
transport, store, use and dispose of hazardous materials. Two schools, Davidson Middle
School and Laurel Dell Elementary, are located within or very near an area zoned
industrial. The industrial land use areas identified in General Plan 2020 may also allow
development of new facilities that transport, store, use, emit, or dispose of hazardous
materials within one-quarter mile of other existing school sites. In addition, business and
industrial expansion could increase the volume of hazardous materials and hazardous
wastes used and generated in San Rafael, potentially adjacent to sensitive uses, such as
school sites. The City of San Rafael School District indicated that there are no known
new school sites planned for construction within or near zoned industrial areas. (DEIR,
pp. N.5-12 to IV.5-13.)
General Plan 2020 contains policies and standards in the Safety Element, which if
adopted and implemented could be used to reduce the potential for a hazardous materials
release. (See DEIR, p. IV.5-13.) These policies include Policy S-9 Location of Public
Improvements; Policy S-11 Potential Hazardous Soils Conditions; Policy S-12 Hazardous
Materials Storage, Use and Disposal; Policy S-13 hazardous Waste Management.
(DEIR, p. IV.4-13 to IVA-14.)
Although these policies would help reduce the potential impacts related to hazardous
materials near schools, the presence and/or expansion of such facilities within one quarter
of a mile of a school would remain a significant impact. (DEIR, p. IV.5-13.)
Significance After Mitigation:
Implementation of the proposed policy and program would reduce the potential for a
significant hazardous materials release to effect schools to a less -than -significant level.
(DEIR p. IV.5-14.)
72
Imnact IV.5-5: Exposure to Undereround Hazardous Wastes.
Sites impacted by hazardous materials or petroleum products are located
throughout the City. With continued compliance with hazardous materials
laws and regulations, as well as implementation of applicable General Plan
2020 policies and programs, this would be a less -than -significant impact.
(DEIR, p. IV.5-14.)
Finding:
Under CEQA, no mitigation measures are required for impacts that are less than
significant. (Pub. Resources Code, § 21002; CEQA Guidelines, §§ 15126.4, subd. (a)(3),
15091.)
Mitigation Measure:
None required. (DEIR, p. IV.5-15.)
Explanation:
Chemical storage and handling activities associated with industrial and commercial uses
in the City, including underground storage tanks, have resulted in releases of hazardous
materials and petroleum products to soil and groundwater. There are hundreds of
properties in San Rafael that have been identified as contaminated sites on one or more
federal, state or local databases that track hazardous materials. Areas affected by these
releases may interfere with future development as outlined in General Play: 2020. (DEIR,
p. IV.5-14.)
Development consistent with General Plan 2020 could result in an expansion of general
and light industrial business and commercial land uses within San Rafael. Hazardous
materials that may be used during typical business operations could result in increased
employee or public exposure to hazardous materials. In addition, expanded hazardous
material usage and potential generation of hazardous wastes would likely result in an
increased volume of hazardous materials and hazardous wastes being transported within
San Rafael. (DEIR, p. IV.5-14.)
If improperly handled, hazardous materials and wastes can result in public health hazards
if released to the soil, groundwater or atmosphere. Soil and groundwater having
concentrations of constituents higher than certain regulatory levels must be handled and
disposed of as hazardous waste when excavated or pumped from an aquifer. The
California Code of Regulations, Title 22, Sections 66261.20-24 contains technical
descriptions of characteristics that could cause soil or groundwater to be classified as
hazardous waste. (DEIR, p. IV.5-14.)
General Plan 2020 contains many policies and standards in the Safety Element, such as
Policy S-11 Potential Hazardous Soils Conditions, and Policy S-13 Hazardous Waste
73
Management, which if adopted and implemented could reduce the potential for a
hazardous materials release. (See DEIR, pp. IV.5-14 to IV.5-15.)
With the implementation of the Draft General Plan 2020 policies and the continued
compliance with local, state, and federal regulations related to hazardous materials, this
would be a less -than -significant impact. (DEIR, p. IV.5-15.)
Significance After Mitigation:
With the implementation of General Plan 2020 policies and the continued compliance
with local, state, and federal regulations related to hazardous materials, this would be less
than significant without mitigation. (DEIR, p. IV.5-15.)
Impact IV.5-6: Police Services.
Development consistent with General Plan 2020 would generate demand for
police services beyond the existing capacity of the San Rafael Police
Department. This would be a significant impact. (DEIR, p. IV.5-15.)
Finding:
Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the Project that
substantially lessen, but do not avoid, the potentially significant environmental effect
associated with police services. No mitigation is available to render the effects less than
significant. The effects (or some of the effects) therefore remain significant and
unavoidable.
Mitigation Measures:
IV. 5-6(a): In order to meet the existing and projected future needs of the San Rafael
Police Department, the City shall amend program S -38a, Public Safety
Facilities, to assure that the San Rafael Police Department takes the
following actions:
• Determine the department's existing and projected facility needs;
• Obtain the necessary funding for the needed improvements; and
• Purchase, construct, and/or renovate the necessary additional
facilities.
The City Council included the mitigation in program S -38a as follows:
S -38a. Public Safety Facilities. Evaluate needed upgrades to public safety facilities, particularly seismic
safety improvements, and seek funding mechanisms. In order to meet the existing and projected future
needs of the San Rafael Police Department, the City will determine the department's existing and project
facility needs; obtain the necessary funding for the needed improvement; and, purchase, construct, and/or
renovate the necessary additional facilities.
Responsibility: Fire, Police
Timeframe: Long Term
Resources: Staff Time
74
IV. 5-6(b): General Plan 2020 includes a number of policies and programs that would
help limit potential impacts related to the construction of the needed police
facilities. For example, Policy CON -6, Creek and Drainageway Setbacks,
would reduce potential impacts to creeks and riparian habitats by requiring
future development be sited a minimum of 25 feet (or up to 100 feet in
certain circumstances) from the top of banks for all creeks. Policies AW -
8, Reduce Pollution from Urban Runoff, and AW -9, Erosion and Sediment
Control, would reduce potential water quality impacts due to erosion at
construction sites by requiring and enforcing on-site runoff and sediment
control. Program N -10b, Mitigation for Construction Activity Noise,
would through environmental review, minimize the exposure of
neighboring properties to excessive noise levels from construction -related
activities. Policy AW -4, Particulate Matter Pollution Reduction, and
Program AW -4a, Project Review, would, through project review, help
reduce particulate matter pollution due to construction activities.
(DEIR, pp. IV.5-15 to IV.5-16 and FEIR, p. IX -591.)
Responsibility and Monitoring:
The City Council would be responsible for adopting the amended program, as listed in
Mitigation Measure IV.5-6(a), and the policies and programs listed in Mitigation
Measure IV.5-6(b), as part of General Plan 2020. The Police Department would be
responsible for implementing the program listed in Mitigation Measure IV.5-6(a). The
Community Development Department and Public Works department would be
responsible for implementing and monitoring the policies and programs listed in
Mitigation Measure IV.5-6(b), as well as other General Plan 2020 policies and programs
that reduce construction -related impacts and monitoring their implementation. (DEIR, p.
IV.5-16.)
Explanation:
The increased number of employees and residents in the City would increase the number
of calls to the San Rafael Police Department. The Police Department has estimated that
seven additional police officers and 1.5 supervising officers would be required due to
population increases resulting from General Plan 2020. The Department also estimates
that additional facilities would be needed to accommodate the space needs for lockers,
equipment and vehicles of the new officers. The cost for added Police Department staff
could be at least partially offset by increased general fund revenues generated by new
development in the City. (DEIR, p. IV.5-15.)
General Plan 2020 Programs LU -la Five -Year Growth Assessment, and S -38a Public
Safety Facilities, and Policy I-2 Adequacy of City Infrastructure and Services would help
reduce potential impacts related to Police Department facilities expansion by requiring
monitoring of development and growth. These policies and programs would also use the
75
Capital Improvements Program (CIP) to analyze the long-term facility needs and pursue
studies to determine needed public safety facility improvements. By analyzing and
forecasting potential facility needs, these programs can help the City prepare for future
expansions and use existing facilities more efficiently. (DEIR, p. IV.5-15.)
Even with such forecasting and long-term planning, the construction of the required
facilities would potentially result in secondary construction -related impacts. The Police
Department is currently in the process of determining its facility needs. These needs
could require an expansion of the existing facilities or the construction of entirely new
facilities elsewhere in the City. Analysis of such site-specific impacts is beyond the
scope of this EIR and would be evaluated as part of a separate site-specific environmental
review. Therefore, this would be a significant impact. (DEIR, p. IV.5-15.)
Significance After Mitigation:
Mitigation Measure IV.5-6(a) would reduce the impacts related to the existing space
deficiency to a less -than -significant level. The policies and programs listed in Mitigation
Measure IV.5-6(b), as well as other General Plan 2020 policies and programs, would
likely reduce many of the environmental impacts associated with the construction or
expansion of police facilities to a less -than -significant level. However, analysis of
potential impacts without identified sites and complete designs would be speculative.
Therefore, this would remain a significant unavoidable impact. (DEIR, p. IV.5-16.)
Impact IV.5-7: Schools.
Development consistent with General Plan 2020 would not generate demand
for school services beyond the existing public school capacity. This would be
a less -than -significant impact. (DEIR, p. IV.5-16.)
Finding:
Under CEQA, no mitigation measures are required for impacts that are less than
significant. (Pub. Resources Code, § 21002; CEQA Guidelines, §§ 15126.4, subd. (a)(3),
15091.)
Mitigation Measure:
None required. (DEIR, p. IV.5-17.)
Explanation:
Many of the new housing units would be in multifamily developments, which generate
fewer potential students than single-family homes. In addition, new development is
projected throughout the City, and not in any one area that would impact a specific
school. After a substantial increase in school enrollment due to immigration and
increased births between 1980 and 2000, school populations have stabilized. Based on
76
projected population growth resulting from General Play: 2020, the San Rafael City
Schools (which includes the San Rafael Elementary San Rafael High School
Districts) and the Dixie School District expect that the increase in student population
would not exceed planned capacity or service standards, nor require additional non -
planned facilities, for the respective school districts. This would be a less -than -
significant impact. (DEIR, pp. IV.5-16 to IV.5-17.)
Significance After Mitigation:
Based on projected population growth resulting from General Plan 2020, the San Rafael
City Schools (which includes the San Rafael Elementary San Rafael High School
Districts) and the Dixie School District expect that the increase in student population
would not exceed planned capacity or service standards, nor require additional non -
planned facilities, for the respective school districts which would be less than significant
without mitigation. (DEIR, pp. IV.5-16 to IV.5-17.)
Impact IV.5-8: Parks.
Population increases consistent with General Plan 2020 would not exceed
current service standards for recreational facilities; however, the existing
deficiency in certain types of park facilities would be further exacerbated,
thereby requiring the construction of new facilities. This would be a
significant impact. (DEIR, p. IV.5-17.)
Finding:
Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the Project that
substantially lessen, but do not avoid, the potentially significant environmental effect
associated with park facilities. No mitigation is available to render the effects less than
significant. The effects (or some of the effects) therefore remain significant and
unavoidable.
Mitigation Measure:
IV S-8: General Plan 2020 includes a number of policies and programs that would
help limit potential impacts related to the construction of the needed
recreational facilities. For example, Policy CON -6, Creek and
Drainageway Setbacks, would reduce potential impacts to creeks and
riparian habitats by requiring future development be sited a minimum of
25 feet (or up to 100 feet in certain circumstances) from the top of banks
for all creeks. Policies AW -8, Reduce Pollution from Urban Runoff, and
AW -9, Erosion and Sediment Control, would reduce potential water
quality impacts due to erosion at construction sites by requiring and
enforcing on-site runoff and sediment control. Program N -10b, Mitigation
for Construction Activity Noise would, through environmental review,
minimize the exposure of neighboring properties to excessive noise levels
77
from construction -related activities. Policy AW -4, Particulate Matter
Pollution Reduction, and Program AW -4a ,Project Review would, through
project review, help reduce particulate matter pollution due to construction
activities.
(DEIR, pp. IV.5-17 to IV.5-18.)
Responsibility and Monitoring:
The City Council would be responsible for adopting the policies and programs that would
reduce construction -related impacts, such as those listed in Mitigation Measure IV.5-8, as
part of General Plan 2020. The Community Development Department and Public Works
Department would be responsible for implementing and monitoring those policies and
programs. (DEIR, p. IV.5-18.)
Explanation:
Service standards for recreational facilities are set in the Municipal Code section
15.09.020 for the parklands dedication ordinance: three acres of park and recreation
facilities per 1,000 residents. The current Planning Area population of 66,396 would
require 199 acres to meet this standard. Within the City limits there are currently 144
acres, and within the entire Planning Area there are 2,894 acres of parklands. The
projected year 2020 Planning Area population of 79,104 would require 237 acres to meet
this standard. This is well within the 2,894 acres currently provided within the Planning
Area. (DEIR, p. IV.5-17.)
However, certain user groups are currently identified as deficient in park facilities.
Needed facilities include full size soccer fields, a swim complex in central San Rafael,
neighborhood parks in the Dominican and Canal neighborhoods, and a senior center.
(DEIR, p. IV.5-17.)
General Plan 2020 Programs LU -la, Five -Year Growth Assessment, and S -38a, Public
Safety Facilities, and Policy I-2, Adequacy of City Infrastructure and Services, would
help reduce potential impacts related to recreational facilities expansion by requiring
monitoring of development and growth. These policies and programs would also use the
Capital Improvements Program (CIP) to analyze the long-term facility needs and pursue
studies to determine needed public safety facility improvements. By analyzing and
forecasting potential facility needs, these programs can help the City prepare for future
expansions and use existing facilities more efficiently. (DEIR, p. IV.5-17.)
Even with such forecasting and long-term planning, the construction of the required
facilities would potentially result in secondary construction -related impacts. Analysis of
such site-specific impacts are beyond the scope of this EIR and would be evaluated as
part of a separate site-specific environmental review. Therefore, this would be a
significant impact. (DEIR, p. IV.5-17.)
Significance After Mitigation:
While these and other General Plan 2020 policies and programs would likely reduce
many of the environmental impacts associated with the construction or expansion of
recreational facilities to a less -than -significant level, analysis of potential impacts without
identified sites and complete designs would be speculative. Therefore, this would remain
a significant unavoidable impact. (DEIR, p. IV.5-18.)
Impact IV.5-9 Library Services:
Development consistent with General Plan 2020 could increase the demand
for library services. This would be a significant impact. (DEIR, p. IV.5-18.)
Finding:
Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the Project that
substantially lessen, but do not avoid, the potentially significant environmental effect
associated with library services. No mitigation is available to render the effects less than
significant. The effects (or some of the effects) therefore remain significant and
unavoidable.
Mitigation Measure:
IV. 5-9: General Plan 2020 includes a number of policies and programs that would
help limit potential impacts related to the construction of the needed
library facilities. For example, Policy CON -6, Creek and Drainageway
Setbacks, would reduce potential impacts to creeks and riparian habitats
by requiring future development be sited a minimum of 25 feet (or up to
100 feet in certain circumstances) from the top of banks for all creeks.
Policies AW -8, Reduce Pollution from Urban Runoff, and AW -9, Erosion
and Sediment Control, would reduce potential water quality impacts due
to erosion at construction sites by requiring and enforcing on-site runoff
and sediment control. Program N -10b, Mitigation for Construction
Activity Noise would, through environmental review, minimize the
exposure of neighboring properties to excessive noise levels from
construction -related activities. Policy AW -4, Particulate Matter Pollution
Reduction, and Program AW -4a, Project Review would, through project
review, help reduce particulate matter pollution due to construction
activities.
(DEIR, p. IV.5-18 to IV.5-19.)
Responsibility and Monitoring:
The City Council would be responsible for adopting the policies and programs that would
reduce construction -related impacts, such as those listed in Mitigation Measure IV.5-9, as
79
part of General Plan 2020. The Community Development Department and Public Works
Department would be responsible for implementing and monitoring those policies and
programs. (DEIR, p. IV.5-19.)
Explanation:
The City of San Rafael currently meets established library service standards. Based on
the population increase projected in General Plan 2020, two additional branch libraries
would need to be opened to maintain established service standards. As described in the
setting section above, planning is underway for needed library facilities. Environmental
review of the proposed expansion of Pickleweed Community Center (and library) will
begin winter 2004. The Downtown Library will either be expanded or replaced at its
current location. A location has not been selected for a north San Rafael facility so
analysis of site-specific impacts would be speculative at this time; such impacts would be
evaluated as part of a site-specific environmental review. Therefore, this would be a
significant impact. (DEIR, p. IV.5-18.)
Significance After Mitigation:
While these and other General Plan 2020 policies and programs would likely reduce
many of the environmental impacts associated with the construction or expansion of
library facilities to a less -than -significant level, analysis of potential impacts without
identified sites and complete designs would be speculative. Therefore, this would remain
a significant unavoidable impact. (DEIR, p. IV.5-19.)
IV.5-10: Wastewater Treatment Capacity — North of Puerto Suello Hill.
Development consistent with General Plan 2020 would not generate
wastewater flows that exceed the treatment capacity of the Las Gallinas
Valley Sanitary District facilities. This would be a less -than -significant
project specific impact. This would also be a less -than -significant cumulative
impact. (DEIR, p. IV.5-19.)
Finding:
Under CEQA, no mitigation measures are required for impacts that are less than significant.
(Pub. Resources Code, § 21002; CEQA Guidelines, §§ 15126.4, subd. (a)(3),15091.)
Mitigation Measure:
None required. (DEIR, p. IV.5-20.)
Explanation:
The Las Gallinas Valley Sanitary District (LGVSD) owns and operates the treatment
plant for the Planning Area north of Puerto Suello. The capacity of the plant in dry
weather is 2.92 MGD; dry weather flow is currently measured at 2.2 MGD. The LGVSD
service area includes all of the northern portion of the Planning Area. In addition, the
LGVSD provides wastewater treatment service to the Marin Valley Mobile Country
Club, which is located within the City of Novato, and the St. Vincent's/Silveira
properties, which are no longer within the Planning Area. LGVSD currently
accommodates 15,300 equivalent dwelling units (EDU) with 2.2 MGD. The district has
determined that another 4,500 EDUs could be accommodated within the 2.92 MGD
capacity of the facility. The projected growth in the northern portion of the Planning
Area is well within the 4,500 EDU capacity. Furthermore, there is no significant increase
in wastewater demand projected at the Marin Valley Mobile Country Club or due to
development on the St. Vincent's/Silveira properties. In addition, to prepare for
additional future growth, the LGVSD Board of Directors is developing a Capital
Improvements Program (CIP) to expand capacity of the plant to 3.5 MGD. This CIP
could be implemented within four years if the need arises. LGVSD reports that the
district trunk lines and pump stations have sufficient capacity to handle present and future
dry weather flow. However, the Las Gallinas trunk line has had some capacity problems
during the heavy storm periods due to rainwater infiltration. Additionally, it was
previously identified that future development in the Northgate area could require major
upgrades to sewer lines. While LGVSD has made plans to implement such upgrades,
LGVSD does not currently expect to need to upgrade those lines. (DEIR, pp. IV.5-19 to
IV.5-20.)
Based on information available from LGVSD, there is currently adequate capacity to
accommodate development in the northern part of the Planning Area consistent with
General Plan 2020. Such development would not require the construction of new
facilities nor would it be expected to exceed the Regional Water Quality Control Board's
wastewater treatment requirements. This would be a less -than -significant project -specific
impact. Furthermore, because there is no projected need for additional wastewater
services in LGVSD service areas outside of the Planning Area, development consistent
with General Plan 2020 would not result in a significant cumulative impact nor would it
make a cumulatively considerable contribution to a cumulative impact. (DEIR, p. IV.5-
20.)
Significance After Mitigation:
Because there is no projected need for additional wastewater services in LGVSD service
areas outside of the Planning Area, development consistent with General Plan 2020
would not result in a significant cumulative impact nor would it make a cumulatively
considerable contribution to a cumulative impact and would be less than significant
without mitigation. (DEIR, p. IV.5-20.)
2
IV.5-11: Wastewater Treatment Capacity — South of Puerto Suello Hill.
Development consistent with General Plan 2020 could generate wastewater
flows that exceed treatment capacity of the Central Marin Sanitation
Agency. This would be a significant project specific impact. This would also
be a significant cumulative impact. (DEIR, p. IV.5-20.)
Finding:
Those changes or alterations required to mitigate or avoid the potentially significant
effect associated with the wastewater treatment capacity south of Puerto Suello Hill are
within the responsibility and jurisdiction of another public agency and have been, or can
and should be, adopted by that other agency. No mitigation is available to render the
effects less than significant. The effects (or some of the effects) therefore remain
significant and unavoidable.
Mitigation Measure:
IV. 5-11(a): The CMSA shall conduct and complete a Capacity Management
Alternative Study to determine the scope of needed improvements, costs,
and expected benefits. The study shall include an analysis of storage
alternatives at the CMSA treatment plan and the collection system to
contain the peak flows. The study shall also identify feasible plant
improvements, including increasing the number of treatment tanks,
expanding the effluent pond, or building additional tanks to hold inflow,
that shall be studied as part of the Capacity Management Study. In
conjunction with the Capacity Management Study, the CMSA member
agencies, including the San Rafael Sanitation District, shall conduct a
condition assessment of their respective collection systems and develop
planning documents for controlling stormwater infiltration inflow into
sewer lines, which impacts peak flow conditions. Upon completion of the
study, the CMSA Commission shall determine which improvements to
pursue and the sources of funding.
(DEIR, pp. IV.5-21 to IV.5-22, FEIR p. IX -573.)
IV 5-11(b): General Plan 2020 includes a number of policies and programs that would
help limit potential impacts related to the construction of the needed
wastewater treatment facilities. For example, Policy CON -6, Creek and
Drainageway Setbacks, would reduce potential impacts to creeks and
riparian habitats by requiring future development be sited a minimum of
25 feet (or up to 100 feet in certain circumstances) from the top of banks
for all creeks. Policies AW -8, Reduce Pollution from Urban Runoff, and
AW -9, Erosion and Sediment Control, would reduce potential water
quality impacts due to erosion at construction sites by requiring and
enforcing on-site runoff and sediment control. Program N -10b, Mitigation
for Construction Activity Noise would, through environmental review,
minimize the exposure of neighboring properties to excessive noise levels
from construction -related activities. Policy AW -4, Particulate Matter
Pollution Reduction, and Program AW -4a, Project Review would, through
project review, help reduce particulate matter pollution due to construction
activities.
(DEIR, p. IV.5-22.)
Responsibility and Monitoring:
CMSA would be responsible for studying and constructing additional treatment facilities,
as needed, as identified in Mitigation Measure IV.5-11(a). The City Council would be
responsible for adopting the policies and programs that would reduce construction -related
impacts, such as those listed in Mitigation Measure IV.5-11(b), as part of General Plan
2020. The Community Development Department and Public Works Department would
be responsible for implementing and monitoring those policies and programs. (DEIR, p.
IV.5-23.)
Explanation:
The San Rafael Sanitation District (SRSD) collects wastewater in the Planning Area
south of Puerto Suello Hill. This wastewater is treated by the Central Marin Sanitation
Agency (CMSA), which receives wastewater flows from three agencies, the SRSD,
Sanitation District 1, and Sanitation District 2. Sanitation District 1 serves the Larkspur,
Ross Valley, and San Quentin areas. Sanitation District 2 serves the town of Corte
Madera, portions of the Tiburon peninsula, portions of the Greenbrae boardwalk, portions
of downtown Larkspur, and portions of unincorporated areas of the county. The SRSD
states that its mainlines have adequate capacity to accommodate the additional growth
expected under General Plan 2020. CMSA capacities vary depending on weather
conditions: during dry weather conditions it has a capacity of 10 MGD, and during wet
weather conditions the capacity varies from 90 to 125 MGD, depending on tidal
conditions. Dry weather flows from SRSD to CMSA average around 4.5 MGD. Recent
peak wet weather flows from SRSD to CMSA have been around 45 MGD. (DEIR, p.
IV.5-20.)
Dry weather wastewater flow from all three member agencies to CMSA is currently
measured at eight MGD. Therefore, CMSA can handle an increase flow during dry
weather of two MGD for all of the service areas combined. The projected San Rafael
population increase would result in a 12 percent increase in flows throughout the
Planning Area. A 12 percent increase in dry weather flows from SRSD would result in
approximately 0.5 MGD of additional dry weather flows. Similar increases throughout
all three service areas would result in approximately one MGD of additional dry weather
flows. The additional flows from SRSD as well as the additional flows from all of the
member agencies would be within the current capacity of the plant. Additionally, even as
the dry weather flow capacity is approached, CMSA indicates that it would likely seek an
83
increase in rated capacity from regulatory agencies, rather than construct additional
facilities, as they feel there is existing excess capacity in their system to justify a dry
weather rated capacity increase. (DEIR, pp. N.5-20 to IV.5-21.)
Wet weather flows vary with storm events, with a recent maximum flow at the CMSA
plant reaching 110 MGD. As stated above, the trend over the past two decades has been
increasing wet weather flows from CMSA member agencies to the CMSA treatment
plant. This is for the most part due to changes made by the member agencies to their
wastewater transport infrastructure. Member agencies systems, for the most part, rely on
gravity to transport wastewater to the CMSA plant. Storm events can cause these
systems to overflow, thus CMSA member agencies have been increasing their pumping
capacity to prevent such sewer overflows. The added flow that results from this
increased pumping has placed additional strain on the CMSA plant. (DEIR, p. N.5-21.)
In wet weather conditions, with the same 12 percent increase in flows, an additional 6
MGD would be expected from the SRSD. Throughout both the Planning Area and the
remaining service areas, an additional 13 MGD would be expected. These additional
flows would be within the facility's maximum wet weather capacity of 125 MGD.
However, due to the variability of the wet weather capacity (it ranges from 90 to 125
MGD) the system could potentially overflow in the case of a storm event coinciding with
unfavorable tidal conditions. The additional flows from SRSD alone could cause this
overflow condition, which would be compounded by flows from the other member
agencies. CMSA is currently studying wet weather flows to identify means to reduce
flow in the wet weather period as well as to identify ways to increase capacity. (DEIR,
p. IV. 5-21.)
Based on this information there would be sufficient capacity at CMSA to accommodate
the proposed development in the southern part of the Planning area during dry weather
flows without the construction of new facilities or exceeding wastewater treatment
requirements. However, wet weather flows could potentially exceed plant capacities,
which would potentially result in exceeding wastewater treatment requirements if
additional facilities are not constructed. Thus, any development could result in
significant water -quality impacts if wet weather flows exceeded planed capacities, as well
as significant construction -related impacts for the construction of the necessary new
facilities. This would be a significant project -specific impact. (DEIR, p. N.5-21.)
The CMSA analysis includes development assumptions for both the Planning Area as
well as the entire CMSA service area. Because flows to the CMSA plant already
potentially exceed its treatment capacity, the additional flows expected from development
in the Planning Area would represent a project -specific impact. Furthermore, those flows
combined with the additional flows that could be expected due to an increase in
development in the remainder of the CMSA service area would represent a significant
cumulative impact. Implementation of General Plan 2020 would make a cumulatively
considerable contribution to the cumulative impact. (DEIR, p. IV.5-21.)
Significance After Mitigation:
While the policies listed in Mitigation Measure IV. 5-11(b) and other General Plan 2020
policies and programs would likely reduce many of the environmental impacts associated
with the construction or expansion of wastewater treatment facilities to a less -than -
significant level, analysis of potential impacts without identified sites and complete
designs would be speculative. (DEIR, p. IV.5-22.)
In addition, the completion of a Capacity Management Alternative Study and the
construction of additional wastewater treatment facilities would be beyond the
jurisdiction of the City of San Rafael and would be the responsibility of CMSA and its
member agencies. Although CMSA is currently planning on recommending to the
CMSA Commission that such a study be undertaken in 2004, the City of San Rafael
cannot be certain that the Capacity Management Alternative Study would be completed,
additional facilities would be constructed, nor that construction -related mitigation would
be implemented. (DEIR, p. N.5-22.) Program I -3a has been added to General Plan
2020, which requires the City to work with the Central Marin Sanitation Agency and San
Rafael Sanitation District to ensure completion of a Capacity Management Alternative
Study to determine the scope of needed improvements, costs, and expected benefits to
avoid excess of water treatment capacity. (FEIR, p. IX -573.)
This would remain a significant unavoidable impact. (DEIR, p. IV.5-22.)
IV.5-12: Water Sunnly.
Development consistent with General Plan 2020 could increase the demand
for water in the Planning Area. This would be a significant project specific
impact. This would also be a significant cumulative impact. (DEIR, p. IV.5-
23.)
Finding:
Those changes or alterations required to mitigate or avoid the potentially significant
effect associated with the water supply are within the responsibility and jurisdiction of
another public agency and have been, or can and should be, adopted by that other agency.
No mitigation is available to render the effects less than significant. The effects (or some
of the effects) therefore remain significant and unavoidable.
Mitigation Measures:
IV. 5-12(a): In order to meet the projected water demand and reduce existing and
projected water supply impacts the MMWD shall:
• Continue to research water conservation opportunities;
• Research new water supply sources; and
• Construct the necessary facilities or infrastructure improvements.
MMWD has begun the planning process for a desalination plant and has
researched funding opportunities. Potential startup would be in 2007.
MMWD is also in the process of exploring additional opportunities to
partner on water recycling with the Las Gallinas Valley Sanitary District
and has aggressive water conservation programs in place. These programs
shall be continued.
(DEIR, p. IV.5-26, FE1R, p. IX -616.)
IV.S-12(b): In order to limit potential impacts related to the construction of the water
supply facilities and improvements required in Mitigation Measure IV.5-
11(a), MMWD shall implement the policies and programs included in
General Plan 2020 that are intended to reduce construction -related
impacts.
For example, Policy CON -6, Creek and Drainageway Setbacks, would
reduce potential impacts to creeks and riparian habitats by requiring future
development be sited a minimum of 25 feet (or up to 100 feet in certain
circumstances) from the top of banks for all creeks. Policies AW -8,
Reduce Pollution from Urban Runoff, and AW -9, Erosion and Sediment
Control, would reduce potential water quality impacts due to erosion at
construction sites by requiring and enforcing on-site runoff and sediment
control. Program N-1 Ob, Mitigation for Construction Activity Noise
would, through environmental review, minimize the exposure of
neighboring properties to excessive noise levels from construction -related
activities. Policy AW -4, Particulate Matter Pollution Reduction, and
Program AW -4a, Project Review would, through project review, help
reduce particulate matter pollution due to construction activities.
(DEIR, p. IV.5-26.)
Responsibility and Monitoring:
MMWD would be responsible for constructing additional water supply facilities, as
needed, as identified in Mitigation Measure IV.5-12(a). The City Council would be
responsible for adopting the policies and programs that would reduce construction -related
impacts, such as those listed in Mitigation Measure IV.5-12(b), as part of General Plan
2020. The Community Development Department and Public Works Department would
be responsible for implementing and monitoring those policies and programs. (DEIR, p.
IV.5-27.)
Explanation:
The Marin Municipal Water District (MMWD) serves Marin County from the Golden
Gate Bridge northward up to the southern boundary of Novato, eastward to San Francisco
Bay, and through San Geronimo Valley in the west, including all of the Planning Area.
:.
Usage of potable and recycled water within the MMWD for fiscal year 2001-02 totaled
31,338 acre-feet. MMWD presently has two sources of potable water: 1) the MMWD
watershed (surface water), and 2) Sonoma County Water Agency (SCWA) water. In
addition, MMWD has implemented a recycled water program with the Las Gallinas
Valley Water District treatment plant for water used in irrigation and toilet flushing.
(DEIR, p. IV.5-23.)
The potable water available from the MMWD watershed is effectively defined by the
capacity of its reservoirs and the operational yield they supply. It is currently managed
for an operational yield of 29,500 acre-feet per year. MMWD has two contracts with
SCWA for water from the Russian River: the Off Peak Water Supply Agreement and the
"As -Available" Water Supply Agreement. The Off Peak Agreement provides for
delivery of up to 4,300 acre-feet of water per year, primarily during the period from
October through May. The "As -Available" contract allows delivery of an additional
10,000 acre-feet per year. Total combined daily deliveries are limited to 12.8 MGD
during summer months and 23 MGD during winter months. In addition, these deliveries
are limited by the pipeline capacity in SCWA and North Marin Water Districts. Water
use above the operational yield is considered a supply deficit as water transfers from the
Russian River are not considered reliable at this point. (DEIR, pp. IV.5-23 to IV.5-24.)
At the current level of use, SCWA water transfers are constrained by existing piping and
water diversion issues. While SCWA is working to address these issues, the Agency is
not projected to be able to deliver above the current supply level for at least five years. In
addition, there are concerns about the long-term reliability due to the potential impact of
increased Russian River diversions on salmon and steelhead populations. For this reason,
MMWD is not proceeding with previous plans to fund pipeline improvements. (DEIR, p.
IV.5-24.)
Other limitations of use include daily treatment plant capacities. However, with current
daily production of approximately 29 MGD and a maximum capacity of 59 MGD, these
would not likely be the ultimate limiting factor on water supply to the Planning Area.
(DEIR, p. IV.5-24.)
A water supply deficit of 1,650 acre-feet was identified in 2000 and this shortfall is
expected to increase to 7,900 acre-feet by year 2020 for the entire MMWD service area.
As described in the Urban Water Management Plan, the District believes that additional
water efficiency and demand management improvements and additional water supply
will be necessary to meet its projected water demand through year 2025. (DEIR, p. IV.5-
24.)
In 2000, MMWD served a population of 184,818, including the population within the
Planning Area. For future water demand forecasts, MMWD uses, in part, ABAG
population projections, and projects to serve a population of 198,846 by year 2020.
While MMWD does not track water use in the Planning Area separately, this projection
assumes a Planning Area population of 74,560 in the year 2020, less than the 79,104
residents projected for General Plan 2020. However, these projections also assume
IN
30,500 households in the Planning area, which is slightly less than the 31,234 households
projected for General Plan 2020. Thus MMWD projections are based on lower density
development than that estimated for General Plan 2020. Typically approximately one-
half of individual household water use is consumed by landscape irrigation, therefore the
MMWD considers that the difference in population estimates is at least compensated by
the increased population density assumptions. Thus, the MMWD considers that the water
use planning estimates for the Urban Water Management Plan are consistent with the
growth projected under General Plan 2020. (DEIR, p. IV.5-25.)
MMWD has several aggressive water conservation programs in place. The MMWD also
has a water shortage contingency plan, included in the Urban Water Management Plan,
which includes a dry year water use reduction program and mandatory rationing. Water
rationing, both voluntary and mandatory, is instituted based on the reservoir level.
Voluntary rationing is triggered when there is total reservoir storage of less than 50,000
acre-feet on April 1. Mandatory rationing is triggered when there is total reservoir
storage of less than 40,000 acre-feet on April 1. In addition, General Plan 2020 includes
a policy, CON -21 Water Conservation, which would help reduce water use by supporting
the extension of recycled water infrastructure and by providing water -conserving
landscaping and water -recycling methods information to residents and businesses.
(DEIR, p. IV.5-25; for further information see p. IX -573 of the FEIR.)
Because of the water supply limitations, as identified above, MMWD has determined that
it cannot serve additional growth within its service area without further increasing the
supply deficit. Through its Integrated Water Resources Management Program MMWD is
continuing its efforts to increase water conservation; is exploring additional opportunities
to partner on water recycling with the Las Gallinas Valley Sanitary District, and has
begun research into a new supply source based on desalination of water from the San
Francisco Bay. In addition to the plant, which is currently proposed to be located in San
Rafael, a three million gallon storage tank to hold the treated water would be constructed
on San Quentin Ridge. In August 2003 MMWD distributed a Notice of Preparation for
an EIR on the potential desalination project and has subsequently held scoping meetings
and published a scoping report. Issues of concern at this time include energy use, water
quality impacts, construction impacts, wildlife impacts, and cost. (DEIR, p. IV.5-25.)
While the MMWD Board has approved work on an EIR for the proposed desalination
plant, which would initially provide an additional 10 MGD of potable water, such a plant
is still in the early planning phases and cannot be relied upon for additional water supply
at this time. Therefore, with the current water supply deficit (as well as the projected
deficit), any additional development within the Planning Area would represent a
significant impact. In addition, when considered along with the potential development
outside of the Planning Area but within the MMWD service area, development consistent
with General Plait 2020 would represent a significant cumulative impact to water supply.
Implementation of General Plan 2020 would make a cumulatively considerable
contribution to the cumulative impact. (DEIR, pp. IV.5-25 to IV.5-26.)
Significance After Mitigation:
ED
Implementation of the policies listed in Mitigation Measure IV.5-12(b) and other General
Plan 2020 policies and programs would likely reduce many of the environmental impacts
associated with the construction of the desalination plant to a less -than -significant level.
However, the desalination process could result in additional environmental impacts not
addressed by General Plan 2020. It is beyond the scope of this EIR to analyze specific
impacts related to the construction and operation of the desalination plant. Also, it would
be speculative to analyze the impacts of other improvements that MMWD determines
would be necessary, as those improvements have not yet been identified. (DEIR, p. IV.5-
26.)
In addition, research into, and development and construction of additional water supply
facilities would be beyond the jurisdiction of the City of San Rafael and would be the
responsibility of MMWD. The City cannot be certain that the necessary facilities would
be constructed, nor that construction -related or operation -related mitigation would be
implemented. (DEIR, p. IV.5-27.)
Therefore, water supply impacts and secondary construction- and operations -related
impacts would remain significant and unavoidable. (DEIR, p. IV.5-27.)
Impact IV.5-13: Landfill Cavacity.
Development consistent with General Plan 2020 could result in increased
waste generation. However, there is expected to be sufficient landfill
capacity to accommodate this increase. This would be a less -than -significant
impact. (DEIR, p. IV.5-27.)
Finding:
Under CEQA, no mitigation measures are required for impacts that are less than
significant. (Pub. Resources Code, § 21002; CEQA Guidelines, §§ 15126.4, subd. (a)(3),
15091.1
Mitigation Measure:
None required. (DEIR, p. IV.5-28.)
Explanation:
Landfill service for the City of San Rafael is provided by the Redwood Landfill Facility,
a 600 -acre site located in Marin County just north of Novato, off of Highway 101. This
Facility is currently permitted to accept 2,300 tons per day, with a maximum permitted
landfill capacity of 19,100,000 cubic yards. In 1999, businesses in San Rafael disposed
of over 52,000 tons of material. Waste from residences in the same year amounted to
23,000 tons. Combined, residences and businesses in San Rafael disposed of a total of
75,000 tons, for an average 206 tons per day. In the same year, the landfill accepted a
total of 356,348 tons, for an average of 976 tons per day. With a four percent increase in
employment, and a 16 percent increase in households within the Planning Area,
businesses and residences in San Rafael would be expected to dispose of an additional
2,080 tons and 3,680 tons of waste per year, respectively. Combined, this would result in
a maximum of 80,760 tons per year and an average of 221 tons per day. Remaining
capacity at the landfill is estimated to be 12,900,000 cubic yards, and it is currently
permitted to remain open until year 2039. (DEIR, p. IV.5-27).
Marin County recently conducted an environmental review for the Redwood Landfill
Revised Solid Waste Facilities Permit. The previous permit had been issued in 1995 and
the new permit is intended to reflect changes that have been implemented since the
issuance of the previous permit. The permitted capacity reflects the number of years that
the landfill would be expected to operate, while accepting the 2,300 tons allowed per day,
before reaching the maximum 19,100,000 cubic yards. (DEIR, p. IV.5-27.)
As explained above, additional development within the Planning Area would be expected
to contribute additional landfill material. However, the Redwood Landfill has adequate
capacity for this increase through the life of General Plan 2020. This would be a less -
than -significant impact. (DEIR, p. IV.5-28).
Significance After Mitigation:
Redwood Landfill has adequate capacity for the increase due to additional development
through the life of General Plan 2020 and would be less than significant without
mitigation. (DEIR, p. IV.5-28).
Impact IV.5-14: Electricitv. Natural Gas, and Gasoline Demand.
Development consistent with General Plan 2020 would not increase the
demand for electricity or gas beyond the capacity of these service providers.
This would be a less -than -significant impact. (DEIR, p. IV.5-28.)
Finding:
Under CEQA, no mitigation measures are required for impacts that are less than
significant. (Pub. Resources Code, § 21002; CEQA Guidelines, §§ 15126.4, subd. (a)(3),
15091.)
Mitigation Measure:
None required. (DEIR, p. IV.5-28.)
Explanation:
o
PG&E has continued with a policy of upgrading their energy distribution system
throughout the area, and will provide in-place infrastructure capacity suitable for
expected future growth. PG&E expects that the relatively gradual residential and
commercial growth projections for San Rafael would not cause a significant impact on
PG&E's ability to provide service. PG&E expects that construction of major new electric
distribution facilities would not be needed to meet the projected electrical demands.
In addition, development consistent with the Draft General Plan 2020 would primarily
be infill and mixed use development, which would require less energy used for
transportation in an ongoing basis. Infill and mixed use development typically reduces
energy used in transportation because such development typically does not require
residents to travel far for services. New energy efficiency laws would also reduce energy
use for electrical and gas systems in new development or reconstruction. Therefore,
development consistent with General Plan 2020 would not be expected to result in the
use of large amounts of additional fuel or energy. This would be a less -than -significant
impact. (DEIR, p. IV.5-28).
Significance After Mitigation:
Development consistent with General Plan 2020 would not be expected to result in the
use of large amounts of additional fuel or energy and would be less than significant
without mitigation. (DEIR, p. IV.5-28).
Cumulative Public Services and Utilities Impacts
The projections for the provision of public services and utilities all consider both
Planning Area growth pursuant to General Plan 2020, as well as all projected growth
within each service area. Because several service areas extend beyond the boundaries of
the Planning Area, cumulative impacts are considered within the larger service areas,
when applicable.
Future growth consistent with General Plan 2020 would increase population and
introduce new structures to the Planning Area. This would contribute to cumulative
impacts on fire protection services, police protection services, and library services until
these services expand their facilities to meet service requirements for the additional
population. Development pursuant to Draft General Plan 2020 would not have a
cumulatively considerable impact to schools, as much of the development allowed under
Draft General Plan 2020 would be multifamily developments which would not generate
a student population that would exceed the schools' current capacity. This development
would, however, contribute to existing park facilities and water supply deficits, which
would result in significant cumulative impacts. Implementation of the Draft General
Plan 2020 would make cumulatively considerable contributions to these cumulative
impacts. The mitigation for the park cumulative impact would be the same as Mitigation
Measure IV.5-8 and the mitigation for the water supply cumulative development would
be the same as Mitigation Measure IV.5-12(a). This development would also contribute
to cumulative wastewater treatment impacts at the Central Marin Sanitation Agency
91
treatment plant. The mitigation for this cumulative impact would be Mitigation Measure
IV.5-11(a).
Development in accordance with the Draft General Plan 2020, when considered
alongside other development projected within Marin County, would increase the intensity
of development in Marin County. Compliance with Federal, State, and local regulations
concerning the storage and handling of hazardous materials and/or waste would reduce
the potential for significant cumulative public health and safety impacts from hazardous
materials to occur. Additionally, implementation of Mitigation Measures IV.5-3 and
N.5-4 would further reduce potential hazardous materials impacts. Therefore, the impact
of the Draft General Plan 2020 in addition to future development in surrounding areas
would not be expected to affect significantly the number of people exposed to public
health and safety risks from exposure to hazardous materials; this would be a less -than -
significant cumulative impact. (FEIR, p. IX -652.)
Finding
See Findings for Impacts N.5-1 through IV.5-13.
Mitigation Measure:
See discussion above regarding mitigation measures under Impacts IV.5-1 through IV.5-
13.
Significance After Mitigation
See discussion above for Impacts IV.5-1 through IV.5-13.
F. CULTURAL RESOURCES
Impact IV.6-1: Impacts on Archaeological and Prehistoric Resources.
Development consistent with the Draft General Plan 2020 has the potential to
result in the disturbance of subsurface archaeological and prehistoric
resources. However, the Draft General Plan 2020 would not change the
requirements of the City's existing Archaeological Resource Protection
Ordinance. Therefore this would be a less -than -significant impact. (DEIR, p.
N.6-4.)
Finding:
Under CEQA, no mitigation measures are required for impacts that are less than
significant. (Pub. Resources Code, § 21002; CEQA Guidelines, §§ 15126.4, subd. (a)(3),
15091.1
92
Mitigation Measure:
None required. (DEIR, p. IV.6-5.)
Explanation:
San Rafael has a rich archaeological history as documented by 63 recorded
archaeological sites throughout the Planning Area. These sites are located primarily at
the base of hills on the perimeter of the San Pedro peninsula and in the Miller Creek area.
Most of the recorded sites are located on developed properties with the highest
concentrations in and around Downtown, Gerstle Park, and in the Glenwood/Peacock
Gap areas. There are some sites in north San Rafael that are already developed as well.
Under the proposed General Plan 2020, development of lands containing campsites or
burial grounds of prehistoric inhabitants may occur. (DEIR, p. IV.6-4.)
General Plan 2020 contains a policy and program in the Culture and the Arts Element
that, if adopted and implemented, would act to further reduce the impacts to subsurface
archeological and prehistoric resources. Policy CA -17, Protection of Archaeological
Resources, would help reduce impacts to archaeological resources by identifying
archaeological resources and potential impacts and providing information and direction to
property owners with archaeological resources on their property. Program CA -17a,
Archeological Resources Ordinance, would require that the City continue to implement
the existing Archeological Resources Ordinance. (DEIR, p. IV.6-4.)
The City currently does, and would continue to, require archaeological evaluation as part
of the development review process consistent with the City's Archaeological Resource
Protection Ordinance. The protections required by the Ordinance include, but are not
limited to: 1) ceasing all work and contacting the City and a qualified archaeologist in the
event that resources are discovered during grading and excavation; 2) contacting the
Marin County Coroner; and 3) if any human remains are determined to be Native
American, the Coroner shall contact the local Native American representatives and any
agencies that have issued permits for the property. (DEIR, pp. IV.6-4 to IV.6-5.)
Due to the implementation of Draft General Plan 2020 Policy CA -17, Protection of
Archaeological Resources, as well as the continued implementation of the City's
Archaeological Resources Ordinance this would be a less -than -significant impact.
(DEIR, p. IV.6-5.)
Significance After Mitigation:
Due to the implementation of Draft General Plan 2020 Policy CA -17, Protection of
Archaeological Resources, as well as the continued implementation of the City's
Archaeological Resources Ordinance would be a less than significant without mitigation.
(DEIR, p. IV.6-5.)
93
Impact IV.6-2: Impacts on Historic or Cultural Resources.
Development consistent with the Draft General Plan 2020 would not result in
the disturbance of historic or cultural resources. This would be a less -than -
significant impact. (DEIR, p. IV.6-5.)
Finding:
Under CEQA, no mitigation measures are required for impacts that are less than
significant. (Pub. Resources Code, § 21002; CEQA Guidelines, §§ 15126.4, subd. (a)(3),
15091.)
Mitigation Measure:
None required. (DEIR, p. IV.6-6.)
Explanation:
The city has numerous sites that are designated on local, state, and national lists that
could be potentially impacted by development as proposed in the Draft General Plan
2020. Additionally, undesignated potential historical resources are located throughout
the City. High concentrations of historic buildings are located in the Downtown, Gerstle
Park and Dominican neighborhoods. As growth and development occur in these older
areas of the community, as well as around other dispersed historic sites, potential
demolition, destruction, relocation, or alteration of historic resources by redevelopment
of sites with older buildings may occur. (DEIR, p. IV.6-5.)
However, General Plan 2020 contains numerous policies and programs in the Culture
and the Arts, and the Community Design Elements that, if adopted and implemented,
would act to reduce the disturbance impacts to historic or cultural resources. (DEIR, p.
IV.6-5.) These policies include Policy CA -14 Historic Buildings and Areas; Programs
CA -14a Inventory Update, CA -14b Preservation Ordinance, and CA -14c Historic
Preservation Advisory Committee; Program CA -14d Public Education, CA -14e
Preservation Reference Materials, and CA -14f Public Events; Policy CA -15 Reuse of
Historic Buildings; Programs CA -15a Historical Building Code, CA -15b Zoning and CA -
15d Incentives; Policy NH -31 Historic Character; Policy CD -4 Historic Resources;
Programs CD -4a Documentation of Landmarks, CD -4b Historic Resources Information;
CD -4c Adaptive Reuse, and CD -4d Sign Ordinance; Policy CD -7 Downtown and Marin
Civic Center. Each of the policies and programs is discussed on pages IV.6-5 to IV.6 of
the DEIR.
The existing design review process, the protections afforded by the federal, state, and
local listings of historic resources, and the Draft General Plan policies would all act to
limit potential impacts on historic resources in the Planning Area. This would be a less -
than -significant impact. (DEIR, p. IV.6-6).
Significance After Mitigation:
The existing design review process, the protections afforded by the federal, state, and
local listings of historic resources, and the Draft General Plan policies would all act to
limit potential impacts on historic resources in the Planning Area and would be less than
significant without mitigation. (DEIR, p. IV.6-6).
Cumulative Cultural Resources Impacts
The cultural resources analysis considers all growth within the Planning Area and the
cumulative impacts of such growth on cultural resources. Impacts to cultural resources
are typically limited to the proximity of development, thus growth outside of the Planning
Area boundaries would not compound or increase the severity of impacts to cultural
resources from development pursuant to Draft General Plan 2020. Consistent with the
Draft General Plan 2020 project sponsors would be required to take appropriate
measures to protect or preserve cultural resources affected by individual projects, thus
this would be a less -than -significant cumulative impact. (FEIR, pp. IX -652 to IX -653.)
Finding
Under CEQA, no mitigation measures are required for impacts that are less than
significant. (Pub. Resources Code, § 21002; CEQA Guidelines, §§ 15126.4, subd. (a)(3),
15091.)
Mitigation Measure:
None required. (FEIR, pp. IX -652 to IX -653.)
Significance After Mitigation
Cumulative cultural resources impacts would be less than significant.
G. VISUAL OUALITY
Impact IV.7-1: Scenic Resources.
Development consistent with the Draft General Plan 2020 could impact
scenic vistas and visual natural resources within the Planning Area.
However, the development review and design review processes already in
place in the City, combined with new policies outlined in the Draft General
Plan 2020 would limit the impact of new height allowances. This would be a
less -than -significant impact. (DEIR, p. IV.7-3.)
Finding:
95
Under CEQA, no mitigation measures are required for impacts that are less than
significant. (Pub. Resources Code, § 21002; CEQA Guidelines, §§ 15126.4, subd. (a)(3),
15091.1
Mitigation Measure:
None required. (DEIR, p. IV.7-3.)
Explanation:
New development in accordance with the Draft General Plan 2020, if not carefully
designed, could result in adverse impacts on existing vistas and the creation of
aesthetically offensive sites open to public view. Exhibit CD -1 in the Draft General Plan
2020 identifies the visually significant hillsides, ridges, and landforms that would be of
the most concern. Views to the bay from these hillside areas would also be of concern
and could be impacted by development as proposed in the Draft General Plan 2020.
(DEIR, p. N.7-3.)
It is also possible that development pursuant to Draft General Plan 2020 could adversely
impact views from some private residences. Private view protection is a prohibitive task
because of the difficulty of defining which views to preserve given San Rafael's varied
topography, the interest in tree preservation, the cost of administration, and the conflict
between private interests and the public good. The City has determined that identifying
and preserving, where possible, views from the public vantage points and views enjoyed
by the larger community (and not a few property owners), are important for the image of
the City and should be recognized by City policy. The City, therefore, does not consider
impacts to private views to be significant within the context of CEQA. (FEIR, p. IX -
617.)
Two proposed changes have been made in General Plan 2020 that may cause some loss
of these scenic vistas. In the Neighborhood Commercial land (NC) use designation, an
additional six feet, from 30 to 36 feet, would be allowed to better accommodate mixed-
use development as retail typically requires a higher first floor ceiling height. The
Neighborhood Commercial land use designation is used in few locations in the Terra
Linda, on Smith Ranch Road, Merrydale, Loch Lomond, East San Rafael,
Downtown/GerstlePark/Picnic Valley, and in Bret Harte neighborhoods. All of these
parcels, except for one NC lot in the Loch Lomond neighborhood, are currently
developed. Were these parcels to redevelop, the additional height could affect views of
nearby surrounding hillsides identified as visually significant in Exhibit CD -1 in the
Draft General Plan 2020. Areas of particular concern would be where such development
is in close proximity to these hillsides, such as in the Bret Harte neighborhood.
Also new to the General Plan, a two story height bonus would be allowed for affordable
housing in the North San Rafael Town Center. Draft General Plan 2020 Policy LU -14
Height Bonuses would allow this additional height in the General Commercial areas
around the Northgate Mall. Such allowances could adversely affect views of the nearby
surrounding hillsides identified as visually significant in Exhibit CD -1 in the Draft
we
General Plan 2020, including the significant landforms directly southeast and west of the
sites, and another landform to the south.
General Plan 2020 contains several policies in the Community Design and Open Space
Elements that, if adopted and implemented, would act to reduce the adverse impacts on
scenic vistas and visual natural resources by preserving and ensuring that new
development in San Rafael has desirable physical scale and design features, particularly
in relation to existing development. (DEIR, p. IV.7-3.)
Policy CD -5, Views, would help reduce impacts to scenic resources by developing a
design plan for Canalfront, and by continuing to evaluate view impacts as part of the
design review and environmental review processes. Policy CD -6, Hillsides and Bay,
would help reduce impacts to the scenic resources of the hillsides and the Bay by means
of controlling development on hillsides (through the design review process) and
providing setbacks and public access along the Bay. (DEIR, p. IV.7-3.)
With implementation of the development review and design review processes, as outlined
in the Draft General Plan 2020 policies listed above, the potential impacts related to the
height allowances would be less -than -significant. (DEIR, p. IV.7-3.)
Significance After Mitigation:
With implementation of the development review and design review processes, as outlined
in the Draft General Plan 2020 policies listed above, the potential impacts related to the
height allowances would be less than significant without mitigation. (DEIR, p. IV.7-3.)
Impact IV.7-2: Conflicts with Adioinine Development.
Development consistent with the Draft General Plan 2020 could potentially
conflict with adjoining development relative to height within the Planning
Area. However, the design review processes already in place in the City,
combined with the new design guidelines outlined in the Draft General Plan
2020 would limit the impact of potential conflicts. This would be a less -than -
significant impact. (DEIR, p. IV.7-4.)
Finding:
Under CEQA, no mitigation measures are required for impacts that are less than
significant. (Pub. Resources Code, § 21002; CEQA Guidelines, §§ 15126.4, subd. (a)(3),
15091.)
Mitigation Measure:
None required. (DEIR, p. IV.7-4.)
Explanation:
97
General Plan 2020 could result in development of buildings and structures that are out of
scale with or considerably taller than existing adjoining development. This could be
particularly significant in areas in or adjacent to Downtown or new development in
hillside or waterfront areas. (DEIR, p. IV.7-4.)
However, General Plan 2020 contains numerous policies in the Community Design and
Neighborhood Elements that, if adopted and implemented, would act to reduce the
potential height and scale conflicts with adjoining development. (See DEIR, p. IV.7-4.)
These policies include: Policy CD -10 Downtown Design; Policies CD -11 Nonresidential
Design Guidelines, CD -12 Multi -family Design Guidelines, and CD -14 Single Family
Residential Design Guidelines; Policy NH -2 New Development in Residential
neighborhoods; Policies NH -34 Fourth Street Retail Core Design Considerations, NH -36
Hetherton Office District Design Considerations, NH -38 Lindaro Office District Design
Considerations, NH -40 Second/Third Mixed Use District Design Considerations, NH -42
West End Village Design Considerations, NH -44 Fifth/Mission Residential/Office
District Design Considerations, NH -51 Waterfront Design, NH -105 New Development
(Fairhills), and NH -121 Loch Lomond Marina. Each of these programs and policies is
discussed on pages IV.7-4 of the DEIR.
Though careful implementation of the design guidelines and through the use of the design
review process, potential impacts related to conflicting adjoining development would be
less -than -significant. (DEIR, p. IV.7-4.)
Significance After Mitigation:
Though careful implementation of the design guidelines and through the use of the design
review process, potential impacts related to conflicting adjoining development would be
less than significant without mitigation. (DEIR, p. IV.7-4.)
Impact IV.7-3: Visual Settine and Character of the Citv.
Development consistent with General Plan could alter or degrade the visual
setting or character of the city. However, the design review process already
in place in the City, combined with numerous policies in General Plan 2020,
would limit the impact of potential impacts to the visual setting and
character of the city. This would be a less -than -significant impact. (DEIR, p.
IV.7-4.)
Finding:
Under CEQA, no mitigation measures are required for impacts that are less than
significant. (Pub. Resources Code, § 21002; CEQA Guidelines, §§ 15126.4, subd. (a)(3),
15091.)
Mitigation Measure:
None required. (DEIR, p. IV.7-6.)
Explanation:
Implementation of General Plan 2020 would result in increased urban growth, which
could alter the visual setting or character of the Planning Area. This additional
development could be perceived as a negative aesthetic impact in comparison to its
current state. Many San Rafael neighborhoods have a unique and distinctive character or
design quality that give each area its own identity. Many residents feel that this identity
should be respected and preserved. (DEIR, p. IV.7-4.)
General Plan 2020 contains policies under the Community Design and Neighborhoods
Elements designed to preserve, protect, and promote the existing aesthetic features of San
Rafael and apply them to new development. The policies and implementing programs, if
adopted and implemented, would reduce the alteration or degradation of the visual setting
or character of the City under the proposed General Plan 2020. Most of these policies
are intended to maintain or improve the existing character of each neighborhood through
design review and further development of design guidelines. (See DEIR, pp. IV.7-5 to
IV.7-6.) The programs and policies include: Policy CD -1 City Image. Policies CD -2
Neighborhood Identity and CD -3 Neighborhoods; Policy CD -7 Downtown and Marin
Civic Center; Policies CD -11 Nonresidential Design Guidelines, CD -12 Multi -family
Design Guidelines and CD -14 Single -Family Residential Design Guidelines; Policy CD -
13 Industrial Areas; Policy CD -16 Participation in Project Review; Policy NH -2 New
Development in Residential Neighborhoods; Policy NH -27 Special Place and NH -28
Downtown Design, NH -32, Downtown's Neighbors; Policies NH -34 Fourth Street Retail
Core Design Considerations, NH -36 Hetherton Office District Design Considerations,
NH -38 Lindaro Office District Design Considerations, NH -40 Second/Third Mixed Use
District Design Considerations, NH -42 West End Village Design Considerations, NH -44
Fifth/Mission Residential/Office District Design Considerations, NH -51 Waterfront
Design, and NH -59 Design Considerations for Development in the Vicinity of the Civic
Center; Policy NH -69 Dominican University Hillside Area; Policy NH -98 San Quentin
Ridge; Policies NH -105 New Development (Fairhills), NH -116 New Development
(Gerstle Park), NH -117 Architectural Design (Gerstle Park), and NH -155 New
Development (Sun Valley); Policy NH -121 Loch Lomond Marina; Policies NH -129
Design Blend and NH -140 Design Excellence; Policy NH -160 Eichler Homes. Each of
these policies and programs is discussed on pages IV.7-5 to IV.7-6 of the DEIR and
FEIR, p. IX -493 and IX -533.
Significance After Mitigation:
Though implementation of the design guidelines, through the use of the design review
process, and through the implementation of General Plan 2020 policies, potential
impacts related to conflicting adjoining development would be less -than -significant.
(DEIR, p. IV.7-6.)
Impact IV.7-4: Niehttime Liehtine and Glare.
Development consistent with General Plan 2020 could create new sources of
light or glare and increase nighttime lighting in the area. This would be a
significant impact. (DEIR, p. IV.7-6.)
Finding:
Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the Project that avoid
the significant environmental effect as identified in the Final EIR.
Mitigation Measure:
IV. 7-4: In order to minimize light trespass and greater overall light levels in the
city, new development and projects making significant parking lot
improvements or proposing new lighting shall be required to prepare a
lighting plan for review by City planning staff. A new implementing
program should be added in the General Plan — CD -21b Lighting Plan
(Timeframe: Short Term) to require design guidelines to include the
following provisions for lighting plans:
• All light sources should be fully shielded from off-site view.
• All lights to be downcast except where it can be proved to not
adversely affect other parcels.
• Escape of light to the atmosphere should be minimized.
• Low intensity, indirect light sources should be encouraged, except
where other types of lighting is warranted for public safety
reasons.
• On -demand lighting systems should be encouraged.
• Mercury, metal halide, and similar intense and bright lights should
not be permitted except where their need is specifically approved
and their source of light is restricted.
(DEIR, pp. IV.7-6 to IV.7-7 and FEIR, p. IX -537.)
Responsibility and Monitoring:
The City Council would be responsible for adopting the new program proposed in
Mitigation Measure IV.7-4 as part of General Plan 2020. The Community Development
Department would be responsible for monitoring its implementation, through program
CD -21a Site Lighting and through the Design Guidelines, which is referenced in CD -21b
Lighting Plan. (DEIR, p. IV.7-7.)
100
Explanation:
Nighttime lighting and glare associated with existing development in the City can impact
nighttime views. Intensification of that existing development with new mid -rise offices,
hotels, a cinema, and residential development could increase nighttime light trespass on
adjoining areas and has the potential to increase glare visible from adjacent areas and
roadways. Stationary light sources have the potential to adversely affect residences
through spillover into adjacent properties. New light sources could also result in a
greater overall level of light at night, thus reducing night sky visibility and affecting the
general character of the community. (DEIR, p. IV.7-6.)
General Plan 2020 contains several policies in the Community Design Element that, if
adopted and implemented, would act to reduce the nighttime lighting and glare impacts
due to new development. (See DEIR, p. IV.7-6.) Policies CD -11 Non-residential Design
Guidelines and CD -12 Multi -family Design Guidelines would both reduce lighting
impacts by developing design guidelines, including lighting guidelines, to ensure that
development fits within and improves the neighborhood and community. Policy CD -21
Lighting would allow adequate site lighting while controlling excessive light spillover
and glare through the design review process. Program CD -21a Site Lighting would
evaluate site lighting for safety and glare through the design review process.
These policies and programs would reduce some potential lighting and glare impacts,
particularly those related to spillover and glare and the general character of the
community. However, they would not reduce impacts related to sky visibility and the
overall level of light at night. This would be a significant impact. (DEIR, p. IV.7-6.)
Significance After Mitigation:
Implementation of General Plan 2020 policies and the above mitigation measure would
reduce the nighttime lighting and glare impact of General Plan 2020 to a less -than -
significant level. (DEIR, p. IV.7-7.)
Cumulative Visual Quality Impacts
The visual quality analysis (see Section IV. 7 Visual Quality of the Draft EIR) considers
all development within the Planning Area and therefore considers also the cumulative
impacts for such development. Visual quality impacts are typically limited to the
proximity of development, thus growth outside of the Planning Area boundaries would
not compound or increase the severity of impacts to visual quality from development
pursuant to General Plan 2020.
Future development within the Planning Area consistent with General Plan 2020 would
result in the intensification of existing urban uses, but very little conversion of vacant
lands or open spaces. Such development would be subject to the City's development
review process and would not contribute to cumulative visual quality impacts,
particularly as in many cases new development would be expected to improve the visual
101
quality of some neighborhoods. Cumulative development within the Planning Area
could, however, contribute to cumulative nighttime lighting and glare impacts, although
implementation of Mitigation Measure IV.74 would reduce this potential impact. This
would be a less -than -significant cumulative impact. (FEIR, p. IX -653.)
Finding
Under CEQA, no mitigation measures are required for impacts that are less than
significant. (Pub. Resources Code, § 21002; CEQA Guidelines, §§ 15126.4, subd. (a)(3),
15091.)
Mitigation Measure:
None required. (FEIR, p. IX -653.)
Significance After Mitigation
Cumulative visual quality impacts would be less than significant.
H. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
Impact IV.8-1: Special -Status Plant and Animal Species.
Implementation of General Plan 2020 could affect a number of federally or
state listed plant and animal species directly through incidental take or
indirectly through habitat destruction. This would be a significant impact.
(DEIR, p. IV.8-2.)
Finding:
Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the Project that avoid
the significant environmental effect as identified in the Final EIR.
Mitigation Measure:
.IV. 8-1: Two new implementing programs shall be added to General Plan 2020:
CON -14b, Surveys, to require that vacant sites are surveyed for the
presence or absence of relevant special status species prior to development
approval; and CON -14c, Minimization, to require that where impacts to
special status species are deemed unavoidable, potential impacts to the
identified species are minimized through design, construction, and
operation of the project. Compensation measures could include on-site set
asides or off-site acquisitions (e.g. conservation easements, deed
restrictions, etc.) that would be required if project impacts result in direct
loss or indirect impacts that cannot be mitigated in other ways. This might
102
also involve species-specific enhancement restoration efforts for the
mitigation lands.
If special status plant and animal species are determined to be absent
based on appropriately timed protocol level surveys (were applicable),
consistent with CON -14b, or the project was able to avoid significant
impacts to these species, then further mitigation, as outlined in proposed
program CON -14c would not be warranted. When surveys conducted as
outlined above establish the presence of one or more special status species,
and impacts to these species are deemed unavoidable, site-specific
mitigation, as outlined in proposed program CON -14c may need to be
implemented.
(DEIR, pp. IV. 8-5 to IV. 8-6 and FEIR, p. IX -604.)
Responsibility and Monitoring:
The City Council would be responsible for adopting the above amended programs as part
of General Plan 2020 to ensure special status species are not harmed. Implementation of
on- or off-site acquisitions or restoration as required by Mitigation Measure IV. 8-1 would
be the responsibility of the individual applicant who would be impacting the special -
status species. Overall implementation and enforcement of these programs would be
dependent on the development plans of the individual project and its impacts. Each
applicant would be responsible to hire qualified biologists to guide them in their efforts.
The Community Development Department would be responsible for monitoring the
implementation of these policies. (DEIR, p. IV.8-6.)
Explanation:
There are a number of state and federally listed threatened and endangered species known
to occur on or in the vicinity of the Planning Area, most of which would occur in wetland
habitats. Protocol level surveys were not conducted in the Planning Area during the
General Plan 2020 process. The California Natural Diversity Database, assembled and
updated by the California Department of Fish and Game, and other relevant resources
which cite local occurrences, were relied upon in compiling a species account search
within the Planning Area. Biotic habitats were then used as a basis in deciding which
species were of greatest concern. Most of the species of greatest concern occur in
wetland habitats, although species of concern also occur in grasslands, agriculture, and
oak savanna/woodlands habitats. (DEIR, pp. IV.8-2 to IV.8-3.)
Wetland species
Wetland species include the California clapper rail, salt marsh harvest mouse, California
freshwater shrimp, Central California coast steelhead rainbow trout, tidewater goby,
California red -legged frog, and black rail. Areas of greatest concern (although
103
development is not restricted to these areas) in regards to the above wetland species are
those areas along the creeks and bays. In the northern portion of the Planning Area, there
are a few vacant parcels along Gallinas Creek where both listed rail species and the salt
marsh harvest mouse have been observed and where the tidewater goby could potentially
occur. The few vacant parcels along the Miller Creek, in particular the parcels designated
for Hillside Residential on the northwest corner of the intersection of Highway 101 and
Lucas Valley Road, may impact the steelhead and California red -legged frog. In the
southern portion of the Planning Area, there is one vacant lot designated for Low Density
Residential along the San Rafael Creek where development may impact the tidewater
goby, two listed rail species, western snowy plover, and salt marsh harvest mouse. Also,
the parcels adjacent to the Canalways that are designated as Light Industrial/Office may
impact these same species, with the exception of the tidewater goby. (DEIR, p. IV.8-3;
see FEIR pp. IX -23 to IX -28 for further discussion of biological resources on Canalways
site.)
General Plan 2020 includes some policies and programs that would reduce potential
impacts to wetland habitats and the associated species. (See DEIR, pp. IV.8-3 to IV.8-4.)
These include: Policies CON -2 Wetlands Preservation, CON -3 Unavoidable Filling of
Wetlands, and CON -4 Wetland Setbacks; Policies CON -6 Creek and Drainageway
Setbacks, CON -7 Public Access to Creeks, and CON -8 Enhancement of Creeks and
Drainageways. These policies and programs are discussed on page IV.8-3 of the DEIR
and pp. IX -599 to IX -603 of the FEIR. Further, Policy NH -46 provides for protection of
all on-site wetland areas at future developments in California Park. (FEIR, p. IX -495)
Compliance with state and federal wetlands protection regulations would also minimize
impacts to these species. Both state and federal laws would require prior authorization
from the California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG) and/or the US Fish and
Wildlife Service (USFWS) for any project that would result in a "take" of a state or
federally listed species. Proposed development within wetland areas would also be
required to adhere to the setback requirements associated with any Section 404 Clean
Water Act permits, administered by the US Army Corps of Engineers (USACE), Section
401 Water Quality Certification, administered by the Regional Water Quality Control
Board (RWQCB), and/or Section 1603 California Fish and Game Streambed Alteration
Agreements, administered by the CDFG. (DEIR, p. IV.8-4.)
While implementation of the listed General Plan 2020 policies and programs, in addition
to compliance with state and federal wetlands protection regulations would minimize
impacts to wetland species and their habitats, development consistent with General Plan
2020 would slightly increase the intensity of development directly adjacent to a few of
these habitats, which may potentially impact these species. (DEIR, p. IV.8-4.)
Other Species
A number of other special -status species (such as various raptor and songbird species),
which do not have the same protection as federally or state listed wetlands species occur,
or potentially occur, in portions of the Planning Area. The undeveloped parcels that are
104
characterized as grasslands, agriculture, and oak savanna/woodlands that are contiguous
with existing developed areas would be the areas with the highest potential of supporting
any of these species. Development in these areas would therefore have the greatest
potential to impact special -status species. The parcels of greatest concern would be those
adjacent to China Camp State Park and the other parks and preserves in that area. There
are a number of currently vacant parcels along the northern, western, and southern
boundaries of this park and preserve system that are designated for various residential
land uses under General Plan 2020. Additionally, development of the vacant parcel
located at the intersection of Highway 101 and Lucas Valley Road would reduce the
available habitat for these species. (DEIR, p. 1V.8-4.)
Vacant parcels interspersed in the existing developed areas could also support habitat
suitable for these species depending on the current conditions of the parcel and the
prevalence of moderate to high quality biotic habitats. Redevelopment or infill
development of these parcels would potentially impact special status species using that
land as habitat. Development on these types of undeveloped parcels could potentially be
a significant impact to special status species due to habitat loss. (DEIR, p. IV.8-4.)
General Plan 2020 provides land use designations, such as the Parks, Open Space, and
Conservation land use categories that would protect the vast majority of the biotic
habitats that support these species. These undeveloped areas are primarily made up of
the oak savanna/woodland and grassland habitats located along the western boundary,
northwestern corner, and eastern boundary of the Planning Area. Other areas that have
been designated Parks, Open Space, or Conservation are the riparian habitats along the
various creeks and wetland habitats in the eastern portion along the San Pablo and San
Rafael Bays. Potential habitat for special status species is largely protected because
General Plan 2020 proposes redevelopment, infill development, and development in
areas contiguous to existing development, which minimizes impacts to the wildlife
habitats in the Planning Area. General Plan 2020 provides for slight expansions in the
existing urbanized/developed land uses by relying on existing infrastructure. (DEIR, p.
IV.8-4.)
In addition, General Plan 2020 would not allow for the conversion of large undeveloped
parcels to developed uses. In fact, a number of the larger lots have been removed from
the Planning Area or designated with a new land use in General Plan 2020. For instance,
the St. Vincent's Silveira properties have been removed from the Planning Area. The
vacant parcels that are designated for future development are primarily small in size and
interspersed throughout existing developed areas. (DEIR, p. IV.8-5.)
General Plan 2020 also contains policies in the Conservation Element, in particular
under Protected Habitat: Native Plants, Animals and Wildlife Habitat, which if adopted
and implemented could be used as guidelines to reduce potential impacts to special -status
plant and animal species. (See DEIR, p. IV.8-5). These policies include: CON -1
Protection of Environmental Resources; Policies CON -13 Threatened and Endangered
Species and CON -14 Special Status Species, and are discussed on DEIR page IV. 8-5 and
FEIR, p. IX -604.
105
The CDFG Code and the federal Migratory Bird Treaty Act also provide some protection
to these species, in particular to nesting raptors. The CDFG Code would offer some
protection to the various hawks and owls that may nest within the riparian corridors of
creeks and the oak savanna/woodlands of the Planning Area. The code may also offer
some protection to the burrowing owls and short -eared owls that may nest in or near the
grassland habitat, which is interspersed between the oak savanna/woodland habitat,
urbanized/developed areas, and in agricultural fields located in the northern portion of the
San Rafael Planning Area west of Highway 101. Compliance with these regulations
would require that any site development activities during the raptor nesting season
(February through August) be preceded by preconstruction survey. Surveys would be
conducted by a qualified biologist within 30 days of the onset of construction. Upon
discovery of active nests within construction zones, suitable development -free buffers
would be required around each nest in consultation with the CDFG. These regulations
would also require that resident burrowing owls be passively removed after the breeding
season (September through January) according to CDFG approved methods. Both state
and federal laws would require prior authorization from the CDFG and/or the USFWS for
any project that would result in a "take" of a state or federally listed species. (DEIR, p.
IV.8-5.)
Significance After Mitigation:
Mitigation Measure IV. 8-1 outlines the actions that would be required in order to avoid
potential impacts to the various federally and state listed plant and animal species that are
known to occur on or in the Planning Area. These actions have been incorporated into
programs CON -14b and CON -14c. (FEIR, p IX -605.) Impacts to special -status species
will be reduced to a less -than -significant level. (DEIR, p. IV.8-6.)
Impact IV.8-2: Sensitive Natural Communities.
A number of sensitive natural communities would be affected by the
implementation of General Plan 2020 either directly in undeveloped areas
designated for development or indirectly by intensifying the land use
adjacent to current undeveloped lands. This would be a significant impact.
(DEIR, p. IV.8-6.)
Finding:
Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the Project that avoid
the significant environmental effect as identified in the Final EIR.
Mitigation Measure:
IV. 8-2: In order to reduce impacts to oak savanna/woodland habitat proposed
development should either avoid, minimize, or compensate for loss of oak
savanna/woodland habitat. Anew implementing program — CON -1 Oa
106
Oak Savanna/Woodland Habitat Protection - to require that proposed
developments with potential impacts to oak savanna/woodland habitat
shall either avoid, minimize, or compensate for the loss of oak
savanna/woodland habitat. Avoidance would be the preferred measure
where feasible. If it is deemed that an impact is unavoidable,
minimization of direct and indirect impacts or compensation through
habitat restoration, creation, or enhancement would be required.
(DEIR, p. IV. 8-7 and FEIR, p. IX -604.)
Responsibility and Monitoring:
The City Council would be responsible for adopting the above program as part of
General Plan 2020 to ensure sensitive natural communities are not harmed as a result of
this project. The Community Development Department would be responsible for
monitoring the implementation of the program. (DEIR, p. IV.8-8.)
Explanation:
General Plan 2020 would allow for only a small amount of natural habitats in the
Planning Area to be converted to developed land uses. The conversion of vacant parcels
to developed uses occurs primarily along the margins of existing development and
therefore results in minimal affects on the natural biotic communities in the City. The
subsequent loss of natural communities to development of vacant parcels along the
margins is expected to result in relatively small loss of important plant and wildlife
habitat in the Planning Area. (DEIR, p. IV.8-6.)
The majority of the sensitive habitats that occur in the Planning Area would remain in
their current condition as undeveloped and would have Parks, Open Space, or
Conservation land use designations under General Plan 2020. A major change with
General Plan 2020 is the removal of the St. Vincent's/Silveira properties from the
northeastern portion of Planning Area. The habitats of St. Vincent's/Silveira consist of
grasslands, agricultural, riparian, and oak savanna/woodland and this area is no longer
within the Planning Area. (DEIR, p. IV.8-7.)
Most of the sensitive biotic habitat potentially not remaining in their current condition
would be oak savanna or oak woodland habitat. While there will only be a small loss of
this habitat, a few of the vacant parcels of oak savanna/woodlands that are zoned for
residential land uses include the parcel at the intersection of Highway 101 and Lucas
Valley Road, parcels along the southwestern boundary of the Planning Area, and the
parcels located adjacent to China Camp State Park and the other parks and preserves in
that region. (DEIR, p. IV.8-7.)
General Plan 2020 contains policies in the Conservation Element, in particular under
Protected Habitat: Native Plants, Animals and Wildlife Habitat, which if adopted and
implemented, could be used as guidelines to reduce potential impacts to sensitive natural
107
communities such as wetlands and riparian habitat. These include policies CON -1
Protection of Environmental Resources, and CON -9 Native and/or Sensitive Habitats,
and CON -10 Impacts to Sensitive Habitats. (See DEIR, p. IV.8-7.)
Impacts to wetland and riparian habitats are discussed further in Impact IV.8-3. Any
impact to oak savanna/woodlands, such as the potential development described above,
would be considered to be significant. (DEIR, p. IV. 8-7.)
Significance After Mitigation:
Mitigation Measure IV.8-2 outlines the actions that would be required in order to mitigate
for potential impacts to sensitive natural communities that are known to occur within the
Planning Area. The requirements of Mitigation Measure IV.8-2 have been incorporated
into program CON -10b. (FEIR, p. IX -604.) Impacts will be less than significant.
(DEIR, p. IV.8-7.)
Impact IV.8-3: Federallv Protected Wetlands.
Implementation of General Plan 2020 could affect a number of federally
protected wetlands including marshes, streams, and various other wetlands
which support a number of important plant and animal species. With
implementation of the policies and programs in General Plan 2020 this would
be a less -than -significant impact. (DEIR, p. IV.8-8).
Finding:
Under CEQA, no mitigation measures are required for impacts that are less than
significant. (Pub. Resources Code, § 21002; CEQA Guidelines, §§ 15126.4, subd. (a)(3),
15091.1
Mitigation Measure:
None required. (DEIR, p. IV.8-10.)
Explanation:
General Plan 2020 would allow for minimal redevelopment and/or infill of parcels along
wetland habitats in the Planning Areas. The areas of greatest concern are those vacant
parcels that are located along wetland habitat and could be developed under General Plan
2020. In the northern portion of the Planning Area these include vacant parcels along
Gallinas Creek where it empties into San Pablo Bay, a small stretch of Gallinas Creek
upstream, the parcel located at the intersection of Highway 101 and Lucas Valley Road
which is adjacent to Miller Creek, and a few vacant parcels upstream from that property
along Miller Creek. There are also various small drainages located on the vacant parcels
that abut China Camp State Park and adjacent parks and preserves. In the southern
portion of the Planning Area, there are two vacant parcels along the Bays, one directly
108
south of the China Camp State Park property and the other near Loch Lomond Marina
that would have a Low Density Residential land use under General Plan 2020. Other
areas of concern are the few parcels along San Rafael Creek, parcels adjacent to the
Canalways property, and a wetland between Woodland Avenue and Auburn Street.
(DEIR, pp. N.8-8.) The Background Report (2001) identified a significant portion of the
Canalways site as wetlands. The site-specific implementing program recognizes that a
wetlands delineation will assist in identifying appropriate area(s) for development.
(FEIR, p. IX -500.)
As with all wetland habitat adjacent to development, should redevelopment or infill be
proposed along this habitat, certain measures would be required to reduce potential
impacts to wetland habitats. If construction were to be proposed adjacent to any wetland
habitat, a delineation (verified by the USACE) may be required to ensure that wetland
habitats are avoided to the maximum extent practicable. Section 10 jurisdiction can only
be determined from updated maps showing the location and extent of historic tidal
sloughs once present in areas that are now cultivated fields. USACE permit requirements
can be determined only after the full extent of wetland habitats, historic tidal sloughs and
other jurisdictional waters have been identified within the Planning Area. SanRafael's
wetlands overlay zoning district requires, when development is proposed, a wetlands
delineation of site wetlands. (DEIR, pp. IV.8-8 to IV.8-9.)
General Plan 2020 contains many policies in the Conservation Element, in particular
under Protected Habitat: Wetlands, which if adopted and implemented could be used as
guidelines to reduce potential impacts to federally protected wetlands. These policies
include: CON -1 Protection of Environmental Resources; CON -2 Wetlands Preservation;
CON -3 Unavoidable Filling of Wetlands; CON -4 Wetland Setbacks; Program CON -5
Diked Baylands; Policy CON -6 Creek and Drainageway Setbacks; Policies CON -7
Public Access to Creeks and CON -8 Enhancement of Creeks and Drainageways. (See
DEIR, pp. IV.8-9 to IV.8-10 and FEIR, p. IX -599 to IX -603.)
In addition to the policies outlined in General Plan 2020 regarding federally protected
wetlands, development of vacant parcels that impact wetland habitats would need to
comply with the appropriate provisions of Section 404 Clean Water Act permits
(USACE), Section 401 Water Quality Certification (RWQCB), and/or Section 1603
California Fish and Game Streambed Alteration Agreements (CDFG). Mitigation in the
form of habitat creation/restoration may be required before the commencement of
development. (DEIR, p. IV.8-10.)
Significance After Mitigation:
Compliance with General Plan 2020 programs and policies, along with state and federal
laws, would provide protection for the few wetlands that would potentially be impacted
as a result of development consistent with General Plan 2020. Therefore, this would be a
less -than -significant impact. (DEIR, p. IV.8-10.)
109
Impact IV.8-4: Movement of Native Wildlife.
Development in vacant parcels would occur adjacent to current development
and would be limited to small areas. The majority of current undeveloped
lands in the Planning Area would not be fragmented or developed with a
higher intensity land use. Therefore, the movement of native wildlife would
not likely be affected by the implementation of General Plan 2020. This
would be a less -than -significant impact. (DEIR, p. IV.8-10.)
Finding:
Under CEQA, no mitigation measures are required for impacts that are less than
significant. (Pub. Resources Code, § 21002; CEQA Guidelines, §§ 15126.4, subd. (a)(3),
15091.)
Mitigation Measure:
None required. (DEIR, p. IV. 8-11.)
Explanation:
The existing development and US 101 act as a substantial barrier to regional movement
of wildlife. Most avian species are less affected by the existing barriers as they are volant
(e.g., fly) and are more likely to traverse inhospitable terrain. Roadways can be effective
barriers to many of the smaller terrestrial species such as amphibian, reptiles and small
mammals. Presently, the most effective wildlife corridors existing in the Planning Area
are the creek corridors defined by Gallinas and Miller Creeks and to a lesser extent San
Rafael Creek. These creek corridors provide habitat for riparian species or species
attracted to woodland habitats. The linear features of these creeks also facilitate regional
movements of wildlife and these are areas where species maybe able to cross US 101 in
relative safety. (DEIR, p. IV.8-11.)
Development, largely in the form of infill, will not substantially degrade the functionality
of the creek corridors, as described above, for the movements of local wildlife. At
buildout, those areas that function as corridors would continue to do so. Further, wildlife
corridors are also addressed by policy CON -11, Wildlife Corridors. This policy would
require the preservation and protection of those areas that provide landscape linkages
between and among habitat patches, which facilitates regional movements of wildlife.
(DEIR, p. IV.8-1 l.)
Significance After Mitigation:
Less than significant without mitigation. The redevelopment, infill, and new
development consistent with General Plan 2020 would not allow for projects to close off
or greatly impact any of the creek corridors which are the most effective wildlife
corridors. Therefore potential impacts created by General Plan 2020 would not be
110
expected to have a significant impact on native wildlife movements within the region.
(DEIR, p. IV. 8-11.)
Impact IV.8-5: Habitat for Native Wildlife.
Implementation of General Plan 2020 may result in a loss of habitat for
native wildlife if development occurs on currently available wildlife habitat.
In the Planning Area, those areas that are proposed for development that
provide habitat for wildlife occur primarily around the perimeter of or are
contiguous with the areas that are currently developed. However, due to the
limited amount of proposed development and with implementation of the
programs and policies of General Plan 2020, this would be a less -than -
significant impact. (DEIR, p. IV.8-11.)
Finding:
Under CEQA, no mitigation measures are required for impacts that are less than
significant. (Pub. Resources Code, § 21002; CEQA Guidelines, §§ 15126.4, subd. (a)(3),
15091.1
Mitigation Measure:
None required. (DEIR, p. IV. 8-12.)
Explanation:
While the majority of habitat available to wildlife would be designated as Open Space,
Parks, or Conservation in General Plan 2020, there are a few areas that currently provide
habitat for native wildlife that would be impacted by development consistent with
General Plan 2020. These vacant parcels are found within urbanized/developed areas or
are contiguous with areas that are currently developed. (DEIR, p. IV. 8-12.)
General Plan 2020 contains many policies in the Conservation Element, in particular
under Protected Habitat: Native Plants, Animals and Wildlife Habitat, which if adopted
and implemented could be used as guidelines to reduce potential impacts to the available
habitat for native wildlife. (See DEIR, p. IV.8-12.) These policies and programs, which
include Policies CON -1 Protection of Environmental Resources, CON -12 Preservation of
Hillsides, and CON -15 Fishery Habitat, have been developed to ensure that buildout
under General Plan 2020 would remain limited and they would provide a guideline as to
what areas should be avoided, restored, or enhanced in order to prevent any future
substantial impacts to wildlife habitat. (DEIR, p. IV.8-12.)
Significance After Mitigation:
Due to the fact that development of habitats for native wildlife is limited under General
Plan 2020 and areas that could be developed would be required to follow the programs
111
and policies of General Plan 2020, future development would result in a less -than -
significant impact to habitat for native wildlife. (DEIR, p. IV.8-12.)
Impact IV.8-6: Invasive Exotics.
Implementation of General Plan 2020 may result in additional locations
being planted with ornamental landscaping. Planting with common
landscaping species often results in an increase in the number of exotic
species "escaping" onto neighboring undeveloped lands. With
implementation of General Plan 2020 programs and policies future
landscaping would result in a less -than -significant impact. (DEIR, p. IV.8-
12.)
Finding:
Under CEQA, no mitigation measures are required for impacts that are less than
significant. (Pub. Resources Code, § 21002; CEQA Guidelines, §§ 15126.4, subd. (a)(3),
15091.1
Mitigation Measure:
None required. (DEIR, p. IV. 8-13.)
Explanation:
Areas that are proposed to be developed as part of General Plan 2020 could potentially
be landscaped with exotic plant species. Some of these areas are located adjacent to
natural habitats that would remain undeveloped and thus are more vulnerable to the
establishment of invasive exotics. Because of the proximity to natural habitats,
landscaping with exotic plant species could introduce to the Planning Area exotic plants
that are capable of naturalizing in native habitats and reducing the diversity of native
plants. Seeds from exotic species can also be transferred by birds and water (e.g. if the
seeds fall in a creek and flow downstream) from landscaped areas that are not in direct
proximity to natural areas. (DEIR, p. IV.8-12.)
General Plan 2020 contains policies and programs in the Conservation Element, in
particular under Protected Habitat: Native Plants, Animals and Wildlife Habitat, which if
adopted and implemented, could be used as guidelines to reduce potential impacts to
natural habitat from the introduction of invasive exotics. These policies and programs
include Policy CON -16 Invasive Non -Native Plant Species, OS -2b Removal of Invasive
Species, and CON -17 Landscape with Native Plant Species. (See DEIR, p. IV.8-13.) If
these programs and policies are implemented, there would be a less -than -significant
impact in regards to invasive exotics. (DEIR, p. IV.8-13.)
112
Significance After Mitigation:
Through implementation of General Plan 2020 policies, impacts related to the number of
exotic species "escaping" onto neighboring undeveloped lands would be less than
significant without mitigation. (DEIR, p. IV.8-13.)
Cumulative Biological Resources Impacts
The biological resources analysis considers all development within the Planning Area and
therefore considers also the cumulative impacts for such development. As discussed in
Section IV.8 Biological Resources of the Draft EIR, the project would not result in the
loss of extensive areas of natural habitats and associated biological resources. Due to the
concentration of future development within already developed areas, development in the
Planning Area would not result in cumulatively significant impacts associated with
wildlife movement, habitat fragmentation, or federally protected wetlands. While such
development could have project -specific impacts to sensitive natural communities and
special -status species, with implementation of the associated mitigation measures (see
Mitigation Measures IV.8-1 and IV.8-2) this would be a less -than -significant cumulative
impact.
Findings
Under CEQA, no mitigation measures are required for impacts that are less than
significant. (Pub. Resources Code, § 21002; CEQA Guidelines, §§ 15126.4, subd. (a)(3),
15091.)
Mitigation Measure:
None required. (FEIR, p. IX -649.)
Significance After Mitigation
Cumulative biological resources will be less than significant.
I. GEOLOGY, SOILS, AND SEISMICITY
Impact IV.9-1: Seismic Ground Shaking.
The project would expose people or structures to potential, substantial
adverse seismic effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving
strong seismic groundshaking. This would be a significant impact. (DEIR, p.
IV.9-4.)
113
Finding:
Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the Project that avoid
the significant environmental effect as identified in the Final EIR.
Mitigation Measure:
IV. 9-1: The City shall adopt a General Plan policy that would require post -
earthquake building inspections of critical facilities, and restrict entry into
compromised structures. Inspections shall be conducted when the
earthquake intensity is VII or higher per the Modified Mercalli Intensity
Scale (see Exhibit IV.9-1, [DEIR, p. N.9-7]). The Modified Mercalli
Intensity scale is a subjective scale and would require City staff to judge
the intensity of any earthquake felt within the Planning Area. An intensity
VII earthquake would be major earthquake and would represent a notable
event felt by most people in the Planning Area. Exhibit N.9-2 [of the
DEIR] shows at what distance, in kilometers, from the Planning Area a
Magnitude 5, 6, 7, or 8 earthquake should result in a Modified Mercalli
Scale intensity of about VII. As shown in this exhibit, intensity VII would
be experienced at lower Magnitude earthquakes at greater distances on
soft soils than on firm soils or rock. For example, a Magnitude 6
earthquake occurring about 65 kilometers from San Rafael would be
experienced as an intensity VII on the Mercalli Scale in the parts of San
Rafael that are on soft soils, but not in the parts that are on firm soils or
rock. A Magnitude 8 earthquake occurring about 65 kilometers from San
Rafael would be needed for an intensity VII on the Mercalli Scale in parts
of the Planning Area, on firm soils, and rock.
Additionally, as part of this General Plan policy the city shall require
inspections as necessary in conjunction with other non -city public
agencies and private parties for structural integrity of water storage
facilities, storm drainage structures, electrical transmission lines, major
roadways, bridges, elevated freeways, levees, canal banks, and other
important utilities and essential facilities.
As part of this policy, the City shall adopt an implementing program to
identify a list of facilities that would be inspected. The Community
Development Department shall prepare a list that identifies City owned
essential or hazardous facilities as defined by Category 1 and 2 of Table
16-K of the Uniform Building Code, and shall prioritize the list for
inspection scheduling purposes in case of an earthquake.
(DEIR, p. N.9-6.)
114
Responsibility and Monitoring:
The City Council would be responsible for adopting the new policy, as described in
Mitigation Measure N.9-1, as part of General Plan 2020. The Community Development
Department would be responsible for implementing and monitoring the policy to
minimize hazards associated with strong ground shaking. (DEIR, p. N.9-6.)
The City Council will include the following in the adopted Plan:
S -8X. Post Earthquake Inspections.
Require post -earthquake building inspections of critical facilities, and restrict entry into compromised
structures. Inspections shall be conducted when the earthquake intensity if VII or higher per the Modified
Mercalli Intensity Scale. Require inspections as necessary in conjunction with other non -city public
agencies and private parties for structural integrity of water storage facilities, storm drainage structures,
electrical transmission lines, major roadways, bridges, elevated freeways, levees, canal banks, and other
important utilities and essential facilities.
S-8Xa. Inspection List. Identify a list of facilities that would be inspected after a major earthquake.
The list shall identify City -owned essential or hazardous facilities as defined by Category 1 and 2 of
Table 16-K of the Uniform Building Code, and shall prioritize the list for inspection scheduling
purposes in case of an earthquake.
Responsibility: Community Development
Timeframe: Short term
Resources: Staff time
Add as a new Appendix to the plan, Exhibit IV.9-1, Modified Mercalli Scale, and Exhibit IV.9-2,
Approximate Earthquake Magnitude and Distances (Inn) for a Mercalli Scale Intensity Value VII within
San Rafael Planning Area. Include the following text at the beginning of this new Appendix, before the two
exhibits:
The following exhibits shall be used to identify if buildings shall be inspected following an earthquake,
consistent with policy S-8, Post Earthquake Inspections. The Modified Mercalli Intensity scale is a
subjective scale and would require City staff to judge the intensity of any earthquake felt within the
Planning Area. An intensity VII earthquake would be major earthquake and would represent a notable
event felt by most people in the Planning Area. The exhibit below shows at what distance, in kilometers,
from the Planning Area a Magnitude 5, 6, 7, or 8 earthquake should result in a Modified Mercalli Scale
intensity of about VII. As shown in this exhibit, intensity VII would be experienced at lower Magnitude
earthquakes at greater distances on soft soils than on firm soils or rock. For example, a Magnitude 6
earthquake occurring about 65 kilometers from San Rafael would be experienced as an intensity VII on the
Mercalli Scale in the parts of San Rafael that are on soft soils, but not in the parts that are on firm soils or
rock. A Magnitude 8 earthquake occurring about 65 kilometers from San Rafael would be needed for an
intensity VII on the Mercalli Scale in parts of the Planning Area, on firm soils, and rock.
To implement this mitigation, the City shall immediately perform a post -earthquake
inspection by an emergency response team whose composition shall include building
inspectors (Community Development). They shall, as needed, be assisted by structural
and geotechnical engineers selected beforehand by San Rafael to provide the adjunct
services necessary to evaluate damage levels, and restrict use or entry as found necessary.
On state or federal facilities within the City, i.e. State Highway 101, the City team shall
coordinate with the other response teams (i.e. Caltrans) whose responsibilities include
those non -City facilities. (DEIR, pp. N.9-6 to N.9-7.)
115
Short term monitoring to enforce Mitigation Measure IV.9-1 shall be by the Police and
Fire Departments. Longer term monitoring (until rehabilitation or elimination takes
place) shall be performed by City building inspectors. (DEIR, p. IV.9-7.)
Explanation:
The Planning Area has a 70 percent probability of experiencing groundshaking from at
least one major earthquake (Moment Magnitude 6.7 or greater) by 2030. Groundshaking
can result in structural failure and collapse or cause nonstructural building elements to
fall, presenting a hazard to occupants and damage to contents. Older, unreinforced
masonry buildings and other City buildings constructed before 1930 that have not been
seismically retrofitted are most subject to structural failure/collapse. In 1992, the City
adopted an Unreinforced Masonry ordinance requiring the upgrade of seismic structural
upgrades to all unreinforced masonry buildings. All such buildings have been reinforced,
with the exception of one unused City building. (DEIR, pp. IV.9-4 to IV.9-5.)
Because of the regional effects of large earthquakes, future developments that occur
anywhere within the Planning Area would be subject to groundshaking during such
events. Locations where shaking is expected to be more intense are valley and Bay
margin areas. These areas are underlain by deeper, unconsolidated deposits, (alluvium
and bay mud), and thus are subject to higher amplitude, longer duration shaking motions.
As shown in Exhibit B-13 in the Background Report, these areas are primarily in the
northeast portion of the Planning Area, and in the southeastern part of the Planning Area,
with some areas of unconsolidated deposits in the Loch Lomond Marina area and in the
lower parts of the Peacock Gap neighborhood. However, this greater shaking potential is
recognized in the Uniform Building Code (UBC), which provides for more stringent
earthquake resistant design parameters for such areas. Thus, while these shaking impacts
are potentially more damaging, they also will tend to be reduced in their structural effects
due to UBC criteria. (DEIR, p. IV.9-5.)
General Plan 2020 contains many policies and standards in the Safety Element, which, if
adopted and implemented, would reduce the potential impacts associated with strong
seismic groundshaking. These policies include: Policy S-4 Geotechnical Review; S-5
Soils and Geologic Review; S-6 Minimize Potential Effects of Geological Hazards; S-7
Seismic Safety of New Buildings; and S-8 Seismic Safety of Existing Buildings. (See
DEIR, pp. IV.9-5 to IV.9-6, and FE1R, p. IX -587.) Although these policies would reduce
some of the impacts associated with strong seismic groundshaking, the potential for
damage or loss during an earthquake and prior to mitigation would be a significant
impact. (DEIR, pp. IV.9-5 to IV.9-6.)
In addition, as required by Mitigation Measure IV.9-1, Policy S -8X and program S-8Xa
have been added to General Plan 2020. (FEIR, p. IX -587.)
Significance After Mitigation:
116
Policy S -8X and program S-8Xa, as required by Mitigation Measure N.9-1 would reduce
potential seismic groundshaking hazards by confirming the structural integrity of critical
facilities after an earthquake. Implementation of this mitigation, in addition to other
policies in General Plan 2020 would reduce potential seismic groundshaking hazards to a
less -than -significant level. (DEIR, p. IV.9-6, FEIR p. IX -587.).
Impact IV.9-2: Seismic Related Ground Failure.
The project would expose people or structures to potential substantial
adverse seismic effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death from
seismic -related ground failures of liquefaction, lateral spreading, lurching,
differential settlement, and flow failures. This would be a significant impact.
(DEIR, p. N.9-8.)
Finding:
Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the Project that avoid
the significant environmental effect as identified in the Final EIR.
Mitigation Measure:
IV. 9-2: Same as Mitigation Measure IV.9-1. (DEIR, p. N.9-9.)
Responsibility and Monitoring:
The City Council would be responsible for adopting the new policy, as described in
Mitigation Measure IV.9-1, as part of General Plan 2020. The Community Development
Department would be responsible for implementing and monitoring the policy to
minimize hazards associated with seismically induced ground failures. (DEIR, p. IV.9-
9.)
Explanation:
The Safety Element of General Plan 2020 contains many policies (Policy S-1 Location
of Future Development, Policy S-2 Location of Public Improvements, Policy S-3 Use of
Hazards Maps in Development Review, Policy S-4 Geotechnical Review, Policy S-4
Geotechnical Review, Policy S-6 Minimize Potential Effects of Geologic Hazards),
which, if adopted and implemented, may reduce the potential impacts associated with
seismic -related ground failure. (See DEIR, pp. IV.9-8 to IV.9-9.) While these policies
may reduce some potential impacts associated with seismic -related ground failure, to the
extent that public and private development continues to take place, General Plan 2020
would still expose people and property to additional risk from seismic ground failure.
The potential for damage or loss from such failures, prior to mitigation, would be a
significant impact. (DEIR, pp. IV.9-8 to IV.9-9.)
Significance After Mitigation:
117
Policy S -8X and program S-8Xa, as required by Mitigation Measures IV.9-1 and IV.9-2
would reduce potential seismic -related ground failure hazards by confirming the
structural integrity of critical facilities after an earthquake. Implementation of this
mitigation measure, in addition to other policies in General Plan 2020 would reduce
seismic -related grounds failures to a less -than -significant level. (DEIR, p. IV.9-9.)
Imnact IV.9-3: Landslidine.
Development consistent with General Plan 2020 would potentially expose
people or structures to the damaging effects of landsliding. This would be a
significant impact. (DEIR, p. IV.9-9.)
Finding:
Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the Project that
substantially lessen, but do not avoid, the potentially significant environmental effect
associated with landslides. No mitigation is available to render the effects less than
significant. The effects (or some of the effects) therefore remain significant and
unavoidable.
Mitigation Measure:
IV. 9-3: The City shall develop and adopt a City landslide policy that would define
the minimum level of landslide repair and City goals regarding secondary
impacts associate with the repair work. The landslide policy would
provide a guideline for development of parcels that contain landslides or
could be impacted by landslides.
(DEIR, p. IV.9-11.)
Responsibility and Monitoring:
The City Council would be responsible for adopting the policy, as described in Mitigation
Measure IV.9-3, as part of General Plan 2020. The Community Development
Department would be responsible for implementing and monitoring the above policy as
part of General Plan 2020 to minimize hazards associated with landsliding. (DEIR, p.
IV.9-11).
The plan will include the following program to implement Mitigation Measure IV.9-3:
SA Minimize Potential Effects of Landslides. Development proposed in areas with existing
landslides or with the potential for landslides (as identified by a registered engineering geologist or
geotechnical engineer) shall not be endangered by, nor contribute to, the hazardous conditions on the
site or on adjoining properties. Development in areas subject to landslide hazards shall incorporate
adequate mitigation measures that have a design factor of safety of at least 1.5 for static conditions and
1.0 for psuedo-static (earthquake) conditions. The landslide mitigation should consider multiple
options in order to reduce the secondary impacts (loss of vegetation, site grading, traffic, visual)
118
associated with landslide mitigation. The City will only approve new development in areas of
identified landslide hazard if such hazard can be appropriately mitigated.
Responsibility: Community Development
Timeframe: Short term
Resources: Staff time
Explanation:
Much of the Planning Area is occupied by hilly terrain. There is an obvious, but non-
uniform correlation between the hilly terrain and the potential for damaging landslides.
To the extent that General Plan 2020 allows hillside development, this can lead to some
increased potential for damage. However, this potential can be offset by diligent site
selection, careful design, good construction, and long-term maintenance. (DEIR, pp.
N.9-9 to N.9-10.)
In the Planning Area, landslides (including mudslides) constitute a significant geologic
hazard to people, structures, roads, and utilities on, and along the base of hillsides.
Landslides can occur independently of earthquakes or they can be triggered by
earthquake shaking. While most landslides are the result of naturally occurring geologic
processes and climate, some human -made factors may trigger landslides, such as
improper drainage facilities, indiscriminate grading activities (cuts and/or fills), and loss
of vegetation. (DEIR, p. N.9-10.)
The Safety Element of General Plan 2020 contains many policies and standards, which,
if adopted and implemented, would reduce the potential impacts associated with
landsliding. These policies include: Policy S-2 Location of Public Improvements; S-3
Use of Hazards Maps in Development Review; S-4 Geotechnical Review; S-5 Soils and
Geologic Review; S-6 Minimize Potential Effects of Geologic Hazards. (See DEIR, p.
N.9-10.)
While implementation of these General Plan policies should reduce most landsliding
hazards to a less -than -significant level, there would be exceptions that cannot be
mitigated entirely. Such possible exceptions are mudslides triggered by very intense
periods of rainfall on saturated ground and landslides triggered by intense earthquake
shaking. Although policies S-2 through S-6 greatly reduce these landslide impacts, they
cannot mitigate them entirely due to the complex subsurface relationships between slope
stability and the area -wide effects of intense earthquake shaking and/or intense rainfall.
The potential for these impacts is probably somewhat greater in older hillside residential
areas. It is expected to be less in recent and future developments. This is due to a higher
level of concern gained from past landslide problems and evolving design standards.
(DEIR, pp. IV. 9-10 to IV. 9-11.)
Therefore, to the extent that development continues to take place, General Plan 2020
would expose people and property to additional risk from landsliding or loss from such
failures. The potential for damage or loss from unrepaired landslides would be a
significant impact. (DEIR, p. N.9-11.)
119
As required by Mitigation Measure IV.9-3, Policy S -X has been added to General Plan
2020. (FEIR, p. IX -587.)
Significance After Mitigation:
Implementation of Mitigation Measure IV.9-3 would reduce the hazard from repaired
landslides to a less -than -significant level. Existing landslides that are not repaired or
mitigated would remain a significant and unavoidable impact. (DEIR, p. IV.9-11.)
Impact IV.9-4: Subsidence.
Development consistent with General Plan 2020 could expose property and
structures to the damaging effects of ground subsidence hazards. This would
be a significant impact. (DEIR, p. IV.9-11.)
Finding:
Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the Project that avoid
the significant environmental effect as identified in the Final EIR.
Mitigation Measures:
IV. 9-4(a): The City shall amend policy S-18, Rise in Sea Level, to assure that, prior
to levee heightening for flood control purposes, the City shall coordinate
with the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate change regarding the most
current estimates of sea level rise.
IV.9-4(b): The City shall adopt a program for S-17, Levee Upgrading, to perform
period ground elevation surveys within the Canal Neighborhood to
determine ground elevations throughout the area, including the levee
system. The result of the survey shall be used to determine the need for
levee heightening for flood protection purposes. When a need for levee
heightening is determined, the City shall heighten the levees as necessary
on public property and require that levees on private property be
heightened.
(DEIR, p. IV.9-13, and FEIR, p. IX -590.)
Responsibility and Monitoring:
The City Council would be responsible for adopting the amended policy and the new
program, as listed in Mitigation Measures IV.9-4(a) and IV.9-4(b), as part of General
Plan 2020. The Community Development Department would be responsible for
implementing and monitoring the above policies as part of General Plan to minimize
hazards associated with subsidence. (DEIR, p. IV.9-13.)
120
Explanation:
Much of the areas underlain by bay mud or artificial fill, primarily in East San Rafael,
would not be proposed for increased development under General Plan 2020, although
these areas could be sites for future infill or redevelopment. There are a handful of
vacant parcels in the southeastern portion of San Rafael on artificial fill. Most of these
properties are designated Light Industry/Office or General Commercial, while one large
property in this area that was previously designated Medium Density Residential would
be redesignated Conservation under General Plan 2020. In addition, there are a few
areas in the southeastern part of the Planning Area that would have increased allowable
densities and development opportunities under the proposed plan. One such area is in the
Loch Lomond Marina, where a Neighborhood Commercial designation would be
expanded to allow for increased neighborhood -serving commercial uses and housing.
(DEIR, pp. IV.9-11 to IV.9-12.)
The Neighborhoods and the Safety Elements of General Plan 2020 contain many
policies, which if adopted and implemented would reduce the potential impacts
associated with land subsidence. These policies include: NH -55 Flood Control
Improvements; S-1 Location of Future Development; S-3 Use of Hazards Maps in
Development Review; S-5 Soils and Geologic Review; S-15 Flood Protection of New
Development; S-17 Levee Upgrading; 5-18 Rise in Sea Level. (See DEIR, p. IV.9-12).
These policies would help reduce potential impacts related to subsidence. However,
because infill or new development could still occur in areas susceptible to subsidence, the
potential for flooding and damage to improvements prior to mitigation would remain.
The requirements of Mitigation Measure IV.9-4(a) have been incorporated into Policy S-
18 Rise in Sea Level. (FEIR, p. IX -590.) The requirements of Mitigation Measure IV.9-
4(b) have been incorporated into program S -17b. (FEIR, p. IX -590.) Implementation of
these mitigation measures would reduce this potentially significant impact to a less than
significant level. (DEIR, p. IV.9-13.)
Significance After Mitigation:
Implementation of the mitigation measures listed above would reduce subsidence and
related flooding hazards to a less -than -significant level. (DEIR, p. IV.9-13.)
Impact IV.9-5: Erosion.
There is the potential for the loss of soil resources due to erosion as well as
the potential for the exposure of improvements to erosion -related damage.
This would be a significant impact. (DEIR, p. IV.9-13.)
Finding:
Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the Project that avoid
the significant environmental effect as identified in the Final EIR.
121
Mitigation Measure:
IV.9-5: The City shall amend Policy, NH -96 Shoreline Embankments, to include
the following: After large storms, inspect existing rip -rap on levee faces.
Repair and replace as necessary to provide adequate wave erosion
protection.
(DEIR, p. IV.9-15, FEIR, p. IX -505.)
Responsibility and Monitoring:
The City Council would be responsible for adopting the amended policy, as listed in
Mitigation Measure IV.9-5, as part of General Plan 2020. The Community Development
Department would be responsible for monitoring the implementation of the amended
policy. (DEIR, p. IV.9-15.)
Explanation:
The principal locations in the Planning Area where erosion is most likely are hillsides and
along stream banks. There is some potential for wave erosion of levees. Natural erosion
of hillsides can be accelerated due to disturbance by construction activities (i.e., cuts
and/or fills). Such activities typically remove protective vegetative cover, create overly
steep slopes, and/or concentrate natural surface runoff thus increasing its erosive force.
Stream bank erosion most commonly occurs during wet season peak flows. Often such
erosion is highest along, but not limited to, the outside edges of bends in the channel.
Stream banks areas undercut by erosion can locally fail by slumping. Wave erosion
would occur if levee faces were not adequately protected. (DEIR, p. IV.9-13.)
The Safety, the Conservation, the Air and Water Quality, and the Neighborhoods
Elements of General Plan 2020 contain many policies and programs, which if adopted
and implemented would reduce the potential impacts associated with soil erosion. These
policies include: NH -96 Shoreline Embankments; S-2 Location of Public Improvements;
S-4 Geotechnical Review; S-5 Soils and Geologic Review; S-6 Minimize Potential
Effects of Geologic Hazards; S-19 Erosion; S-20 Creeks and Drainageways; CON -6
Creek and Drainageway Setbacks; CON -12 Preservation of Hillsides; AW -9 Erosion and
Sediment Control. (See DEIR, pp. IV.9-13 to IV.9-14.) While these policies would help
reduce potential erosion impacts in most areas, potential impacts to shoreline
embankments after large storms would remain significant. Therefore this would be a
significant impact. (DEIR, p. IV.9-15.)
Significance After Mitigation:
Amendment of the General Plan policy listed above would reduce erosion hazards to a
less -than -significant level. (DEIR, p. IV.9-15.)
122
Impact IV.9-6: Expansive Soils.
Geotechnical review required by General Plan 2020 would prevent exposure
of property improvements to potential adverse effects from expansive soils.
This would be a less -than -significant impact. (DEIR, p. IV.9-15.)
Finding:
Under CEQA, no mitigation measures are required for impacts that are less than
significant. (Pub. Resources Code, § 21002; CEQA Guidelines, §§ 15126.4, subd. (a)(3),
15091.)
Mitigation Measure:
None required. (DEIR p. IV.9-16.)
Explanation:
While expansive soils are not widely present in the Planning Area, they can exist locally.
In general, expansive soils would most likely be encountered in the eastern portions of
the City underlain by fill (Qaf) and bay mud (Qm) as shown the geology and stability
map in the Background Report. The forces exerted during expansion and contraction of
such soils is sufficient to heave and distort buildings, and crack shallow foundations and
pavements. Due to the limited amount of expansive soils in the area, General Plan 2020
would only minimally expose property to the hazard of expansive soils. Any
development on expansive soils, however, would be a significant impact. (DEIR, p.
IV.9-15.)
The Safety Element of General Plan 2020 contains many policies and standards, which,
if adopted and implemented, would reduce the potential impacts associated with
expansive soils. The policies include: S-1 Location of Future Development; S-4
Geotechnical Review; S-5 Soils and Geologic Review; and S-6 Minimize Potential
Effects of Geologic Hazards. (See DEIR, pp. IV.9-15 to IV.9-16.) Implementation of
these General Plan policies would reduce expansive soil hazards to a less -than -
significant level. (DEIR, p. IV.9-16.)
Significance After Mitigation:
Implementation of these General Plan policies would reduce expansive soil hazards to a
less -than -significant level without mitigation. (DEIR, p. IV.9-16.)
123
Impact IV.9-7: Septic Suitabilitv of Soils.
There are limited situations in which development consistent with General
Plan 2020 could result in the construction of septic tanks or alternative
wastewater disposal systems on soils incapable of adequately supporting such
systems. This would be a potentially significant impact. (DEIR, p. N.9-16.)
Finding:
Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the Project that avoid
the significant environmental effect as identified in the Final E1R.
Mitigation Measure:
IV.9-7: The City shall adopt a General Plan policy that would discourage the use
of septic systems within the Planning Area. If no other alternatives exist,
then soil tests (i.e. percolation, grain size analysis, soil type) shall be
required to determine if the on-site soil are suitable for development of a
septic system for disposal of wastewater. In hillside areas, an evaluation
of the additional water from a septic system on hillside stability shall also
be required. The policy shall require that new or improved septic systems
be designed by a registered civil engineer that specializes in septic design.
(DEIR, p. IV.9-16, and FEIR, pp. IX -590.)
Responsibility and Monitoring:
The City Council would be responsible for adopting the new policy, as listed in
Mitigation Measure IV.9-7, as part of General Plan 2020. The Community Development
and Public Works Departments would be responsible for monitoring the implementation
of the policy as part of the General Plan to minimize the use of septic tanks or alternative
systems on soils incapable of adequately supporting such systems. (DEIR, pp. IV.9-16 to
N.9-17.)
Explanation:
There would be limited situations in the Planning Area where septic systems could occur.
According to the Marin County Environmental Health Code, all parcels within 400 feet
of an existing sewer line must connect to that District's facilities when a new house or
addition is constructed on the parcel. Additionally, Section 15.06.020 of the San Rafael
Municipal Code would require that any subdivision of land into two or more lots or
parcels would be required to receive wastewater and sewage disposal services from either
the San Rafael Sanitation District or the Las Gallinas Valley Sanitary District, depending
upon the property location, and would prohibit individual on-site septic systems.
Therefore, the only development that would potentially use a septic tank or alternative
system would be a single lot that is more than 400 feet from an existing sewer line.
124
Because determination of the septic suitability of soils is site specific, it would be
speculative to determine the possibility of such a development occurring on soils
incapable of adequately supporting a septic tank or alternative system. Therefore, this
would be a potentially significant impact. (DEIR, p. IV.9-16.)
As required by Mitigation Measure IV.9-7, Policy S -19X has been added to General Plan
2020. (FEIR, p. IX -590.)
Significance After Mitigation:
Adoption and implementation of the above policy would reduce septic suitability impacts
to a less -than -significant level. (DEIR, p. IV.9-17.)
Cumulative Geoloev, Soils, and Seismicitv
The geologic analysis considers all development and growth within the Planning Area
and therefore considers also the cumulative impacts for such development. As the
population within the Planning Area grows, the opportunity for geologic, soils, and
seismic related hazards grows. Some hazards, such as expansive soils, would be reduced
through the City's geotechnical review requirements and the General Plan 2020
contribution to this impact would be less than cumulatively considerable... However, the
landsliding impact would remain a significant impact and would contribute to cumulative
landsliding impacts. Implementation of General Plan 2020 would result in significant
cumulative landsliding impacts and would make a cumulatively considerable contribution
to such an impact. Mitigation measure N.9-3 would reduce the hazard from repaired
landslides to a less -than -significant level. (FEIR, p. IX -653.)
Finding
Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the Project that avoid
the significant cumulative impact as identified in the Final EIR.
Mitigation Measure:
See discussion of Mitigation Measure N.9-3 above.
Significance After Mitigation
Cumulative geology, soils, and seismicity impacts will be less than significant. (FEIR, p.
IX -654.)
125
J. HYDROLOGY, WATER OUALITY. AND FLOOD HAZARDS
Impact IV.10-1: Water Oualitv Standards.
Future development prescribed by General Plan 2020 would not result in a
significant increase in the loading of petrochemical contaminants, heavy
metals and pesticide and herbicide residues to natural and artificial
drainageways within the Planning Area, and ultimately to San Rafael and
San Pablo Bays. With implementation of General Plan 2020 policies and
programs this would be a less -than -significant impact. (DEIR, p. IV. 10-6.)
Finding:
Under CEQA, no mitigation measures are required for impacts that are less than
significant. (Pub. Resources Code, § 21002; CEQA Guidelines, §§ 15126.4, subd. (a)(3),
15091.1
Mitigation Measure:
None required. (DEIR, p. IV. 10-7.)
Explanation:
Regional water quality standards are set by the United States Environmental Protection
Agency (USEPA) and the California State Water Resources Board in accordance with the
1971 Clean Water Act and its amendments. The San Francisco Bay Regional Water
Quality Control Board (RWQCB) administers the regional and local implementation of
the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) program, which regulates
the discharge of contaminants into waterways, including San Francisco Bay and its
tributary streams. The NPDES Phase 11 permit recently issued to Marin County extends
permitting for point and non -point source discharges to its constituent municipalities,
including the City of San Rafael. Regarding stormwater runoff, the permit stipulates that
Marin County and the cities within the county enact specific pollutant control measures.
It also applies such measures to construction sites of an acre or more in area. Finally, the
Basin Plan for San Francisco Bay allows for the implementation of Total Maximum
Daily Load (TMDL) standards to minimize the discharge of particular contaminants to
influent Bay waterways. While none of the TMDLs have to date been issued for
contaminants identified as impairing these waterways, TMDLs for mercury and the
pesticide Diazanon are currently being developed. (DEIR, p. IV. 10-6.)
Industrial and commercial land uses yield the highest quantities of stormwater
contaminants. These uses would occur primarily as infill development and/or
redevelopment along the Highway 101 corridor and in the North San Rafael Commercial
Center area. The bulk of new residential development would be concentrated in the
already developed areas of Terra Linda, Woodland Avenue/Downtown, and potentially in
the Peacock Gap area. Peacock Gap development is contingent on the timing of closure
126
and reclamation of the McNear Quarry, which is not expected to occur during the current
planning horizon. The removal of the St. Vincent's/Silveira properties from the Planning
Area would eliminate any potential impact development might have had on water quality
along the tidal reach of Miller Creek. No new subdivision development is projected for
the upper reaches of the Miller Creek Watershed. Thus, the impact of any hillside
residential development in the watershed should be less -than -significant. In addition,
because most of the industrial, commercial, and residential development would be infill
or redevelopment, development consistent with General Plan 2020 would have no
discernable effect on stormwater quality in these already urbanized areas. (DEIR, p.
IV. 10-6.)
Furthermore, General Plan 2020 contains several policies and programs in the
Neighborhoods, Infrastructure, Conservation, and Air and Water Elements that, if
adopted and implemented, would help reduce potential water quality impacts due to the
discharge of polluted stormwater runoff to area waterways. These policies include: NH -
47 Community -wide asset; NH -52 Canal Maintenance and NH -53 Canal Water Quality,
and Programs NH -52a Dredging Program, NH -52b Boating Sanitation and Dock Safety,
and NH -53a Pump Out Facilities; CON -1 Protection of Environmental Resources, CON -
2 Wetlands Preservation, CON -3 Unavoidable Filling of Wetlands, CON -4 Wetland
Setbacks, CON -5 Diked Baylands, CON -6 Creek and Drainageway Setbacks, and CON -8
Enhancement of Creeks and Drainageways; and Programs CON -lb Plans for
Environmental Protection (Mahon Creek and Shoreline Park), CON -2a Wetlands Overlay
District, CON -3a Project Mitigation, CON -6a Municipal Code Compliance, CON -8a
Creek Restoration, and CON -8b Creek Enhancement; Policy CON -9 Native and/or
Sensitive Habitats and Policy CON -9a Steelhead Habitat; Policies AW -7 Local, State and
Federal Standards, AW -10 Canal and Bay Boating and AW -11 Education and Outreach,
as well as Programs AW -7a Countywide Stormwater Program, AW -7c Water Quality
Improvements in Canal and Other Waterways, AW -8a Proper Disposal of Pollutants,
AW -8c System Improvements, AW -8d Pesticide and Fertilizer Management, AW -8e
Public Water Management, AW -10a Sanitation Facilities in Boats, AW -10b Sewage
Pump Out Facilities, AW- 1Oc Education of Boaters, AW -11 a Stenciling of Storm Drains,
AW -11 b Outreach and AW -11 c Water Pollution Education; Policies AW -8 Reduce
Pollution from Urban Runoff, AW -9 Erosion and Sediment Control, and Programs AW -
7b Stormwater Runoff Measures, AW -8b Compliance by Contractors, and AW -9a
Grading During Wet Season. (For a discussion of each of these policies, see DEIR, pp.
IV.10-6 to TV. 10-7.) Since the majority of the future development in the Planning Area
would be infill or redevelopment, with the adoption and implementation of these General
Plan 2020 policies and programs, and compliance with the NPDES Phase II permit, this
would be a less -than -significant impact. (DEIR, pp. IV. 10-6 to IV. 10-7.)
Significance After Mitigation:
Since the majority of the future development in the Planning Area would be infill or
redevelopment, with the adoption and implementation of these General Plan 2020
policies and programs, and compliance with the NPDES Phase II permit, this impact
would be less than significant without mitigation. (DEIR, pp. IV. 10-6 to IV. 10-7.)
127
Impact IV.10-2: Groundwater.
Implementation of General Plan 2020 could result in overall incremental
increases in impervious surface cover in some Planning Area watersheds.
These increases would be minimal and would not affect groundwater
resources. This would be a less -than -significant impact. (DEIR, p. IV. 10-8.)
Finding:
Under CEQA, no mitigation measures are required for impacts that are less than
significant. (Pub. Resources Code, § 21002; CEQA Guidelines, §§ 15126.4, subd. (a)(3),
15091.)
Mitigation Measure:
None required. (DEIR, p. IV. 10-9.)
Explanation:
Existing groundwater resources in the Planning Area are very limited. Because of this
limited supply, groundwater is not used as a water supply for the Marin Municipal Water
District (MMWD), which serves the Planning Area. Also, groundwater use by other
organizations or by individuals within the Planning Area is very limited due to the
restricted availability. Within the City, San Rafael Municipal code would not permit the
use of well water for any new development of one lot or more and within the existing
service area of a public utility. (DEIR, p. IV. 10-8.)
Because the majority of the development within the Planning Area would be infill or
redevelopment, it would not be expected to increase impervious surfaces and therefore it
would not impact groundwater resources. Because of the limited amount of development
that would be allowed within the upper reaches of the Miller Creek watershed this too
would not impact groundwater resources. (DEIR, p. IV. 10-9.)
Furthermore, General Plan 2020 contains several policies and programs in the
Conservation Element that, if adopted and implemented, would reduce groundwater
impacts. These policies include CON -9 Native and/or Sensitive Habitats, and CON -10
Impacts to Sensitive Habitats; and Program CON -9a Steelhead Habitat. (For additional
discussion of the policies and programs, see DEIR, p. IV. 10-9 and FEIR, p. IX -604.)
These policies and programs direct the City, through the use of the Development Review
process, to assure that impacts to groundwater resources would be minimized. (DEIR, p.
IV. 10-9.)
This would be a less -than -significant impact. (DEIR, p. IV. 10-9.)
128
Significance After Mitigation:
These policies and programs direct the City, through the use of the Development Review
process, to assure that impacts to groundwater resources would be minimized and would
be less than significant without mitigation. (DEIR, p. IV. 10-9.)
Impact IV.10-3: Erosion and Siltation.
The majority of development consistent with General Plan 2020 would be
infill or redevelopment in already developed areas. Thus, actual incremental
increases in project -induced erosion and sedimentation would be limited. At
a small number of locales (including school grounds where the construction
of staff housing would be permitted), the construction of
commercial/industrial and residential projects could disrupt soil surfaces,
alter local drainage patterns and create hillslope or floodplain erosion, and
potentially cause downstream siltation. However, with implementation of
General Plan 2020 policies and programs, this would be a less -than -
significant impact. (DEIR, p. IV. 10-9.)
Finding:
Under CEQA, no mitigation measures are required for impacts that are less than
significant. (Pub. Resources Code, § 21002; CEQA Guidelines, §§ 15126.4, subd. (a)(3),
15091.1
Mitigation Measure:
None required. (DEIR, p. IV. 10.10.)
Explanation:
Project construction typically increases local impervious surface area, reduces runoff
time of concentration and increases peak flow rates in small drainageways where runoff
concentrates. Such peak flow increases can increase the erosion potential, both overland
and in drainage swales and creeks. Minor increases in tributary flows can also exacerbate
creekbank erosion and/or cause destabilizing channel incision. The significance of
project impacts varies depending on such factors as project size and density, the extent of
storm drain construction, and the extent to which the drainage design incorporates peak
flow reduction methodologies (e.g. porous paving, on-site stormwater detention, and
other "start -at -the -source" stormwater technologies). (DEIR, p. IV. 10-9.)
General Plan 2020 would result in additional residential, commercial, and industrial
development. The bulk of this development would occur in already urbanized areas,
particularly in the Downtown and Canal neighborhoods. Because these areas are already
urbanized, the impact of development on drainage patterns, and therefore on erosion and
siltation, would be limited. (DEIR, p. IV. 10-9.)
129
In addition, General Plan 2020 contains several policies and programs in the Safety,
Conservation, and Air and Water Elements that, if adopted and implemented, would
minimize potential erosion and siltation impacts. These policies and programs include:
Policies S-19 Erosion, S-20 Creeks and Drainageways, S-21 RWQCB Requirements,
CON -1 Protection of Environmental Resources, CON -6 Creek and Drainageway
Setbacks, CON -12 Preservation of Hillsides, and AW -9 Erosion and Sediment Control,
and Programs S -19a Erosion Control Programs, S -20a Agency Permits, S -21a
Compliance with RWQCB, CON -6a Municipal Code Compliance, and AW -9a Grading
During Wet Season. (For additional discussion of the policies and programs, see DEIR,
pp. IV. 10-9 to IV. 10-10 and FE1R, pp. IX -602 to IX -603.)
These policies and programs would ensure that development projects are designed and
conducted in accordance with accepted engineering practice to minimize local hillslope
and channel instability, soil loss, impacts to riparian vegetation and deleterious affects on
downstream storm drainage facilities. These measures would also ensure that applicable
regulatory statutes are followed during the environmental review and development
process. Thus, General Plan 2020 impacts on erosion and siltation would be less -than -
significant. (DEIR, p. IV.10-10.)
Significance After Mitigation:
These policies and programs would ensure that development projects are designed and
conducted in accordance with accepted engineering practice to minimize local hillslope
and channel instability, soil loss, impacts to riparian vegetation and deleterious effects on
downstream storm drainage facilities and would be less than significant without
mitigation. (DEIR, p. IV. 10-10.)
Impact IV.10-4: FloodinLy and/or Stormwater Drainaue Svstem Capacities.
Incremental increases in development consistent with General Plan 2020
would be concentrated in existing urbanized portions of the San Rafael
watersheds, which would not be expected to result in quantifiable increases
in peak flow rates. This would be a less -than -significant impact. (DEIR, p.
IV.10-10.)
Finding:
Under CEQA, no mitigation measures are required for impacts that are less than
significant. (Pub. Resources Code, § 21002; CEQA Guidelines, §§ 15126.4, subd. (a)(3),
15091.)
Mitigation Measure:
None required. (DEIR, p. IV. 10-10.)
130
Explanation:
Development anticipated by General Plan 2020 would be concentrated in existing
urbanized portions of Planning Area watersheds, which occur at the lower elevations.
This pattern of development would not result in quantifiable increases in peak flow rates
for the subject watersheds. Moreover, in only a few places, such as at school sites and
sites along Brookdale Avenue, would the development as proposed in General Plan 2020
lead to even minor increases in development densities. At these lower positions in the
watersheds, the changes in development density (e.g. medium to high density at
Brookdale Avenue) would not cause discernible increases in local peak flow rates.
Because of these contributing factors, the General Plan 2020 impact on flooding
associated with exceedance of stormwater drainage capacities would be less -than -
significant. (DEIR, p. IV.10-10.)
In addition, Policy S -X and program S-Xa have been added to General Plan 2020.
(FEIR, p. IX -589.) Policy S -X requires new development to improve local storm
drainage facilities to accommodate site runoff anticipated from a "100 -year" storm.
Significance After Mitigation:
General Plan 2020 impact on flooding associated with exceedance of stormwater
drainage capacities would be less than significant without mitigation. (DEIR, p. IV.10-
10.)
Impact IV.10-5: Tidal Floodine.
Development allowed under the provisions of General Plan 2020 could
increase the number and/or extent of residential and commercial
construction within low-lying areas currently partially protected by Bay
levees, which in some places are inadequate. If global warming accelerates
the previously predicted rate of sea level rise, existing 100 year flood levels
upon which minimum levee design elevations are based could increase and
existing Bay levees could be overtopped, resulting in more frequent and more
damaging tidal flooding. With implementation of General Plan 2020 policies
and programs this would be a less -than -significant impact. (DEIR, p. IV.10-
10.)
Finding:
Under CEQA, no mitigation measures are required for impacts that are less than
significant. (Pub. Resources Code, § 21002; CEQA Guidelines, §§ 15126.4, subd. (a)(3),
15091.)
Mitigation Measure:
None required. (DEIR, p. IV. 10-11.)
131
Explanation:
Because some of the Bay levees are currently inadequate, project development in the
low-lying areas of East San Rafael, both within and immediately upstream of the zone of
tidal influence, would be subject to flooding risk. This risk would be increased if global
warming increases the rate of predicted sea level rise. Areas where such project
development could occur include the Loch Lomond Marina, the Canalways site, and the
MedwayNivian area. The Bay tide elevation at any given point in time constitutes the
downstream control on floodwater surface profiles. High Bay tides coincident with
significant watershed storm flow can dramatically increase the flood elevations at the
lower end of these tributary channels to San Francisco Bay. Base flood elevations can
also be exacerbated by wave runup. The City maintains significant portions of Bay
levees and enforces a minimum levee crest elevation (after 30 year settlement) to
minimize the extent and duration of tidal flooding due to levee overtopping. If the City
were to maintain the existing levee requirements and sea level rise increased much more
rapidly than was predicted in the 1988 Bay Conservation and Development Commission
study on sea level rise, the frequency and extent of levee overtopping and resulting
flooding could increase. Even if the sea level does not rise more rapidly than was
predicted in the 1988 study, there would still be the potential for levee overtopping and
resulting flooding due to existing inadequate levees. (DEIR, pp. IV. 10-10 to IV. 10-11.)
General Plan 2020 contains the several policies and programs that would, if adopted and
implemented, minimize the risk of tidal flooding within low-lying areas of east San
Rafael. These policies and programs include: Policies NH -52 Canal Maintenance, NH -
55 Flood Control Improvements, S-15 Flood Protection of New Development, S-17
Levee Upgrading, and S-18 Rise in Sea Level, and Programs NH -52a Dredging Program,
NH -55a Flood Control, S -15a Title 18 Flood Protection Standards, S -17a Levee
Improvement, S -17b Levee Maintenance Funding, and S -18a Rise in Sea Level. (For
additional discussion regarding the policies and programs, see DEIR, p. IV. 10-11.)
Implementation of these policies and programs would minimize project impacts on levee
overtopping and tidal flooding due to increases in the rates of global warming and sea
level rise. Strict adherence to the implementation of these policies and programs would
reduce development impacts to a less -than -significant level. (DEIR, p. IV. 10-11.)
In addition, Policy S-18 has been amended and program S -17b has been added to
General Plan 2020 to provide greater protection against tidal flooding. (FEIR, p. IX -
591.)
Significance After Mitigation:
Implementation of these policies and programs would reduce development impacts to be
less than significant without mitigation. (DEIR, p. IV. 10-11.)
132
Imoact IV.10-6: Stormwater Drainaee Svstem Expansions.
Development consistent with General Plan 2020 would not require the
expansion of existing stormwater drainage systems. This would be a less -
than -significant impact. (DEIR, p. IV.10-11.)
Finding:
Under CEQA, no mitigation measures are required for impacts that are less than
significant. (Pub. Resources Code, § 21002; CEQA Guidelines, §§ 15126.4, subd. (a)(3),
15091.1
Mitigation Measure:
None required. (DEIR, p. W.10-12.)
Explanation:
Development consistent with General Plan 2020 would be concentrated in existing
urbanized portions of Planning Area watersheds, which occur at the lower elevations.
This pattern of development would not result in quantifiable increases in peak flow rates
for the subject watersheds and therefore would not require significant expansions of the
stormwater drainage system. Additional development allowed in less urbanized,
upstream watershed areas would occur at the lowest residential densities, Hillside
Residential (0.5-2 units/acre) and Hillside Residential Resource (0.1-0.5 units/acre). In
these cases, storm drain system expansions are typically not financially viable and local
drainage patterns and drainageways are maintained. Such development does not
discernibly increase watershed peak flow rates, since the time of concentration for storm
runoff is not significantly altered. In addition, published runoff coefficients for the
comparable hillside residential land use category evaluated by USGS researchers are the
same as those utilized for natural watershed uses. (DEIR, p. IV. 10-12.)
Furthermore, implementation of General Plan 2020 policies and programs listed in
Impacts IV. 10-1 and IV. 10-3 would address development impacts stemming from the
construction of any new or expanded storm drain facilities. The policies and programs
cited in these impacts would apply directly to the water quality, erosion/siltation, and
flooding impacts that would accompany any new construction of drainage facilities.
Adoption and implementation of these policies and programs would act collectively to
further reduce any potential impacts related to construction of stormwater drainage
facilities. (DEIR, p. IV. 10-12.)
Because expansions of the stormwater drainage system are not expected this would be a
less -than -significant impact. (DEIR, p. IV.10-12.)
133
Significance After Mitigation:
Because expansions of the stormwater drainage system are not expected this would be
less than significant without mitigation. (DEIR, p. TV. 10-12.)
Impact IV.10-7: Exposure of People or Structures to Floodine Hazards.
Development consistent with General Plan 2020 would potentially result in
the siting of residential or commercial structures in floodplains, subjecting
the people and/or structures to hazardous floodflows. However, development
consistent with General Plan 2020 would not be expected to increase peak
flow rates. Also, with implementation of General Plan 2020 policies and
programs related to flooding and hydrology this would be a less -than -
significant impact. (DEIR, p. IV.10-12.)
Finding:
Under CEQA, no mitigation measures are required for impacts that are less than
significant. (Pub. Resources Code, § 21002; CEQA Guidelines, §§ 15126.4, subd. (a)(3),
15091.1
Mitigation Measure:
None required. (DEIR, p. IV. 10-13.)
Explanation:
Adherence to the normal environmental and engineering review procedures utilized by
the City should minimize the risk of any flood damage to new development. The parts of
the Planning Area that could be subjected to such flood hazards are located in low-lying
or immediately adjacent terrain where flooding is influenced by tide heights in San
Rafael Bay and the San Rafael Canal. The removal of the St. Vincent's/Silveira parcel
from the Planning Area would eliminate any potential impact development might have
had on flooding along the tidal reach of Miller Creek. As discussed in Impacts IV. 10-4
and IV. 10-6, new development is not expected to cause local increases in peak flow rates,
which could affect the performance of existing stormwater drainage facilities (e.g. exceed
storm drain capacities) and increase the local exposure to flooding. (DEIR, pp. IV.10-12
to IV. 10-13.)
Furthermore, General Plan 2020 contains policies and programs that, if adopted and
implemented, would address development impacts stemming from the construction of
new residential or commercial structures in active channel floodplains. These programs
and policies include: Policy S-15 Flood Protection of New Development; and Program S -
15a Title 18 Flood Protection Standards. (See DEIR, p. IV.10-13 and FEIR, pp. XII -2 to
XII.3.) In addition, S-18 Rise in Sea Level has been amended and program S -17b has
been added to General Plan 2020 to provide greater flood protection. (FEIR, p. IX -591.)
134
Because development consistent with General Plan 2020 is not expected to cause
increases in peak flow rates, and with implementation of General Plan 2020 policies and
programs, this would be a less -than -significant impact. (DEIR, p. IV. 10-13.)
Significance After Mitigation:
Because development consistent with General Plan 2020 is not expected to cause
increases in peak flow rates, and with implementation of General Plan 2020 policies and
programs, this would be less than significant without mitigation. (DEIR, p. IV.10-13.)
Impact IV.10-8: Inundation by Seiche, Tsunami or Mudflow.
Development consistent with General Plan 2020 could result in the
construction of low-lying residential or commercial projects that may be
subject to inundation by an earthquake -induced tsunami. With
implementation of General Plan 2020 policies and programs related to
flooding and levee improvements this would be a less -than -significant impact.
(DEIR, p. IV. 10-13.)
Finding:
Under CEQA, no mitigation measures are required for impacts that are less than
significant. (Pub. Resources Code, § 21002; CEQA Guidelines, §§ 15126.4, subd. (a)(3),
15091.)
Mitigation Measure:
None required. (DEIR, p. IV. 10-14.)
Explanation:
The partially protected San Rafael and western San Pablo Bay areas within the Planning
Area would not be subject to potential flooding due to the generation of wind -induced
seiches on San Francisco Bay. In addition, hillside development under General Plan
2020 would be limited in San Rafael. Furthermore, some parcels with current residential
and/or commercial designation would have Conservation and Open Space designation
under General Plan 2020. Thus, General Plan 2020 would have a no impact on the
potential for inundation due to mudflows triggered by intense rainstorms and associated
geological instabilities. (DEIR, p. IV.10-13.)
A 7.0-8.0 Richter magnitude earthquake with an epicenter nearby along the northern San
Andreas fault, could cause strong tsunamis in the San Rafael and Western San Pablo
Bays. The Corps of Engineers' Waterway Experiment Station investigated tsunami
generation by earthquakes and the resulting affect on wave runup in San Francisco Bay.
The study predicted 100 -year wave runup heights of 4.9 feet for the bayside areas of San
135
Rafael. Given the existing mean high water (MHW) and mean higher high water
(MHHW) elevations of 2.54 feet NGVD (National Geodetic Vertical Datum, or 1929
mean sea level) and 3.13 feet NGVD, respectively, the upper range of flood elevations
for the 100 year tsunami event is projected to be 7.5 feet to 8.0 feet NGVD. According to
City engineering staff, some sections of existing bayside levees have subsided to
elevations less than this extrapolated flooding range. Thus, in the absence of a completed
program of raising and renovation of these substandard levees, a strong tsunami could
overtop or breach portions of the levees and flood adjacent low-lying areas, particularly
in East San Rafael. While the removal of the St. Vincent's/Silveira properties from the
Planning Area would eliminate any potential impact development might have had on
tsunami -generated flooding along the tidal reach of Miller Creek, the potential for such
overtopping or breaching remains in other parts of the City. (DEIR, pp. IV. 10-13 to
IV.10-14.)
General Plan 2020 contains several policies and programs in the Neighborhoods and
Safety Elements that, if adopted and implemented, would require potential developers of
properties served by inadequate bayside levees to upgrade levees and provide flood
protection levels commensurate with those currently cited in City standards. The City
currently requires finished floor elevations of +10 ft. NGVD after 30 years of settlement,
which is sufficient to deter overtopping during the 100 -year tsunami. These policies and
programs include: Policies NH -55 Flood Control Improvements, 5-15 Flood Protection
of New Development, S-17 Levee Upgrading, and 5-18 Rise in Sea Level, and Programs
NH -55a Flood Control, S -15a Title 18 Flood Protection Standards, S -17a Levee
Improvement, S -17b Levee Maintenance Funding, and S -18a Rise in Sea Level. (See
DEIR, p. IV. 10-14).
These policies and programs would minimize the likelihood of severe flooding in the
tidal zones adjacent to San Rafael and San Pablo Bays, including the Canal
Neighborhood, and would also ensure that the City amend its development criteria if the
rate of sea level rise predicted by the majority of the scientific community (and regional
authorities) supports such action. Implementation of the policies and programs would act
collectively to reduce this impact to a less -than -significant level. (DEIR, p. IV.10-14.)
Significance After Mitigation:
General Plan 2020 polices and programs would minimize the likelihood of severe
flooding in the tidal zones and would act collectively to reduce this impact to less than
significant without mitigation. (DEIR, p. IV.10-14.)
Cumulative HvdroloLv, Water Oualitv, and Flood Hazards Impacts
The hydrologic analysis (see Sectio: IV 10 Hydrology, Water Quality, and Flood
Hazards of the DEIR) considers all development and growth within the Planning Area
and therefore considers also the cumulative impacts for such development, including
impacts to regional water bodies such as San Rafael Bay and San Francisco Bay. For
Miller Creek, which is not fully contained within the Planning Area, the cumulative
136
analysis considers the Miller Creek watershed which includes areas that are outside of the
Planning Area, including the St. Vincent's and Silveira properties.
Cumulative hydrology and water quality impacts would occur through additional loading
of water contaminants in the San Rafael and San Francisco bays, decreases in impervious
surfaces for groundwater recharge, and construction. Development consistent with
General Plan 2020 would not have negative groundwater impacts and therefore would
not have cumulative groundwater impacts. Due to the low levels of actual new
construction projected with the proposed project, as well as the NPDES Phase II
requirements, it would not have cumulative erosion, siltation, or water quality impacts.
Because incremental increases in development would be concentrated in the existing
urbanized portions of the San Rafael watersheds, cumulative flooding and stormwater
drainage impacts would be less -than -significant. Additionally, because General Plan
2020 does not propose significant new development within the low lying areas, it would
not result in cumulative tidal flooding, seiche, tsunami, or mudflow impacts. In
summary, cumulative development in the Planning Area would not result in a significant
cumulative impact. (FEIR, p. IX -654.)
Finding
Under CEQA, no mitigation measures are required for impacts that are less than
significant. (Pub. Resources Code, § 21002; CEQA Guidelines, §§ 15126.4, subd. (a)(3),
15091.)
Mitigation Measure:
None required. (FEIR, p. IX -654.)
Significance After Mitigation
Cumulative hydrology, water quality, and flood hazard impacts would be less than
significant. (FEIR, p. IX -654.)
K. AGRICULTURE
Impact IV.11-1: Farmland Conversion.
Development consistent with General Plan 2020 will have no adverse effect
on conversion of farmland to non-agricultural use. This would be a less -
than -significant impact. (DEIR, p. IV. 11-2.)
Finding:
137
Under CEQA, no mitigation measures are required for impacts that are less than
significant. (Pub. Resources Code, § 21002; CEQA Guidelines, §§ 15126.4, subd. (a)(3),
15091.1
Mitigation Measure:
None required. (DEIR, p. IV. 11-2.)
Explanation:
The St. Vincent's and Silveira properties that are considered the majority of the
Farmland of Local Importance are no longer in San Rafael's Planning Area. Therefore
development consistent with General Plan 2020 would not convert farmland in that area
to non-agricultural use. (DEIR, p. IV. 11-2.)
The Marin County Open Space District Preserves, including the Lucas Valley Open
Space Preserve, protects the land along Lucas Valley Road that are currently identified as
Grazing Land by the California Department of Conservation. The Grazing Lands within
the Lucas Valley Homeowner's Association are also protected open space. Due to these
protections, these agricultural lands would not be developed. (DEIR, p. IV. 11-2.)
The remaining private properties that are considered Grazing Lands, are on the southern
side of Lucas Valley Road. This area includes properties owned by James A. Hetfield
(APN 164-320-007, 510 acres; and APN 164-320-14, 611 acres, also known as Luiz
Ranch). Approximately 400 acres of APN 164-320-07 has an agricultural conservation
easement with the Marin County Open Space District, however a recent survey found that
there is no crop production and no cattle grazing was observed on the site. Currently
there is no cattle grazing on APN 164-320-14 either. Under General Plan 2020 these
properties would have a land use designation of Hillside Resource Residential which
would allow for a gross density of 0.1— 0.5 units per acre due to the characteristics of
very steep slopes typical of sensitive hillside areas in the Planning Area. (DEIR, p.
IV. 11-2.)
There is no current agriculture use on lands that are not currently protected by open space
or agricultural conservation easements. Therefore, development consistent with General
Plan 2020 would not result in the conversion of any type of farmland to non-agricultural
uses. This would be a less -than -significant impact. (DEIR, p. IV. 11-2.)
Significance After Mitigation:
Development consistent with General Plan 2020 would not result in the conversion of
any type of farmland to non-agricultural uses and would be less than significant without
mitigation.
138
Cumulative Agriculture Impacts
The agriculture analysis considers all development and growth within the Planning Area
and therefore considers the cumulative impacts of such development. Cumulative
development within the Planning Area consistent with General Plan 2020 would not
convert agricultural land and therefore would result in a less -than -significant cumulative
impact. (FEIR, p. IX -654.)
Finding
Under CEQA, no mitigation measures are required for impacts that are less than
significant. (Pub. Resources Code, § 21002; CEQA Guidelines, §§ 15126.4, subd. (a)(3),
15091.)
Mitigation Measure:
None required. (FEIR, p. IX -654.)
Significance After Mitigation
Cumulative agricultural impacts would be less than significant. (FEIR, p. IX -654.)
IX.
GROWTH INDUCEMENT
CEQA requires a discussion of the ways in which the Project could be growth inducing.
CEQA also requires a discussion of ways in which a project may remove obstacles to
growth, as well as ways in which a project may set a precedent for future growth. CEQA
Guidelines Section 15126.2, subdivision (d), identifies a project as growth inducing if it
fosters economic or population growth, or the construction of additional housing, either
directly or indirectly, in the surrounding environment. New employees from commercial
and industrial development and new population from residential development represent
direct forms of growth. These direct forms of growth have a secondary effect of
expanding the size of local markets and inducing additional economic activity in the area.
Examples of development that would indirectly facilitate growth include the installation
of new roadways or the construction or expansion of water delivery/treatment facilities.
The Project's growth inducing impacts are discussed below.
Development consistent with General Plan 2020 would result in up to 401,000 additional
square feet of non-residential uses, 5,104 additional households, and 12,708 more
residents within the Planning Area over existing conditions. While General Plan 2020
would accommodate this growth, in some instances it would have the effect of restricting
development due to changes in land use designations. Adoption of General Plan 2020
would not remove infrastructure limitations that otherwise would limit growth, nor would
adoption of the plan remove regulatory constraints that could result in future unforeseen
growth. Moreover, the proposed changes would be expected to concentrate urban
139
development in areas that already have urban services. Therefore, while General Plan
2020 would induce some growth, it would not be expected to have negative growth
inducing impacts. Impacts associated with the growth expected with General Plan 2020
are analyzed in the appropriate sections throughout the EIR. (DEIR, p. V-7.)
X.
SIGNIFICANT IRREVERSIBLE ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS
CEQA requires that significant irreversible environmental changes must be addressed in
an EIR for the adoption of a plan. Specifically, the EIR must consider whether "uses of
nonrenewable resources during the initial and continued phases of the project may be
irreversible since a large commitment of such resources makes removal or nonuse
thereafter unlikely." Nonrenewable resources, in this discussion, refer to the physical
features of the natural environment, such as land, air, and waterways. (DEIR, p. V-6.)
The changes in land use designations proposed by General Plan 2020 would result in
commitment of these areas to the designated uses for the foreseeable future.
Additionally, the addition of mixed use designations to General Plan 2020 would allow
the development of differing uses that may not have been previously anticipated. (DEIR,
p. V-7.)
Irreversible changes are also likely to occur due to future excavation, grading, and
construction activities associated with the development of uses allowed under General
Plan 2020. Although these changes can generally be addressed by mitigation measures,
the potential for disturbance would represent an irreversible change. General Plan 2020
would also result in irreversible changes by increasing densities and introducing
development onto the remaining presently undeveloped sites. (DEIR, p. V-7.)
Development consistent with General Plan 2020 would result in changes to traffic and
circulation, and would thus increase air pollution and noise emissions. Other irreversible
changes associated with General Plan 2020 are the future use of nonrenewable resources
during construction, including concrete, glass, plastic, and petroleum products.
Operation of future uses would also consume natural gas and electric energy as well as
water. (DEIR, p. V-7.)
XI.
PROJECT ALTERNATIVES
Public Resources Code section 21002 provides that "public agencies should not approve
projects as proposed if there are feasible alternatives or feasible mitigation measures
available which would substantially lessen the significant environmental effects of such
projects[.]" (Pub. Resources Code, § 21002, italics added.) The same statute states that
the procedures required by CEQA "are intended to assist public agencies in
systematically identifying both the significant effects of proposed projects and the
feasible alternatives or feasible mitigation measures which will avoid or substantially
lessen such significant effects." (]bid., italics added.) Section 21002 goes on to state that
140
"in the event [that] specific economic, social, or other conditions make infeasible such
project alternatives or such mitigation measures, individual projects may be approved in
spite of one or more significant effects." (Ibid.)
CEQA defines "feasible" to mean capable of being accomplished in a successful manner
within a reasonable period of time, taking into account economic, environmental, social
and technological factors." (Pub. Resources Code, § 21061.1.) The CEQA Guidelines
add another factor: "legal" considerations. (CEQA Guidelines, § 15364; see also
Citizens of Goleta Valley v. Board of Supervisors (1990) 52 Cal.3d 553, 565 (Goleta II).)
Among the factors that may be taken into account when addressing the feasibility of
alternatives are site suitability, economic viability, availability of infrastructure, general
plan consistency, other plans or regulatory limitations, jurisdictional boundaries, and
whether the proponent can reasonably acquire, control or otherwise have access to the
alternative site. (CEQA Guidelines, § 15126.6, subd. (f)(1).) The concept of
"feasibility" also encompasses the question of whether a particular alternative or
mitigation measure promotes the underlying goals and objectives of a project. (City of
Del Mar v. City of San Diego (1982) 133 Cal.App.3d 410, 417.)
Where a significant impact can be substantially lessened (i.e., mitigated to an "acceptable
level") solely by the adoption of mitigation measures, the lead agency, in drafting its
findings, has no obligation to consider the feasibility of alternatives with respect to that
impact, even if the alternative would mitigate the impact to a greater degree than the
Project. (Pub. Resources Code, § 21002; Laurel Hills Homeowners Association, supra,
83 Cal.App.3d at p. 521; see also Kings County Farm Bureau v. City of Hanford (1990)
221 Cal.App.3d 691, 730-731; and Laurel Heights Improvement Association v. Regents
of the University of California (198 8) 47 Cal.3d 376, 400-403.) In short, CEQA requires
that the lead agency adopt mitigation measures or alternatives, where feasible, to
substantially lessen or avoid significant environmental impacts that would otherwise
occur. Project modification or alternatives are not required, however, where such
changes are infeasible or where the responsibility of modifying the project lies with some
other agency. (CEQA Guidelines, § 15091, subds. (a), (b).)
With respect to a project for which significant impacts are not avoided or substantially
lessened, a public agency, after adopting proper findings, may nevertheless approve the
project if the agency first adopts a statement of overriding considerations setting forth the
specific reasons why the agency found the project's "benefits" rendered "acceptable" its
"unavoidable adverse environmental effects." (CEQA Guidelines, §§ 15093, 15043,
subd. (b); see also Pub. Resources Code, § 21081, subd. (b).) The California Supreme
Court has stated that, "[t]he wisdom of approving ... any development project, a delicate
task which requires a balancing of interest, is necessarily left to the sound discretion of
the local officials and their constituents who are responsible for such decisions. The law
as we interpret and apply it simply requires that those decisions be informed, and
therefore balanced." (Goleta II, supra, 52 Cal.3d at p. 576.)
The preceding discussion regarding Project impacts reveals that nearly every significant
effect identified in the FEIR has been at least substantially lessened, if not fully avoided,
141
by the adoption of feasible mitigation measures. There remain a handful of impacts,
however, that were identified as significant and unavoidable and which cannot be
substantially lessened. Specifically, the Project had significant unavoidable adverse
impacts related to:
• Transportation/circulation impacts (Impacts IV.2-3, IV.2-4, IV.2-5, IV.2-6, IV.2-
9, IV.2-13);
• Impacts related to rail noise (Impact 1V.4-2);
• Release of hazardous materials (Impact N.5-3);
• Public service impacts (Impacts IV.5-6 (police), IV.5-8 (parks), IV.5-9
(libraries));
• Impacts related to water and wastewater services (Impacts N.5-11, IV.5-12); and
• Impacts related to the potential for landslides (Impact IV.9-3).
Thus, as a legal matter, the City, in considering alternatives in these findings, need only
determine whether any alternatives are enviromnentally superior with respect to those
impacts. If any alternatives are in fact superior with respect to those impacts, the City is
then required to determine whether the alternatives are feasible. If the City determines
that no alternative is both feasible and environmentally superior with respect to the
unavoidable significant impacts identified in the DEIR, the City may approve the Project
as mitigated, after adopting a statement of overriding considerations.
The DEIR examined the Project alternatives in detail, exploring their comparative
advantages and disadvantages with respect to the Project. As the following discussion
demonstrates, however, only the Project as proposed is feasible in light of Project
objectives and other considerations. The City therefore adopts the Project.
Summary of Alternatives Considered
The EIR examines three alternatives to the Project:
Alternative 1. No Project /No Development— existing conditions, no further
development
Alternative 2. No project /No Action / General Plan 2000 — continued development
under General Plan 2000
Alternative 3. Reduced Development — a lower intensity development alternative
(DEIR, p. VI -1.)
Alternative 2 (General Plan 2000) would have the most commercial and industrial/office
development, as well as the most residential units; and Alternative 3 (Reduced
Development) would have the highest number of lodging rooms. Both the proposed
project (Draft General Plan 2020) and Alternative 3 (Reduced Development) would have
the highest amount of recreation development. (DEIR, p. VI -1.)
142
Alternative 2 (General Plan 2000) would have the highest population and,
correspondingly, the highest number of households; Alternative 2 (General Plan 2000)
would also have the highest total employment and the highest number of employed
residents. (DEIR, p. VI -2.)
The alternatives were formulated to provide a realistic and representative range of
potential use and development concepts for the City. The principal criterion for selecting
the alternatives studied in the EIR was to ensure that the range of concepts evaluated
would be sufficient to provide information to the public and public officials to make
decisions about the proposed plan. (DEIR, p. VI -1.)
Evaluation of Alternative Sites
The CEQA Guidelines require an EIR's analysis to include an evaluation of alternative
sites. However, where no alternative site is feasible, the reasons must be stated. This
Project consists of an update to the City's General Plan and therefore, it would not be
feasible to consider any alternative sites.
Environmentally Superior Alternative
The CEQA Guidelines require that an EIR's analysis of alternatives identify the
"environmentally superior alternative" among all of those considered. Based on the
analysis of the project and the alternatives considered, the EIR finds that Alternative 1
(No Project /No Development) would be the environmentally superior alternative
because it would avoid most of the environmental impacts associated with increased
development. (DEIR, p. VI -24.)
The Guidelines also state that, if the environmentally superior alternative is the No
Project Alternative, the EIR shall also identify an environmentally superior alternative
among the other alternatives. (CEQA Guidelines, § 15126.6, subd. (e)(1).) Based on a
comparison of the of the significant environmental impacts of all the development
alternatives, Alternative 3 (Reduced Development) and General Plan 2020 would result
in the same number of significant unavoidable impacts and the same number of less -than -
significant impacts. Alternative 3 (Reduced Development) would result in slightly
reduced significant impacts than the proposed project and therefore would be the
environmentally superior alternative. The primary advantage of this alternative is that
less development would reduce the opportunities for potential impacts, particularly as
they relate to construction and traffic. (DEIR, p. VI -24.)
Environmental Imp acts
Land Use. Population. Emplovment. and Housing
While none of the alternatives, or General Plan 2020, would result in significant land
use, population, employment, or housing impacts, Alternative 1(No Project /No
Development), would be the environmentally superior alternative with respect to land
143
use, population, employment, and housing. This alternative would result in the least
possibility of impacts related to these issues. (DEIR, p. VI -24.)
Land use impacts would be greatest with Alternative 2 (General Plan 2000). Alternative
3 (Reduced Development), would have the least land use, population, employment, and
housing impacts of the development alternatives. Because this alternative would result in
less development than Alternative 2 (General Plan 2000) or General Plan 2020, it would
result in slightly fewer opportunities for potential impacts related to land use changes or
population, employment, or housing increases. (DEIR, p. VI -24.)
2. Transt)ortation and Circulation
Both General Plan 2020 and Alternative 3 (Reduced Development) would be the
environmentally superior alternatives with respect to transportation and circulation.
These scenarios both would have similar levels of impacts, and would result in less
impacts than Alternative 1 (No Project /No Development) and Alternative 2 (General
Plan 2000). (DEIR, p. VI -25.)
In comparison of Draft General Plan 2020 and Alternative 3 (Reduced Development),
Alternative 3 (Reduced Development) would have a lower level of development. As a
result, there would be slight differences in the LOS at some intersections and roadway
segments. In most cases, the intersections would operate at the same LOS with a less
than five second difference in delay. For example, in the PM peak hour, Second Street
and A Street intersection would operate at LOS F under both General Plan 2020 and the
Alternative 3 (Reduced Development) conditions. Under Alternative 3 (Reduced
Development) conditions, this intersection would experience a delay of 1.9 seconds less
than under General Plan 2020. (DEIR, p. VI -25.)
At one of the intersections that would operate at an unacceptable level, the delay
experienced under Alternative 3 (Reduced Development) conditions would be slightly
more than the delay experienced under Draft General Plan 2020. This intersection,
Fourth Street and Ross Valley Road, in the AM peak, would result in a 0.6 second greater
delay under Alternative 3 (Reduced Development). (DEIR, p. VI -25.)
At one intersection, the difference in delay would be greater than five seconds. This
intersection, Shoreline and Francisco East, in the PM peak hour, would operate at LOS D
under both Draft General Plan 2020 and Alternative 3 (Reduced Development)
conditions, with a 6.8 second greater delay under Draft General Plan 2020 conditions.
This LOS, however, is considered acceptable and would not result in an impact under
either General Plan 2020 or the Alternative 3 (Reduced Development) conditions.
(DEIR, p. VI -25.)
For roadway segments, under Alternative 3 (Reduced Development), all segments have a
0.1 to 0.2 second improvement except for two segments: Bellam between Andersen and
Kerner, in the PM peak hour, and Lindaro between Andersen and Third, also in the PM
peak hour. Bellam would improve from LOS, and a calculated speed of 9.7 miles per
144
hour (mph), under Draft General Plan 2020, to LOS E, and a calculated speed of 9.4
mph. This difference would result in an improved LOS, but a difference in calculated
speed of less than five miles per hour. Lindaro, on the other hand, would stay at the same
LOS, but calculated speeds would be 0.1 mph slower under Alternative 3 (Reduced
Development) than under Draft General Plan 2020. (DEIR, p. VI -25.)
Thus, the differences between Draft General Plan 2020 and Alternative 3 (Reduced
Development) are minimal, and both would be considered the environmentally superior
alternative with respect to transportation and circulation. (DEIR, p. VI -25.)
3. Air Oualitv
Alternative 3 (Reduced Development) would be the environmentally superior alternative
with respect to air quality impacts. Similar to General Plan 2020, Alternative 3
(Reduced Development) would not result in any significant air quality impacts based on
BAAQMD significance thresholds for general plans. It would, however, result in less
development than General Plan 2020 and therefore less regional emissions from mobile,
stationary and area sources of pollution. Both Alternatives 1 (No Project / No
Development) and 2 (General Plan 2000) would result in significant and unavoidable air
quality impacts. (DEIR, pp. VI -25 to VI -26.)
4. Noise
Alternative 1 (No Project / No Development) would be the environmentally superior
alternative with respect to noise impacts. This alternative would result in no impacts due
to traffic or airport noise. This alternative would not result in new stationary noise
sources, nor would this alternative result in the development of future noise sensitive
development in existing noisy environments. As with all of the alternatives, and General
Plan 2020, this alternative would result in significant unavoidable impacts related to
SMART generated noise. (DEIR, p. VI -26.)
Similar to General Plan 2020, Alternative 3 (Reduced Development) would not result in
any significant noise impacts, except those associated with SMART. Because
Alternative 3 (Reduced Development) would result in less development than General
Plan 2020, it would result in slightly less noise impacts related to traffic increases and
fewer potential impacts related to stationary noise sources. Alternative 2 (General Plan
2000) would result in greater noise impacts than General Plan 2020, Alternative 1 (No
Project /No Development), and Alternative 3 (Reduced Development). (DEIR, p. VI -26.)
5. Public Services and Utilities
All of the alternatives would result in similar impacts to public services and utilities.
Alternative 1 (No Project / No Development) and Alternative 2 (General Plan 2000)
would result in one more significant unavoidable impact than Draft General Plan 2020
and Alternative 3 (Reduced Development) because these alternatives would address
hazardous materials near schools. (DEIR, p. VI -26.)
145
Alternative 3 (Reduced Development) however, would have reduced public services and
utilities impacts, because this alternative would result in the least amount of development
and the lowest population. Impacts for Alternative 3 (Reduced Development) would be
slightly less severe due to the lower potential for exposure to hazardous materials and the
lower demand for services such as police protection and wastewater treatment. However,
the difference between Alternative 3 (Reduced Development) and Draft General Plan
2020 would be minor in this regard. (DEIR, p. VI -26.)
Cultural Resources
Alternative 1 (No Project / No Development), Alternative 2 (General Plan 2000),
Alternative 3 (Reduced Development), and General Plan 2020 would all have no
significant impacts to archaeological, prehistoric, historic, or cultural resources. Cultural
resources impacts would be similar for General Plan 2020 and all of the alternatives.
(DEIR, p. VI -26.)
7. VisualOuality
Alternative 1 (No Project / No Development) would be the environmentally superior
alternative with respect to visual quality as scenic resources as the visual quality of the
city would be maintained in the existing conditions. (DEIR, p. VI -26.)
Alternative 3 (Reduced Development) and General Plan 2020 would have similar visual
quality impacts. Alternative 3 (Reduced Development) would, however, result in less
development and therefore fewer opportunities for visual quality impacts compared to
Draft General Plan 2020. In addition, this alternative would include General Plan 2020
programs and policies that address nighttime lighting impacts and other visual quality
impacts. Alternative 2 (General Plan 2000) would result in the most visual quality
impacts. (DEIR, p. VI -27.)
Biological Resources
Alternative 1 (No Project / No Development) would be the environmentally superior
alternative with respect to biological resources as it would result in no biological
resources impacts beyond the potential invasive species impact. (DEIR, p. VI -27.)
Alternative 3 (Reduced Development) and General Plan 2020 would have similar
biological resources impacts. Alternative 3 (Reduced Development) would, however,
have slightly less biological resources impacts than General Plan 2020. Alternative 2
(General Plan 2000) would result in the most biological resources impacts. Because
Alternative 3 (Reduced Development) would result in the least amount of development,
the special status species and sensitive natural communities impacts, while still
significant, would be slightly less than the impacts identified with General Plan 2020.
(DEIR, p. VI -27.)
"MI
9. Geolo2v. Soils, and Seismicitv
Alternative 1 (No Project / No Development), would be the environmentally superior
alternative with respect to geology, soils, and seismicity. This alternative would result in
no significant impacts related to geologic resources or seismic activity. (DEIR, p. VI -
27.)
Alternative 3 (Reduced Development) and General Plan 2020 would have similar
geology, soils and seismicity impacts. Alternative 2 (General Plan 2020) would have the
most significant geology, soils, and seismicity impacts of all of the development
alternatives. Alternative 3 (Reduced Development) would have the slightly less geologic
impacts than General Plan 2020 because it would result in less development and
therefore fewer opportunities for impacts related to ground failure. (DEIR, p. VI -27.)
10. Hvdrolorzv, Water Oualitv, and Flood Hazards
While General Plan 2020 would not result in any significant hydrology impacts,
Alternative 1 (No Project / No Development) would be the environmentally superior
alternative with respect to hydrology, water quality, and flood hazards. Because this
alternative would result in no additional development, this alternative would result in the
least opportunity for potential significant hydrology -related impacts. (DEIR, p. VI -27.)
Alternative 3 (Reduced Development) would be the environmentally superior alternative
of the development alternatives. Similar to General Plan 2020 and Alternative 1 (No
Project / No Development), Alternative 3 (Reduced Development) would have no
significant hydrology impacts. However, because this alternative would result in less
development and less of an increase in population and employment than General Plan
2020 it would also result in slightly fewer opportunities for potential impacts related to
hydrology. Alternative 2 (General Plan 2000) would result in the most significant
hydrology -related impacts. (DEIR, p. VI -27.)
11. Agriculture
Agricultural impacts would be similar for General Plan, Alternative 1 (No Project / No
Development) and Alternative 3 (Reduced Development). Alternative 2 (General Plan
2000) would result in a significant impact to agricultural lands. (DEIR, p. VI -28.)
A. ALTERNATIVE 1: NO PROJECT/NO DEVELOPMENT ALTERNATIVE
Description
This alternative would reflect the existing conditions with no additional development
within the City of San Rafael Planning Area beyond what has been approved but not yet
built. The current conditions in the City of San Rafael Planning Area would remain. The
environmental impacts are described by the existing conditions as reflected by the San
Rafael General Plan 2020 Background Report, dated April, 2001. This alternative
147
reflects the least amount of development of the alternatives analyzed. (DEIR, p. VI -1,
FEIR, p. IX -655.)
Environmental Impacts
Land Use. Population. Emplovment, and Housine
This alternative would result in no new development beyond what has already been
approved, and all of the existing land uses would remain. Therefore potential new
conflicts would not be created, however any existing land use conflicts would also
remain. These would be less -than -significant impacts. (FEIR, p. IX -657.)
Because there would be only minimal change in the population, jobs, or housing, there
would be only minimal impacts related to the growth and concentration of population, the
employment growth rate, or the jobs -to -housing ratio. (FEIR, p. IX -657.)
2. Transportation and Circulation
For the Transportation and Circulation Alternative 1 (No Project/No Development) the
Baseline conditions developed for the project analysis were used, except for freeway
analysis. Baseline conditions includes development which has been approved but not yet
built. No additional development is included beyond what has been already approved.
The same as for General Plan 2020, the freeway analysis for this alternative uses the
latest available information (1998), referred to as Existing conditions.
Intersections
Impact IV.2-1 As discussed in Section IV.2 implementation of General Plan 2020
without improvements would result in unacceptable LOS at intersections. However,
Draft General Plan 2020 improvements would result in acceptable LOS at these
intersections. In contrast to the proposed project, under Alternative 1, the following
intersections (see Exhibit VIII.3-4 in Appendix VIII.3), not including those addressed in
Impacts IV.2-2 through 5, below, would operate at unacceptable levels:
• 2°d and Grand (LOS E during the PM peak hour)
• 5 t and A (LOS E during the AM peak hour)
• 5`h and H (LOS E during the AM peak hour)
• Mission and Grand (LOS E during the AM peak hour)
• Mission and Grand (LOS E during the PM peak hour)
• Smith Ranch and US 101 NB Ramps (LOS E during the AM peak hour)
Because these intersections would not benefit from traffic improvement projects
associated with either General Plan 2020 or General Plan 2000, impacts at these
intersections would therefore remain significant and unavoidable.
Impact IV.2-2 Under Baseline conditions, the Second Street and A Street intersection
would operate at an LOS that is unacceptable for Downtown area intersections (LOS F
AM & PM peak). This would be a significant unavoidable impact. It should be noted
148
General Plan 2020 improvements would result in LOS C in the AM and LOS E in the
PM for this intersection.
Impact IV.2-3 Under Baseline conditions, the Third Street and Union Street
intersection would operate at an LOS that is acceptable for City intersections (LOS C AM
peak / LOS D PM peak). This would be a less -than -significant impact. It should be
noted that with implementation of General Plan 2020 this intersection would operate at
an unacceptable LOS.
Impact IV.2-4 Under Baseline conditions, during the AM peak hour the Lincoln
Avenue intersection with US 101 Southbound ramps would operate at an LOS that is
acceptable for City intersections (LOS D). However, in the PM peak hour, this
intersection would operate at an LOS that is unacceptable for City intersections (LOS E).
This would be a significant unavoidable impact. It should be noted that with
implementation of General Plan 2020 in the PM peak hour this intersection would also
operate at an unacceptable LOS.
Impact IV.2-5 Under Baseline conditions, during the AM peak hour the Mission
Avenue and Irwin Street intersection would operate at an LOS that is acceptable for that
intersection (LOS C). However, in the PM peak hour, this intersection would operate at
an LOS that is unacceptable for this intersection (LOS F). The increase in delay (for
Baseline conditions over Existing conditions) for the PM peak hour would not be greater
than five seconds, which would be a less -than -significant impact. With implementation
of General Plan 2020, there would be a significant impact at this intersection in the PM.
City and CMA Roadway Segments
Impact IV.2-6 As discussed in Section N.2 implementation of General Plan 2020
would result in unacceptable roadway operations on A Street from 2"a to 5th and on two
segments of Freitas. In contrast to the proposed project, under Alternative 1, the
following City roadway segments would operate at unacceptable (LOS E or F) levels:
• 2°a Street — eastbound from G to Grand (LOS E in the AM peak hour)
• 2"d Street — eastbound from G to Grand (LOS E in the PM peak hour)
• 5th Street — westbound from Irwin to E (LOS E in the AM peak hour)
• A Street — northbound from 2°a to 5th (LOS F in the PM peak hour)
• A Street — southbound from 4th to 2°a (LOS E in the AM peak hour)
• A Street — southbound from 4th to 2" a (LOS F in the PM peak hour)
• B Street — southbound from 5th to 2°a (LOS E in the AM peak hour)
• B Street — southbound from 5th to 2" a (LOS E in the PM peak hour)
• Bellam Boulevard — eastbound from Andersen to Kerner (LOS E in the
PM peak hour)
• Bellam Boulevard — westbound from Kerner to Andersen (LOS E in the
AM peak hour)
• Bellam Boulevard — westbound from Kerner to Andersen (LOS E in the
PM peak hour)
• C Street — northbound from 2'd to 5th (LOS E in the AM peak hour)
• C Street — northbound from 2°a to 5th (LOS F in the PM peak hour)
149
• Del Presidio Boulevard — northbound from Las Gallinas to Frietas (LOS
F in the AM peak hour)
• Del Presidio Boulevard — northbound from Las Gallinas to Frietas (LOS
E in the PM peak hour)
• Del Presidio Boulevard — southbound from Freitas to Las Gallinas (LOS
E in the AM peak hour)
• Del Presidio Boulevard — southbound from Freitas to Las Gallinas (LOS
F in the PM peak hour)
• E Street — northbound from 2nd to 5th (LOS E in the AM peak hour)
• E Street — northbound from 2nd to 5th (LOS F in the PM peak hour)
• E Street — southbound from 5th to 2nd (LOS F in the AM peak hour)
• E Street — southbound from 5th to 2nd (LOS F in the PM peak hour)
• Grand Avenue — southbound from 4th to 2nd (LOS F in the AM peak hour)
• Grand Avenue — southbound from 4th to 2nd (LOS F in the PM peak hour)
• Hetherton Street — southbound from Mission to 2nd (LOS E in the AM
peak hour)
• Hetherton Street — southbound from Mission to 2nd (LOS F in the PM
peak hour)
• Irwin Street — northbound from 2nd to Mission (LOS F in the AM peak
hour)
• Irwin Street — northbound from 2nd to Mission (LOS F in the PM peak
hour)
• Lincoln Avenue — northbound from 2nd to US 101 SB/Hammondale (LOS
E in the PM peak hour)
• Lincoln Avenue — southbound from US 101 SB[Hammondale to 2„ d (LOS
E in the AM peak hour)
• Lindaro Street — northbound from Andersen to 3rd (LOS E in the AM
peak hour)
• Lindaro Street — northbound from Andersen to 3rd (LOS F in the PM peak
hour)
• Lindaro Street — southbound from 3rd to Andersen (LOS F in the AM
peak hour)
• Lindaro Street — southbound from 3rd to Andersen (LOS E in the PM peak
hour)
• Mission Avenue — westbound from Irwin to Lincoln (LOS F in the AM
peak hour)
• Mission Avenue — westbound from Irwin to Lincoln (LOS F in the PM
peak hour)
Because these City roadway segments would not benefit from traffic improvement
projects associated with either General Plan 2020 or General Plan 2000, this would be a
significant unavoidable impact.
Impact IV.2-7 Because this alternative reflects the Baseline conditions, the roadway
segments included in Impact IV.2-6 above represent the roadway segments that would
150
continue to operate at LOS E or F. Therefore, this impact is not applicable to Alternative
1 (No Project/No Development).
Impact IV.2-8 The same as for General Plan 2020 under Baseline conditions, all of the
Congestion Management Agency (CMA) roadway segments would operate at acceptable
LOS (LOS D or better). This would be a less -than -significant impact.
Freeway Facilities
Impact IV.2-9 As discussed in Section IV.2 implementation of General Plan 2020
would result in unacceptable roadway operations the following freeway sections:
• Northbound US 101 north of Miller creek during the PM peak hour
• Eastbound 1-580 at the Richmond Bridge during the PM peak hour
• Westbound I-580 at the Richmond Bridge during the AM peak hour
• WestboundI-580 to northbound US 101 at the interchange in the AM and
PM peak hour
In contrast to the proposed project, under Alternative 1 conditions the following freeway
sections would operate at an unacceptable (LOS F) level:
• US 101 — southbound from Cal Park Hill to Sir Francis Drake (LOS F in
the AM peak hour)
• US 101 & I-580 interchange — southbound US 101 to eastbound I-580
(LOS F in the AM peak hour)
• US 101 & I-580 interchange — southbound US 101 to eastbound I-580
(LOS F in the PM peak hour)
• US 101 & I-580 interchange — westbound I-580 to northbound US 101
(LOS F in the AM peak hour)
• US 101 & I-580 interchange — westbound I-580 to northbound US 101
(LOS F in the PM peak hour)
Because these freeway sections would not benefit from traffic improvement projects
associated with either General Plan 2020 or General Plan 2000, this would be a
significant unavoidable impact. However, these would have the benefit of the GAP
closure project, as described in Section IV.2 Transportation and Circulation, and it is
likely that operations would improve somewhat for US 101 southbound from Cal Park
Hill to Sir Francis Drake Boulevard.
Impact IV.2-10 Under Existing (1998) conditions, the same freeway off -ramps would
exceed lane storage as under Draft General Plan 2020. The vehicle queue would exceed
lane storage at two off -ramps:
US 101 northbound at Second and Irwin
• I-580 eastbound/US 101 northbound at Bellam
The off -ramp approach analysis indicates that the approach vehicle queue would remain
within the off -ramp boundaries and would not encroach into the deceleration lane on the
freeway. Thus, both of these queues operate at acceptable levels. This would be a less -
than -significant impact. (FE1R, p. IX -657 to IX -660.)
151
Parking Facilities
Impacts IV.2-11 through 14. Under the current conditions, no parking spaces would be
removed and there would be no impacts related to the provision of parking facilities.
(FEIR, p. IV -660)
Bicycle and Pedestrian Facilities and Transit Services
Impacts IV.2-15 through 16. Under this alternative, there would be no increase in
demand for bicycle and pedestrian facilities and therefore no impacted related to the
provision of bicycle and pedestrian facilities or transit services. (FEIR, p. IX -661)
Air Oualitv
The Clean Air Plan is based on existing and projected population and employment
numbers. Because this alternative would result in no new development beyond what has
already been approved and only minimal population growth, and because there is not
currently any conflict with the Clean Air Plan, this alternative would not result in a
conflict with the Clean Air Plan with respect to population. It would also be expected to
result in a rate of increase in Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) no greater than the rate of
increase in population. (FEIR, p. IX -661.)
However, while General Plan 2000 includes some policies and programs that would
support the Clean Air Plan Transportation Control Measures (TCMs), this alternative
would not support all of the regional TCMs that are to be implemented by cities. This
alternative would therefore result in a significant unavoidable impact due to
inconsistency with the TCMs. This alternative would not result in new sources of odors
or toxic air contaminants, but would be lacking policies and programs protecting existing
and establishing new buffer zones around sources of toxic air contaminants and odors,
and would therefore have a significant impact with respect to these pollutants. This
impact could be reduced to a less -than -significant level with adoption and
implementation of the mitigation measures identified in this EIR. (FEIR, p. IX -661.)
4. Noise
Because there would not be an increase in traffic beyond the baseline conditions, there
would be no increase in traffic noise. Without any new commercial or industrial projects
beyond what has already been approved, there would be no impacts related to stationary
noise sources. Because there would be no additional new development, there would be
no impacts related to future noise sensitive development near existing noisy
environments. While the San Rafael Airport would still be in use, similar to the proposed
project, there would be no increase in air traffic at the airport and there would be no
increase in noise -sensitive development surrounding the airport. Because development of
SMART is independent of General Plan 2020, there could be potential noise impacts
related to SMART activity, which would be a significant unavoidable impact The San
Rafael Quarry and McNear Brickworks would continue operation for at least 15 to 17
years, however, no new development would occur within the vicinity of these operations.
Thus, similar to the proposed project, this alternative would result in no new impacts
related to noise generated by the San Rafael Quarry. In addition, while the areas
152
surrounding San Rafael would continue to develop and would generate additional traffic,
the noise generated by this traffic would not result in a significant impact. (FEIR, p. IX -
633.)
Public Services and Utilities
In this alternative, as there would be no new development beyond what has already been
approved, existing development would continue to be served at the existing levels by the
existing service providers. Therefore, impacts related to fire protection, wildland fires,
police services, schools, library, wastewater treatment north of Puerto Suello Hill,
electricity and gas, and landfill capacity would be less -than -significant. Due to existing
deficiencies, impacts related to police services, parks, library services, wastewater
treatment south of Puerto Suello Hill, and water supply would be significant and
unavoidable. Impacts related to the release of hazardous materials and the exposure of
underground hazardous wastes would be less -than -significant because no new
development would disturb the existing hazardous materials sites or create new
hazardous materials sites. Finally, because there are existing schools within one quarter
mile of facilities that transport, store, use, and dispose of hazardous materials, this would
remain a significant and unavoidable impact. (FEIR, pp. IX -633 to IX -644.)
6. Cultural Resources
Because there would be no new development beyond what has already been approved
there would be no potential impacts to cultural resources. However, General Plan 2020
does include policies and programs that could potentially benefit historic structures by
encouraging the re -use and/or restoration of the projects. Presumably, with no additional
new development these structures would not benefit from re -use or restoration. This
alternative would not result in significant cultural resources impacts. (FEIR, p. IX -634.)
7. VisualOuality
Because there would be no new development (besides what has already been approved)
there would be no new impacts to the visual quality of the City. Scenic resources would
be maintained in their current setting, there would be no new conflicts between adjoining
development, and the potential for aesthetically unpleasing new development would be
eliminated. There could, however, be impacts to nighttime lighting, as existing
developments could upgrade or otherwise alter their outdoor lighting. This could
represent a significant impact as lighting plan review is currently required only for new
construction. However, this impact could be reduced to a less -than -significant level with
adoption and implementation of the mitigation measures identified in this EIR. (FEIR, p.
IX -634.)
Bioloeical Resources
As no new development beyond what has already been approved would occur, impacts to
special status plant and animal species, and sensitive natural communities, including
153
wetlands, would not occur with this alternative. Existing wetlands, woodlands, and
riparian habitats in particular would benefit under this alternative. There would still be
potential significant unavoidable impacts due to the introduction of exotic species as
existing landscapes mature and/or are replaced, because the policies and programs
associated with General Plan 2020 would not be implemented. (FEIR, pp. IX -634.)
9. Geology. Soils. and Seismicity
Because there would be no new development beyond what has already been approved,
this alternative would represent no new impacts due to additional development on
unstable soils. Groundshaking, landsliding, subsidence, expansive soils, and earthquake
related ground failure hazards would all represent a less -than -significant impact because
there would be no new development on unstable soils. In addition, because this
alternative would not increase population or employment within the City, there would not
be an increased number of people potentially affected by such hazards. Because there
would be no additional new development, the potential loss of soil resources and damage
due to erosion would be a less -than -significant impact. Again, because there would be no
additional new development, no new septic systems would be expected and therefore
there would be no potential impact related to the septic suitability of soils. (FEIR, p. IX -
634.)
10. Hvdrologv, Water Ouality. and Flood Hazards
Because there would be no new development beyond what has already been approved
there would be no increased potential for impacts to water quality, groundwater, or the
stormwater drainage system. Erosion and creek siltation, which is typically due to
increased development, would not occur, however creek improvements that may also be
associated with developments would not occur either. This alternative would not result in
any additional development, and therefore no additional people, within areas that could
be inundated by tidal flooding, storm event flooding, seiche, tsunami, or mudflow,
therefore representing a less -than -significant impact for those hazards. In addition,
because there would be no additional development, there would be no impacts associated
with flooding or stormwater drainage system capacity. (FEIR, p. IX -635.)
11. Agriculture
Because there would be no additional development with this alternative there would be
no impacts to agricultural lands. (FEIR, p. IX -635.)
12. Imt)act Overview
Growth Inducing Impacts
Similar to the proposed project Alternative 1 (No Project/No Development) would have a
less -than -significant growth inducing impact. This alternative would result in no new
development beyond what has already been approved. Alternative 1 would not remove
infrastructure limitations that otherwise would limit growth, nor would this alternative
154
remove regulatory constraints that could result in future unforeseen growth. (FEIR, p.
IX -635.)
Cumulative Impacts
Since Alternative 1 (No Project/No Development) would have less development than the
proposed project cumulative impacts for Alternative 1 would be similar but reduced from
cumulative impacts identified for the proposed project. (FEIR, p. IX -635.)
13. Feasibilitv of Alternative
The concept of "feasibility" encompasses the question of whether a particular alternative
or mitigation measure promotes existing city growth policies, as well as the underlying
goals and objectives of a project. (City of Del Mar v. City of San Diego (1982) 133
Ca1.App.3d 410, 417; Sequoyah Hills Homeowners Assn. v. City of Oakland (1993) 23
Cal.App.4th 704, 715.) "` [F]easibility' under CEQA also encompasses `desirability' to
the extent that desirability is based on a reasonable balancing of the relevant economic,
environmental, social, and technological factors." (Ibid)
The traffic modeling results for General Plan 2020 showed that various traffic
improvements are needed to address current congestion points, for example at Lincoln
Avenue and Linden Lane. The traffic modeling also demonstrated that with anticipated
regional growth, traffic congestion would be the same as or worse than today, as major
road improvements would not be provided.
Additionally, this alternative would not result in new housing beyond that already
approved but not yet built and would thereby preclude the City from meeting its "fair
share" housing obligations as required by State law. In particular, no new affordable
housing would be developed. This would result in increased demand for available
housing and in higher housing costs. As a result, the social and economic diversity of the
community would diminish over time.
This alternative would also decrease the number of new jobs, as no new commercial
development would be built. There would not be a corresponding increase in general
funds to pay for City services and infrastructure improvements or maintenance.
Furthermore, the ability of the City to legally halt all growth is questionable. Some types
of housing and commercial growth do not require any discretionary permits. Also, as
mentioned above, the City could not adopt a legally adequate Housing Element if no new
housing is planned. In order to approve any interim development moratorium, the City
would be required to make specific findings, which the City might not be able to make
given the need for housing. (See, Gov. Code, § 65858.)
For each of these reasons, this alternative is rejected as infeasible.
155
B. ALTERNATIVE 2: NO PROJECT/NO ACTION/GENERAL PLAN 2000
Description
The No Project/No Action/General Plan 2000 Alternative assumes that no General Plan is
adopted for the City, and future development would continue to be guided by the existing
General Plan, General Plan 2000, and zoning. This alternative reflects growth under
existing General Plan 2000 policies, assuming feasible infrastructure improvements and
community services. One significant policy from General Plan 2000 that would not be
included in this alternative is the extension of McInnis Parkway from its current terminus
at Marin Lagoon to Highway 37, described as the `east side arterial' in Policy C -8e. The
McInnis extension is currently not funded, Vision North San Rafael recommends against
the extension, and the Novato General Plan does not include the roadway in its
circulation network. (DEIR, p. VI -8.)
This alternative would result in a higher level of growth than General Plan 2020.
Buildout under the existing General Plan would include the potential for about 5,055 new
residential units and 3,461,000 square feet of new nonresidential development within the
City limits. This maximum buildout includes 1,561 more residential units than projected
under General Plan 2020, and an increase of 3,060,000 square feet of nonresidential
development beyond the projections of General Plan 2020. With this buildout, there
would also be an increase in population and employment within the Planning Area:
development consistent with the existing General Plan would result in 15,539 additional
residents over the population in 1998 (11,348 since Census 2000) and 4,496 additional
jobs. This is in comparison to the 12,708 additional residents (8,517 since Census 2000)
and 1,812 additional jobs that would be expected with General Plan 2020 within the
Planning Area. (DEIR, p. VI -8.)
In this alternative, the existing regulations would continue existing patterns of land use,
including single -use General Commercial, Office, and Marine districts. In addition, very
limited development would occur Downtown as this area is essentially considered built -
out under the EIR for General Plan 2000. At the Canalways, San Rafael Airport, and St.
Vincent's/Silveira properties more development would occur in this alternative than with
the proposed project. (DEIR, p. VI -8.)
Environmental Impacts
1. Land Use. Population. Emplovment, and Housing
Development under this alternative would be higher than that under General Plan 2020,
and higher than development under the other alternatives. This increased development
would also result in a slightly larger population in the Planning Area as well as
considerably more jobs. The existing General Plan's traffic allocation program (the
Priority Projects Procedure) only applies to projects at two highway 101 interchange
areas (Bellam and Freitas) while General Plan 2020 contains a policy and program to
expand the program to a `project selection process' to allow for a broader evaluation of
�r
development benefits, and to require that all appropriate projects citywide participate in
the program (rather than just those in the two interchange areas listed above). (DEIR, p.
VI -9.)
Another major difference with this alternative is the inclusion of the St. Vincent's and
Silveira properties. The inclusion of these properties in the Planning Area for this
alternative significantly increases potential development opportunities. The existing
General Plan would also allow considerably more development in areas outside of
Downtown, such as in the San Rafael Airport and on the Canalways properties. In
contrast, the Draft General Plan 2020 focuses future growth in the city's commercial
areas, and does not include development at St. Vincent's or Silveira properties as they are
outside of San Rafael's Planning Area and under the planning jurisdiction of the County,
nor residential or commercial development at San Rafael Airport. Only a limited amount
of light industrial/office use is planned for Canalways. (DEIR, pp. VI -9 to VI -10.)
Because of the increased level of development, there are increased opportunities for land
use conflicts, particularly in the areas outside of Downtown. This would result in
significant land use impacts. With the increased development there would also be an
increase in population, employment, and housing. These increases would not result in
significant growth, but similar to the project, they would result in significant secondary
impacts related to public services and utilities. (DEIR, p. VI -10.)
2. Transportation and Circulation
Intersections
Impact IV.2-1 Development under Alternative 2 (General Plan 2000) conditions
would result in unacceptable LOS at 34 combinations of intersections and peak hours, not
including those intersections addressed in Impacts N.2-2 through 5, below. With
General Plan 2000 improvements the following 9 of those intersections would be
changed to an acceptable LOS:
• 2"a and A (LOS F in the AM peak hour — changed to LOS B)
• 2°a and A (LOS F in the AM peak hour — changed to LOS D)
• 3rd and A (LOS E in the PM peak hour — improved to less delay in LOS
E)
• 5th and A (LOS E in the AM peak hour — changed to LOS C)
• 5th and H (LOS E in the AM peak hour — changed to LOS B)
• Mission and Grand (LOS E in the AM peak hour — changed to LOS D)
• Mission and Grand (LOS E in the PM peak hour — changed to LOS D)
• Smith Ranch and 101 northbound ramps (LOS E in the AM peak hour -
changed to LOS C)
The remaining 25 intersections, not including those addressed in Impacts IV.2-2 through
5, would operate at an unacceptable LOS, even with General Plan 2000 improvements:
157
Unsignalized Intersections
• 101 SB On & Francisco West (LOS F during the AM peak hour)
• 101 SB On & Francisco West (LOS F during the PM peak hour)
• Castro and Francisco East (LOS F during AM peak hour)
• Castro and Francisco East (LOS F during PM peak hour)
• Redwood and Paul (LOS F during the AM peak hour)
• Redwood Highway and US 101 NB on-ramp (LOS F during PM peak
hour)
• Woodland and DuBois (LOS F during the AM peak hour)
• Woodland and Irwin (LOS E during the AM peak hour)
• Woodland and Irwin (LOS F during the PM peak hour)
Signalized Intersections
• 2 n and Grand (LOS E during the AM peak hour)
• 2 n and Grand (LOS F during the PM peak hour)
• 3 and Hetherton (LOS E during the AM peak hour)
• 3 r and Hetherton (LOS E during the PM peak hour)
• 4`h and Ross Valley (LOS E during the AM peak hour)
• Andersen and Lindaro (LOS E during the PM peak hour)
• Freitas and Redwood (LOS E during the AM peak hour)
• Irwin and Andersen (LOS E during the PM peak hour)
• Merrydale Over -Crossing and Civic Center (LOS F during the AM peak
hour)
• Merrydale Over -Crossing and Civic Center (LOS F during the PM peak
hour)
• Merrydale Over -Crossing and Las Gallinas (LOS E during the AM peak
hour)
• Merrydale Over -Crossing and Las Gallinas (LOS F during the AM peak
hour)
• Mission and Lincoln (LOS E during the AM peak hour)
• Mission and Lincoln (LOS E during the PM peak hour)
• Smith Ranch and Redwood Highway (LOS F during the AM peak hour)
• Smith Ranch and Redwood Highway (LOS E during the PM peak hour)
Development consistent with General Plan 2000 would result in unacceptable LOS at a
number of intersections throughout the City, as listed above. Even with improvements
proposed in General Plan 2000, this would be a significant unavoidable impact.
Impact IV.2-2 The Second Street and A Street intersection would operate at an LOS
that is acceptable for Downtown intersections (LOS B AM peak / LOS D PM peak).
This would be a less -than -significant impact.
Impact IV.2-3 The Third Street and Union Street intersection would operate at an LOS
that is unacceptable for City intersections (LOS D AM peak / LOS E PM peak). This
would be a significant unavoidable impact.
158
Impact IV.2-4 The Lincoln Avenue and US 101 intersection would operate at an LOS
(LOS F AM & PM peak) that is unacceptable for City intersections. This would be a
significant unavoidable impact.
Impact IV.2-5 The Mission Avenue and Irwin Street intersection would operate at an
LOS (LOS E AM / LOS F PM) that is acceptable for that intersection. The increase in
delay for the PM peak hour would not be greater than five seconds (from 98.9 seconds
under Baseline conditions to 102.3 seconds under General Plan 2000 conditions). This
would be a less -than -significant impact.
City and CMA Roadway Segments
Impact IV.2-6 Under Alternative 2 (General Plan 2000) conditions the following City
roadway segments would exceed significance criteria thresholds: 1
• A Street — northbound from 2nd to 5th (LOS E in the AM peak hour)
• A Street — northbound from 2nd to 5th (LOS F in the PM peak hour)
• Bellam Boulevard — eastbound from Andersen to Kerner (LOS E in the
AM peak hour)
• Civic Center Drive — southbound from Merrydale Over Crossing to North
San Pedro (LOS E in the AM eak hour)
• D Street — southbound from 4t to Bayview (LOS E in the AM peak hour)
• Freitas Parkway — eastbound from Las Gallinas to 101 NB on/Civic
Center (LOS F in the AM peak hour)
• Freitas Parkway — eastbound from Las Gallinas to 101 NB on/Civic
Center (LOS F in the PM peak hour)
• Grand Avenue — northbound from 2nd to Mission (LOS F in the PM peak
hour)
Unacceptable LOS at these City roadway segments would represent a significant and
unavoidable impact.
Impact IV.2-7 Under Alternative 2 (General Plan 2000) conditions, several City
roadway segments that operate at LOS E or F under Baseline conditions would continue
to operate at LOS E or F. In some cases, the peak hour operations would slightly
improve (i.e., vehicle speed would increase).
In the following cases, segments that operate at LOS E or F under Baseline conditions
would improve to LOS D or better under Alternative 2 conditions:
l As described in the Significance Criteria section of Sectio: IV.2 Transportation and Circulation, a segment
would exceed significance thresholds if it is operating at an acceptable LOS under Baseline conditions and would
operate at an unacceptable LOS (LOS E or F) under project conditions. However, for segments that are operating
at unacceptable LOS under Baseline conditions, it would exceed significance thresholds if the calculated average
travel speed would decrease by five miles per hour or more.
159
• 2nd Street — eastbound from G to Grand (AM peak hour)
• 2nd Street — eastbound from G to Grand (PM peak hour)
• 5`h Street — westbound from Irwin to E (AM peak hour)
• Bellam — westbound from Kerner to Andersen (AM peak hour)
• Del Presidio — northbound from Las Gallinas to Freitas (PM peak hour)
• Del Presidio — southbound from Freitas to Las Gallinas (AM peak hour)
• Lincoln — southbound from US 101 SB/Hammondale to 2nd (AM peak
hour)
In addition, the following segments would remain at LOS E or F, but vehicle speeds
would improve or stay the same:
• Bellam — eastbound from Andersen to Kerner (PM peak hour)
• C Street — northbound from 1" to 5`h (PM peak hour)
• Del Presidio — southbound from Freitas to Las Gallinas (PM peak hour)
• E Street — northbound from 2nd to 5`h (AM peak hour)
• E Street — southbound from 5`h to 2nd (AM peak hour)
• E Street — southbound from 5`h to 2nd (PM peak hour)
• Hetherton — southbound from Mission to 2nd (PM peak hour)
• Irwin — northbound from 2nd to Mission (AM peak hour)
• Irwin — northbound from 2nd to Mission (PM peak hour)
• Lindaro — southbound from 3rd to Andersen (AM peak hour)
• Mission — westbound from Grand to Lincoln (AM peak hour)
• Mission — westbound from Grand to Lincoln (PM peak hour)
In other cases, however, the peak hour operations would not improve (i.e., vehicle speed
would decrease). The segments listed below operate at LOS E or F under Baseline
conditions and would continue to operate at LOS E or F, and calculated traffic speeds
would decrease. However, because the calculated traffic speeds would decrease less than
five miles per hour, this decrease would be below the threshold of significance. These
segments are:
• A Street — northbound from 2nd to 5`h (PM peak hour)
• A Street — southbound from 4`h to 2nd (AM peak hour)
• A Street — southbound from 4`h to 2nd (PM peak hour)
• B Street — southbound from 5`h to 2nd (AM peak hour)
• B Street — southbound from 5`h to 2nd (PM peak hour)
• Bellam — westbound from Kerner to Andersen (PM peak hour)
• C Street — northbound from I" to 5`h (AM peak hour)
• Del Presidio — northbound from Las Gallinas to Freitas (AM peak hour)
• E Street — northbound from 2nd to 5`h (PM peak hour)
• Grand — southbound from Mission to 2nd (AM peak hour)
• Grand — southbound from Mission to 2nd (PM peak hour)
• Hetherton — southbound from Mission to 2nd (AM peak hour)
• Lincoln — northbound from 2nd to 101 SB/Hammondale (PM peak hour)
• Lindaro — northbound from Andersen to 3rd (AM peak hour)
• Lindaro — northbound from Andersen to 3rd (PM peak hour)
• Lindaro — southbound from 3rd to Andersen (PM peak hour)
160
Although the vehicle speed would decrease slightly in these roadway segments, the
decrease does not exceed the significance threshold of five miles per hour. Therefore,
this would be a less -than -significant impact.
Impact IV.2-8 Under Alternative 2 (General Plan 2000) conditions, all of the CMA
roadway segments operate at acceptable LOS (LOS D or better). This would be a less -
than -significant impact.
Freeway Facilities
Impact IV.2-9 Under Alternative 2 (General Plan 2000) conditions the following
freeway sections would operate at an unacceptable (LOS F) level: 2
• US 101 — southbound from Pacheco Hill to Miller Creek (AM peak hour)
• US 101 — northbound from Miller Creek to Pacheco Hill (PM peak hour)
• US 101 — northbound from Sir Francis Drake to Cal Park Hill (PM peak
hour)
• US 101 & I-580 interchange — westbound I-580 to northbound US 101
(AM peak hour)
• US 101 & I-580 interchange — westbound I-580 to northbound US 101
(PM peak hour)
• I-580 — eastbound at Richmond Bridge (PM peak hour)
• I-580 — westbound at Richmond Bridge (AM peak hour)
Unacceptable LOS at these freeway sections would be a significant unavoidable impact.
Impact IV.2-10 Under Alternative 2 (General Plan 2000) conditions, the same freeway
off -ramps would exceed lane storage as under Draft General Plan 2020. The vehicle
queue would exceed lane storage at two off -ramps:
US 101 northbound at Second and Irwin
• I-580 eastbound/US 101 northbound at Bellam
The off -ramp approach analysis indicates that the approach vehicle queue would remain
within the off -ramp boundaries and would not encroach into the deceleration lane on the
freeway. Thus, both of these queues operate at acceptable levels. This would be a less -
than -significant impact.
Parking Facilities
Impacts IV.2-11 through 14 Similar to Draft General Plan 2020, the removal of
parking spaces along Las Gallinas Avenue and Grand Avenue would be a less -than -
significant impact and the removal of parking spaces along Lincoln Avenue would be a
significant unavoidable impact. Also similar to the proposed project, the additional
parking demand generated by development consistent with General Plan 2000 would be
a less -than -significant impact because new development would be required to supply
adequate parking for its new use.
2 As described in the Significance Criteria section of Section IV.2 Transportation and Circulation, a freeway
section would exceed significance thresholds if it is operating at an acceptable LOS under Baseline conditions and
would operate at an unacceptable LOS under project conditions. However, for segments that are operating at
unacceptable LOS under Baseline conditions, it would exceed significance thresholds if there is an increase in the
V/C of 0.01 or more.
161
Bicycle and Pedestrian Facilities and Transit Services
Impacts IV.2-15 through 16 This alternative would increase demand for bicycle and
pedestrian facilities and transit services. The Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan 3
would continue to be implemented, although this alternative would not benefit from the
policies and programs related to bicycle and pedestrian facilities and transit services in
General Plan 2020. In addition, while General Plan 2000 includes a policy for elevated
rail through Downtown, which would reduce pedestrian at -grade conflicts with traffic on
Third Street, this policy would be in conflict with SMART's conceptual designs for at -
grade service in Downtown. Furthermore, this would not reduce impacts related to
bicycle and pedestrian demands in other parts of the City or increased demand for transit
services. Therefore this would be a significant unavoidable impact.
(FEIR, p. IX -637 to IX -641.)
Air Oualitv
The Clean Air Plan is based on existing and projected population and employment
numbers. Because development under this alternative would be consistent with the
projections currently in use, this alternative would not result in a conflict with the Clean
Air Plan with respect to population growth. It would also be expected to result in a rate
of increase in Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) no greater than the rate of increase in
population. However, while General Plan 2000 includes some policies and programs
that would support the Clean Air Plan Transportation Control Measures (TCMs), this
alternative would not benefit from the new policies and programs proposed in General
Plan 2020. This alternative would therefore result in a significant unavoidable impact
due to inconsistency with the TCMs. (DEIR, p. VI -14.)
This alternative would be lacking policies and programs protecting existing and
establishing new buffer zones around sources of toxic air contaminants and odors, and
would therefore have a significant unavoidable impact with respect to these pollutants.
(DEIR, p. VI -14.)
4. Noise
This alternative would result in an increase in traffic, which would increase traffic noise
and impacts to noise sensitive uses near roadways. This alternative would also result in
new commercial and/or industrial projects that could result in new stationary noise
sources which could impact noise sensitive uses. Additionally, this alternative would
result in new development that could be impacted by existing noisy environments.
Because development of SMART would be independent of any policies set forth in San
Rafael's planning documents, there could be potential noise impacts related to SMART
activity. Similar to the proposed project, there would be no impacts related to the San
Rafael Airport as there would be no increase in air traffic. The San Rafael Quarry and
3 Bicycle and Pedestrian MasterPlan, City of San Rafael, 2002.
162
McNear Brickworks would continue operation through 2020, however, new development
in the vicinity of these operations would be limited. Thus, similar to the proposed
project, this alternative would result in no new impacts related to noise generated by the
San Rafael Quarry. (DEIR, p. VI -15.)
5. Public Services and Utilities
In this alternative, significant amounts of new development would be expected and would
require significant amounts of new or additional services. Similar to the proposed
project, this alternative would result in significant unavoidable impacts related to police
services, parks, library services, wastewater treatment south of Puerto Suello Hill, and
water supply. Also similar to the proposed project, this alternative would result in less -
than -significant impacts related to fire services, wildland fires, schools, wastewater
treatment north of Puerto Suello Hill, landfill capacity, electricity and gas, and the
exposure of underground hazardous wastes. Again, similar to the proposed project,
potential releases of hazardous materials would be a significant unavoidable impact; the
location of hazardous materials near schools would be significant impacts, which could
be reduced to a less -than -significant level with adoption and implementation of the
mitigation measures identified in the EIR. (DEIR, p. VI -15.)
6. Cultural Resources
Development consistent with General Plan 2000 could result in the disturbance of
archaeological or prehistoric resources. However, similar to the proposed project, the
existing general plan does not alter the requirements of the City's existing Archaeological
Resource Protection Ordinance. This would be a less -than -significant impact to
archaeological resources. (DEIR, p. VI -15.)
Development consistent with General Plan 2000 could also result in impacts on historic
or cultural resources. Similar to the proposed project, however, this would be a less -than -
significant impact. In addition, General Plan 2020 does include policies and programs
that could potentially benefit historic structures by encouraging the re -use and/or
restoration of the projects. Presumably, without the proposed general plan, these
structures would not benefit from re -use or restoration and could instead be demolished
or otherwise damaged. This alternative would not result in significant cultural resources
impacts. (DEIR, p. VI -15.)
7. VisualOuality
Although this alternative would leave in place the existing height limits, because this
alternative would allow new development there would be potential unavoidable impacts
to the scenic resources of the City. In addition to the increased development within the
existing developed areas, this alternative would include development on the St. Vincent's
and Silveira properties as well as in the San Rafael Airport area which would result in
significant and unavoidable impacts to views in those areas. There would also be
potential conflicts with adjacent development; although the design review policies in
163
place would minimize these potential impacts. Nighttime lighting impacts would also be
significant and unavoidable as lighting plan review is not currently required for new
construction. (DEIR, pp. VI -15 to VI -16.)
Biolop-ical Resources
As this alternative would develop more land it would also reduce more habitat areas. The
introduction of development into the hillside, riparian, grassland, and oak savanna/
woodland areas would increase pressure on wildlife species by reducing habitat and
movement opportunities and introducing non-native predators, such as dogs and cats.
This alternative would result in impacts to sensitive natural communities, including
wetlands. In addition, this alternative would include development on the St. Vincent's
and Silveira properties (includes grasslands, agricultural, riparian, and oak savanna/
woodland habitats), at the Canalways site (includes wetlands habitat), and at the San
Rafael Airport (bounded by wetlands habitats). Any impact to natural communities
would also result in potential impacts to special -status species that rely on such habitats.
This alternative would also result in significant impacts due to the release of invasive
exotics used in residential and commercial landscaping. These impacts could be reduced
to a less -than -significant level with adoption and implementation of the mitigation
measures identified in this EIR (Mitigation Measure IV. 8-1 and Mitigation Measure
IV.8-2). (FEIR, p. IX -643.)
The St. Vincent's/Silveira properties consist primarily of non-native grassland habitat and
agricultural fields, both of which provide open habitat utilized by numerous species for
foraging, nesting, etc. There are a few patches of oak woodlands dispersed within the
grassland habitat that provide roosting habitat, nesting habitat, and cover for various
terrestrial species. Miller Creek, with its associated riparian habitat, traverses the
property from west to east. This watercourse is an established wildlife corridor,
providing habitat for a number of aquatic and riparian species. A very small portion of
this site is currently developed in the form of a school (with associated facilities) and a
railroad track. The Canalways property consists primarily of wetland habitat dominated
by pickleweed with associated upland habitat along the boundaries. This property
provides habitat for a number of terrestrial and wetland species. The San Rafael Airport
consists of non-native grassland similar to that found on the St. Vincent's/Silveira
property, along with development associated with the Airport and wetland/open water
habitat. The Airport property is bound to the north by Gallinas Creek and to the south by
a tributary of Gallinas Creek, both of which are considered to be wildlife corridors for
aquatic species. (FEIR, p. IX -643.)
9. Geologv, Soils, and Seismicitv
This alternative would result in new development that could be developed on unstable
soils which would result in potential groundshaking, landsliding, subsidence, erosion,
expansive soil, and earthquake related ground failure hazards impacts. Similar to the
proposed project, these impacts would be considered significant impacts, and the
landsliding impact would be considered significant and unavoidable. These impacts
164
would be greater than the impacts identified with the proposed project due to the
increased amount of development and the increased population. Again, similar to the
proposed project, because there is a slight possibility that septic systems could be used
within the planning area, there would be a potentially significant impact related to the
septic suitability of soils. (DEIR, p. VI -16.)
10. Hvdrologv. Water Ouality. and Flood Hazards
This alternative would result in new development that would potentially increase impacts
to water quality and groundwater. Erosion and creek siltation, which is typically due to
construction activities, would occur, however creek improvements may also be associated
with new development. Development on the St. Vincent's/Silveira properties could
result in increased impacts on erosion and water quality along the tidal reach of Miller
Creek. This alternative would also result in additional development which could place a
larger number of people within areas that could be inundated by tidal flooding, storm
event flooding, seiche, tsunami, or mudflow, representing a significant impact for those
hazards. These would all be significant unavoidable impacts. This alternative would not,
however, result in flooding or stormwater drainage system capacity impacts. (DEIR, p.
VI -16.)
11. Agriculture
This alternative would include development on the St. Vincent's/Silveira properties,
which would represent a significant unavoidable impact to agricultural lands. (DEIR, p.
VI -16.)
12. Impact Overview
Growth Inducing Impacts
As shown in Exhibits VI. 1-1 and VI. 1-2 Alternative 2 (No Project/No Action/General
Plan 2000) would result in development higher than that under General Plan 2020 and
the other alternatives. This increased development would also result in a slightly larger
population in the Planning Area as well as considerably more jobs. In contrast to the
proposed project, Alternative 2 includes development on the St. Vincent's/Silveira
properties plus increased development in areas outside of Downtown, such as in the San
Rafael Airport area and on the Canalways properties. This additional growth would
result in greater significant secondary impacts related to public services and utilities than
for the proposed project. (FEIR, p. IX -644.)
The additional development accommodated by Alternative 2 could result in the
stimulation of economic activity outside of the Planning Area. Furthermore, the
additional development accommodated by Alternative 2 would require significant
amounts of new or additional public services and utilities included wastewater treatment
south of Puerto Suello Hill and water supply. In comparison with the proposed project,
the potential for additional growth outside of the Planning Area and the availability of
additional infrastructure capacity with the Alternative, Alternative 2 would result in a
significant growth inducing impact. (FEIR, p. IX -644.)
165
Cumulative Impacts
Although Alternative 2 (No Project/No Action/General Plan 2000) would result in
development higher than that under General Plan 2020 cumulative impacts would be
similar for this alternative as for the proposed project. Alternative 2's contribution to the
cumulative impacts identified for the proposed project, although greater than the
proposed project, would not result in cumulative impacts not already identify for the
proposed project. (FEIR, p. IX -644.)
13. Feasibilitv of Alternative
As discussed above, this alternative will not substantially lessen or avoid the significant
impacts of General Plan 2020, and in fact will result in additional significant impacts.
The City, therefore, is not required to consider whether the alternative is feasible.
Nevertheless, the City, as discussed below, rejects this alternative as infeasible.
The concept of "feasibility" encompasses the question of whether a particular alternative
or mitigation measure promotes existing city growth policies, as well as the underlying
goals and objectives of a project. (City of Del Mar v. City of San Diego (1982) 133
Ca1.App.3d 410, 417; Sequoyah Hills Homeowners Assn. v. City of Oakland (1993) 23
Cal.AppAth 704, 715.) "`[F]easibility' under CEQA also encompasses `desirability' to
the extent that desirability is based on a reasonable balancing of the relevant economic,
environmental, social, and technological factors." (Ibid)
This alternative allows more growth than what is planned under General Plan 2020. For
example, General Plan 2000 allows for residential development on the Canalways
property, which has several wetlands and which may have endangered species.
Residential use is not allowed pursuant to General Plan 2020 because of the
environmental impacts of such use adjacent to natural habitat areas.
Another example is that General Plan 2000 plans for the eventual development of up to
2,100 residential units and 361,000 square feet of nonresidential use on St. Vincent's
School for Boys and the Silveira Ranch properties, and for their annexation into the City.
As discussed above, the traffic modeling shows that development at St. Vincent's would
result in significant traffic impacts. Because of the potential impacts of urban
development on these unincorporated properties and the surrounding neighborhoods the
City has determined that they are best planned for and developed under the County's
jurisdiction.
This alternative would allow much more commercial growth than residential growth.
This pattern of development has the potential to worsen the jobs/housing balance, leading
in turn to increased commuting, more traffic, and more emissions from automobiles.
Furthermore, this alternative does not provide for transit oriented development or
development consistent with the Smart Growth and Livable Cities planning approaches,
which are the basis of General Plan 2020.
166
General Plan 2000 included the extension of McInnis Parkway from San Rafael along the
railroad right-of-way to connect to Highway 37 in Novato, providing a bypass for
Highway 101 traffic. However, because Novato no longer includes this roadway
improvement in its General Plan, and Vision North San Rafael recommended against the
extension, the City has not included the McInnis Parkway extension as a roadway
improvement in its traffic modeling for this alternative. Nonetheless, McInnis Parkway
was part of the roadway network needed to maintain General Plan 2000's LOS standards,
and without it, the Smith Ranch Road intersection at Redwood Highway would operate at
LOS F (a.m.) and LOS E (p.m.), given the development assumptions under that plan.
In addition, this alternative does not include policies to improve bicycle and pedestrian
facilities as called for in the Bicycle/Pedestrian Plan (2001), and would not meet the
community's desire for a more multi -modal emphasis in circulation planning.
For each of these reasons, this alternative is rejected as infeasible
C. ALTERNATIVE 3: REDUCED DEVELOPMENT
Description
The Reduced Development Alternative assumes that housing and nonresidential
development would be less than General Plan 2020 projections. The goal of this
alternative is to reduce traffic impacts while still meeting the City's housing objectives.
This alternative has a lower level of growth than Draft General Plan 2020. In addition,
uses that generate less traffic than retail and housing, such as hotels and senior units,
replace Draft General Plan 2020 assumptions for housing and commercial development.
(DEIR, p. IV -17.)
Buildout under Alternative 3 would include the potential for about 2,611 new residential
units and 236,000 square feet of new nonresidential development within the City limits.
This maximum buildout includes 883 less residential units than projected under General
Plan 2020, and a decrease of 165,000 square feet of nonresidential development below
the projections of General Plan 2020. With this buildout, there would also be less of an
increase in population and employment within the Planning Area: development consistent
with this alternative would result in 10,503 additional residents over the population in
1998 (6,312 since Census 2000) and 2,000 additional jobs. This is in comparison to the
12,708 additional residents (8,517 since Census 2000) and 1,812 additional jobs that
would be expected with General Plan 2020 within the Planning Area. (DEIR, p. VI -17.)
Environmental Impacts
1. Land Use. Population. Emnlovment. and Housine
Development under this alternative would be the lower than that under General Plan
2020. This decreased development would also result in a slightly smaller population in
the Planning Area as well as less jobs. (DEIR, p. VI -17.)
167
Land use impacts for this alternative would be slightly less than those identified for
General Plan 2020, due to the decreased level of development. Similar to Draft General
Plan 2020 land use impacts would be less -than -significant. Population, employment, and
the jobs -to -housing ratio impacts would also be less -than -significant. (DEIR, p. VI -17.)
2. Transportation and Circulation
Intersections
Impact IV.2-1 Development under Alternative 3 (Reduced Development)) without
improvements would result in unacceptable LOS at 21 combinations of intersections and
peak hours, not including those intersections addressed in Impacts IV.2-2 through 5,
below.
All 21 of these intersections would be changed to an acceptable LOS with Draft General
Plan 2020 improvements:
• US 101 southbound and Merrydale (LOS E during the AM peak hour —
changed to LOS B)
• US 101 southbound and Merrydale (LOS E during the PM peak hour —
changed to LOS B)
• US 101 southbound on-ramp and Francisco Blvd West (LOS E during the
AM peak hour — changed to LOS C)
• US 101 southbound on-ramp and Francisco Blvd West (LOS E during the
PM peak hour changed to LOS B)
• 15t and D (LOS E during the PM peak hour — changed to LOS B)
• 2nd and B (LOS E during the AM peak hour — changed to LOS A
• 2°a and Grand (LOS E during the PM peak hour — changed to LOS B)
• 3 and A (LOS during the PM peak hour — changed to LOS E)
• 4th and E (LOS E during the PM peak hour — changed to LOS D)
• 5th and A (LOS E during the AM peak hour — changed to LOS B)
• 5th and H (LOS F during the AM peak hour — changed to LOS B)
• 5th and H (LOS E during the PM peak hour — changed to LOS A)
• Andersen and DuBois (LOS E during the AM peak hour — changed to
LOS C)
• Andersen and Lindaro (LOS E during the PM peak hour — changed to
LOS D)
• Bellam and I-580 eastbound (LOS E during the PM peak hour — changed
to LOS C)
• Freitas and US 101 northbound (LOS F during the AM peak hour —
changed to LOS B)
• Freitas and Redwood (LOS F during the AM peak hour — changed to LOS
C)
• Harbor and Francisco East (LOS F during the AM peak hour — changed to
LOS B)
• Mission and Grand (LOS F during the AM peak hour — changed to LOS
B)
• Mission and Grand (LOS F during the PM peak hour — changed to LOS B)
.:
• Smith Ranch and US 101 northbound ramps (LOSE during the AM peak
hour — changed to LOS B)
With improvements as proposed in Draft General Plan 2020, which would be
implemented as part of this alternative, this would result in acceptable LOS at all of these
intersections, which would be a less -than -significant impact.
Impact IV.2-2 The Second Street and A Street intersection would operate at an LOS
that is acceptable for Downtown intersections (LOS B AM peak / LOS E PM peak). This
would be a less -than -significant impact.
Impact IV.2-3 The Third Street and Union Street intersection would operate in the AM
peak hour at an LOS that is acceptable for City intersections (LOS C). However, this
intersection would operate at an LOS that is unacceptable for City intersections (LOS E).
The unacceptable traffic operations is expected to result only under build out conditions
and with the addition of the proposed improvements designed to improve pedestrian
safety. This would be a significant unavoidable impact.
Impact IV.2-4 The Lincoln Avenue and US 101 intersection would operate at an LOS
that is unacceptable for City intersections (LOS E AM peak / LOS F PM peak). This
would be a significant unavoidable impact.
Impact IV.2-5 The Mission Avenue and Irwin Street intersection would operate at an
LOS that is acceptable for this intersection (LOS E AM peak / LOS F PM peak).
However, the increase in delay for the PM peak hour would be greater than five seconds
(from 98.9 seconds under Baseline conditions to 113.3 seconds under the Reduced
Development Alternative conditions). This would be a significant unavoidable impact.
City and CMA Roadway Segments
Impact IV.2-6 Under Alternative 3 (Reduced Development) conditions the following
City roadway segments would exceed significance criteria thresholds: 4
• A Street — northbound from 2°a to 5th (LOS E in the AM peak hour)
• D Street — southbound from 4th to Bayview (LOS E in the AM peak hour)
• Freitas Parkway— eastbound from Las Gallinas to 101 NB on-ramp/Civic
Center (LOS E in the PM peak hour)
Unacceptable LOS at these City roadway segments would represent a significant and
unavoidable impact.
Impact IV.2-7 Under Alternative 3 (Reduced Development) conditions, several City
roadway segments that operate at LOS E or F under Baseline conditions would continue
4 As described in the Significance Criteria section of Section IY.2 Transportation and Circulation, a segment
would exceed significance thresholds if it is operating at an acceptable LOS under Baseline conditions and would
operate at an unacceptable LOS E or LOS F under project conditions. However, for segments that are operating at
unacceptable LOS under Baseline conditions, it would exceed significance thresholds if the calculated average
travel speed would decrease by five miles per hour or more.
169
to operate at LOS E or F. In some cases, the peak hour operations would slightly
improve (i.e., vehicle speed would increase).
In the following cases, segments that operate at LOS E or F under Baseline conditions
would improve to LOS D or better under Alternative 3 (Reduced Development)
conditions:
• 2nd Street — eastbound from G to Grand (AM peak hour)
• 2"d Street — eastbound from G to Grand (PM peak hour)
• 5th Street — westbound from Irwin to E (AM peak hour)
• Bellam — eastbound from Andersen to Kerner (PM peak hour)
• Bellam — westbound from Kerner to Andersen (AM peak hour)
• Del Presidio — northbound from Las Gallinas to Freitas (PM peak hour)
• Del Presidio — southbound from Freitas to Las Gallinas (AM peak hour)
• Lincoln — northbound from 2"d to US 101 SB/Hammondale (PM peak
hour)
• Lincoln — southbound from US 101 SB/Hammondale to 2"d (AM peak
hour)
In addition, the following segments would remain at LOS E or F, but vehicle speeds
would improve or stay the same:
• Bellam — westbound from Kerner to Andersen (PM peak hour)
• C Street — northbound from I" to 5th (PM peak hour)
• Del Presidio — southbound from Freitas to Las Gallinas (PM peak hour)
• E Street — northbound from 2nd to 5th (AM peak hour)
• E Street — southbound from 5th to 2"d (AM peak hour)
• E Street — southbound from 5th to 2nd (PM peak hour)
• Grand — southbound from Mission to 2nd (AM peak hour)
• Grand — southbound from Mission to 2nd (PM peak hour)
• Hetherton — southbound from Mission to 2"d (PM peak hour)
• Irwin — northbound from 2"d to Mission (AM peak hour)
• Irwin — northbound from 2nd to Mission (PM peak hour)
• Lindaro — northbound from Andersen to 3rd (PM peak hour)
• Lindaro — southbound from 3rd to Andersen (AM peak hour)
• Lindaro — southbound from 3r6 to Andersen (PM peak hour)
• Mission — westbound from Grand to Lincoln (AM peak hour)
• Mission — westbound from Grand to Lincoln (PM peak hour)
In other cases, however, the peak hour operations would not improve (i.e., vehicle speed
would decrease). The segments listed below operate at LOS E or F under Baseline
conditions and would continue to operate at LOS E or F, and calculated traffic speeds
would decrease. However, because the calculated traffic speeds would decrease less than
five miles per hour, this decrease would be below the threshold of significance. These
segments are:
170
• A Street — northbound from 2nd to 5th (PM peak hour)
• A Street — southbound from 4th to 2nd (AM peak hour)
• A Street — southbound from 4th to 2nd (PM peak hour)
• B Street — southbound from 5th to 2nd (AM peak hour)
• B Street — southbound from 5th to 2nd (PM peak hour)
• C Street — northbound from 1St to 5th (AM peak hour)
• Del Presidio — northbound from Las Gallinas to Freitas (AM peak hour)
• E Street — northbound from 2nd to 5th (PM peak hour)
• Hetherton — southbound from Mission to 2nd (AM peak hour)
• Lindaro — northbound from Andersen to 3rd (AM peak hour)
Although the vehicle speed would decrease slightly in these roadway segments, the
decrease does not exceed the significance threshold of five miles per hour. Therefore,
this would be a less -than -significant impact.
Impact IV.2-8 Under Alternative 3 (Reduced Development) conditions, all of the CMA
roadway segments operate at acceptable LOS (LOS D or better). This would be a less -
than -significant impact.
Freeway Facilities
Impact IV.2-9 Under Alternative 3 (Reduced Development) conditions the following
freeway sections would operate at an unacceptable (LOS F) level: 5
• US 101 & I-580 interchange — westbound I-580 to northbound US 101
(AM peak hour)
• US 101 & I-580 interchange — westbound I-580 to northbound US 101
(PM peak hour)
• I-580 — eastbound at Richmond Bridge (PM peak hour)
• I-580 — westbound at Richmond Bridge (AM peak hour)
• US 101 — north of Miller Creek (PM peak hour)
Unacceptable LOS at these freeway sections would be a significant unavoidable impact.
Impact IV.2-10 Under Alternative 3 (Reduced Development) conditions, the same
freeway off -ramps would exceed lane storage as under Draft General Plan 2020. The
vehicle queue would exceed lane storage at two off -ramps:
US 101 northbound at Second and Irwin
• I-580 eastbound/US 101 northbound at Bellam
The off -ramp approach analysis indicates that the approach vehicle queue would remain
within the off -ramp boundaries and would not encroach into the deceleration lane on the
freeway. Thus, both of these queues operate at acceptable levels. This would be a less -
than -significant impact.
5 As described in the Significance Criteria section of Section IV.2 Transportation and Circulation, a freeway
section would exceed significance thresholds if it is operating at an acceptable LOS under Baseline conditions and
would operate at an unacceptable LOS under project conditions. However, for segments that are operating at
unacceptable LOS under Baseline conditions, it would exceed significance thresholds if there is an increase in the
V/C of 0.01 or more.
171
Parking Facilities
Impacts IV.2-11 through 14 Similar to Draft General Plan 2020, the removal of
parking spaces along Las Gallinas Avenue and Grand Avenue would be a less -than -
significant impact and the removal of parking spaces along Lincoln Avenue would be a
significant unavoidable impact. Also similar to the proposed project, the additional
parking demand generated by development consistent with General Plan 2000 would be
a less -than -significant impact because new development would be required to supply
adequate parking for its new use.
Bicycle and Pedestrian: Facilities and Transit Services
Impacts IV.2-15 through 16 Development consistent with Alternative 3 (Reduced
Development) would result in increased demand for bicycle and pedestrian facilities and
transit services. However, implementation of policies and programs included in General
Plan 2020 would result in improvements in bicycle and pedestrian facilities and transit
services. This would be a less -than -significant impact.
(FEIR, p. IX -645 to IX -649.)
Air Oualitv
The Clean Air Plan is based on existing and projected population and employment
numbers. This alternative would not result in a conflict with the Clean Air Plan with
respect to population. It would also be expected to result in a rate of increase in Vehicle
Miles Traveled (VMT) no greater than the rate of increase in population. (DEIR, p. VI -
21.)
Additionally, this alternative would include General Plan 2020 policies and programs
that support the Clean Air Plan Transportation Control Measures (TCMs) as listed in the
discussion of Impact IV.3-1 in Chapter IV 3 Air Quality. Therefore, this alternative
would be consistent with the TCMs and would not result in a significant impact. (DEIR,
p. VI -21.)
Finally, this alternative would still include General Plan 2020 programs and policies
discussed in Impact IV.3-3 Odor/Toxics Buffer Zones. Therefore development consistent
with this alternative would still buffer sensitive uses from potential odors and/or toxic air
contaminants. After mitigation this would be a less -than -significant impact. (DEIR, p.
VI -21.)
4. Noise
This alternative would result in an increase in traffic noise over existing conditions.
However, similar to the proposed project, impacts related to noise sensitive uses near
roadways would be less -than -significant. Because this alternative would result in less of
an increase in development than with the proposed project, noise impacts would be
accordingly lower than those identified with the proposed project. Therefore, impacts
related to stationary noise, airport noise, and noise sensitive uses would all be less -than -
172
significant. Impacts related to SMART would be significant and unavoidable. (DEIR, p.
VI -22.)
5. Public Services and Utilities
This alternative would result in similar impacts to those expected with General Plan
2020. It would result in significant unavoidable impacts related to police services, parks,
library services, wastewater treatment south of Puerto Suello Hill, and water supply. It
would result in less -than -significant impacts related to fire services, wildland fires,
schools, wastewater treatment north of Puerto Suello Hill, landfill capacity, electricity
and gas, and the exposure of underground hazardous wastes. And finally, potential
releases of hazardous materials, and the location of hazardous materials near schools
would be significant impacts. Because this alternative would result in slightly less
development and lower population, impacts would be accordingly somewhat less severe
due to the lower potential for exposure to hazardous materials and the lower demand for
services such as police protection and wastewater treatment. However, this difference is
minor. (DEIR, p. VI -22.)
Cultural Resources
Development consistent with this alternative could result in the disturbance of
archaeological or prehistoric resources. However, similar to the proposed project, this
alternative would not alter the requirements of the City's existing Archaeological
Resource Protection Ordinance. This would be a less -than -significant impact to
archaeological resources. Development consistent with this alternative could also result
in impacts on historic or cultural resources. Similar to the proposed project, this would
be a less -than -significant impact due to the policies and programs provided in General
Plan 2020. In addition, this alternative would include the beneficial impacts of General
Plan 2020 programs and policies that would encourage re -use and/or restoration of
historic resources. While impacts to cultural resources would be considered less -than -
significant, because this alternative would result in slightly less development, this
alternative would accordingly result in slightly fewer possibilities for impacts to
archaeological, prehistoric, historic, or cultural resources than the proposed project.
(DEIR, p. VI -22.)
7. VisualOuality
Similar to General Plan 2020, this alternative would result in less -than -significant
impacts on the scenic resources and visual quality of the City. Similarly, this alternative
would result in less -than -significant impacts related to conflicts with adjacent
development. Nighttime lighting impacts would also be significant, similar to the
proposed project. While these impacts would be considered less -than -significant,
because this alternative would result in less development, the potential for impacts would
be slightly less than those identified with the proposed project. (DEIR, p. VI -22.)
Biological Resources
173
Impacts due to development consistent with this alternative would be similar to those
identified for the proposed project, although potentially at a reduced scale due to the
somewhat reduced amount of development. Similar to General Plan 2020, this
alternative would potentially impact special status species and sensitive natural
communities. This alternative would not likely result in invasive exotic species impacts
due to residential and commercial landscaping, and this alternative would have a less -
than -significant impact on the movement of native wildlife due to the protected areas
proposed with this alternative. (DEIR, p. VI -23.)
9. Geologv. Soils. and Seismicitv
This alternative would result in new development that could be developed on unstable
soils which would result in potential groundshaking, landsliding, subsidence, erosion,
expansive soil, and earthquake related ground failure hazards impacts. Similar to the
proposed project, these impacts would be considered significant, and the landsliding
impact would be considered significant and unavoidable. These impacts would be
slightly less than the impacts identified with the proposed project due to the somewhat
decreased amount of development and the decreased population. Again, similar to the
proposed project, because there is a slight possibility that septic systems could be used
within the planning area, there would be a potentially significant impact related to the
septic suitability of soils. (DEIR, p. VI -23.)
10. Hvdrologv. Water Oualitv. and Flood Hazards
Similar to the proposed project, the new development associated with this alternative
would not result in impacts to water quality, groundwater, and the stormwater drainage
systems. There would not be significant impacts related to erosion and creek siltation,
which is typically due to construction activities, would occur. In addition, creek
improvements may also be associated with new development. This alternative would
result in additional development which could place people within areas that could be
inundated by tidal flooding, storm event flooding, seiche, tsunami, or mudflow, however
this would not represent a significant impact for those hazards. This alternative would
not result in flooding or stormwater drainage system capacity impacts. (DEIR, p. VI -
23.)
11. Agriculture
Similar to the proposed project, this alternative would not result in significant impacts to
agriculture lands. (DEIR, p. VI -23.)
12. Impact Overview
Growth Inducing Impacts
Similar to the proposed project Alternative 3 (Reduced Development) would have a less -
than -significant growth inducing impact. This alternative assumes that housing and
nonresidential development would be less than General Plan 2020 projections.
174
Alternative 2 would not remove infrastructure limitations that otherwise would limit
growth, nor would this alternative remove regulatory constraints that could result in
future unforeseen growth. (FEIR, p. IX -651.)
Cumulative Impacts
Since Alternative 3 (Reduced Development) would have less development than the
proposed project cumulative impacts for Alternative 3 would be similar but reduced from
cumulative impacts identified for the proposed project. (FEIR, p. IX -652.)
13. Feasibilitv of Alternative
The concept of "feasibility" encompasses the question of whether a particular alternative
or mitigation measure promotes existing city growth policies, as well as the underlying
goals and objectives of a project. (City of Del Mar v. City of San Diego (1982) 133
Cal.App.3d 410, 417; Sequoyah Hills Homeowners Assn. v. City of Oakland (1993) 23
Cal.App.4th 704, 715.) "` [F]easibility' under CEQA also encompasses `desirability' to
the extent that desirability is based on a reasonable balancing of the relevant economic,
environmental, social, and technological factors." (Ibid)
This alternative was developed primarily to examine the possibility of reducing
significant traffic impacts. This alternative includes a minimal amount of new housing,
enough to just meet San Rafael's "fair share" obligations for the 1998-2007 planning
timeframe. The City's housing goals and objectives, however, call for more housing, and
housing at all income levels. The limited residential construction allowed under this
alternative would restrict the number of new housing units available to low- and
moderate -income households. Construction of fewer housing units would limit the supply
of housing and thus result in higher housing costs. Additionally, without more housing
and particularly affordable housing, the social diversity in the community would be
expected to diminish over time which would be contrary to one of the stated goals of the
General Plan to "have a community people diverse in ages, ethnicity, culture and income
levels." Furthermore, while traffic impacts under this alternative would be somewhat
lower, it would still result in several significant unavoidable traffic impacts
For each of these reasons, this alternative is considered infeasible.
XII.
STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS
As set forth in the preceding sections, the City's approval of the Project will result in
significant adverse environmental impacts that cannot be avoided even with the adoption
of all feasible mitigation measures. Despite the occurrence of these effects, however, the
City chooses to approve the Project because, in its view, the economic, social, and other
benefits that the Project will produce will render the significant effects acceptable.
The following statement identifies why, in the City's judgment, the benefits of the Project
as approved outweigh its unavoidable significant effects. Any one of these reasons is
175
sufficient to justify approval of the Project. Thus, even if a court were to conclude that
not every reason is supported by substantial evidence, the City would stand by its
determination that each individual reason is sufficient. The substantial evidence
supporting the various benefits can be found in the preceding findings, which are
incorporated by reference into this section, and into the documents found in the Record of
Proceedings, as defined in section V.
As discussed above, the EIR identified the following significant and unavoidable impacts
to the Project:
• Transportation/circulation impacts (Impacts IV.2-3, IV.2-4, N.2-5, N.2-6, IV.2-
9, IV.2-13);
• Impacts related to rail noise (Impact IV.4-2);
• Release of hazardous materials (Impact N.5-3);
• Public service impacts (Impacts IV.5-6 (police), IV.5-8 (parks), IV.5-9
(libraries));
• Impacts related to water and wastewater services (Impacts IV.5-11, N.5-12); and
• Impacts related to the potential for landslides (Impact IV.9-3).
The City finds that each identified impact is acceptable because mitigation measures have
been required to reduce these impacts to the extent feasible, and on balancing the benefits
to be realized by approval of the Project against the remaining environmental risks, the
following economic, social, and other considerations outweigh the impacts and support
approval of the Project.
Implementation of General Play: 2020 Will Improve the City's Jobs/Housing
Balance
San Rafael has historically been the employment center for Marin County. More
recently, it has become an employment center for Sonoma County residents as well.
Between 1970 and 1980, there was a dramatic intensification of jobs over housing in the
Planning Area. The Planning Area's ratio of jobs to housing is currently estimated at
about 1.74 jobs for each housing unit. (DEIR, p. IV.1-5.)
General Plan 2020 proposes 607,000 fewer square feet of commercial growth and
243,000 fewer square feet of industrial development than projected under the previous
General Plan 2000. (General Plan 2020, p. 17.) At the same time, General Plan 2020
proposes to increase the availability of housing opportunities at all income levels. The
Land Use and Housing Elements include a number of programs to address the need for
more affordable housing, including: allowing housing in commercial districts; requiring a
higher percentage of affordable units in new development; applying a jobs/housing fee to
new commercial development; and leveraging Redevelopment funds to assist with
production of affordable housing.
Development consistent with General Plan 2020 would be expected to increase
employment in the Planning Area to 47,394 and housing to 31,234 units, in the year 2020
176
which would result in a jobs -to -housing ratio of 1.52. This represents an improvement in
the jobs/housing balance, offering opportunities for more local workers to reside in the
community. This improvement in the jobs/housing balance has the potential to reduce
future traffic generation and reduce the potential for a decrease in air quality. (DEIR, p.
IV. 1-14.)
General Play: 2020 Provides for Transit Oriented Development
Transit -oriented development allocates land use more efficiently by locating higher
density housing and commercial uses near public transit, thereby increasing transit and
pedestrian trips, reducing commute and short -distance auto trips, which in turn reduces
regional emissions. General Plan 2020 includes land use districts, such as Hetherton
Office, Fourth Street Retail Core, Second/Third Mixed Use and Retail/Office that allow
high density residential uses near the San Rafael Transportation Center in Downtown.
The proposed zoning encourages housing and mixed-use development in Downtown and
along the City's transit corridors.
Implementation of General Plan 2020 will Satisfy the City's Housing Obligations
The City has an obligation to plan for its "fair share" of the Regional Housing Needs
Determination provided for by State law. Appendix B to General Plan 2020 includes the
Housing Background, which is part of the City's Housing Element. It includes an
evaluation of current programs and outlines major policy changes to expand the
opportunities for new housing. Appendix B also identifies housing sites and
development opportunities where new housing development may occur during the
Housing Element's planning period (1999-2007) which are more than adequate to satisfy
the City's housing obligations. Major policy changes include: Land Use Element policies
allowing residential development in several land use districts where housing is currently
not permitted, Land Use Element policies retaining the densities in already developed
residential neighborhoods, Housing Element policies encouraging redevelopment and
infill; Neighborhood and Economic Vitality Elements providing design guidance for new
development, Housing Element and zoning requirements increasing the inclusionary
housing requirement, and a Housing Element program implementing a new commercial
in lieu fee for commercial development.
Implementation of General Plan 2020 will Maintain Social and Economic Diversity
Providing affordable housing was a top priority in preparing General Plan 2020. The
prices of single-family homes have escalated beyond the means of many young families.
As current occupants move out, many of their homes are unaffordable to middle and
lower income households. Over time, middle and lower income families — who are an
integral part of the City's social and economic fabric — may be forced out of the local
housing market. This affects not only these families, but also the local businesses where
they work and the regional transportation system that must accommodate their commutes.
By providing affordable housing opportunities for local workers, many of them paid
lower salaries, the City can encourage social and economic diversity in the community.
177
General Play: 2020 is Consistent with Principles of Smart Growth
General Plan 2020 is based on planning principles expressed in the Ahwahnee Principles
that form the basis for the Smart Growth planning approach, and the True Urbanism
Principles that form the basis for the Livable Cities planning approach. Early in the
planning process, the General Plan 2020 Steering Committee and the Planning
Commission agreed that these planning approaches held the most promise for San
Rafael's future. Both planning approaches share in common the following principles,
which are incorporated into General Plan 2020: a community center, appropriate design,
mixed uses, and balanced transportation planning.
General Plan 2020 is also consistent with strategies for "Smart Growth" as recently
described by the Association of Bay Area Governments ("ABAG") in its report Smart
Growth Strategy Regional Livability Footprint Project — Shaping the Future of the Nine -
County Bay Area (October 2002). The vision set forth in the Smart Growth Strategy is
aimed at addressing the problems of growth facing the Bay Area: lack of affordable
housing, crowded roadways and shrinking open space. The Smart Growth Strategy for
Marin County calls for revitalizing San Rafael's Downtown with intensified mixed-use
development, including affordable housing. Growth should occur in already developed
areas, and higher intensity uses should develop around transit stops. The General Plan
must balance affordable housing need and economic development goals with
environmental protection and the preservation of open space.
General Plan 2020 includes Neighborhood Element policies promoting Downtown and
encouraging the development of the North San Rafael Town Center as community
centers; Community Design Element policies identifying design characteristics and
fostering the improvement of the built environment; Land Use Element policies
increasing the opportunities for mixed use development throughout the city, and
Circulation Element policies supporting the full range of modes of transportation,
including pedestrian, bicycle, auto and transit.
Implementation of General Play: 2020 will Provide Economic Development for the
City of San Rafael
In order to manage economic development, General Plan 2020 proposes to encourage
redevelopment of commercial areas making the most of infill and reuse opportunities,
retain industrial zoning to the extent feasible, encourage the creation and retention of
workforce housing, and promote the strengths of local business areas. General Plan
2020 contains numerous policies in the Economic Vitality Element that will allow the
City to be responsive to change and accommodate new economic opportunities. Because
of the structure of local financing for California cities, sales tax is a major contributor to
the City's general fund. Given the number of new initiatives in General Plan 2020, the
City will need continued to sustain a certain managed level of growth like that projected
in the new plan in order to undertake the actions envisioned.
178
Implementation of General Plan 2020 will Protect Sensitive Environmental
Resources
In order to preserve open space and ecologically sensitive areas, General Plan 2020
proposes to locate new residential and commercial development predominately in already
urbanized areas. General Plan 2020 preserves important physical features, such as
ridgelines, hillsides and natural areas. Furthermore, General Plan 2020 contains
numerous policies in the Conservation, Open Space and Air and Water Quality Elements
that are protective of the natural resources within the General Plan 2020 Planning Area
including wetlands, creeks and drainage ways, native and sensitive species, and
threatened and endangered species.
179