HomeMy WebLinkAboutCD General Plan 2040 - Downtown Precise Plan____________________________________________________________________________________
FOR CITY CLERK ONLY
Council Meeting: 12/02/2019
Disposition: Resolution 14748 x Accepted report and provided feedback to staff to use a locally-
based vehicle miles traveled (VMT) target and set threshold at a level that will not require projects
to go through an override, retain level of service (LOS) as a planning tool, and retain trip-based
mitigation fees, but review regularly
Agenda Item No: 7.a
Meeting Date: December 2, 2019
SAN RAFAEL CITY COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT
Department: Community Development
Prepared by: Paul A. Jensen
Community Development Director
Barry Miller, Consulting Project Mgr.
City Manager Approval: ____________
TOPIC: GENERAL PLAN 2040 / DOWNTOWN PRECISE PLAN
SUBJECT: GENERAL PLAN 2040 PROGRESS REPORT #3 AND RESOLUTION AMENDING
RESOLUTION NO. 14426, MODIFYING APPOINTMENTS TO THE GENERAL PLAN
2040 STEERING COMMITTEE (CITY FILE NOS. GPA 16-001 & P16-013)
RECOMMENDATION:
1. Adopt Resolution approving changes to General Plan 2040 Steering Committee membership
2. Accept General Plan Progress Report
3. Provide Direction to Staff on Transportation Policy Issues
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:
Staff is providing the third Progress Report to the City Council on the General Plan Update. The report
is organized into three parts:
1. Part One is a resolution appointing Eleanor Huang as the new Youth Representative to the
General Plan 2040 Steering Committee.
2. Part Two is a status report on the General Plan Update, including recently completed tasks and
work in progress. City Council feedback on this item is not required, but staff welcomes comments
and will be prepared to respond to questions on this material.
3. Part Three is a report on the transportation policy issues that need to be resolved as part of the
General Plan Update. The issues relate to the implementation of SB 743, a state law that changes
the way California cities and counties measure transportation impacts under the California
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). SB 743 is intended to support the State’s climate action goals
by reducing dependence on motor vehicles, which are the leading source of greenhouse gases
in California. Three specific questions are presented for City Council discussion and feedback.
City Council feedback is time-sensitive, as the City will be conducting traffic modeling for the
General Plan Update in January 2020
SAN RAFAEL CITY COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT / Page: 2
BACKGROUND:
The City of San Rafael initiated a General Plan Update at the end of 2017. The project is scheduled for
completion in 2020. Staff has been providing updates to the City Council on the process and will continue
to do so in the coming months. Progress Report #1 was presented to the City Council on March 4, 2019.
Report #2 was presented on July 15, 2019. Progress Report #3 focuses on activities completed between
July and November 2019.
The staff report is organized into three parts. The Analysis section below provides an overview of each
part, as well as a discussion of issues and key decisions. A specific City Council action/response is
requested at the end of each section.
ANALYSIS:
PART ONE: STEERING COMMITTEE MEMBERSHIP CHANGE
The General Plan 2040 Steering Committee was appointed by the City Council in December 2017. The
Committee includes 24 members and 22 alternates. The Committee Bylaws require Council approval for
the appointment of new Committee members.
The Youth representative to the Committee (Bella Bromberg) has stepped down in order to attend college
out of state. Staff proposes to replace Ms. Bromberg with Eleanor Huang. Eleanor is a student at the
Marin School of Environmental Leadership and resides in Terra Linda. She served as a student
representative to the Climate Change Action Plan Green Ribbon Working Group and has expressed
enthusiasm about serving on the Steering Committee as they wrap up their work in the next five months.
Jack McGinn will remain the Youth “Alternate” in the event Ms. Huang is unable to attend a meeting. A
Resolution appointing Eleanor Huang as a Committee member is attached to this Staff Report.
Requested City Council Action: Adopt the Resolution appointing Eleanor Huang as the Youth
representative to the General Plan 2040 Steering Committee.
PART TWO: GENERAL PLAN TASK UPDATE
There are three major tasks underway, summarized below:
1. Policy Development. As of November 14, 2019, staff has completed Draft General Plan 2040
policies for all of the State-mandated elements except Circulation and Environmental Justice.1
Completed policies include Land Use, Safety, Open Space, Conservation, and Noise. Staff has
also updated policies relating to infrastructure, sustainability/climate action, and air and water
quality.
Policies are being updated through an iterative process. As we reported during Progress Reports
#1 and #2, the first step was to complete an “audit” of each element and determine which policies
from the existing General Plan 2020 should be carried forward, edited, deleted, or replaced.
Following the audit, policies for the 2040 Plan are being drafted, reflecting staff’s assessment and
comments from the General Plan Steering Committee. Each set of Draft 2040 policies is being
1 The Housing Element will be updated in 2022, as required by State law. It is not part of the General Plan 2040 Update
process.
SAN RAFAEL CITY COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT / Page: 3
presented to the General Plan Steering Committee, with an opportunity for oral and written
comments. The Draft 2040 policies are then revised again to reflect Steering Committee input.
Staff is in the process of drafting policies for the Circulation Element (to be retitled the “Mobility”
Element in General Plan 2040). Other policies in production include neighborhoods,
parks/recreation and economic vitality. Staff will be developing the remaining policies in January
and February, in order to develop an Administrative Draft General Plan by March 2020.
In the course of updating Policy NH-1 (Neighborhood Planning), the public has raised the issue
of which areas should receive priority for more detailed plans after the General Plan is adopted.
The prior General Plan (2020) included a list of neighborhoods that had requested such plans.
Staff recommends that future sub-area plans be focused on areas with unique local issues or
significant potential for change between 2020 and 2040. The top two priority areas are the
Northgate Town Center and the Canal/ East San Rafael neighborhoods. A proposed program in
General Plan 2040 seeks funding to do area plans for these locations. These could be policy
plans providing general direction based on community and property-owner engagement or
Precise Plans with new zoning and design standards. If the plans support transit-oriented
development, they may be eligible for state and regional grant funding. The General Plan
Implementation Fee provides another potential funding source.
2. Alternatives Analysis for General Plan 2040 and the EIR. The General Plan Update includes
an analysis of future land use and transportation alternatives. This is required under CEQA and
also allows the City to model or simulate the impacts of different 20-year growth scenarios for
2020-2040 as part of the General Plan process. This includes alternatives for Downtown San
Rafael, which are being developed through the Downtown Precise Plan.
The key impact explored in the alternatives analysis is traffic. Traffic forecasts also enable an
evaluation of each alternative on air quality, noise, and greenhouse gas emissions, since they are
impacted by vehicle travel. The alternatives analysis also facilitates a discussion of key
opportunity sites in the city.
The City anticipates testing three alternatives. Each alternative will assume different levels of
growth and change for Downtown, the Northgate area, parts of southeast San Rafael, and specific
sites where development opportunities may exist. The San Rafael Rock Quarry is presumed to
not redevelop by the horizon year of the Plan (2040), consistent with the operator’s request to the
County to extend their quarrying permit through 2044.
The alternatives will be analyzed by calculating potential 20-year job and housing growth for small
geographic areas (called Traffic Analysis Zones or TAZs), and then running a traffic model to
forecast conditions in 2040. The City is using the Transportation Authority of Marin (TAM) model
to conduct this task. The model also considers growth in regional traffic over the next 20 years,
as well as regional improvements to the transportation network and changes in transportation
technology and travel behavior. Thus, the forecasts for 2040 consider not only the decisions
made by San Rafael, but the cumulative changes resulting from growth throughout the Bay Area.
A number of property owners outside of Downtown have requested new General Plan Land Use
Map designations for their properties in order to facilitate development in the next 20 years. These
requests will be considered by the Planning Commission in January 2020 and will be further
evaluated during the Alternatives Analysis process.
SAN RAFAEL CITY COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT / Page: 4
3. Update on Downtown Precise Plan. Work is continuing on the Downtown Precise Plan. Opticos
Design completed a Downtown Profile Report in June 2019 and a Downtown Options Report
(Options Report) in August 2019.2 The Options Report was intended as a discussion guide for
design and transportation choices. Staff has continued to solicit input on the project and convened
a pop-up workshop on Fourth Street on August 29, a Planning Commission discussion on
September 10, a City Council study session on October 7, a General Plan 2040 Steering
Committee discussion on October 9, and a discussion with the Citizens Advisory Committee on
Affordable Housing and Economic Development on November 7.
The Options Report identifies four subareas within Downtown. It presents an illustrative plan and
statement of design intent for each area. From west to east, the subareas are: West End Village;
Downtown Core; Transit Station Area; and Montecito Commercial area. Opportunity sites within
each area have been identified, and a hypothetical 20-year “development program” has been
created to show possible uses on these sites. In most cases, the opportunity sites are presumed
to develop with multi-family housing or mixed use (residential over commercial/ service uses).
The illustrative plans also show possible public space improvements, such as a new civic plaza
north of the SMART station, an expanded civic space at 4th and Court, and the repurposing of
Ritter Street between 2nd and 3rd Streets (at Lincoln).
The Options Report also examines potential transportation improvements Downtown, with a focus
on making the area more pedestrian-, bicycle-, and transit-friendly. Among the changes explored
are a dedicated east-west bikeway, the conversion of B, C, and D Streets from one-way streets
to two-way streets, and the redesign of a portion of Fourth Street as a “shared” street. The
“shared” street concept would remove the curbs and change the paving materials, creating an
environment where bicycles, cars, buses, and pedestrians use the same space. This concept
could be applied to a single block, or several blocks (extending west from the SMART station to
A Street, for example).
In presenting these concepts to the Steering Committee and others, there appears to be support
for the restoration of two-way traffic on B, C, and D Streets. The bike lane idea has received
mixed feedback, principally because the design shown would likely remove on-street parking
along both sides of Fifth Avenue and create a potential hardship for residents, businesses, and
visitors. The shared street idea for 4th Street has received mixed feedback also, due to its impact
on parking, potential cost, and concerns about auto traffic being displaced to adjacent streets.
These ideas were introduced to the City Council during the October 7 study session but were not
discussed in depth.
The illustrative land use plans have generated mostly positive responses, with concerns primarily
related to: (a) the economic (market) feasibility of what is shown in the Illustrative Plan; (b) the
challenges of assembling small parcels to create viable development sites; (c) the ability to meet
parking demand; (d) the long-term future of the retail sector, and (e) the need for curbside
management strategies. Other issues that have been raised include homelessness prevention
strategies and the proposed focus on housing near the SMART station, rather than office and
employment-based uses.
Staff is working to address these issues and ensure that they are adequately covered in the
Precise Plan. Staff has also been working with Opticos to refine the list of opportunity sites and
2 Opticos Design is a Berkeley-based planning and design firm. In January 2019, they were selected by the City to prepare
the Downtown Precise Plan.
SAN RAFAEL CITY COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT / Page: 5
the projected development forecasts. The Opticos forecasts indicate capacity for more than 2,250
new housing units and 1,500 jobs in the 265-acre Precise Plan area under current zoning.
The Options Report also addresses approaches for regulating building heights and height
bonuses. To date, the only changes proposed to existing height limits are immediately east of
Highway 101 (along Irwin Street and a small portion of 4th Street). These changes are consistent
with the recommendations of the Station Area Plan adopted in 2012. Additional changes to height
limits could be considered, and changes to the height “bonuses” offered for affordable housing
and other community benefits also could be considered. Other questions raised by the Options
Report include the phasing of capital improvements and the balance between residential and non-
residential uses.
Opticos Design is moving on to the next phase in Downtown Precise Plan development, which
includes development of the Plan itself, plus a form-based zoning code and design guidelines.3
The Plan will include economic development and parking management strategies addressing the
issues raised during the past few months, as well as proposed public space and circulation
improvements. The form-based code will replace existing zoning regulations for Downtown with
a more design-oriented code that provides more flexibility.
Requested City Council Action: Accept the Informational Report on General Plan 2040.
PART THREE: TRANSPORTATION POLICY DISCUSSION
On June 3, 2019, staff provided the City Council with an informational report on Traffic Methodologies for
General Plan 2040. The informational report provided a complete discussion of current traffic
methodologies employed by the City. It also summarized state legislation (SB 743) that requires local
governments to change the way they measure transportation impacts in their implementation of the
California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). The effects of the new requirements on San Rafael’s
General Plan 2040 and future environmental impact reports (EIRs) were presented and discussed with
the City Council.
Like many communities in California, San Rafael has used “Level of Service” (LOS) to monitor traffic
impacts at intersections for the past 35 years. LOS uses a letter grade (from “A” to “F”) to define the
acceptable level of delay at intersections during the AM and PM peak hours. When an intersection falls
below the standard, physical improvements such as turning lanes or signal adjustments may be
programmed to restore traffic conditions. While this approach is generally easy to understand, increasing
road capacity to accommodate more cars may induce demand and result in additional vehicles and
vehicle emissions. Increasing emissions runs counter to the greenhouse gas (GHG) reduction goals
mandated by California Assembly Bill 32 (AB 32) and the City’s Climate Change Action Plan 2030.
In 2013, the Governor signed SB 743, which mandates major changes in how transportation impacts are
analyzed under CEQA. SB 743 requires a shift to traffic analysis methodology from LOS and local street
operations to “vehicle miles traveled” (VMT). The intent is to analyze and reduce the amount of driving
and the length of vehicle trips associated with new development, rather than reducing vehicle delays on
the local street network. With the use of VMT, the longer the vehicle travel from origin to destination, the
greater the impact.
3 A “Form Based Code” is an alternative to conventional zoning that emphasis the physical form of buildings and public spaces
rather than the specific uses and activities that may occur on a property.
SAN RAFAEL CITY COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT / Page: 6
Effective July 2020, cities and counties in California may no longer use LOS to evaluate transportation
impacts in CEQA documents and must instead shift to VMT. The reasons for this shift are laid out in the
staff report from June 3, 2019. LOS methodology can continue to be used by cities/ counties to manage
and monitor the local roadway network, but it cannot be linked to or required for CEQA/ environmental
review.
Switching from LOS to VMT is intended to:
• Streamline CEQA review for projects that improve infrastructure and safety for pedestrians,
bicyclists, and transit-riders while reducing the need to travel exclusively by automobile.
• Facilitate residential, commercial, and mixed-use infill projects close to transit that minimize impacts
to air quality and reduce greenhouse gases by reducing the number of miles driven by automobiles.
• Focus CEQA transportation mitigation on pedestrian, bicycle, and transit facilities, as well as
transportation demand management (carpooling, flextime, etc.).
The emerging General Plan 2040 also strives to reduce GHG emissions and increase transportation
options for San Rafael residents and workers. The Plan will provide the capacity for the City to create
new housing and vibrant urban places, particularly in the Downtown area. It will also incorporate key
provisions of the Climate Change Action Plan 2030, as well as regional initiatives to bring residents and
jobs closer together. Growth strategies should reduce the need to travel long distances by car (for work,
services, etc.), support transit ridership, and reduce environmental and fiscal impacts.
VMT is measured a number of different ways. “Total VMT” is based on all vehicle trips over a given
period of time (such as a weekday), while “per capita VMT” is total VMT divided by the community’s
population. “Total VMT” is used when evaluating a Plan (such as the General Plan), while per capita
VMT is used to evaluate an individual development project. Per capita VMT is expressed based on a
defined subset of travelers, as follows:
• “Home-based VMT per resident” refers to the trips made by those who live in the community.
This is the recommended metric for evaluating residential projects.
• “Home-based work VMT per employee” refers to the trips made by those who work in the
community, including commuters who live in other communities. This is the recommended
metric for evaluating employment projects.
• “Total VMT per service population” is a per capita figure that includes all persons in vehicles
traveling through a city, including residents, workers, and visitors. This is the recommended
metric for evaluating mixed use projects.
Key Decisions
A series of decisions must be made by cities and counties as they make the shift to VMT. These are
presented below, with a staff recommendation provided for each step. In three of the steps below, the
staff recommendation requires further discussion and direction from the City Council. City staff and the
consulting team will facilitate this discussion at the meeting on December 2.
Transportation Policy 1: Establishing Screening Criteria
“Screening criteria” are used to determine whether a project is likely to result in a significant impact on
the environment. Projects that meet the screening criteria would not be required to conduct a
quantitative VMT analysis and would only require a qualitative discussion in the CEQA document. This
is most appropriate for projects that are consistent with the General Plan, provide public benefits such
as affordable housing, and /or reduce VMT based on their characteristics. Projects can be presumed to
SAN RAFAEL CITY COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT / Page: 7
reduce VMT if they are located in “transit priority areas” (TPAs), such as Downtown San Rafael, the
Civic Center Station area (see Figure 1), and areas along bus routes with headways of 15 minutes or
less.
Fehr and Peers 4 recommends that the
following projects be screened from
quantitative VMT analysis requirements,
based on best practices, State guidance,
and regional VMT data for these project
types:
• All projects within the Downtown
Precise Plan area that are
consistent with the policies and
growth assumptions for the area,
since the VMT impacts of such
projects are positive.
• Projects outside the Downtown
Precise Plan area but within ½ mile
of the SMART stations Downtown
and at the Civic Center, provided
they have a floor area ratio (FAR) of
at least 0.75 and do not displace
existing rental housing.
• Projects that contain 100 percent
affordable housing.
• Neighborhood-serving retail projects with less than 50,000 square feet (these projects tend to
have low VMT, since they serve residents of nearby neighborhoods).
• Projects that generate or attract fewer than 110 trips per day, which is generally equivalent to:
o Single Family Housing: 10 units or less
o Multi-Family Housing: 15 units or less
o Warehouse: 60,000 SF or less
o Light Industrial: 20,000 SF or less
o Office: 10,000 SF or less
In addition, transit projects, bike/ped improvements, travel lane reductions, traffic safety improvements
that do not induce additional driving, and road repair projects also would be screened from conducting
a quantitative VMT analysis. Attachment 2 to this staff report is a flow chart demonstrating how the
screening process would work in practice.
Requested City Council Action: None. The proposed screening criteria will be incorporated in a
transportation policy that will ultimately be brought to the City Council for approval. Specific direction
from the City Council is not required at this time, but staff will be available to respond to questions.
Transportation Policy 2: Determining a Significant VMT Impact Under CEQA
4 Fehr and Peers is the transportation consultant retained to analyze transportation impacts of the General Plan 2040 and
Downtown Precise Plan and advise the City on compliance with recent state transportation-related legislation.
Fig 1: ABAG/ MTC-designated Transit Priority Areas in/near San Rafael
SMART Civic Center
Station Area
SMART Downtown
Station Area
Larkspur Landing
Ferry Terminal and
SMART Station Area
SAN RAFAEL CITY COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT / Page: 8
Projects that do not meet the criteria listed under Policy 1 above would be required to prepare a
quantitative analysis of VMT. Similar to the City’s current requirements for LOS, the analysis would
consider VMT impacts under baseline conditions (e.g., the project, plus existing conditions). It would
also consider VMT impacts under cumulative conditions (e.g., the project plus other projects and
regional growth expected in the future). The Transportation Authority of Marin (TAM) model would be
used to perform this analysis. The latest TAM model has been expressly designed to calculate VMT
impacts and the benefits of various reduction measures.
To analyze the specific VMT impacts of the project, the TAM model would be run with and without the
proposed project. The model outputs would include estimates of total VMT, and VMT per employee,
per resident, and per service population, depending on the proposed land uses. For smaller projects,
the model may not be sensitive enough to accurately calculate VMT. In such instances, the VMT rates
used in the model could be applied to an individual project to determine the estimated VMT impacts.
In terms of determining what constitutes a “significant” impact under CEQA, the City of San Rafael has
the discretion to set its own threshold. The State Office of Planning and Research (OPR) has provided
guidance on this topic area. OPR recommends that projects achieve a VMT reduction of 15 percent
below the regional average in order to meet the State’s GHG reduction goals. The California Air
Resources Board (ARB) has recommended a slightly higher threshold of 16.8 percent.
The challenge for San Rafael is that its VMT is currently substantially above the regional average.
Persons working in San Rafael commute relatively long distances by car, while many of those living in
San Rafael commute to San Francisco or other regional employment centers. Accomplishing a VMT
reduction that is 15 percent below the regional average may not be feasible, even with mitigation.
Another approach would be based on identifying the reduction in VMT rates that would occur on a
citywide basis, by using the new TAM travel model to compare existing (2015) VMT rates for San
Rafael to future year 2040 VMT rates. This would result in a less onerous target but would be more
reasonable and logical for San Rafael. Staff is recommending that this approach be used in San Rafael,
as the approaches recommended by OPR and the ARB would likely be unattainable in much of the
City. San Rafael’s current VMT per capita is currently about 15% above the regional average,
effectively meaning that a 30 percent reduction would be required to meet the regional target. This may
be infeasible given the city’s land use and transportation patterns, and the dynamics of the regional
economy and real estate market.
Under staff’s proposal, a development project would be found to have a significant impact if it did not
achieve a 15% reduction below the citywide average (either for service population, resident, or worker,
depending on the project type) by 2040. Such projects would also need to be reviewed and determined
to be consistent with the MTC Regional Transportation Plan (RTP) and San Rafael General Plan 2040.
Transportation improvement projects (e.g., road widening, bike lanes, new signals, etc.) would be
evaluated based on whether they generate new VMT. A net decrease or no change in VMT would be
considered a less-than-significant impact. A net increase in VMT would be considered a significant
impact. For example, a project that induced vehicle travel (such as an additional travel lane, street
widening, or signalization not anticipated by the General Plan) would result in a finding of significant
impact.
SAN RAFAEL CITY COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT / Page: 9
Requested City Council Action: Provide feedback on staff’s proposal to establish a goal of reducing
Total VMT in San Rafael by 15 percent between 2015 and 2040.5 The implication of selecting this goal
(vs the goal recommended by OPR or ARB) is that fewer new development projects will be subject to a
finding of significant impact and statement of overriding considerations based on their transportation
impacts. The Council could also direct staff to use the more aggressive goals set by OPR and the ARB,
which are based on the entire Bay Area rather than San Rafael or Marin County. This would mean that
a larger number of future projects (particularly those outside of Downtown) would be found to have
significant impacts and require a statement of overriding considerations.
Transportation Policy 3: Identifying VMT Mitigation Measures
Mitigation for VMT impacts is typically done through two measures. First, cities/counties may adopt
Transportation Demand Management (TDM) ordinances. Second, projects can be designed and/or
operated in ways that support fewer and shorter vehicle trips (thereby reducing VMT).
TDM ordinances aim to reduce the frequency and length of motor vehicle trips associated with new
development projects. Further, TDM ordinances can be structured to:
• spread the peak-hour trips to off-peak hours;
• shift trips toward transit, walking, cycling, and other modes; and
• apply technology (such as electric charging stations) to reduce the environmental impacts of
vehicle traffic.
There are quantifiable benefits associated with each measure, allowing a particular menu of measures
to be prescribed as a way to reduce the expected VMT for a new project by a specific increment.
TDM programs are implemented on a continuous basis and typically require annual monitoring and
reporting. In employment centers, TDM programs are tenant-dependent, so adjustments are required
as office or retail tenants move out and new tenants move in. Larger employers may be required to
have a TDM Coordinator to disseminate information, conduct surveys, assist employees in forming
carpools, and set up home-based work opportunities. Because of economies of scale, TDM programs
may be most economical when they are managed by special entities created to administer programs
serving multiple employers.
A TDM-based mitigation requires a rigorous ongoing monitoring and reporting program that provides a
site’s total daily vehicle trips and data on vehicle trip length. TDM program management would require
additional city staff, likely in the Public Works Department. Another option for program administration
would be through TAM or another regional agency. TAM could potentially serve as the Marin
Countywide TDM Coordinator, given that their TDM model will be used by all Marin County cities and
towns.
Project design features that reduce VMT could include:
• the provision of supportive amenities and uses that reduce vehicle trips (e.g., child care, fitness
center, bicycle facilities, etc.);
• parking lots that do not obstruct pedestrian access;
• sidewalks and pathways;
5 The exact percentage may be adjusted once the traffic modeling has been completed and the 2015 and 2040 VMT figures are
compared. The key is the percentage would be locally determined, rather than linked to the regional average.
SAN RAFAEL CITY COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT / Page: 10
• easy access to buses and transit facilities; and
• changes to the development program (e.g., adding housing into a proposed office project, to
create opportunities for workers to live and work in the same place).
General Plan 2040 will include policies and programs directing the City to work with TAM and other
Marin County jurisdictions to determine the most effective way to implement and administer trip
reduction and TDM programs. San Rafael has a Trip Reduction Ordinance (Sec 5.81 of the Municipal
Code) which requires a trip reduction program for all employers with over 100 employees at an
individual work site. This Ordinance could be strengthened or expanded in scope, and more
consistently applied and administered.
The General Plan will identify options for meeting the increased staffing needs associated with
administering TDM measures. One option might be to have such programs administered by a regional
entity such as TAM, with support provided by all jurisdictions in Marin County. The City may need to
prepare TDM guidelines, which could then be used by developers to develop TDM programs as
projects are proposed.
Requested City Council Action: None. A menu of potential VMT mitigation measures will be included in
the General Plan 2040. Specific direction from the City Council is not required at this time, but staff will
be available to respond to questions.
Transportation Policy 4: Determining the Future of LOS in San Rafael
San Rafael City leaders and the general public have grown accustomed to and become knowledgeable
about LOS as a means of understanding local traffic conditions and how new development impacts these
conditions. LOS has been effective in measuring the performance of the local street network and
managing growth and transportation improvements. A hybrid approach to transportation planning that
considers both LOS and VMT may still be appropriate.
As of November 2019, only a few cities in California have made the transition to VMT. Some of those
cities (including San Francisco, Oakland, and Pasadena) have abandoned LOS entirely. Others, like
San Jose, have shifted to a dual system where LOS continues to be used for local transportation
planning, while VMT is used for CEQA documents. In such cases, Downtown areas or areas with
access or proximity to high-quality transit (frequent bus service, rail stations, etc.) are excluded from
LOS standards. This hybrid system may become the default solution for many Bay Area cities, at least
for an interim period as the costs and benefits of abandoning LOS entirely are better understood.
The City Council discussed this topic during their meeting on June 3, 2019. A range of options was
presented, including eliminating LOS entirely, retaining the “status quo,” or adopting a more limited form
of LOS in which certain areas might be exempt.6 Several Council members expressed an interest in
retaining some form of LOS in General Plan 2040 and continuing to require traffic studies for projects
with the potential for localized traffic impacts. Members of the General Plan 2040 Steering Committee
have also indicated their support for retaining LOS in some form.
Staff recommends that LOS continue to be measured and monitored throughout the City. However,
areas within the Downtown Precise Plan boundary and other areas within ½ mile of the Downtown
SMART station would be exempt from LOS considerations. New public facilities also would be exempt.
Exempting these areas/project types would remove a potential development obstacle, as projects in
6 See pages 8-10 of staff report.
SAN RAFAEL CITY COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT / Page: 11
these areas would not be required to fund individual technical traffic studies merely to confirm what is
already known, or to justify road improvements that run counter to the goal of promoting transit use and
reducing VMT in these areas. Projects in these areas would continue to be subject to traffic impact
fees.
Non-exempt projects would continue to be subject to a threshold for when an LOS traffic study is required
to assess a proposed development project’s impacts on the local transportation network, including
parking. The threshold would be based on the number of peak hour trips the project would be expected
to generate, and would likely only apply to larger development projects.
The method of measuring LOS may be changed from the current system, which is based on intersections,
to a new method that is based on delays along road segments. A performance standard based on travel
speed would be established for each arterial in the city. The standard would be expressed as the
acceptable ratio of uncongested speed divided by congested speed. For example, if a delay index of 2.0
is set for Point San Pedro Road and the speed along the corridor during uncongested conditions is 35
miles per hour, then the acceptable speed during the peak commute period would be 17.5 miles per hour.
If a project caused the speed to drop below this level, future improvements could be programmed to
improve traffic flow; however, the project’s approval would not be made contingent on these
improvements.
Requested City Council Action: Provide feedback on staff’s proposal for retaining a modified form of
LOS in General Plan 2040. The advantage of retaining such a system is that it continues to provide a
familiar tool for evaluating the impacts of a project on the road network and prioritizing how
transportation mitigation fees should be spent. The disadvantage is that it means two levels of
transportation analysis (LOS, VMT) will be in use.
A second policy question for Council feedback is how LOS will be measured, in the event it is retained.
The system that has been in place since the 1980s focuses on intersections. The proposed system
would be based on travel delays along major arterials. The City (and City Council) will need to select
which arterials it is going to monitor and what the acceptable levels of delay should be.
Transportation Policy 5: Continuing Traffic Impact Fees
The City currently collects a traffic impact fee for new development to mitigate transportation impacts.
The current fee ($4,246 per AM and PM peak hour trip generated by the project) is costly and can
discourage smaller development projects and new businesses. Further, the traffic mitigation fees that
are collected are intended to fund major transportation projects/improvements listed in the General Plan.
Some of these improvements require funding that far exceeds the amount that can be collected through
impact fees alone.
Fehr and Peers identified an alternative approach to determining impact fees, which would be based on
VMT rather than the number of trips generated. Increases in VMT would be calculated for proposed
development projects based on the project’s location and the mix of uses proposed. Impact fee revenue
would be used to pay for VMT reduction measures, such as bike lanes and pedestrian improvements.
After considering the trip-based approach and the VMT-based approach, staff recommends continuing
the trip-based approach. Projects with VMT benefits may be included. Impact fee revenues will continue
to be used for a combination of road improvement projects and projects that advance local, regional, and
state GHG reduction goals. The General Plan will continue to include a list of priority capital improvement
projects.
SAN RAFAEL CITY COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT / Page: 12
Requested City Council Action: Confirm staff’s recommendation, which is to continue collecting traffic
mitigation fees based on the total number of trips a project will generate, rather than the VMT expected
from that project. Traffic mitigation fees will continue to be used for a combination of road
improvements and improvements that support GHG-reducing transportation modes.
SUMMARY OF REQUESTED ACTIONS:
In summary, staff is requesting the following actions on this staff report:
1. Approve the Resolution approving Eleanor Huang as the Youth Representative to the General
Plan 2040 Steering Committee.
2. Accept the Informational Report on General Plan 2040. The Council may provide feedback on
the issues raised in this report, including policy development, the priority action to do more
focused plans in the Northgate area and Canal neighborhoods, the Land Use alternatives, and
the Downtown Precise Plan.
3. Accept preliminary recommendations regarding VMT screening criteria for future development
projects (Policy 1) and VMT mitigation measures (Policy 3). Fehr and Peers has provided
recommendations based on best practices and its professional assessment of transportation
conditions and SB 743.
4. Provide Feedback to Staff on the following Transportation Policy issues:
a. Policy 2: Establish a Locally-Based VMT Reduction Target. Establish a target for reducing
VMT between 2015 and 2040 that is based on local conditions in San Rafael, rather than
simply adopting the State-recommended target of reducing emissions to 15% below the
regional average. This will result in a more realistic and less onerous target, although it
will likely be less aggressive than the State target.
b. Policy 4: Retain LOS as a Planning Tool. Retain LOS as a metric for transportation
planning and continue to require LOS calculations for larger development projects that are
located outside the Downtown Precise Plan area. The results of the LOS analysis will be
used for transportation planning but will not be used as a condition of project approval.
Moreover, the method of calculating LOS will change from an intersection-based metric to
an arterial delay index.
c. Policy 5: Trip-Based Mitigation Fees. Retain a transportation mitigation fee based on the
number of trips a new project is expected to generate. A fee based on VMT was
considered, but staff is recommending that the trip-based fee be retained at this point in
time.
COMMUNITY OUTREACH:
A public notice of this meeting was mailed to stakeholders, agencies and special interest groups 15-days
prior to this meeting (Attachment 2). Those noticed included, among others, all neighborhood
associations in the city, the San Rafael Chamber of Commerce, and members of the General Plan 2040
Steering Committee. Notice of this report was also provided on the General Plan 2040 meetings and
events webpage.
FISCAL IMPACT:
This progress report is informational and has no fiscal impact on the City budget.
OPTIONS:
SAN RAFAEL CITY COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT / Page: 13
The City Council has the following options to consider on this matter:
1. Accept report and preliminary recommendations and Approve Resolution, as recommended by
staff;
2. Reject report and preliminary recommendations and Resolution and direct staff to return with
more information; or
3. Take no action.
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
Accept Report and Approve Resolution
ATTACHMENTS:
1. Resolution Approving Steering Committee Membership Change
2. VMT Screening and Review Flow Chart
3. Matrix on LOS/VMT transition options and recommendations
4. Post-Card Notice of Meeting
RESOLUTION NO. 14748
RESOLUTION OF THE SAN RAFAEL CITY COUNCIL AMENDING RESOLUTION NO.
14426, MODIFYING APPOINTMENTS TO THE SAN RAFAEL GENERAL PLAN 2040
STEERING COMMITTEE (CITY FILE NOS. GPA 16-001 & P16-013)
WHEREAS, California Government Code 65300 requires that each city and county
in the State adopt a comprehensive long-range General Plan to address community
growth, physical development, and planning of citywide programs; and
WHEREAS, the City of San Rafael is in the process of updating its 2020 General
Plan to move the time horizon forward to 2040 and address new State requirements,
current conditions, and emerging issues; and
WHEREAS, the General Plan Update process includes a Community Engagement
Strategy, one component of which is a Steering Committee appointed by the City Council;
and
WHEREAS, on December 4, 2017, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 14426
appointing 23 members and 22 alternates to serve on the Steering Committee, and
approving Bylaws addressing the organization and membership of the Committee and
protocol for its meetings and conduct; and
WHEREAS, on August 6, 2018, the City Council increased the number of
members to 24 and approved changes to the roster of members and alternates; and
WHEREAS, the Steering Committee Bylaws anticipate occasional membership
turnover due to members and/or alternates leaving the organizations they represent,
relocating out of the City, or other factors; and
WHEREAS, such membership turnover has recently occurred; and
WHEREAS, the replacement of exiting members and alternates with new
members and alternates is important to the future performance of the Steering
Committee, and will ensure that its desired balance and diversity is retained; and
WHEREAS, Staff has solicited and received nominations to replace exiting
members; and
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the City Council takes the following
action:
1. City Council Resolution No. 14426 Exhibit “A”, approved on December 4,
2017, listing the members of the General Plan 2040 Steering Committee is
amended to designate Eleanor Huang as the primary member representing
San Rafael Youth.
I, LINDSAY LARA, Clerk of the City of San Rafael, hereby certify that the foregoing
resolution was adopted at a regular meeting of the City Council on the 2nd day of
December 2019 by the following vote to wit:
AYES: Councilmembers: Bushey, Colin, Gamblin, McCullough & Mayor Phillips
NOES: Councilmembers: None
ABSENT: Councilmembers: None
Lindsay Lara, City Clerk
Transportation Analysis Scoping
Large Projects Small Projects
Screened Out
1)Neighborhood retail
2)Local public facilities
3)100% Affordable
housing
4)Downtown Precise
Plan Area
5)Projects within ½ mile
of SMART stations
6)VMT-reducing
transportation
projects
Not
Screened
Out
ATTACHMENT 2
Flow Chart Illustrating Proposed Transportation Analysis Process
Local
Transportation
Analysis
Local
Transportation
Analysis
Local
Transportation
Improvements
VMT Analysis
(TAM Travel Demand Model)
Local
Transportation
Analysis
Local
Improvements
VMT Mitigation
Local
Improvements
No VMT Impacts
City of San Rafael General Plan: CEQA VMT Summary of Lead Agency Decisions, Options, Considerations, and Recommendations (11.13.19)
Lead Agency
Decisions Common Options Common Limitations Considerations San Rafael Recommendations
What form of the VMT
Metric?
• Total VMT
• Total VMT per service population1
• Household generated VMT per resident
(activity/tour-based models)
• Home-based VMT per resident
• Home-based work VMT per employee
Metrics other than total VMT and total VMT
per service population typically only represent
partial VMT (i.e., some vehicle types and trip
purposes are excluded in the models used to
estimate VMT). This may be acceptable for
screening purposes but not for a complete
VMT impact analysis.
CEQA impact analysis should strive to provide
a complete picture of the VMT effects on the
environment. Current practice relies on
estimates of total weekday VMT. The CEQA
Guidelines and OPR’s Technical Advisory
leave all methodology decisions for VMT
analysis up to the lead agency.
VMT Metrics
Include all the following, where applicable, so that all forms of VMT needed for screening and
complete analysis are available.
▪ Total VMT (for transportation projects; also, as input to CEQA air quality, GHG, and
energy impact analysis as needed)
▪ Total VMT per service population (for mixed use projects)
▪ Home-based VMT per resident (for residential projects)
▪ Home-based work VMT per employee (for employment projects)
What methodology to
use in forecasting VMT?
• Caltrans Statewide Travel Demand
Model
• Regional MPO or RTPA travel demand
model
• City or County travel demand model
• Sketch planning tool or spreadsheet2
• Statewide and regional models have
limited sensitivity and accuracy for local
scale applications off the shelf.
• Regional and local models often truncate
trips at model boundaries.
• Sketch and spreadsheet tools do not
capture the ‘project effect on VMT’.
Regional or local models should be calibrated
and validated for local project-scale
sensitivity/accuracy (including appending trip
length data for trips with external trip ends)
before using these models to analyze both
‘project generated VMT’ and ‘project effect
on VMT’ for local projects.
VMT Forecasting Methodology
▪ Evaluate both “project generated VMT” and “project effect on VMT”.
▪ Use TAM travel model with the preferred land use plan identified in 2020 for the San
Rafael General Plan Update.
Is use of VMT impact
screening desired?3
• Projects that reduce VMT or are located
within transit priority areas (TPAs)
should be presumed to have a less than
significant impact on VMT.
• Additional screening options are
identified in the OPR Technical Advisory
for:
• Small projects
• Map based screening for
residential and office projects
• Affordable housing projects
Screening does not provide information about
the actual VMT changes associated with the
project. For projects that are determined to fit
one of the adopted screening criteria, a
qualitative discussion of VMT would be
provided that concludes that the project is
presumed to have a less than significant
impact on VMT.
Screening most appropriate if consistent with
applicable general plan and supported by
substantial evidence.
VMT Land Use Project Screening
▪ Downtown San Rafael – projects located in the Downtown Precise Plan study area that
are consistent with General Plan growth assumptions
▪ San Rafael Transit Center/SMART Station Areas – projects (residential, retail and office,
as well as mixed use projects) within ½ mile of the above transit stations plus a floor
area ratio of 0.75 or more, reduced parking, land use consistent with the SCS, and does
not reduce existing affordable housing
▪ Affordable Housing – 100 percent affordable residential development (or the
residential component of a mixed-use development) in Downtown San Rafael or within
½ mile of SMART stations
▪ Small Projects – absent substantial evidence indicating that a project would generate a
potentially significant level of VMT, or inconsistency with a Sustainable Communities
Strategy (SCS) or the San Rafael General Plan, projects that generate or attract fewer
than 110 trips per day generally may be assumed to cause a less-than significant
impact. This equates to approximately 10 single family units, 15 multifamily units,
60,000 sf of warehouse, 20,000 sf of light industrial, or 10,000 sf of office use.
VMT Transportation Project Screening
▪ Road Projects – absent substantial evidence indicating that a project would generate
and/or induce a potentially significant level of VMT, or inconsistency with a Sustainable
Communities Strategy (SCS) or the San Rafael General Plan, road projects such as
rehabilitation and repair projects, safety projects, transit only lanes, installation or
removal of traffic control devices, conversion of streets to two-way operation,
installation of roundabouts, and lane reduction projects may be assumed to cause a
less-than-significant transportation impact
▪ Transit Projects – passenger rail projects, bus rapid transit projects, and fixed-route bus
projects with frequent service characteristics
▪ Active Transportation Projects – bicycle and pedestrian infrastructure projects
City of San Rafael General Plan: CEQA VMT Summary of Lead Agency Decisions, Options, Considerations, and Recommendations (11.13.19)
Lead Agency
Decisions Common Options Common Limitations Considerations San Rafael Recommendations
What is the VMT
impact significance
threshold for land use
projects under baseline
conditions?
• Lead agency discretion consistent with
general plan and expectations for
‘project scale’ VMT reductions not
accounted for in general plan EIR and
supported by substantial evidence.
• OPR 15% below baseline average a city
or region (automobiles only)4
• ARB 14.3% below baseline (2018)
average of jurisdiction (all vehicles and
presuming that MPOs meet SB 375
targets)
• ARB 16.8% below baseline (2018)
average of jurisdiction (automobiles
only and presuming that MPOs meet
SB 375 targets)
• ARB 25% below baseline (2018)
average of jurisdiction (all vehicles and
presuming that MPOs do not meet SB
375 targets)
• Pending Caltrans threshold5
Difficult for lead agencies to determine what
level of VMT change is unacceptable when
viewed solely through a transportation lens.
Uncertainty of VMT trends contributes to
difficulty in setting thresholds. Connecting a
VMT reduction expectation to baseline helps
to reduce uncertainty associated with future
conditions.
Since VMT is already used in air quality, GHG,
and energy impact analysis, lead agencies
should review thresholds for those sections to
help inform new thresholds exclusively for
transportation purposes. For land use
projects, the City may consider thresholds
based on Total VMT (which increases over
time) or a VMT efficiency metric (which
typically is forecast to decrease over time).
Lead agencies should carefully consider how
they value state goals for VMT/GHG
reduction in light of other general plan and
community objectives. Translating state goals
into VMT thresholds should consider
substantial evidence such as California Air
Resources Board 2017 Scoping Plan-Identified
VMT Reductions and Relationships to State
Climate Goals, January 2019, CARB.
Absent development of a specific VMT
threshold, lead agencies may rely on those of
other state agencies. The ARB thresholds are
supported by substantial evidence related to
state air quality and GHG goals, but based on
current evidence, VMT per resident or worker
may need to decrease in excess of 25 percent
below baseline levels to support an impact
finding of less than significant
VMT Significance Threshold-Land Use Projects: Baseline Conditions
Establish VMT significance thresholds for land use projects in the form of an efficiency metric
(per capita, employee, or service population).
The options shown below are listed in order from the highest VMT reduction threshold
outcomes to the lowest.
▪ Option A – Set Thresholds Based on Statewide Average VMT Reduction per State
Goals (OPR or ARB)
1. OPR recommends project specific VMT reduction thresholds of 15 percent
reduction from baseline for light-duty vehicle VMT (i.e., passenger cars and
light trucks) for all land uses other than retail. Retail projects that increase
total VMT would cause significant impacts.
2. The most recent ARB analysis recommends project specific VMT reduction
thresholds of 16.8 percent reduction from baseline for light-duty vehicle VMT
(i.e., passenger cars and light trucks) or a 14.3 percent reduction for total VMT
(i.e., all vehicles) presuming MPO SCSs meet applicable targets.
3. Upwards of a 25 percent reduction may be required depending on actual SCS
performance. Current evidence developed for ARB states that California is
not on track to meet the GHG reductions expected under SB 375 and notes
that VMT per capita is increasing.
▪ Option B – Set Thresholds Based on Citywide VMT Reduction per General Plan
1. Rather than applying a VMT reduction threshold based on the statewide
average as recommended by OPR, this option would base the San Rafael
threshold on citywide VMT forecasts, by comparing the reduction in VMT per
capita or service population from baseline (2015) model conditions to future
(2040) model conditions
What is the VMT
impact significance
threshold for land use
projects under
cumulative conditions?
• Use a regional model to analyze the
‘project’s effect on VMT’ based on
RTP/SCS consistency (projects should
not increase the total regional VMT
forecast used to support the RTP/SCS
air quality conformity and SB 375 GHG
targets).
• A lead agency can use the project
analysis above if based on an efficiency
metric form of VMT and evidence exists
to demonstrate that cumulative trends
in VMT rates are declining.
• Establish a VMT reduction threshold for
cumulative conditions consistent with
Uncertainty of VMT trends makes a cumulative
impact finding less certain.
Ability for a lead agency to identify the
project’s effect on land supply and
corresponding VMT. Land use projects
typically only change land supply and the
allocation of future population and
employment growth. As such cumulative
analysis should maintain the same cumulative
control totals of regional population and
employment growth.
Analyzing the project’s effect on land supply
and VMT should be done using an
appropriate valid model. For impact findings,
all available substantial evidence should be
considered, including California Air Resources
Board 2017 Scoping Plan-Identified VMT
Reductions and Relationships to State Climate
Goals, January 2019, CARB and current
research on the long-term effects of
transportation network companies (TNCs),
new mobility options, and autonomous
vehicles (AVs). Specific research examples
include Fehr & Peers AV effect model testing.
VMT Significance Threshold-Land Use Projects: Cumulative Conditions
▪ Determine project consistency with the MTC RTP/SCS.
▪ For projects inconsistent with the general plan and RTP/SCS, determine project
cumulative VMT impacts using TAM model. Compare the VMT growth increment
between baseline and 2040 cumulative no project conditions to the VMT growth
increment between baseline and 2040 cumulative plus project conditions. Any increase
in the VMT growth increment may constitute a significant cumulative impact.
▪ Apply the efficiency-based threshold identified above for the project under cumulative
plus project conditions.
City of San Rafael General Plan: CEQA VMT Summary of Lead Agency Decisions, Options, Considerations, and Recommendations (11.13.19)
Lead Agency
Decisions Common Options Common Limitations Considerations San Rafael Recommendations
long-term air pollution and GHG
reduction expectations.
Requires knowledge of the forecasting tools
available to test the project’s effect on land
supply and VMT.
What is the VMT
impact significant
threshold for
transportation projects
under baseline
conditions?
• Lead agencies have discretion to
choose their own metrics and
thresholds for transportation project
impact analysis. If VMT is selected, OPR
recommends treating projects that
reduce, or have no impact on, VMT to
be presumed to have a less than
significant impact.
Continued use of LOS is uncertain because of
CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.3(b)(2) and
15064.7(d)(2).
Transit, especially on-demand transit service,
can generate new VMT, which should be
considered as part of impact conclusions.
Consult CEQA legal advice about whether
lead agency discretion allows continued use
of LOS and whether VMT is required. VMT is
required as an input to air quality, GHG, and
energy impact analysis and should include
induced vehicle travel effects.
VMT Significance Threshold-Transportation Projects: Baseline Conditions
▪ All transportation projects that are included in the General Plan and evaluated for VMT
effects in the General Plan EIR would not require additional VMT analysis and would
reference the General Plan EIR VMT impacts and mitigation measures.
▪ Transportation projects not included in the General Plan would require a VMT
assessment to determine the project’s effect on VMT, and would trigger a VMT impact
if they result in any increase in Total VMT. VMT forecasts shall include induced vehicle
travel effects.
What VMT reduction
mitigation strategies
should be applied?
• Menu of built environment and
transportation demand management
(TDM) mitigation strategies contained
in Quantifying Greenhouse Gas
Mitigation Strategies, CAPCOA, 2010.
Built environment strategies require modifying
the project, which may create inconsistencies
with the project description and financial
feasibility.
TDM strategies are often building tenant
dependent so their use requires on-going
monitoring and adjusting to account for
changes in build tenants and their travel
behavior.
Ad-hoc project-by-project mitigation is less
effective for reducing VMT than larger scale
program-based approaches such as an impact
fee program.
Consider developing a VMT mitigation
program using any of the following
approaches.
• Impact fee program based on a VMT
reduction nexus (see City of Los Angeles
example).
• In-lieu fee program for VMT reducing
actions.
• VMT mitigation bank or exchange
program.
• TDM ordinance applying to all employers.
VMT Impact Mitigation Strategies
▪ Mitigations for projects that have significant VMT impacts would include targeted trip
reduction measures and require participation in a citywide TDM Program.
▪ Because the long-term effectiveness of TDM measures is typically unknown during the
project entitlement and environmental review process, designate the impacts as
significant even with mitigation.
▪ Adopt a TDM Program, through ordinance, with the primary purpose of reducing VMT
generated by all employers, and a second purpose of providing mitigation for new
development projects.
▪ Adopt a new Transportation Impact Fee Program based on VMT reduction as the
essential nexus, which results in a capital improvement program (CIP) consisting
primarily of a group of projects that reduce VMT based on a robust TDM Program with
strategies such as transit enhancements and bicycle/pedestrian infrastructure
Notes:
(1) Service population includes population plus employment and may include students or visitors as it is intended to include all independent variables used in estimating trips.
(2) This method has limitations if using a citywide or regional average for a threshold.
(3) CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.3 states that projects that would reduce VMT or are located in a TPA should be presumed to have a less than significant impact on VMT. The OPR Technical Advisory contains other potential screening options.
(4) The OPR and ARB thresholds do not consider the long-term influence of transportation network companies, internet shopping, new mobility options, or autonomous vehicles.
(5) Caltrans is developing a threshold recommendation for land use projects for intergovernmental review (IGR) purposes. Local jurisdictions should consider whether a Caltrans (or ARB) threshold constitutes a state threshold that must be applied in addition to their local threshold preference similar to
past practices for LOS impact analysis of the state highway system.
ATTACHMENT 4
PUBLIC MEETING NOTICE {POST-CARD)
~ SAN RAFAEL
~ TH E CITYWITH AMISSI ON
I
NO TICE O F PUBLIC MEE TING -CI T Y CO UN CI L
You are invited to attend the City Council meeting on the following proposed project:
PROJECT: PROGRESS REPOR1 #3 ON SAN RAFAEL GENERAL PLAN 2040-An update on General Plan 2040 will be presented to the City
Council. The report will review progress on the project, including the Downtown Precise Plan. The focus will be on State-mandated changes
(effective mid-2020) on how traffic and circulation will be evaluated in the General Plan 2040 Environmental Impact Report (EIR), as well .as in the
General Plan itself. The report will include staff proposals for how to proceed, based on prior Council discussions and best practices in
transportation planning. The Council also will consider a Resolution appointing a replacement Alternate to the "Youth" seat on the General Plan
· 2040 Steering Committee. Case Nos.GPA16-001 & P16-013.
State law (California Environmental Quality Act) requires that this project be reviewed to determine if a study of potential environmental effects is required. It has
been determined that this project, which is an informational report, will have no physical impact on the environment. This informational report is classified as a
pla(Jning study, which qualifies for a Statutory Ex emption from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines under 14 CRR Section 15262.
MEETING DATE/TIME/LOCATION: Monday, December 2, 2019, 7:00 p.m. City Council Chambers, 1400 Fifth Ave at D St, San Rafael , CA
-f OR MORE INFORMATION: Contact Barry Miller, Consulting Project Manager, Community Development Department at (415) 485-3423 or
barry.miller@cityofsanrafael.org. The Community Development Department office is open from 8 :30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m. on Monday, Tuesday and
Thursday and 8:30 a.m. to 1 :30 p.m. on Wednesday and Friday. You can also view the staff report after 5:00 p .m . on the Friday before the
meeting at http://www.cityofsanrafael.org/meetings.
WHAT WILL HAPPEN: You can comment on the informational report and options presented in the report. The City Council will consider all
public testimony. However, as . this item is an informational report, no formal action will be taken by the City Council other than appointment of a
new Youth Alternate to the Steering Committee. The City Council will be requested to provide comments and direction to staff on next steps.
IF YOU WANT TO COMMENT: You can send written correspondence by email to the address above, or by mail/hand delivery to the Community
D·evelopment Department, Planning Division, City of San Rafael, 1400 5th Avenue , San Rafael, CA 94901 .
At the above time and place, all written correspondence received will be noted and all interested parties will be heard . If you challenge in court the matter d~scribed above, you may be
limited to raising only those issues you or someone else raised at the public hearing described in th is notice, or in written correspondence delivered at, or prior to , the above referenced
publ ic hearing (Government Code Section 65009 (b) (2)). Judicial review of an admin istrative decision of the City Council must be filed ,with the Court not later than the 90 th day following
the date of the Council's decision . (Code of Civil Procedure Section 1094.6)
Sign Language and interpretation and assistive listening devices may be requested by calling (415) 485-3085 (voice) or (415) 485-3198 (TDD) at least 72 hours in advance. Copies of
documents are available in accessible formats upon request. Public transportation to City Hall is available through Golden Gate Transit, Line 22 or 23. Para-transit is available by calling
Whist/estop Wheels at (415) 454-0964. To allow individuals with environmental illness or multiple chemical sensitivity to attend the meeting/hearing, indi viduals are requested to refrain
from wearing scented products. · ·
