HomeMy WebLinkAbout2023-31 Housing Element Group 2022-06-30 Agenda Packet
AGENDA
2023-2031 SAN RAFAEL HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE
WORKING GROUP
THURSDAY, June 30, 2022, 4:00 PM
Members of the public may view this meeting as attendees and
participate during public comment periods as noted in the agenda
Meeting ID: 963 0524 1096
Link: https://tinyurl.com/he-2022-06-30
Call in: +1 669 900 9128
*Working Group Member Log-In Will be Provided Via Email*
1. WELCOME
2. RECORDING OF MEMBERS PRESENT AND ABSENT
3. ACCEPTANCE OF PRIOR MEETING SUMMARIES
A. Summary of May 19, 2022 Meeting
4. PUBLIC COMMENT OPPORTUNITY # 1
5. DISCUSSION ITEMS
A. Director’s Remarks. Community Development Director Giudice will provide an update on recent
outreach efforts and plans for upcoming meetings in July and August.
B. Housing Site Inventory. Staff will present the Housing Site Inventory for the 2023-2031
Housing Element. This will include a PowerPoint presentation including maps, data, and
photos showcasing the city’s housing opportunities. Working Group feedback on the sites
inventory will be solicited, with a focus on: (a) the suitability of the sites selected; (b)
proposed zoning changes; (c) distribution of the sites by income category and neighborhood;
(d) ways to facilitate development of the sites; and (e) additional sites to consider
Recommended time allowance: 90 minutes
CORONAVIRUS (COVID-19) ADVISORY NOTICE
In response to Assembly Bill 361, the City of San Rafael is offering teleconference without complying with the procedural
requirements of Government Code section 54953(b)(3). This meeting will be held virtually using Zoom. The public may
participate as follows:
* Submit public comments in writing. Correspondence received by 5:00 p.m. on March 16 will be provided to the Working
Group. Correspondence received after this deadline but by 3:00 p.m. on March 17 will be conveyed as a supplement. Send
correspondence to barry.miller@cityofsanrafael.org and city.clerk@cityofsanrafael.org.
* Join the Zoom webinar and use the 'raise hand' feature to provide verbal public comment, or dial-in to Zoom's telephone
number using the meeting ID and provide verbal public comment. At the March 17 meeting, public comment will be taken at
the beginning of the meeting and also at end of the meeting.
Any member of the public who needs accommodations should contact the City Clerk (email city.clerk@cityofsanrafael.org or
phone at 415-485-3066). The City will make its best efforts to provide reasonable accommodations to provide as much
accessibility as possible while also maintaining public safety in accordance with City procedures.
6. PUBLIC COMMENT OPPORTUNITY #2
This includes public comment on the previous agenda item (5 A/B) as well as comments on other
topics not on the agenda.
7. MEMBER AND STAFF ANNOUNCEMENTS
A. Staff Announcements and Upcoming Dates
B. Member Announcements
8. ADJOURNMENT
I, Danielle Jones, hereby certify that on Monday, June 27, 2022, I posted a notice of the June 30 Housing
Element Working Group meeting on the City of San Rafael Agenda Board.
2023-2031 SAN RAFAEL HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE
WORKING GROUP
THURSDAY, May 19, 2022, 4:00 PM
1
Attendance
Members Present: Omar Carrera, Don Dickenson, Linda Jackson, Lorenzo Jones, Amy Likover, Diana
Lopez, Rina Lopez, Jon Previtali, Daniel Rhine, Joanne Webster
Members Absent: Paul Fordham, Cesar Lagleva (excused), Tom Monahan,
Staff Present: Cristine Alilovich, Alexis Captanian, Alicia Giudice, Barry Miller
Guests: Liz Darby, Ricardo Huertan Nino, Alex Schafran
(1/2) WELCOME/ RECORDING OF MEMBERS PRESENT AND ABSENT
The meeting was called to order at 4.00 PM. Roll call was taken.
(3) ACCEPTANCE OF PRIOR MEETING SUMMARIES
Following correction of a typo (page 2, offsie should be offsite), the minutes of the April 21, 2022
meeting were approved without further amendment (Likover/Jackson).
(4) INITIAL OPPORTUNITY FOR PUBLIC COMMENT
No public comments were received.
(5) DISCUSSION ITEMS
A. Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing (AFFH)
Barry Miller delivered a presentation on new State requirements for affirmatively furthering fair housing in the
Housing Element (AB 686). The presentation provided an overview of requirements and summary of the “map
book” which was provided to Working Group members prior to the meeting.
B. Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing (AFFH) – Why and How
Director Giudice introduced three invited guests-- Ricardo Huerta Niño is a Senior Initiative Officer at the
San Francisco Foundation. He was a member of the General Plan 2040 outreach team and helped lay the
groundwork for the Equity, Diversity, and Inclusion Element. Alex Schafran is a consultant, author, and
advocate who specializes in housing research and policy, with the aim of creating a more just and inclusive
housing system. Liz Darby is a consultant to the City on diversity, equity, and inclusion issues and is
helping the City create a more inclusive Housing Element outreach program.
Each of the guests introduced themselves and provided opening remarks. Alex then provided the historic
context for AFFH, the State’s AFFH Housing Element requirements, and the programs a community might
consider to promote integration and fair housing. Working Group members offered thoughts, questions,
and comments as follows:
ATTACHMENT 1
2
• Are there any examples of predominantly white cities that successfully became more integrated over
time? What actions did they take to achieve that? Alex responded that San Leandro, El Cerrito,
Concord, Santa Rosa, southern Alameda County, and certain cities in San Mateo County have become
much more diverse in the last few decades. Integration became possible only after the fair housing
laws and the end of redlining, as well as the creation of more townhomes, condos, and other diverse
housing types.
• The Map Book provided by staff shows San Rafael with a very small African-American population—
what steps can the City take to become more diverse? Could the City consider a sister city-type
initiative with Marin City? Some neighborhoods such as Gerstle Park appear more diverse than
others. Staff noted that there are numerically more African-Americans living in San Rafael than in
Marin City, which may differ from public perceptions.
• One solution is to break down roadblocks to build housing in communities with high resistance is
through streamlining of planning process. We are not going to achieve integration by building two-
million dollar homes.
• Language in current Housing Element seems focused on maintaining the character of neighborhoods,
which can be used to block multifamily housing in neighborhoods with mostly single-family homes.
• I agree with that comment. We should increase opportunities to build multifamily housing in single
family neighborhoods. How have other cities done this successfully? Did they use an overlay or
precise plan? Perhaps we can try different designs and architectural styles that respect what is
currently in the neighborhood to facilitate multi-family units in single family areas. How did other
cities like San Leandro do this? We could potentially use such an approach to get community
feedback and blend multiple types of housing through consistent architectural style. Perhaps
developers can work on multiple sites at one time to increase cost efficiency. How did San Leandro
and these other cities do it? Barry indicated that in San Leandro’s case, there was a lot of industrial
land along the railroad corridor, and as those industries became obsolete many of these sites were
rezoned to allow multi-family housing. Also, attitiudes changed in San Leandro because the city was
largely settled in the 1950s. As the “greatest generation”passed on, there was rapid turnover of
housing stock. This resulted on more diversity and different attitudes about growth.
• Yes, we need more housing supply but we also need to respond to the needs of low-income tenants.
We should take proactive efforts to solicit and incorporate input from low-income people, most of
whom are renters. This is both a legal requirement and an important way to arrive at robust, relevant
policies. This has not yet happened in our current Housing Element update.
• The map on educational outcomes (page 33 in the Map Atlas) is based on graduation rates, school
scores, etc. It is misleading. Why are schools serving Peacock Gap and Dominican shown in the lower
quartile? This kind of data creates challenges for public education and can be used to support
arguments for vouchers and charter schools. There is high quality educational instruction across the
city. There are some other issues with the maps. Page 45 shows areas vulnerable to displacement.
Why is Dominican included, when it is largely single family? Is it because Montecito and Dominican
are lumped together? Lincoln Ave has a high number of renters, but its in the same tract as single
family areas in the hills. Barry noted that the maps were based on Census data or data provided by
HCD, but often combined neighborhoods with different housing types. We need to provide the local
3
perspective and explain when the data does not tell the real story. For example, Dominican may be
showing up because it has a large population of students, who self-report as lower income.
• San Rafael Schools is implementing a program to increase opportunities for teachers in San Rafael to
live locally through co-living opportunities. Program will start next year.
• It’s a mistake to equate economic equity and racial equity. There are African-American residents in
San Rafael who are wealthy, there are more Asian families living in the city than before. On the
whole, however, San Rafael does seem to have a small number of Black residents.
• Agree with earlier speaker about the educational outcomes map. And to previous speaker, only 1.5%
of San Rafael population is African American, which is very small. And as we seek to locate higher
density close to transit, we should also take care not to place high-density housing in areas with poor
air quality, e.g., along the freeways. Just because you’re poor doesn’t mean you have to live in an
environmentally toxic setting.
At this point, Barry asked Ricardo Huerta Nino to discuss his work promoting more authentic inclusive
engagement in non-English speaking communities, particularly Latino communities. Ricardo explained
that his expertise was in capacity building and empowerment. In San Rafael, we have a situation wh ere a
group that represents 30% of the population and is the engine of the local economy doesn’t have as loud a
voice as they should. Barry added that staff was finding that our community meetings were attracting the
same people each time, and that persons of color were under-represented. Cristine noted that the approach
we are taking for the Housing Element is patterened on the approach we are trying to take on all City
projects and was part of a larger efforts to create more effective and meaningful ways to reach groups we
haven’t been reacing.
Ricardo noted that he had previously worked with Omar and Barry to do a “City Planning 101” multi-
week program with Canal area civic leaders so that residents could understand their rights and how
decisions are made. Part of this is also building capacity among City leaders and staff to be responsive.
For example, the City formed the Canal Policy Working Group as a response to the pandemic. Now we
have an oppoprtunity to make a longer term commitment: housing is a topic that disproportionately
affects communities of color. We have an opportunity for transformation in San Rafael. The Latino
community is a starting point and ultimately we can work with a variety of different groups. How can we
do better to facilitate engagement? The City can work in partnership with existing leadership groups.
Omar Carrera noted that upon learning about General Plan 2040, many residents in the Canal did not
know there was a plan in place. We cannot leave 30% of the city’s population behind as we have these
conversations. We need to think about how we engage residents and what the scope of the conversation
will cover. Ricardo reiterated what Omar said—there is a deep desire among community members to
engage, and we have an opportunity to do so. Cristine noted that the City held community conversations
in December and January in Spanish. We are trying to meet people where they are instead of asking them
to come to us. On the Parks and Rec Master Plan, we are working with Voces del Canal to co-create and
design our outreach program. She indicated that the City had brought Liz Darby on to assist with
developing a similar program for the Housing Element. Liz has done this work for the County. We want
to be intentional, collaborating on next steps. Ricardo added that we need “all hands on deck” including
our partners in economic development (such as the Chamber of Commerce). We should engage
employees, and broaden our focus moving forward.
Cristine added that inclusive resident engagement means we need to enlist Working Group members as
sponsors and connectors. For example, we’ll ask you if we can come to a meeting of your organization
4
that’s already scheduled. We will take a customized approach that creates safe spaces, providing
information in a way that people can weigh in and share their lived experience. Local government needs
to do better in this space and we need help to do so.
Working Group members added the following comments:
• I’m here to facilitate outreach to business owners. City needs to hear directly from the business
community and I can help with that.
• There are a lot of older adults in San Rafael with lower incomes and their voices also need to be
heard. I and the Commission on Aging can help with that. During the pandemic, many lost jobs and
healthcare, some are now homeless and living in cars. This trend increased during the pandemic.
Barry noted that the Age-Friendly San Rafael Plan identifies housing as a top priority for the older
adult population.
• There are a lot of places to live but no one can afford them. How can we mitigate cost of available but
very expensive living situations? Older adults in Marin are becoming more and more marginalized.
• It’s more than just the Canal neighborhood that needs to have outreach. How do we reach the people
living in affordable housing in Terra Linda and on Lincoln Ave and in the Montecito neighborhood?
Time is running out. It’s hard to do workshops in the summer; mid-August when school starts up
again is late for this process.
• I’m sensitive right now around the conversation of why there are not many Blacks in San Rafael. I
can share from my perspective: belonging and safety are central to communities. We don’t
necessarily have that here in San Rafael. I’m a casual musician and I go to the East Bay on the
weekends to drum, for that connected experience. You can’t separate racial, social, and economic
justice – they are all intertwined. So how do we reach minority communities in San Rafael? Speak the
language of belonging – we need your support, we need your voice. When I walk around in San
Rafael, I’m surprised to see another Black person. We have on armor in an environment that doesn’t
reflect who we are. There are only a few Black-owned restaurants in San Rafael. If I want food that is
reflective of my culture, I’m going to the East Bay and the City. If those were here, would I stay here
to dine? Absolutely.
• Can we do outreach that is specifically focused toward the Black community in San Rafael?
• The map atlas indictes there are environmental issues in the Canal. But we shouldn’t decide not to
pursue transit-oriented development simply because there is a freeway nearby, etc. Many of the
environmental issues can be mitigated. All affordable housing is built to green building standards,
and the baseline is essentially LEED Gold. Any state or local funding requires this. We need to focus
on reducing Vehicle Miles Travelled and greenhouse gases. Issues such as proximity to freeways
needs to be balanced wityh the urgent need for housing.
The invited guests were asked for closing comments. Alex indicated the City should consider a variety of
different strategies. The City can use the Housing Element process as an opportunity to build permanent
infrastructure that will make a difference in the long term. Ricardo added that we are doing this because it’s
the law but also truly because it’s the right thing to do. We’re all in this together and we need to keep the
power and the economy local. Barry noted that we are now in the process of drafting housing strategies and
5
policies. We will be seeking feedback from the Working Group and from the broader community over the
summer.
(6) PUBLIC COMMENT OPPORTUNITY #2
There was no additional public comment.
(7) MEMBER AND STAFF ANNOUNCEMENTS
A. Staff Announcements and Upcoming Dates
Staff indicated there would likely be a meeting on June 30.
B. Member Announcements
The groundbreaking for the Eden Housing/ Vivalon Healthy Aging Campus at 999 Third Street is on
June 3.
(8) ADJOURNMENT
The meeting was adjourned at 5:55 PM.
Sites Inventory Report for Working Group Page 1 June 30, 2022
REPORT TO 2023-2031 SAN RAFAEL HOUSING ELEMENT WORKING GROUP
Subject: Housing Element Site Inventory
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The next meeting of the Housing Element Working Group will include a discussion of the housing
opportunity sites for the 2023-2031 planning period. This is a follow-up to the March 17, 2022 Working
Group meeting, where the requirements for housing sites and inventory from the prior (2015-2023)
Element were discussed. While many of the sites in the prior Housing Element have been carried
forward for 2023-2031, some have been removed. A significant number of new sites have been added.
Almost all of the sites are already zoned to allow housing and are consistent with General Plan 2040.
There are a number of topics where feedback from the Working Group would be helpful. These include
the appropriateness of the sites (are they realistic? did we miss any? should we remove any?), the
steps the City can take to incentivize or support development of the sites, and the degree to which the
sites achieve the goal of affirmatively furthering fair housing.
Staff has identified the capacity for about 5,400 units, which is 67 percent higher the Regional Housing
Needs Allocation for the city. However, most of the buffer of additional capacity is associated with
“above moderate income” sites. If approved and recently proposed projects develop as planned, San
Rafael is already on target to exceed its above moderate income assignment. The same cannot be said
for the low and moderate income targets. While the City has identified sites for low and moderate
income housing, many of these sites are non-vacant. Removal of development constraints and
additional financial resources will be critical to getting affordable housing built on these sites.
Staff will provide a PowerPoint presentation at the next meeting highlighting the inventory and issues
for discussion. Attachment 3 of this agenda packet includes a set of tables with data on the Housing
Sites, including the location and projected number of housing units on each site. Maps of the sites are in
production and will be provided to Working Group members prior to the June 30 meeting.
REPORT
Introduction
The City of San Rafael must demonstrate that it has the capacity to accommodate its “fair share” of the
region’s housing needs tor the next eight years. The City’s “fair share” is calculated by the Association of
Bay Area Governments (ABAG) through a process known as the Regional Housing Needs Assessment
(RHNA). The City’s RHNA for 2023-2031 is 3,220 units, which is over three times what it was during the
2015-2023 Housing Element (1,007 units). The assignment includes 857 very low-income units, 492 low-
income units, 521 moderate income units, and 1,350 above moderate-income units. The low- and very
low-income units serve households with incomes below $146,350 a year (for a family of four).
MEETING DATE: June 30, 2022
AGENDA ITEMS: 5B
ATTACHMENT: 2
Sites Inventory Report for Working Group Page 2 March 17, 2022
Every Housing Element must include an inventory of specific sites that are available to accommodate the
jurisdiction’s RHNA. These are referred to as “Housing Opportunity Sites.” Cities must demonstrate that
they have a sufficient number of opportunity sites to meet the RHNA by income category. These sites
must have existing uses, physical conditions, zoning, development standards, and infrastructure to
support the type of housing that is needed. The State Department of Housing and Community
Development (HCD) has prepared a guidebook for conducting the site inventory that can be reviewed
here.
Additional criteria used to identify housing sites include the size and shape of the site, existing activities
on the property, the value of improvements on the site, the age and condition of structures, slope and
erosion conditions, environmental and pollution conditions, access to transit and job centers, site
ownership, and the availability of infrastructure. Over the years, HCD has created new standards for
what constitutes an “adequate” housing site. For example, sites smaller than 0.5 acres and sites that are
larger than 10 acres are generally considered unsuitable for lower income housing due to the economics
of building affordable housing on such sites. Similarly, the State generally requires that sites identified
as suitable for lower income housing must be zoned to allow at least 30 dwelling units per acre (roughly
equivalent to three-story apartments).
As the March 17 report to the Working Group pointed out, HCD also requires cities to distinguish
between the “realistic” capacity of a site and the theoretical capacity allowed by zoning. Just because a
site is zoned to allow 30 units per acre does not mean it will develop at that density. Topography, site
dimensions, parking requirements, owner preferences, and other factors may result in fewer units being
built. On the other hand, many recent projects in San Rafael are developing at densities that are higher
than what is allowed by zoning, as they are using State density bonuses for affordable housing to justify
additional units.
If a Housing Element relies on non-vacant sites to accommodate 50 percent or more of its RHNA for
lower income households, then the jurisdiction is required to provide “substantial evidence” for each
non-vacant site that shows it will be available for housing during the planning period. This requirement
applies to San Rafael, since a majority of the lower income sites are currently non-vacant. A city cannot
simply list an occupied office building as a housing site and declare that because of low demand for
office space, it will redevelop. Examples of substantial evidence include expiring leases, dilapidated
structure conditions, and a letter from the owner indicating they are interested in residential
development. The City also needs to demonstrate a track record showing that similar properties have
recently been redeveloped with housing. It must also cite what steps are being taken to incentivize or
streamline housing on these sites, potentially including financial assistance and relief from development
standards.
Methodology
The March 17 staff report included a detailed description of the methodology for identifying housing
sites. An abridged version is provided below:
1) Account for approved development projects. This includes projects that have been approved but are
either under construction or not yet built as of July 1, 2022. In San Rafael, this includes 781 housing
units.
Sites Inventory Report for Working Group Page 3 June 30, 2022
2) Determine the likely number of Accessory Dwelling Units (ADUs) and Junior ADUs to be produced
over the next eight years by income category. Staff is projecting that San Rafael will produce 25
ADUs a year between 2023 and 2031, or a total of 200 units. Based on data from ABAG, it is
estimated that 35 percent of these ADUs (70 units) will be affordable to lower income households,
50 percent (100 units) will be affordable to moderate income households, and 15 percent (30 units)
will serve above moderate income households.
3) Determine which sites in the existing 2015-2023 inventory can be carried forward. The 2015-2023
inventory identified 44 opportunity sites with the capacity for 2,183 housing units. Staff has
determined that 27 of these sites remain viable and has carried them forward to the 2023-2031 In
2015, these 27 sites were estimated to have the capacity for 1,334 units. This number is now
estimated to be 1,943 units, primarily due to recent plans for Northgate Mall. The 2015 Housing
Element identified the Mall as having the potential for 200 units. The 2023-2031 Element is
counting 907 units of capacity on the site, based on the plans for the first phase of this multi-phase
development.
4) Determine the potential number of units on vacant residentially zoned land. The City updated its
inventory of vacant residentially zoned land as part of General Plan 2040. This data was used to
estimate housing potential on vacant sites above and beyond what had been inventoried in the
previous Housing Element.
5) Calculate the potential on underutilized residential land. The potential for additional units on
previously developed residential sites was evaluated using indicators such as parcel size, property
dimensions, average slope, land to improvement value, ownership, and field observations.
Examples of such sites are single family homes in multi-family zoning districts, large lot single family
homes in areas zoned at suburban densities (2-8 units per acre), and multi-family properties with
the potential for additional units.
6) Calculate the potential in the Downtown San Rafael Precise Plan area. The Downtown Precise Plan
(adopted in August 2021) included an estimate of development potential within the 265-acre plan
area. The Plan identifies locations for approximately 2,200 housing units. Some of these sites are
already counted in steps (1) and (3). Moreover, the Downtown Plan is a 20-year plan and some of
the sites it identifies will not realistically be available until after 2031. Approximately 1,800 units of
capacity are identified Downtown, excluding already approved projects.
7) Calculate the potential on commercial and mixed use sites outside of Downtown. This required a
comprehensive analysis of all 1,051 properties in San Rafael with existing commercial land uses.
Parcels were analyzed based on factors such as improvement to land value ratio, parcel size and
ownership, slope and physical constraints, vacancy status, proximity to transit, and floor area ratio.
8) Calculate the potential on public, institutional, and nonprofit-owned land. This includes housing
potential on City-owned property, County-owned property, and State-owned property. It also
includes properties owned by SMART, various utility districts, Dominican University, and the school
districts serving San Rafael.
Sites Inventory Report for Working Group Page 4 June 30, 2022
Summary of Identified Housing Capacity
The 2023-2031 sites inventory includes 183 sites. Some of the sites are comprised of multiple parcels
and others are a single parcel. In some cases, the parcels are under common ownership. In other cases
there are multiple owners. The cumulative capacity of all sites is estimated to be 5,393 units. This
includes 1,763 units of lower income capacity, 700 units of moderate income capacity, and 2,930 units
of above moderate income capacity. The designation of a site as “lower income” does not require that
it be developed with lower income housing—it is simply an acknowledgement of the potential for lower
income housing. However, if the site is developed with market rate housing or a non-residential use
between 2023 and 2031, the City must ensure that the remaining sites in the inventory still have the
capacity to meet the city’s RHNA assignment.
Table 1 indicates the housing capacity by site type. Most of the City’s housing capacity is on sites that
are zoned for commercial or mixed use development. The sites inventory includes a significant surplus,
particularly in the “above moderate income” category. The size of the surplus is due in part to a large
number of projects that are currently in the planning stage, but not yet entitled. There are nearly 1,300
housing units in this category, mostly associated with Northgate Mall but also with several sites
Downtown and elsewhere in the city. Although these projects are still in the application (or pre-
application) stage, they are acknowledged to be market rate housing projects and are only providing
affordable (low/moderate) units to the extent required by the City’s inclusionary housing ordinance.
Table 1: Summary of Housing Opportunity Sites by Income and Site Type
Spread-
sheet Category
Income Category
Total Lower Moderate
Above
Moderate
A Development Pipeline 198 3 580 781
B Low/Medium Density Residentially Zoned 3 88 160 251
C High Density Residentially Zoned 248 81 174 503
D Mixed Use Sites outside of Downtown 712 279 1,053 2,044
E Downtown Mixed Use sites 602 249 963 1,814
TOTAL 1,763 700 2,930 5,393
RHNA 1,349 521 1,349 3,220
Surplus Capacity +371 +179 +1,581 +2,173
Buffer 30% 34% 117% 67%
In addition to the units associated with opportunity sites, the City has identified the potential for ADUs
and JADUs. This increases the buffers in Table 1 even more, resulting in total lower-income capacity of
1,833 units and moderate-income capacity of 800 units.
Sites Inventory Report for Working Group Page 5 June 30, 2022
Overview of the Spreadsheets
A series of 11 x 17 spreadsheets labeled A through E follows this staff report (see Attachment 3). The
spreadsheets correspond to the categories listed in Table 1 and provide State-mandated data for each
housing type. The spreadsheets are summarized as follows:
• A “summary” spreadsheet (page 1) presents the same data that is shown in Table 1 in this staff
report.
• Spreadsheet “A” lists projects in the development pipeline. The projects shown have all been
approved but are not yet occupied as of July 1, 2022 (the start of the RHNA projection period).
There are 14 projects listed, with a total of 781 units. These projects represent 15% of the City’s
lower income RHNA, 1% of its moderate income RHNA, and 43% of its above moderate income
RHNA. Projects that are still in the application phase (such as Northgate, Nazareth House, and
1515 4th Street) are not included in this table since they are not yet entitled.
• Spreadsheet “B” lists development opportunities on sites zoned for low and medium density
residential development. There are 66 sites identified, with a total capacity of 251 units. Most
of this capacity is presumed to be “above moderate” income housing due to the associated
densities and construction costs.
• Spreadsheet “C” lists development opportunities on sites zoned for high density housing. There
are 20 sites listed, with the capacity for 503 units. Only 3 of the sites are “carry overs” from the
2015 Housing Element—the other 17 were not previously listed. About half of the housing
capacity identified on this spreadsheet is for lower income housing. Spreadsheet C also includes
several sites with Public/Quasi-Public zoning.
• Spreadsheets “D” and “E” list development opportunities on sites zoned for commercial or
mixed use development. Spreadsheet “D” includes sites outside of Downtown San Rafael.
Spreadsheet “E” includes sites in the Downtown Precise Plan area.
o Spreadsheet “D” includes 30 sites with the capacity for 2,044 units. This includes 1,053
units of above moderate income housing, two-thirds of which is associated with
Northgate Mall. The spreadsheet also includes 712 units of lower income capacity and
279 units of moderate income capacity. Only seven of the 30 sites are “carry overs”
from the 2015 Housing Element—the other 23 were not previously listed.
o Spreadsheet “E” includes 53 sites with the capacity for 1,814 units. This includes 963
units of above moderate income housing, 249 units of moderate income housing, and
602 units of lower income housing. Most of the sites listed were specifically called out
in the Downtown Precise Plan as housing opportunities. A few were not. Only seven of
the sites were counted in the 2015 Element—the other 46 were not previously listed.
Table 2 below indicates the information for each site provided in the spreadsheets:
Sites Inventory Report for Working Group Page 6 June 30, 2022
Table 2: Key to the Housing Site Spreadsheets
Column Title Description
1 ID# A unique alpha-numeric ID has been assigned to each site. The letter corresponds to
the spreadsheet on which the site appears.
2 APN Assessor Parcel Number. Some sites have multiple APNs and some sites occupy only a
portion of a given APN.
3 Address/
Location
Either a street address or a narrative description of the location of each property
4 Acres Total (gross) acres of the housing opportunity site
5 GP Des Existing General Plan Designation
6 Zoning Existing Zoning Designation
7 Existing Use A narrative description of the current use of each site
8 Theoretical
Capacity
The land area for each site multiplied by the maximum zoning density, inclusive of any
proposed increases in allowable density. For already approved projects and for
projects with pending applications, the actual number of approved or proposed units
is used. Sites in the Downtown area have no density requirements, so theoretical
capacity is more difficult to estimate. See discussion on next page.
9 Realistic
Capacity
(1) For already approved projects, the actual number of approved units is used
(2) For sites with development constraints such as steep slopes and limited access,
the estimate is generally 60-80 percent of what is allowed by zoning.
(3) For mixed use and commercially zoned sites, the estimate is generally 80 percent
of theoretical capacity.
(4) In the Downtown Precise Plan area, the estimates reflect figures that were
developed in 2018-19 and used in the EIR for that project.
The estimate of a site’s “realistic capacity” does not preclude a site from developing
with more units than are shown in this column. This is intended as a conservative
estimate based on guidance provided by the State Department of Housing and
Community Development.
10 Pub/Private Indicates whether the site is publicly or privately owned. PR = private. PU = public
11 Constraints Indicates development constraints on each site, with an emphasis on environmental
constraints. Typical constraints include steep slopes, sea level rise, fire hazards,
historic resources, noise, and air quality.
12 Infrastruc-
ture
Indicates the improvements that would be required for site development , including
road access and internal streets and utilities. Sites with utilities available in the street
right-of-way abutting the site are considered to have infrastructure. Sites without
adjacent water, sewer, or dry utilities are noted as needing infrastructure.
13
A, B, C
Income
Category
(Low, Mod,
Above
Mod)
Indicates whether the site is expected to serve above moderate, moderate, or lower
(low + very low) income households. The designation of a site as “lower income” does
not mandate that it be developed with lower income housing. However, if it is
developed with another use, the City must find that it still has capacity to meet its
lower income assignment in the remaining sites (or identify additional opportunity
sites to make up the deficit).
14 Counted
before?
Indicates if the site was counted in the 2015-2023 Housing Element site inventory
15 Comments Provides additional remarks and comments about each site, including background
information and context for why it is listed as a housing opportunity. Red font is used
where a follow-up zoning action is required.
Sites Inventory Report for Working Group Page 7 June 30, 2022
Calculating the Capacity of Each Site
As noted earlier, HCD requires that the site inventory identify the “realistic capacity” of each site rather
than just the “theoretical capacity” allowed by zoning. HCD encourages cities to be conservative when
estimating realistic capacity. However, in many cases the capacity estimates in our 2023-2031 inventory
are well below could actually be built. This is particularly true in the Downtown area, since development
is governed by a Form Based Code that regulates the height and mass of the building rather than the
number of housing units that can be built.
Estimates of Downtown’s development potential were made as part of the Precise Plan process that
occurred in 2018-2019. In general, Downtown sites subject to a 40’ height limit (e.g,, roughly three
stories) were presumed to develop at 40 units per acre, sites subject to a 50’ height limit were
presumed to develop at 65 units per acre, sites subject to a 60’ height limit were presumed to develop
at 90 units per acre, and sites subject to a 70’ height limit were presumed to develop at 120 units per
acre. However, recently approved Downtown projects exceed these numbers. As an example, the
Seagate site (703 3rd Street) was estimated by the 2015 Housing Element to have the capacity for 31
units. The project was ultimately approved for 138 units.
Outside of Downtown, the capacity estimates are generally 80 percent of what is allowed by zoning.
Again, the frequent use of density bonuses means that this estimate is likely low, at least on the multi-
family sites. It is still recommended that the City stick with conservative assumptions for realistic
capacity. This reflects the fact that some of the listed sites may not be proposed for reuse (or may be
used for other purposes) during the next eight years.
Sites Removed from the 2015 Inventory
The sites that were removed from the 2015 Inventory include those which actually developed during the
last eight years, and others that no longer appear viable. The removed sites include:
• Marin Square Shopping Center. The site had been estimated as having the potential for 200
units. It has been removed from the inventory as it was recently sold and refurbished for retail
use. Housing is still permitted on the site.
• Northgate Three (Michael’s, CVS, Black Bear Diner). The site had been estimated as having the
potential for 203 units. The owners indicate they are focusing on redevelopment of the Mall
rather than this perimeter shopping center, and do not intend to redevelop Northgate Three
during the next eight years. Housing is still permitted on the site.
• 550, 670, and 820 Las Gallinas. These are three office buildings on Las Gallinas that were
estimated to have the potential for 84 units. One of these office buildings was acquired by
Kaiser, another was acquired by a law firm, and the third is fully occupied.
• Former Chrysler/Dodge dealership at 1075 E. Francisco. This property is under construction
with a new hotel. It had previously been assumed as a potential site for 63 units.
The “B” List
In identifying potential sites, staff began compiling a “B list” of properties that met the criteria for
housing opportunity sites but had other factors that made them non-viable candidates. For example,
many of the car dealerships on Francisco Boulevard are in zoning districts that allow multi-family
housing. These sites have low improvement values, high land values, and are flat and easily accessed.
Sites Inventory Report for Working Group Page 8 June 30, 2022
However, they are essential revenue generators and are important to the City’s fiscal health and
regional economy. For these reasons, they are not listed as Housing Opportunity Sites.
Likewise, the City has a number of industrially zoned sites that could be rezoned to allow housing. The
General Plan 2040 (and previous general plans) discourage such rezoning, again recognizing the
importance of these properties to providing jobs, tax revenue, and essential services to residents of
Marin County. Depending on future economic conditions, some of these sites could be considered
during the next (2031-2039) Housing Element or later in the 2023-31 period. A few are in the Lindaro
Mixed Use area (near Davidson Middle School) and could be viable housing sites.
The third category of “B list” properties are active commercial businesses and shopping centers in zones
where housing is allowed. An example is the Regency Theater on Smith Ranch Road, the Rice and
Shamrock Shopping Centers, and many of the bank properties scattered across the city. There are also
fast food restaurants, office buildings for lease, and other commercial businesses, that theoretically
could support housing but are unlikely to be available by 2031.
There are 44 sites on the “B list” that are not in the inventory. These sites were estimated to have the
capacity for 1,700 units. One challenge with using these sites is that they were not presumed to
redevelop with housing in the General Plan EIR. Since the City is relying on this EIR to cover Housing
Element adoption, further environmental review would be required if such sites are added.
Maps
As noted in the Executive Summary, maps showing the location of housing sites are now in production
and will be provided to Working Group members prior to the June 30 meeting. Because the housing
sites are individual parcels and are difficult to see at the scale of an 8.5 x 11 citywide map, the maps are
formatted as a “grid” corresponding to subareas.
KEY ISSUES TO CONSIDER
One of the most critical issues to consider is whether the site inventory is complete. In other words, are
there sites that should be added or removed from the inventory? While the analysis leading to site
identification was thorough and comprehensive, there may be properties missing—or properties that do
not belong on the list (for instance, properties that have recently been sold and refurbished).
Another key issue is the extent to which the sites achieve the State mandate of affirmatively furthering
fair housing. Staff has consciously allocated a portion of the lower income RHNA to high-resource
Census Tracts, but most of these areas are zoned for lower densities and have still limited opportunities
for multi-family housing.
Probably the most important question to consider is what steps the City can take to make the
development of these sites more realistic—and to spur construction of low and moderate income units
on the sites, rather than having the sites develop entirely with market rate housing. Although the City
does require 10 percent of the units in market-rate projects to be affordable, the lower income RHNA
represents 43 percent of the city’s assignment. New tools to stimulate affordable housing development
will be needed if this target is to be achieved. The availability of tax credits in many parts of San Rafael
continues to be a challenge.
HOUSING SITE SUMMARY TABLE
Site Category Lower Moderate
Above
Moderate TOTAL
Development Pipeline 198 3 580 781
Low/Medium Density Residentially Zoned 3 88 160 251
High Density Residentially Zoned 248 81 174 503
Mixed Use Sites Outside of Downtown 712 279 1,053 2,044
Downtown Mixed Use Sites 602 249 963 1,814
TOTAL 1,763 700 2,930 5,393
RHNA 1,349 521 1,349 3,220
Surplus Capacity 371 179 1,581 2,173
Additional sites investigated but not counted 1,705
Income Group
Attachment 3-Page1
SPREADSHEET "A"DEVELOPMENT PIPELINE (projects entitled but not yet completed as of 7/1/22)Income CategoryID #Census TractAPN Address/Location Area GP des Zoning Existing Use Pub/Priv Constraints Infrastructure Lower Mod Above ModCommentsA1 1081 165‐220‐07 Los Gamos 10.24 Neighborhood Commercial MXDPD Vacant Private Slopes, accessImprovements included in project23 169 Project has received all entitlements and is proceeding. Required GP Amendment and rezone. 192 units on 10‐ac site. Density 18.8 DU/A. Includes 5,500 SF market plus a community building. Site was identified for 3 units in 2015 Hsg Element 165‐220‐06A2 1110.01 011‐278‐01 703 Third 0.63 DMU T5MS 70/90 Older commercial bldgsPrivate None Available 9 3 126 Project initially approved with 120 units in 2020. Revised plan approved with 138 units. Site was identified in 2015 Hsg Element as having realistic capacity of 31 units.011‐278‐02A3 1110.01 011‐265‐02 999 Third0.34 DMU T5N 50/70 Former PG&E yardNon‐Profit None Available 67Now under construction. 67‐unit affordable senior hsg project by Eden and Vivalon, includes ground level sr ctr. Received financ. support from City.A4 1122.02 008‐082‐52 3301 Kerner0.94 Community Commercial MXDCCIO Former office buildingNon‐Profit None Available 44Conversion of former office building, initially to temporary shelter, and then to 44 units of permanent affordable supportive housing units. Underway.A5 1122.04 014‐192‐12 190 Mill0.33 HDRHR1 Vacant Non‐Profit None Available 3232 transitional housing units, plus a relocated, improved emergency shelter. Under construction by Homeward Bound.A6 1122.02 008‐092‐02 88 Vivian 2.4 Neighborhood Commercial MXDNC Bowling Alley Private None Available 7 63 70‐unit townhome project on site of former bowling alley. Site was identified in 2015 Element as having potential for 53 units. Includes 7 BMR units.A7 1082.01 179‐041‐27 350 Merrydale2.28 Community Commercial MXDGC former furniture storePrivate Noise, Air QualityAvailable243 45 unit townhouse project approved on former Breuners Furniture site. Site was identified in 2015 Element as having capacity for 45 units. Project underway.179‐041‐28A8 1081 178‐240‐21 Northgate Walk (1005/1010)6.94 HDR and Office HR1 Hotel and UPS storePrivate Access Available 14 122 Approved 136‐unit multi‐family complex, including 10% of the units at 60% AMI. Hotel will be retained, and multi‐family will be developed on remainder of site178‐240‐17 0.56 OA9 1102 016‐341‐04 through 016‐341‐16; 016‐341‐63 through 016‐341‐70; 016‐341‐72 through 016‐341‐77; 016‐341‐90; 016‐341‐91Loch Lomond Marina Phase II2.86 Neighborhood Commercial MXDPD Vacant (housing now under construction)Private Sea level rise Available 30 Final phase of Loch Lomond Marina development, includes 30 small lot single family homes. Currently under construction, occupancy to occur during RHNA planning period.A10 1082.01 3773 Redwood Hwy (Oakmont)Community Commercial MXDGC formerly a commercial usePrivate Noise, Air QualityAvailable16 89 unit assisted living development. 16 units are fully independent apartments (full kitchens) and are shown hereA11 1090.01 011‐184‐09 800 Mission/1203 Lincoln (Aegis)0.69 DMU T4N 40/50 Vacant Private None Available 0 Project includes 103 assisted living 'suites' but project is classified as residential care facility, so units may not count toward RHNA011‐184‐08Page 1 of 2Attachment 3-Page2
ID #Census TractAPN Address/Location Area GP des Zoning Existing Use Pub/Priv Constraints Infrastructure Lower Mod Above ModCommentsA12 1110.02 011‐245‐40 104 Shaver 0.14 DMU T4N 40/50 SF house Private Access Available 1 6 7‐unit project approved in 2019. Appeal of approval was denied in 2020. Includes 1 very low income unit.A13 1110.02 012‐073‐04 1309 2nd Street 0.07 DMU T4N 40/50 SF house Private None Available 2 Approval to demolish existing SF house to add three‐unit multi‐family project (net gain 2 above mod). Project not yet finaledA14 1110.01 021‐075‐03 1215 2nd Street 0.11 DMU T4N 40/50 Office Private None Available 3 Approval to add a residence to an office building and construct a new 2‐unit apartment to the rear. Net gain 3 units. Phasing plan approved in 2021.Subtotal198 3 580Page 2 of 2Attachment 3-Page3
SPREADSHEET "B"
RESIDENTIALLY ZONED LOW AND MEDIUM DENSITY SITES
ID #Census
Tract APN Address/Location Acreage GP des Zoning Existing Use DU/AC
Theoretical
capacity
Realistic
capacity
Pub/
Priv Constraints
Infra-
structure LowerModAbove ModCounted
Before?Comments
B1 1122.02 009-330-01 104 Windward Way 2.13 MDR MR2 Parking lots 21.7 46 36 Private Powerlines, SLR
overlay
Available 36 Yes Flat vacant site with no vegetation and multi-family zoning. Long, narrow
configuration. Somewhat constrained by proximity to power lines and
proximity to nearby industrial uses. Formerly a sanitation district service
yard and now used for overflow parking. Access from cul-de-sac.
B2 1121 013-101-07 225 Picnic Ave 2.92 MDR MR3 Vacant 14.5 43 34 Private Slopes to rear of
property near 30%
Available 3 31 Yes Moderately sloping vacant 3-acre site. Owner is in San Francisco. Site is
300' from Davidson Middle School in residential area. Excellent
development opportunity for townhomes or clustered units.
1121 013-101-06 0.07 MDR MR3 Vacant
B3 1102 185-020-02 25 W Castlewood Dr 10.75 LDR R7.5 Vacant 5.8 76 52 Public Prior Hsg El
indicates
archaeology,
wetland
constraints
Available 52 Yes Lower portion of Glenwood Elementary Campus. Includes portions of two
parcels that also contain school. Housing site is the undeveloped area
only. Could consider GPA to designate a portion of this area as higher
density, thus enabling some lower income units.
185-020-04 2.4
B4 1060.01 155-101-03 Channing/ Professional
Center Pkwy NE corner
1.02 LDR PD Vacant 5 5 2 Private Steep slope,
drainage, geotech
Available 2 Yes Assessed as vacant multi-family site, but has slope constraints. In a PD but
not identified as open space. Could subdivide or cluster.
B5 1101 015-041-55 270 Linden 0.24 LDR R7.5 Vacant 5.8 2 2 Private None Available 2 Yes Two buildable lots with double frontage on Linden Ln and Grand Ct
015-041-56 272 Linden 0.17 LDR R7.5 Vacant
B6 1122.04 017-191-22 corner Canal/Portofino 0.17 LDR R5-C Parking 8.7 1 1 Private Sea Level Rise Available 1 No individual vacant lot used for parking and a sport court for an adjacent
multi-family building. Could be 2 units.
B7 1122.04 017-191-36 2 Capri Court 0.23 LDR R5-C Vacant 8.7 1 1 Private Sea Level Rise Available 1 No individual vacant lot at corner of Capri and Canal
B8 1101 015-250-01 East of 308 Glen Park
(Dominican area)
7.18 Hillside Res PD-H Vacant 1 7 5 Private Steep slopes, fire
hazards, flag lot
Some, ltd
access
5 No Also a potential open space acquisition. Site has avg 40% slope and access
limtiations. General Plan is Hillside Res (1 DU/ac). Could cluster density
B9 1102 016-213-12 west of San Pablo
Elementary
5.95 LDR PD Vacant 3 17 9 Private Hillside; traffic;
drainage; geotech;
wooded.
Would
require
road
9 Yes Vacant hillside site that was part of a larger subdivision but never
developed. Prior to 2015, there were 2 different applications for
development of 6- 9 units on this site, but they were not pursued. Recent
pre-application meeting for a 9-unit subdivision here.
B10 1121 013-174-25 Downslope Bret Harte
Rd b/w Southern
Heights and Harte Ln
5.67 Hillside Res R1a-H Vacant 1 5 3 Private Hillside; access;
geotech; wooded;
drainage; fire
None 3 No Steep downslope site on Southern Heights Ridge (below Bret Harte Rd).
Average slope is 50%. Limited access and no utilities. Site is also on open
space acquisition list, but has GP designation of Hillside Res (1 unit/acre).
B11 1081 165-240-02 West of 101 Lucas
Valley Road
0.47 Hillside Res PD-H Vacant 1 4 4 Private Hillside; access;
wooded; fire
Limited
access
4 Yes
165-240-03 0.44 Hillside Res PD-H Vacant
165-240-04 0.71 Hillside Res PD-H Vacant
165-240-05 4.27 Hillside Res PD-H Vacant
B12 1090.02 010-011-49 End of Oakwood Dr
(behind 31 Oakwood)
2.86 Hillside Res R2a-H Vacant 0.5 1 1 Private Hillside; access;
geotech; wooded;
drainage; fire
None 1 No Landlocked and very steep (53% average slope). Assuming one unit.
B13 1102 184-030-01 2000 Pt San Pedro Rd 1.85 LDR R1a-H Vacant 1 1 2 Private Hillside; shoreline
erosion and SLR
Available 2 No Waterfront parcel, General Plan designation allows higher zoning density
than R-1. Assuming 2 units
B14 1110.02 012-093-09 End of Westwood Dr 1.64 Hillside Res R1a-H Vacant 1 1 1 Private Very steep slopes Available 1 No Vacant residentially zoned parcel
Four adjacent lots, one has frontage on Lucas Valley Rd. The others are
landlocked. New private street would be required. 2015 Element referred
to site as Jaleh Estates. No subdivision presumed--one home per unit.
Income Category
Page 1 of 4Attachment 3-Page4
ID #Census
Tract APN Address/Location Acreage GP des Zoning Existing Use DU/AC
Theoretical
capacity
Realistic
capacity
Pub/
Priv Constraints
Infra-
structure LowerModAbove ModCounted
Before?Comments
Income Category
B15 1090.02 010-052-42 End of Sirard Lane 1.4 Hillside Res Vacant 1 1 1 Private Steep slopes Available 1 No Vacant residentially zoned parcel, flag lot
B16 1101 015-011-22 east of Villa Av on-
ramp to 101 N/B
1.26 LDR R-20 Vacant 2 2 2 Private Steep slopes Available 2 No Could potentially subdivide into two lots, though steep slopes and
potential visual issues
B17 1121 013-242-01 b.w 247 and 217 Bret
Harte
1.25 Hillside Res R1a-H Vacant 1 1 1 Private Steep slopes Available 1 No vacant residentially zoned parcel
B18 1110.02 012-132-63 End of Espalde Ct 0.95 Hillside Res R1a-H Vacant 1 1 1 Private Steep slopes Available 1 No vacant residentially zoned parcel
B19 1101 014-042-02 90 Deer Park 0.86 Hillside Res R-20 Vacant 1 1 1 Private Steep slopes Available 1 No vacant residentially zoned parcel
B20 1082.02 175-292-42 Flag lot behind 179 Los
Ranchitos
0.78 Hillside Res R-20 Vacant 1 1 1 Private Moderate slope Available 1 No vacant residentially zoned parcel
B21 1121 013-263-19 End of Mliss Lane 0.77 Hillside Res R1-B3 Vacant 1 1 1 Private Moderate slope Available 1 No part of lot is in County
B22 1090.01 011-051-31 Culloden Quarry area 0.69 Hillside Res PD Vacant 1 1 1 Private Slope and access Available 1 No owned by adjoining parcel with house
B23 1102 016-302-28 Adj 3 Bay Way 0.7 LDR R-20 Vacant 2 2 2 Private None Available 2 No 2 vacant "back to back" corner lots, Pt San Pedro Rd is side yard
016-302-26 Adj 9 Bellevue 0.58 LDR R-20 Vacant
B24 1102 184-240-02 Vac Lot between 48-56
Marin Bay Park
0.67 Hillside Res PD-H Vacant 1 1 1 Private Steep slope Available 1 No vacant residentially zoned parcel
B25 1110.02 012-261-01 Toyon Way, opp 215-
229
0.64 Hillside Res R-20H Vacant 2 3 3 Private 50% slope Available 3 No three adjacent residential lots in Toyon Way
012-261-02 0.47 Hillside Res R-20H
012-241-26 0.43 Hillside Res R-20H
B26 1102 016-091-51 2 lots on either side of
29 Loch Lomond
0.6 Hillside Res R-20H Vacant 2 2 2 Private Steeep slope Available 2 No two vacant residentially zoned parcels
016-091-35 0.38 R-20H
B27 1090.01 011-115-31
b/w 55 and 90
Culloden Park 0.59 Hillside Res R10-H Vacant 4 1 1 Private Steep slope Available 1 No vacant residentially zoned parcel
B28 1110.02 012-201-19 End of Sierra Circle 0.54 LDR R-20 Vacant 2 1 1 Private Steep slope Available 1 No vacant residentially zoned parcel
B29 1110.02 012-261-07
b/w 66 and 80 Upper
Toyon 0.5 Hillside Res R-20H Vacant 2 1 1 Private Steep slope Available 1 No vacant residentially zoned parcel
B30 1101 015-241-14
Highland and
Margarita NE corner 0.48 Hillside Res R1a-H Vacant 1 1 1 Private Steep slope Available 1 No vacant residentially zoned parcel
B31 1102 016-213-08 next to 23 Bellevue 0.46 LDR R10-H Vacant 4 3 2 Private Moderate slope Available 2 No
two adjacent vacant residentially zoned parcels on Bellevue at Pt San
Pedro Rd
016-213-09 0.42 LDR R-10H
B32 1121 013-186-09
Below 40 Twain Harte
Ln 0.46 Hillside Res R1a-H Vacant 1 1 1 Private Steep slope
Limited,
narrow rd 1 No vacant residentially zoned parcel
B33 1060.01 152-092-35
b/w 268-270 Channing
Way 0.42 MDR R1a-H Vacant 1 1 1 Private Steep slope Available 1 No
could rezone (MDR General Plan) but would be difficult to develop with
multi-family
B34 1101 015-101-12
b/w 1655 and 1665
Grand 0.38 LDR R10-H Vacant 4 1 1 Private None Available 1 No
vacant residentially zoned parcel, adj to Trinity Church (and owned by
church)
B35 1101 015-041-51
next to 61
Worthington 0.35 LDR R-7.5 Vacant 5.8 2 1 Private None Available 1 No vacant residentially zoned parcel
B36 1101 015-282-30 74 Dominican Dr 0.35 LDR R10 Vacant 4 1 1 Private
Very steep,
landslides Available 1 No vacant residentially zoned parcel
B37 1102 186-101-09
b/w 120 and 130
Bayview 0.35 Hillside Res R1a Vacant 1 1 1 Private Steep slope Available 1 No vacant residentially zoned parcel
B38 1110.02 012-211-34 20 Madrona 0.34 MDR R5 Vacant 8.7 3 3 Private None Available 3 No Could rezone to medium density and develop more units
B39 1101 009-041-03 next to 29 Sea Way 0.34 LDR R10 Vacant 4 1 1 Private Powerlines Available 1 No Vacant lot, transmission lines at rear
Page 2 of 4Attachment 3-Page5
ID #Census
Tract APN Address/Location Acreage GP des Zoning Existing Use DU/AC
Theoretical
capacity
Realistic
capacity
Pub/
Priv Constraints
Infra-
structure LowerModAbove ModCounted
Before?Comments
Income Category
B40 1090.01 011-115-06
next to 55 Culloden
Park 0.33 LDR R-20 Vacant 2 1 1 Private Moderate slope Available 1 No vacant residentially zoned parcel
B41 1121 013-174-17
Opposite 120
Bungalow 0.31 LDR R10 Vacant 4 1 1 Private Very steep Limited 1 No vacant residentially zoned parcel, narrow street
B42 1110.02 012-041-25 Upper Fremont 0.25 LDR R10 Vacant 4 1 1 Private Steep, wooded Limited 1 No vacant residentially zoned parcel, narrow street, access limitations
B43 1110.02 012-141-58 Next to 47 Clayton 0.13 LDR R7.5 Vacant 5.8 3 3 Private Slope Available 3 No
Three adjacent lots on Clayton. Active proposal for 2 SF homes on two of
the parcels (59 and 60)--called Ross Street Terrace.
012-141-59 0.13 LDR R7.5
012-141-60 0.11 LDR R7.5
B44 1102 185-073-07 End of Fernwood 0.15 LDR R7.5 Vacant 5.8 2 2 Private Parcel shape Available 2 No
Two parcels, same owner, on opposite sides of dead-end in Glenwood
area. Small lots.
185-072-18 0.11 LDR R7.5
B45 1090.01 011-115-28 End of Quarry Road 0.194 LDR R20 Vacant 2 1 1 Private Steep slopes Available 1 No Vacant hillside lot
011-115-30 0.111 LDR PD
B46 1090.01 011-031-07 B/w 311-323 Coleman 0.26 LDR R10 Vacant 4 3 3 Private Steep slopes Available 3 Yes Three adjacent upslope lots opposite 312-318 Coleman Drive
011-031-43 0.2 LDR R10
011-031-50 0.18 LDR R10
B47 1090.01 011-022-12 Opposite 98 Fair Dr 0.41 LDR R10 Vacant 4 5 5 Private Steep slopes Available 5 Yes Five continguous vacant lots opposite 98 Fair Drive, all with road frontage
on Fair Drive. All in common ownership.
011-022-13 0.23 LDR R10
011-022-14 0.26 LDR R10
011-022-02 0.18 LDR R10
011-022-03 0.21 LDR R10
B48 1090.01 011-022-16 Coleman Drive 0.23 LDR R7.5 Vacant 4 3 3 Private Steep slopes Unbuilt
street
3 Yes Three contiguous vacant lots on Coleman Drive, which is a paper street on
this block. One owner
011-022-17 0.24 LDR R7.5
011-022-18 0.2 LDR R7.5
B49 1090.01 011-031-44 Opposite 244-264
Coleman
0.26 LDR R10 Vacant 4 6 6 Private Steep slopes Available 6 Yes Six contiguous vacant lots on west side of Coleman Drive, south of Fair Dr
intersection. Opposite 244-264 Coleman
011-031-45 0.25 LDR R10
011-031-46 0.23 LDR R10
011-031-47 0.23 LDR R10
011-031-48 0.23 LDR R10
011-031-49 0.21 LDR R10
B50 1090.01 011-022-15 Vacant lots between
48-98 Fair Drive
0.17 LDR R7.5 Vacant 5.8 12 12 Private Steep slopes Available 12 Yes Existing vacant residential lots along Fair Drive
011-022-05 0.2 LDR R7.5
011-022-19 0.2 LDR R7.5
011-022-06 0.18 LDR R7.5
011-022-22 0.17 LDR R7.5
011-022-07 0.16 LDR R7.5
011-022-25 0.17 LDR R7.5
011-022-08 0.2 LDR R7.5
011-032-22 0.2 LDR R7.5
011-032-23 0.16 LDR R7.5
Page 3 of 4Attachment 3-Page6
ID #Census
Tract APN Address/Location Acreage GP des Zoning Existing Use DU/AC
Theoretical
capacity
Realistic
capacity
Pub/
Priv Constraints
Infra-
structure LowerModAbove ModCounted
Before?Comments
Income Category
011-032-24 0.15 LDR R7.5
011-023-30 0.26 LDR R7.5
011-032-27 0.15 LDR R7.5
B51 1090.01 011-023-18 98 Fair Dr 0.17 LDR R5 Vacant 8.7 2 2 Private Steep slopes Available 2 Yes Existing vacant residential lots along Fair Drive
011-023-17 104 Fair Dr 0.18 LDR R5
B52 1090.01 011-022-20 Coleman Dr 0.17 LDR R7.5 Vacant 8.7 6 6 Private Steep Slopes Unbuilt
street
6 Yes Six contiguous vacant lots on Coleman Drive, which is a paper street on
this block
011-022-21 0.17 LDR R7.5
011-022-23 0.18 LDR R7.5
011-022-24 0.19 LDR R7.5
011-022-26 0.18 LDR R7.5
011-022-27 0.23 LDR R7.5
B53 1090.01 011-021-22 Coleman Dr 0.2 LDR R5 Vacant 8.7 4 4 Private Steep Slopes Unbuilt
street
4 Yes Four contiguous vacant lots on Coleman Drive, which is a paper street on
this block
011-021-23 0.2 LDR R5
011-021-24 0.17 LDR R5
011-021-25 0.11 LDR R5
B54 1090.01 011-033-46 Opposite 344 Prospect
Dr
0.16 LDR R5 Vacant 8.7 1 1 Private Steep Slopes Available 1 No Behind 48 Fair Dr, with frontage on Prospect
B55 1090.01 011-021-29 End of Chula Vista Dr 0.74 LDR R5 Vacant 8.7 6 2 Private Steep Slopes Available 2 No Vacant parcel, could be subdivided into several properties. Access
limitations, narrow roads and steep slopes
B56 1110.02 012-014-02 next to 188 Greenfield
Dr
0.15 LDR R5 Vacant 8.7 1 1 Private None Available 1 No Vacant lot on Greenfield, adjacent to church
B57 1090.02 010-181-30 Between 301 and 307
H Street
0.11 LDR R10 Vacant 4 1 1 Private None Available 1 No Individual vacant 5,000 SF lot, suitable for one home
B58 1101 015-041-21 next to 254 Hearfield Ln 0.22 LDR R7.5 Vacant 5.8 1 1 Private None Available 1 No Vacant residential lot at end of Hearfield Lane
B59 1101 015-051-48 next to 1634 Grand 0.16 LDR R20 Vacant 2 1 1 Private None Available 1 No Vacant residential lot next to 1634 Grand Av
B60 1090.01 011-183-12 Behind 114 Laurel 0.11 LDR R5 Parking 8.7 1 1 Private None Available 1 No Flag lot behind 114 Laurel, used as parking. Could be 1-2 units
B61 1110.02 012-281-19 119 C Street 0.19 LDR R7.5 Vacant 5.8 1 1 Private None Available 1 No Vacant lot on C Street between Antoinette and Wolfe
B62 1090.01 011-184-01 Laurel/Nye SE corner 0.15 HDR R5 Parking 8.7 1 2 Private None Available 2 No Projection based on current zoning, but this site should be rezoned to
multi-family. Good site for 4-8 units
B63 1081 175-145-08 30 San Mateo Ct 0.21 LDR R7.5 Vacant 5.8 1 1 Private None Available 1 No Flat vacant site in Terra Linda area, suitable for one home
B64 1110.02 012-281-22 nextdoor to 22 Wolfe 0.21 LDR R7.5 Vacant 5.8 1 1 Private None Available 1 No Vacant residential lot
B65 1121 013-134-44 between 103 and 105
Picnic Av
0.19 LDR R7.5 Vacant 5.8 1 1 Private None Available 1 No Vacant residential flag lot, access by Spring Street (alley)
B66 1090.01 011-071-18 159 Prospect Dr 0.18 LDR R5 Vacant 8.7 1 1 Private Steep slope Available 1 No Vacant residential lot
TOTALS 251 3 88 160
Page 4 of 4Attachment 3-Page7
SPREADSHEET "C"RESIDENTIALLY ZONED HIGH DENSITY SITES (includes PQP sites)ID #Census TractAPN Address/Location Acreage GP des Zoning Existing Use DU/ACTheoretical capacityRealistic capacity Pub/ PrivConstraintsInfra‐structureLow
ModAbove ModCounted Before?CommentsC1 1090.01 011‐184‐06 109 Laurel Pl0.1 HDR HR1 Vacant43 4 4 Private NoneAvailable4 No Vacant corner lot, zoned for high density. Could support 4‐plexC2 1120.02 010‐291‐67 10 East Crescent0.23 HDR HR‐1.8 Vacant24 5 4 Private Steep slope Available4 No single vacant upslope lot w/ approx 70' of frontage on Crescent, adjoins 4th Street commercial district. Zoned high density, could support 4 unitsC3 1090.01011‐076‐11 1600 Lincoln1.27 HDR HR‐1 Villa Inn43 66 50 Private NoneAvailable 501.54 acre site, includes older motor‐lodge type motel. There have been proposals for housing on this site before. 011‐076‐01 1618 Lincoln0.18 HDR HR‐1 vacantYes011‐076‐13 7 Myrtle0.09 HDR HR‐1 VacantC4 1090.01 011‐131‐04 1312 Mission10.57 HDR PD Elks Club ‐ lodge, parking, outbuildings43 120 67 Private Slopes, access, historic, geotech, existing buildingsDepends on scale67 YesLarge site adjacent to Downtown. About 3 acres are designated High Density Residential (remainder is Hillside Resource). An application for a multi‐family project was submitted for this site around 2011 but it was withdrawn. The 67‐unit "realistic capacity" estimate is based on that proposal. Parking area is relatively flat and could support multi‐family development. Also listed in prior ElementC51090.01 011‐064‐06 1735 Lincoln Av0.61 HDR HR‐1Marin Lodge 43 26 20 Private NoneAvailable 20Yes Formerly Colonial Motel, 20 rooms. Assessed land value is twice the assessed improvement value. Existing FAR is 0.26. Older motor‐lodge type motel, renovated. Site has been proposed for development in the pastC6 1090.01 011‐092‐15between 1523 and 1533 Lincoln 0.23 HDR HR‐1 Vacant43 9 8 Private Steep uphill lot Available8 No Vacant site between two multifamily properties. Slope constraintsC7 1090.01 011‐141‐46 1411 Lincoln1.34 HDR HR‐1Lincoln Hill Community Church43 57 30Tax ExemptExisting church, moderate slope on parts of site Available 30YesLincoln Hill Church. Existing FAR is 0.19 and assessed land and improvement values are approximately equal. Much of site is parking or open area. "Realistic capacity" assumes church is retained and 0.75 acres are developed at 40 units/acreC8 1101 014‐032‐15 41 Valencia Av0.22 HDR HR‐1.8Single family house24 5 4 Private NoneAvailable4 No1100 SF single family home, 80 yrs old on lot zoned for multi‐family. Land value is twice improvement value.C91101 014‐062‐02 27 Valencia Av0.22 HDR HR‐1.8Single family house24 5 4 Private NoneAvailable4 No 1500 SF single family home, 70 yrs old on lot zoned for multi‐familyC10 1082.02 175‐060‐09 245 Nova Albion6.85 HDR HR‐1.8Former Nazareth House24 164 97Tax ExemptExisting buildings, east edge of site is slopedAvailable 9 88 NoFormer Nazareth House. Previously was senior housing operated by non‐profit religious organization. Active pre‐application for 97 townhomes on this site, including 9 BMR unitsC111121 013‐061‐09 51 Mariposa Rd0.16 HDR HR‐1.5Single family house29 4 3 Private NoneAvailable3 No 1200 SF single family home on lot zoned for multifamilyC12 1110.02 012‐062‐05 413 1st Street0.18 HDR HR‐1Single family house43 7 6 Private NoneAvailable6 No 1500 SF single family home on lot zoned for multi‐familyC131101 014‐054‐31 326 Mission0.33 HDR PDUnderused portion of retirement community 43 14 14 PrivateWithin existing development complex Available14 NoThis is an active infill project to add 14 independent senior living units (will full kitchens and baths) to the Aldersly Retirement Community. Project is in pre‐app stage and presumed to occur 2023‐2031. Full Aldersly site is 2.84 acres.C14 1090.01 011‐074‐05 B/w 1550 and 1554 Lincoln0.13 HDR HR‐1 Vacant43 11 10 Private NoneAvailable 19 No This is an active project in pre‐application phase called Brookdale Apartments, with 10 units. Site is now vacant.011‐074‐040.13 HDR HR‐1C15 1090.01 011‐162‐17 1428 Mission (Menzies parking lot)0.8 PQP PQP City‐operated parking lot24 19 16 Public Adjacent to historic landmarkAvailable 16Yes City‐operated parking lot across from City Hall and west of Falkirk Mansion. Identified previously. Flat site adjacent to Downtown. Income CategoryPage 1 of 2Attachment 3-Page8
ID #Census TractAPN Address/Location Acreage GP des Zoning Existing Use DU/ACTheoretical capacityRealistic capacity Pub/ PrivConstraintsInfra‐structureLow
ModAbove ModCounted Before?CommentsIncome CategoryC16 1101 014‐101‐09 SE corner Mission and Union1.07 PQP PQP SRCS Corp Yard24 25 40 Public Requires Corp Yd relocationAvailable 40 NoThe is the northwest corner of a 30+ acre site, which includes Madrone HS and San Rafael High School. It corresponds to the San Rafael City Schools Corp Yard, which would need to relocate. Site is described in the General Plan as a housing opportunity site and has been identified by School DIstrict as potential teacher housing. Requires increase in allowable density to 43.5 DU/ACC171082.01 179‐221‐03 50 Merrydale (part) 0.43 HDR HR‐1.8 vacant pt of MF property24 10 10 Private Slopes, access, freewayAvailable10 No This is a 1.19‐acre apt complex, but 1/3 of the site is undeveloped. Owner has inquired about adding units here.C18 1082.01 179‐142‐27 159 Merrydale0.23 HDR R‐1.8 SF home and pre‐school24.2 19 16 Private Existing uses Available16 No Two adjacent sites (two owners), both single family homes in the multi‐family district on Merrydale. One is a day care center, the other a residence.179‐142‐31 143 Merrydale0.57C19 1082.02 175‐292‐26 25 Golden Hinde1.02 PQP PQP Swim Club 24.2 24 20 Private NoneAvailable 2 18 No Swim club built in 1959, site is primarily open space, parking, and pool. Adjoins multi‐family. Townome density assumedC20 1060.02 179‐270‐11 3501 Civic Center Dr2 PQP PQP Marin Co Civic Ctr (Farmers Market area)24.2 48 80 Public Freeway and train noiseAvailable 80No NW corner of Marin Co Civic Center‐‐immediately adjacent to SMART station and Farmers Market. Yield assumes 2 acres at 40 units/ac (requires increase in allowable P/QP density to 43.5 DU/AC). Site was identifiedinCivicCenterPlanandcountedin4thCycle(butnot5th)SUBTOTAL503248 81 174Page 2 of 2Attachment 3-Page9
SPREADSHEET "D"MIXED USE, NON‐DOWNTOWN SITESID #Census TractAPN Address/Location AcreageGP des Zoning Existing Use DU/AC Theoretical capacityRealistic capacity Pub/ PrivConstraints Infra‐structureLow
ModAbove ModCounted Before?CommentsD1 1122.02 014‐12‐28 555 Francisco Blvd East (Harbor Center)2.24 Marine CommercialMC Older shopping center21.8 48 37 Private Sea level rise, liquefactionAvailable 334 Yes Underutilized, aging shopping center on waterfront site. Zoning supports mixed use. Current FAR is 0.31. Improvement to land value ratio is 0.49, some vacant storefronts. Center is 65 yrs old. D2 1082.02 175‐060‐67 Northgate Mall 28.22 Community Commercial MXDGCRegional shopping Mall43.5 1,905 907 Private Traffic Available, improve‐ments needed96 100 711 Partial (200 DUs counted in 2015)43.8 acres in total. Currently in application phase. Mall owners have submitted plans for 1,441 residences, with a reduction in existing commercial retail from 775,677 sq. ft. to 225,100 square feet. Project includes five 7‐story apartment buildings, plus townhomes. Phase I (covers the Housing El. planning period) includes 907 units. Project includes 96 unit affordable housing project by EAH. Assuming 100 of the 804 market rate units will be affordable by design (i.e., market rents meeting guidelines for moderate income HH)175‐060‐40 1500 Northgate Dr 10.38 GC175‐060‐122.14GCRetail footprint175‐060‐591.04GCRetail footprint175‐060‐610.79GCRetail footprint175‐060‐661.3GCRetail footprintD3 1060.01 155‐141‐26 4340 Redwood Hwy 5.17 OfficeO LaPlaza Office Park43.5 224 179 Private Existing uses Available 17162 Yes Complex of one‐story offices built in 1972, current FAR is 0.31. Mostly smaller tenants, some vacancies. Site listed previously. D4 1060.01 155‐141‐28 50 Mitchell Blvd 0.44 OfficeO Margarita Plaza Office Park43.5 117 93 Private Existing uses Available 984 Yes Complex of one story offices built in 1966, current FAR is 0.43. All four parcels in common ownership (‐31 is the parking lot). Level site, many smaller tenants. Multiple vacancies. Site listed previously.155‐141‐2940 Mitchell Blvd 0.42 OfficeO155‐141‐30 4 Mitchell Blvd 0.65 OfficeO155‐141‐311.18 OfficeOD5 1082.02 175‐331‐24 600 Las Gallinas Av 1.17 OfficeO Wells Fargo 43.5 71 56 Private Existing uses Available56 Yes Wells Fargo Bank and adjacent parcel with parking lot. Bank was built in 1964. FAR on the two parels is just 0.07. Most of the site is parking. Sitelistedpreviously.175‐331‐210.48 OfficeOparking lotD6 1082.01 175‐060‐32 555 Northgate Dr 2.17 OfficeO office bldg 43.5 94 75 Private Existing uses Available75 Yes 24,000 SF multi‐tenant office building built in 1960, within 1/2 mile of SMART station and adjoined on two sides by high density housing. 7,300 SF now for lease. Current FAR is 0.26. Much of site is parking.D7 1082.02 175‐321‐33 900 Las Gallinas 0.5 OfficeO office bldg 43.5 21 17 Private None Available 17No 4,800 SF single story office built in 1961. Existing FAR is only 0.22 and ratio of assessed improvement to land value is only 0.36. Building appears underutilized and was not counted previously.D8 1090.02 010‐277‐12 2114 4th St0.58 OfficeC/O McDonalds43.5 25 20 Private Existing uses, TrafficAvailable 20Yes Fast food restaurant, built in 1970. Existing FAR is 0.15. Most of site is parking. Assessed land value is twice the assessed impr. value. Site was listed previously.D91122.02 014‐152‐39 east of 100 Yacht Club Dr1Marine CommercialMC waterfront parking lot21.8 21 18 Private Sea level rise, liquefactionAvailable 216 No Large surface parking lot (0.998 Ac) on prvt site east of vacant Terrapin Crossroads restaurant. Waterfront access. D10 1122.02 008‐105‐09 141 Bellam0.48 Neighborhood Commercial MXDNCMore for less retail store24.2 11 15 Private Sea level rise, trafficAvailable15 No Discount grocery store on half‐acre parcel at Bellam and Lisbon, NE corner. Most of site is parking. Presumes allowable density in Neighborhood Commercial zoning district is increased to 1 DU/1250 SF (24.8 DU/A)Income CategoryPage 1 of 3Attachment 3-Page10
ID #Census TractAPN Address/Location AcreageGP des Zoning Existing Use DU/AC Theoretical capacityRealistic capacity Pub/ PrivConstraints Infra‐structureLow
ModAbove ModCounted Before?CommentsIncome CategoryD11 1060.01 151‐131‐31 5 Mitchell Blvd 0.23 Office O office bldg 43.5 34 27 Private Existing uses Available 27 No Two office parcels under same owner. Assessor indicates both sites are "unimproved" but each has a small office bldg (zero improvement value). 1 Mitchell is Westamerica branch bank. 5 Mitchell is 3100 SF office bldg, no tenants listed on building151‐131‐32 1 Mitchell Blvd 0.57 OfficeO office bldgD12 1060.01 155‐131‐27 25 Mitchell Blvd 2.44 Office O office bldgs 43.5 104 83 Private Existing uses Available 83 40,000 SF office building, single story rectangular configuration with central open space. Built in 1968. Mostly small local‐serving tenants, some vacancies. Similar to LaPlaza and Margarita Plaza, which were listed as housing sites in 2015. Zoning allows 43.5 DU/ACD13 1060.01 155‐121‐03 30 Smith Ranch Rd 1.43 OfficePD Bank of America43.562 50 private access, noise Available 50No Bank of America branch built in 1982, currently closed. Existing FAR is 0.18 and much of the site is parking. Parcel is in a PD, so rezoning may be needed before housing can be builtD14 1122.02 008‐091‐14 65 Vivian St0.42 Neighborhood Commercial MXDNC Car Wash 24.2 10 12 Private Sea Level Rise Available 12No Canal Car Wash, located across the street from the proposed Country Club Bowl development. Existing FAR is 0,07 and ratio of assessed improvement value to land value is 0.07. Need to increase allowable Neighborhood Commercial densities to 1 DU/1250 SF (34.8 DUA)D15 1122.04 014‐193‐13 65 Medway0.46 Neighborhood Commercial MXDNC Enterprise Rent‐a‐Car24.2 11 24 Private Sea Level Rise Available 24No Enterprise Rental Car site. Includes 1,800 SF office built in 1969, and two parcels of parking lots. Easterly (larger) parcel is zoned NC and westerly parcel is zoned CCIO and requires rezoning. Yield presumes increase in NC densities to 34.8 DUA014‐193‐120.3 LI/OCCIOparking lotD16 1082.01 018‐142‐40 350 Merrydale 1.81 OfficePD Self‐storage 43.5 78 62 Private Existing Use, Access, NoiseAvailable 62No Public Storage mini‐warehouses. Site immediately abuts SMART station and has been identified as a TOD opportunity in multiple plans. D17 1082.01 018‐142‐41 401 Merrydale0.9 OfficeLIO Self‐storage 43.532 Private Existing Use, Access, NoiseAvailable 32No Northgate Security Storage. Site has been identified as housing opp. In several plans. Assessed land value exceeds improvement value by 5 times. General Plan supports housing, but site needs to be rezoned to O.D181081 178‐101‐34 620 Freitas Pkwy 1.02 Neighborhood Commercial MXNC Terra Linda Shopping Center24.2 74 90 private traffic, access Available 90No Terra Linda Shopping Center, built around 1956. These six parcels are 3.07 acres and have three owners. Excludes several outparcels (tire shop, dental offices) but counts Scotty's market and the shopping center. Redevelopment of this center is expressly supported by General Plan 2040 and was also supported by General Plan 2020. Yield presumes increase in allowable NC densities178‐101‐450.31178‐101‐43 633 Del Ganado 0.44178‐101‐41 627 Del Ganado 0.47178‐101‐44 641 Del Ganado0.47178‐101‐36 667 Del Ganado 0.36D19 1060.01 155‐072‐05 11 Professional Ctr Pkwy0.87 OfficeO Vacant office/ day care43.5 37 30 Private None Available 30No As of March 2022, this property was being advertised for sale. It is an 8,900 office building formerly used as a child care center. Assessed land value is more than twice the building value. Existing FAR is only 0.22. Built in 1969.Page 2 of 3Attachment 3-Page11
ID #Census TractAPN Address/Location AcreageGP des Zoning Existing Use DU/AC Theoretical capacityRealistic capacity Pub/ PrivConstraints Infra‐structureLow
ModAbove ModCounted Before?CommentsIncome CategoryD20 1090 010‐291‐39 1908 4th0.32 OfficeC/O Urban Remedy, Pet Store43.5 20 16 Private Access, traffic Available 16No Two adjacent commercial properties in West End/Miracle Mile, each with a small free‐standing structure and parking lots. One owner. Existing FAR is 0.15, and ratio of assessed improvement value to land value is 0.17 on one parcel and 0.33 on the other010‐291‐581904 4th 0.16D21 1090 010‐291‐50 1930 4th 0.23 Office C/O office, retail, parking, services43.5 19 15 Private Access, traffic Available 15 No Two adjacent commercial properties in West End/Miracle Mile, one owner. One includes vacant retail space. Other has misc. offices and services, some vacancies. Built 1946‐50. Opportunity to merge site and redevelop with multi‐family or mixed use. 010‐291‐44 1924 4th0.21D22 1082.01 179‐102‐11 3765 Redwood Hwy 0.33 Community Commercial MXDGC pool service, diving center43.5 29 23 Private Access, traffic, freeway noiseAvailable 23No Two adjacent commercial sites under single ownership. Buildings date from mid‐1960s. Existing FAR is 0.41. Active multi‐family residential projectnextdoor.179‐064‐02 3769 Redwood Hwy0.35D23 1090 010‐281‐06 2100 4th St0.41 OfficeC/O strip shop ctr 43.5 17 14 Private Access, traffic Available 14No Strip shopping ctr (pizza, UPS store, space for lease). Built in 1969. D24 1122 008‐093‐01 855 Francisco Bvd E 0.35 Community Commercial MXDGC North Bay Inn 43.5 15 20 private Noise, traffic, floodingAvailable 20No 20‐room motor lodge built in 1950. Currently operating as a motel. Could be converted to housing. Yield is based on room count.D251122.02 008‐092‐08 865 Francisco Bvd E 0.44 Community Commercial MXDGC Surestay Hotel 43.5 19 32 private Noise, traffic, floodingAvailable 32No Former Travel Lodge, built in 1956. Currently operating as a 32‐room motel. Could be convered to housing. Yield is based on room count.D261060.01155‐110‐34 160 Mitchell Blvd 1.31 OfficeO Office bldg 43.55620 private Flooding Available20 No Active application under consideration to convert this vacant 10,644 SF office building into 20 small rental housing unitsD27 1122.02 009‐181‐18 3255 Kerner Blvd 0.81 Community Commercial MXDGC Bahia Corners retail/office43.5 34 28 Private Traffic Available28 No Mixed office‐retail bldg (Bahia Corners) with 10400 SF floor area (FAR .27). Tenants incl. small market and restaurants. Much of site is parking. Assessed value of land exceeds value of building.D281121 013‐092‐17 85 Woodland Av 0.75 Neighborhood Commercial MXDNC Bret Harte Market24.2 18 24 Private none Available 222 No Older neighborhood market built in 1953, with large parking area. Assessed improvement value roughly equal to land value. Potential for multi‐family, or residential over retail. Yield presumes increase in NC zoning density.D29 1082.01 179‐101‐01100 El Prado Av 0.55 Neighborhood Commercial MXDNC Dandy Market 24.2 13 16 Private Traffic/access Available 16 No Small neighborhood market, built 1951. Zoning allows for multi‐family or mixed use, including housing over market. Yield presumes increase in NC zoning density.D30 1090.01 011‐145‐13 1380 Lincoln0.23 OfficeR/O Office building 43.5 9 9 Private None Available9 No Active application to convert office building into 9 unitsSubtotal2044712 279 1053Page 3 of 3Attachment 3-Page12
SPREADSHEET "E"
DOWNTOWN MIXED USE SITES (in Precise Plan Area)
ID #
Census
Tract APN Address/Location Area GP des Zoning Existing Use
Theoretical
capacity
Realistic
capacity Pub/Priv Constraints
Infra-
structure LowModAbove ModPreviously
Counted?Comments
E1 1110.02 012-073-23 2nd/D SE corner (1323
2nd Street)
0.32 DMU T4N 40/50 Auto parts
store
13 13 Private None Available 1 12 No One-story automotive retailer with surface parking. I/L ratio is 0.85, built
in 1948. Level, corner, square-shaped site, access to 2 streets. Listed in
DTTP as opportunity site for 13 DU.
E2 1110.02 011-254-08 2nd and C, NW corner
(1304-1318 2nd Street)
0.17 DMU T4N 40/50 Deli. Retail
store
26 13 Private None Available 1 12 No 0.33 ac site. One story retail strip with large paved area/parking along 2nd
Street (Bruno's Deli, Jeans to a T). Listed in DTTP as opportunity site for 26
units, though that includes adjoining Chevron sta.
011-254-23 0.16 DMU
E3 1110.02 011-253-07 3rd and C, NW corner
(1306-1312 3rd St)
0.14 DMU T5N 40/60 Copy shop
and parking
lot
11 9 Private None Available 9 No 0.22 ac site. copy shop, built 1950, with parking lot to rear. Relatively low
improvement value, low FAR. Corner site, could potentially aggregate with
other properties. Listed as 11 units in DTPP.
011-253-08 0.08 DMU
E4 1110.01 011-212-15 5th and C SE corner 0.38 DMU T5N 40/60 Municipal
parking
garage
37 16 Public None Available 16 No 2 level public parking garage at 5th/C, adjacent to City Hall. Identified in
DTPP as 37 units
E5 1110.01 012-075-08 703 B Street 0.12 DMU T4N 40/50 7-11 store 10 8 Private None Available 8 No 0.23 ac site. 7-11 convenience store at NW corner of 1st and B, opposite
Safeway. Includes surface parking and older 1-story store built 1967.
Assessed land value exceeds building value.
012-075-09 705-707 B Street 0.11 DMU
E6 1110.01 013-012-02 700 B Street 1.99 DMU T5N 40/60 Safeway 85 50 Private None Available 50 No 27,000 SF older Safeway supermarket. Assessed value of improvements
reported at "zero". Opportunity for mixed use housing over grocery. DTPP
assumed 50 units
E7 1110.01 011-213-01 1145 Mission Av 0.22 DMU T4N 40/50 Parking 21 20 Private Slight slope Available 2 18 No Three adjacent lots owned by Westamerica Bank, facing Mission. One
includes a small, older home, the other two are parking lots. Identified as
development opportunity in DTPP
011-213-02 0.09 SF home (bank-owned)
011-213-03 0.18 Parking
E8 1110.01 011-263-21 1030 Third St (3rd and
A NE corner)
0.68 DMU T5N 50/70 First Federal
Bank
44 30 Private Potential
historic
resource
Available 3 27 Yes This is a carry-over site from 5th Cycle. Bank built in 1963 on corner site.
FAR is only 0.28, most of site is parking. Identified as opportunity site in
DTPP.
E9 1110.01 011-263-16 924 Third 0.122 DMU T4MS 60/80
and T5N
50/70
former
Macy's, other
retail, through-
block
(excludes
muni parking)
120 120 Private None Available 12 108 No .98 acre site comprised of 4 parcels under single owner (Goldstone).
Existing uses are older low-rise retail, with high vacancies. Owner has been
in discussion with City for several years exploring potential pub/pvt
partnership, leveraging adjacent municipal parking garage for mixed use
project. Site includes retail stores, running through block 3rd to 4th b/w
Court and A in center if Downtown Core. DTP assumed 120 units here.
Proposals by owner have exceeded 200 units, plus public market. Density
bonuses are likely. (Muni parking garage was counted as a site in 5th cycle
and is not included here). 120 DU estimate is conservative. Project may
include additional parcels.
011-263-19 0.202
Income Category
Page 1 of 6Attachment 3-Page13
ID #
Census
Tract APN Address/Location Area GP des Zoning Existing Use
Theoretical
capacity
Realistic
capacity Pub/Priv Constraints
Infra-
structure LowModAbove ModPreviously
Counted?Comments
Income Category
011-263-04 1001 Fourth 0.431
011-263-18 1009 Fourth 0.229
E10 1110.01 011-221-13
(northern
half)
Back half of 1110-1122
Court, 980-990 Fifth
0.34 DMU T4N 40/50 parking lot 14 20 Private Requires lot
split.
Available 2 18 No Total parcel is 0.67 acres and includes office building facing 5th Av and rear
surface parking lot along Mission. DTPP illustrative diagram show rear
portion divided and reused with 20 units residential.
E11 1110.01 011-300-26 5th and C NE corner
(1248 5th Ave)
0.65 DMU T5N40/60
(Fifth)
T4N40/50
(Mission)
bank and
rooftop
parking
garage
42 80 Private Slight slope Available 8 72 No Owner has provided preliminary plans for a multi-story mixed use project
on this site with more than 100 units, using density bonuses (60' height on
5th, 50' on Mission)
E12 1110.01 011-221-07 914 5th Av (n/side
between Court and
Nye)
0.27 DMU T5N 50/70 municipal
parking
18 15 Public None Available 15 No Municipal parking lot on 5th Avenue. Downtown Precise Plan estimated
15 units on this site.
E13 1110.01 011-221-04 SW corner Nye and
Mission (next to 907
Mission)
0.21 DMU T5N 50/70 private
parking lot
13 13 Private None Available 1 12 No Parking lot owned by Nute Engineering, who has offices in converted
historic home on an adjacent parcel. DTPP estimated 13 units on this site.
E14 1110.01 011-174-14 (s NW corner Mission
and Court
0.5 DMU T4N 40/50 vacant 21 14 Private Requires lot
split
Available 14 No This is the back half of a through lot. The frontage on Laurel is developed
with multi-family. The frontage on Mission is vacant. Good developable
site. DTPP estimated 14 unit yield.
E15 1110.01 011-225-01 SW corner Lincoln/
Mission (1125 Lincoln)
0.214 DMU T4N 40/50 76 station 20 15 Private Gas sta
remediation
Available 1 14 No Gas station on 0.49 acre site at prime corner location, faces site of
approved assisted living development. DTPP assumed 15 unit yield
011-225-02 0.261 DMU
E16 1110.01 011-224-08 SW corner Lincoln/ 5th
(through to 4th)
0.093 DMU T5N50/70;
T4MS60/80
Lotus rest.
(4th); parking
(5th)
26 13 Private None Available 1 12 No 0.4 ac site comprised of three parcels under one ownership, including two
vacant/parking lots on 5th and a 4th St storefront. DTPP assumed 13 unit
yield.
011-224-11 812 4th 0.137
011-224-19 0.172
E17 1110.01 011-224-05 809 5th Av 0.13 DMU T5N50/70 municipal
parking
17 15 Public None Available 15 No .27 acre municipal parking lot on 5th Av just west of Lincoln (south side of
street). Identified in DTPP as potential site for 15 units.
011-224-06 813 5th Av 0.14 DMU
E18 1110.01 011-271-14 3rd/Lootens NE corner
(840 3rd)
0.12 DMU T5N50/70 municipal
parking
32 30 Public None Available 30 No .36 acre municipal parking lot on 3rd Street, also serves as parking for
adjacent Walgreens. DTPP identified capacity for 30 units
011-271-13 0.12 DMU
011-271-12 0.12 DMU
E19 1110.01 011-273-17 3rd and Cijos NE
corner
0.46 DMU T5N50/70 municipal
parking
41 36 Public None Available 36 No .46 acre municipal parking lot on 3rd Street at Cijos. DTPP identified
capacity for 30 units.
E20 1110.01 011-273-24 w/side Lincoln b/w 3rd
and 4th
0.19 DMU T4MS 60/80 private
parking lot
17 14 Private None Available 14 No .19 acre private parking lot. Same party owns 823 4th Street. One block
from SMART station, Lincoln frontage. DTPP estimated 14 units.
Page 2 of 6Attachment 3-Page14
ID #
Census
Tract APN Address/Location Area GP des Zoning Existing Use
Theoretical
capacity
Realistic
capacity Pub/Priv Constraints
Infra-
structure LowModAbove ModPreviously
Counted?Comments
Income Category
E21 1110.01 011-272-20 Ritter Block 0.11 DMU T5N 50/70 Ritter Ctr
clinic/
services,
brake shop,
Mobil sta, car
radio shop,
coffee kiosk,
smoke shop,
vac.
200 160 Private,
plus 0.55
public
(ROW)
None Available 160 No 1.79 acres, conisting of 10 parcels. Downtown Precise Plan also proposes
closing Ritter on this block, creating an additional 0.55 of developable
space, bringing total to approx. 2.34 acres. The Downtown Plan envisions
this as a "signature development site" within the Downtown Station Area.
Site was evaluated as having the potential for 200 units, including office
and potentially hotel, ground floor retail, and a parking garage. Project
will require site assembly. There are currently 6 owners, one of which
controls about half the parcels
011-272-21 0.16
011-272-22 0.32
011-272-23 0.11
011-272-10 0.2
011-272-11 0.24
011-272-12 0.14
011-272-01 0.24
011-272-13 0.13
011-272-04 0.1
E22 1110.01 011-275-13 Tamalpais/3rd NW
corner
0.33 DMU T5MS 70/90 private
parking lot
44 44 Private None Available 44 Yes Known as the "Salute" site (name of restaurant located here that burned in
2005)--currently a private parking lot. Owners participated in Downtown
Plan and submitted illustrative plans for 44 unit apts. Also counted in 5th
cycle Element.
E23 1110.01 014-121-14 Hetherton/3rd NW
corner (666 3rd)
0.59 DMU T5MS 70/90 Citibank and
parking
65 60 Private Freeway/
train noise,
air quality
Available 60 No Citibank is located immediately east (and abutting) SMART station
platform and was identified as a major opportunity in Downtown Plan.
That plan estimated 65 units here. Existing bank ws built in 1978, FAR is
0.4. In tallest/most intense height district
E24 1110.01 014-084-14 N/side 4th b/w
Tamalpais and
Hetherton (1006
Tamalpais)
0.23 DMU T5MS 70/90 House of
Bagels, check
cashing
27 27 Private Freeway/
train noise,
air quality
Available 27 No Site located immediately north of SMART station, on 4th St. Identified as a
major TOD opportunity in Downtown Plan. Existing use is older retail
buildings (non-historic). Assessed improvement to land value ratio is 0.72.
E25 1110.01 011-227-02 SW corner 5th and
Tamalpais
0.36 DMU T5MS 70/90 Parking lot for
709 Fifth Av
38 24 Private Freeway/
train noise,
air quality
Available 2 22 No Would require dividing this parcel, which faces 5th Av. West side of lot
includes beauty products business. East side is unimproved parking.
Identified in Downtown Plan as potential 38 units, 6-7 stories. Across
street from SMART station
E26 1110.02 011-251-06 NW corner 2nd and D
St (905 D St)
0.117 DMU T5N 40/60 vacant lot 19 15 Private None Available 15 No Three parcels, two owners. Two of the parcels are vacant. The third has
an older vacuum repair business with a very low ratio of assessed
improvements to land (I/L = 0.35). The developed parcel is the corner lot,
the vacant parcels are to the north and west
011-251-08 0.129 vacant lot
011-251-07 0.193 vacuum repair
Page 3 of 6Attachment 3-Page15
ID #
Census
Tract APN Address/Location Area GP des Zoning Existing Use
Theoretical
capacity
Realistic
capacity Pub/Priv Constraints
Infra-
structure LowModAbove ModPreviously
Counted?Comments
Income Category
E27 1110.01 011-262-19 midblock n/side 2nd
between A and B
(1112 2nd St)
0.173 DMU T5N 50/70 former
construction/
welding shop
18 15 Private None Available 15 No Was a consrtuction and welding co, sold in 2018. One developed parcel
and one almost entirely vacant, same owner. Very low assessed
improvement value (I/L ratio = 0.4). Building constructed in 1946. Strong
potential for reuse as small multi-family, live-work, or mixed use project
011-262-11 0.111
E28 1110.02 011-245-26 4th and E/ SW corner
(1515 4th St)
0.83 DMU T4MS 50/70 former
WestAmerica
Bank
106 191 Private None Available 14 177 No .89-acre parcel, former WestAmerica Bank. Bank closed, site sold, owner
has application under consideration for a 191-unit, seven-story project,
including 14 very low income units. Density bonuses requested.
011-245-39 0.06
E29 1110.02 011-241-35 2nd and G Street NW
corner (1660 2nd St)
0.26 DMU T4N 40/50 West End
Animal Center
11 10 Private Access Available 1 9 No Veterinary clinic on corner lot (2nd/G). Assessed value of land far exceeds
assessed value of building (ratio is 0.37). Building constructed in 1951,
single story with parking. FAR is 0.34.
E30 1110.02 012-073-28 1st and D, NE corner
(706-712 D St)
0.535 DMU T4N 40/50 small, local-
serving
offices
34 28 Private None Available 3 25 No 0.76 ac site comprised of three adjoining parcels with two owners. One of
the parcels are vacant. The other two contain two older (1956 and 1961)
Class C office bldgs with misc. local-serving tenants.
012-073-16 0.107 vacant lot
012-073-17 0.118
E31 1110.02 012-073-10 711 D Street 0.161 DMU T4N 40/50 vacant lot 6 4 Private None Available 4 No Proposal for four townhomes just received for this site (Jun 2022)
E32 1110.02 011-231-21 1801 4th St (4th and
Ida, SW corner)
1.176 DMU T4MS 40/60 Best Buy
outlet
91 72 Private None Available 7 65 Yes This is a 1.55 acre site comprised of two parcels with different owners.
They could be assembled, or each parcel could support a residential or
mixed use project. Both parcels were also counted in the 2015 Element.
Jack in the Box (built 1970) has an FAR of 0.8 and an I/L ratio of 0.32. Best
Buy (built 1969) has an FAR of 0.38 and an I/L of 0.76. Identified in
Downtown Plan as a potential 90 unit mixed use project (ground floor
retail on 2nd and 4th Streets)
011-231-17 1814 2nd St 0.376 Jack in The
Box
E33 1110.02 010-291-33 1826 4th St (4th St
west of El Camino)
0.44 DMU T4MS 40/50 Ace Garden
Center
24 20 Private None Available 20 Yes 0.56-acre site, also counted in 2015 Element. Includes Ace Hardware
Garden Center. Downtown Plan assumed 23 units on this site. FAR is 0.19,
I/L ratio is 0.21
010-291-49 0.12
E34 1110.02 011-202-11 NW corner 4th and E
Streets (1504-1518 4th
St)
0.2 DMU T4MS 50/70 Rug store,
bakery
40 40 Private None Available 40 No 0.84-acre site in single ownership at NW corner of 4th and E. Owner has
expressed interest in mixed use or multi-family residential on this site.
Downtown Plan assumed 40 units, though this is likely low. Property
across street has same zoning and similar size and has an active application
for 191 units011-202-14 0.64
E35 1110.02 012-064-18 SW corner 2nd and E
(1515 2nd St)
0.567 DMU T4N 40/50 Shineology car
wash
25 20 Private None Available 20 No Car wash. FAR is 0.08 and Assessed Improvement to Assessed Land Value
ratio is 0.13.
E36 1110.02 011-231-03 s/side 4th, east of 2nd
St. (1825 4th St)
0.17 DMU T4MS 40/60 IHOP and
parking lot
16 15 Private None Available 1 14 No IHOP restaurant on one parcel, and parking on the other. Same owner.
Assessed improvement to land value ratio is 0.43. FAR is 0.18. Building
constructed in 1965. Site identified in Downtown Plan as opportunity for
23 units
011-231-04 0.19
Page 4 of 6Attachment 3-Page16
ID #
Census
Tract APN Address/Location Area GP des Zoning Existing Use
Theoretical
capacity
Realistic
capacity Pub/Priv Constraints
Infra-
structure LowModAbove ModPreviously
Counted?Comments
Income Category
E37 1110.02 011-194-13 1610 4th St (n/side
midblock b/w F and G
Streets)
0.18 DMU T4MS 40/50 used car lot 24 24 Private None Available 2 22 No Individual parcel on 4th St supporting a used car lot. 24 units just
proposed (June 2022). Assuming 2 BMR units
E38 1110.02 011-246-12 N/side 2nd between E
and Shaver (805 E St
and 1524 2nd St)
0.394 DMU T4N 40/50 Cat grooming
and oil change
41 34 Private None Available 34 No Two adjacent parcels under common ownership (Cats Cradle and
Valvolene). Downtown Plan estimated 41 units on 0.79 acre site.
011-246-13 0.392 DMU
E39 1110.02 011-245-38 220 Shaver 0.9 DMU T4N 40/50 AT&T facility 60 40 Tax-Exempt None Available 40 Yes Site was counted in 2015-2023 Element. 0.91 AT&T facility and parking
area. Downtown Plan estimated 60 units on this site.
E40 1110.02 011-251-12 NE corner, 3rd and E
Streets (908 E St)
0.23 DMU T5N 40/60 office bldg
and parking
27 23 Private None Available 2 21 No 3,300 SF office building constructed in 1958. Two parcels, totaling .35
acres. One parcel provides parking. Identified in Downtown Plan as
opportunity site for 27 units.
011-251-13 0.12 DMU
E41 1110.02 011-251-10 N/side 2nd St between
D and E Streets (1412
2nd)
0.08 DMU T4N 40/50 Municipal
parking lot
7 7 Public None Available 7 No Municipal parking lot. Identified by City study as having the potential for 7
units. Also shown in Downtown Plan as possible 7-unit building.
E42 1110.02 011-196-09 1550 4th parking 0.217 DMU T4MS 40/50 overflow
parking, car
storage
50 40 Private None Available 4 36 No 0.99-acre site comprised of five adjacent parcels. Would require site
aggregation. Existing uses are lower value relative to surroundings,
including vehicle storage. Downtown Plan estimated 50 units if parcels are
merged.
011-196-08 1540 4th 0.179 T4MS 40/50
011-202-13 1530 4th parking 0.249 T4MS 50/70
011-196-11 1560 4th 0.202 T4MS 50/70
011-196-07 1532 4th-parking lot 0.143 T4MS 50/70
E43 1110.02 012-054-02 S of 1621 2nd 0.229 DMU T4N 40/50 vacant lot 4 4 Private None Available 4 No Vacant lot on Miramar south of 2nd. Potential 4-plex.
E44 1101 014-092-26 NE corner 4th and
Mary (350 4th St)
1.07 DMU T4N 40/50 Salvation
Army
41 35 Tax-Exempt None Available 35 Yes 1 acre site with Salvation Army facilities. Carry-over site. Counted as 41
units in 2015 Element. Counted as 35 units in Downtown Precise Plan.
E45 1101 014-126-06 W/side Grand b/w
Second and Third (515
3rd St)
1.86 DMU T5N 40/60 United Market 85 83 Private None Available 8 75 No Single story supermarket built in 1955, FAR is 0.3 and much of site is
surface parking. Assessed value of land is twice the value of improvements
(I/L ratio = 0.54). Site identified in Downtown Plan is significant mixed use
opportunity (housing over grocery, with structured parking). DTPP
estimated 83 units.
E46 1101 014-123-26 N/side 3rd bw
Grand/Irwin (508-514
Irwin)
0.29 DMU T5N 40/60 private
parking lots
22 18 Private None Available 18 No Two adjacent parcels used as parking lots for surrounding commercial
properties. Downtown Plan identified potential for 22 units. Would
require consolidation, potentially in conjunction with redevelopment of
one of the adjacent properties
014-123-34 0.19
E47 1101 014-132-15 S/side 2nd b/w Grand
and Irwin (555 2nd St)
0.44 DMU T5N 40/60 KFC
restaurant
46 30 Private Flooding Available 3 27 No Fast food restaurant (built 1969) and surface parking lot, with frontage
along San Rafael Canal. Existing FAR is 0.22. Downtown Plan identified this
as a housing opportunity, with ground floor waterfront commercial and
related amenities
Page 5 of 6Attachment 3-Page17
ID #
Census
Tract APN Address/Location Area GP des Zoning Existing Use
Theoretical
capacity
Realistic
capacity Pub/Priv Constraints
Infra-
structure LowModAbove ModPreviously
Counted?Comments
Income Category
E48 1101 014-132-12 SE corner Irwin and
Second (700 Irwin)
0.57 DMU T5N 50/70 vacant office
bldg
67 50 Private Flooding Available 5 45 No This is a completely vacant 26,000 SF office building, currently fenced off
and closed. Has been discussed as a possible housing site and was
identified as such in the Downtown Precise Plan. Waterfront site, with
opportunities for shoreline amenities
E49 1101 014-091-15 NE corner Grand and
4th (420 4th/ 1010
Grand)
0.128 DMU T4N 40/50 34 35 Private None Available 3 32 No .264 site, recently aggregated and in pre-application stage for 35-unit
mixed use (mostly residential) project
014-091-16 0.069
014-091-17 0.067
E50 1101 014-123-27 SE corner Irwin and
4th St (523-525 4th)
0.51 DMU T5N 50/70 Office bldgs 72 60 Private None Available 6 54 No Adjacent early 1960s offices. Recently sold. Owner has expressed interest
in residential/ mixed use development. Application likely during planning
period. 0.81 acre site.
014-123-28 0.3
E51 1101 014-123-06 s/side 4th b/w Grand
and Irwin
0.3 T4N 40/50 13 12 Public None Available 12 No City-owned property, used for storage.
E52 1101 014-151-11 b/w 179 and 209 Third
St
0.55 DMU T5N40/60 Overflow
parking lot
25 20 Private Flooding Available 20 No Spillover parking lot, east of Montecito Plaza Shopping Center. Primarily
used during peak periods. Waterfront site.
E53 1101 014-093-10 NW corner Mary and
Third (402 3rd St)
0.32 DMU T5N 40/60 Peet's coffee 13 10 Private None Available 1 9 No
Subtotal 1814 602 249 963
Page 6 of 6Attachment 3-Page18
To: Barry Miller and the San Rafael Housing Element Working Group
From: Students at Laurel Dell Elementary School —Y-PLAN + Youth in Arts Program
Re: Recommendations for Affordable Housing in San Rafael
Date: June 15, 2022
Dear San Rafael Housing Element Working Group
As many of you know, the third grade students at Laurel Dell Elementary School took on
the challenge “How do we create more affordable housing in San Rafael?” as part of
their 12-week study of Architecture and Urban Planning program sponsored by Youth in
Arts and UC Berkeley’s Y-PLAN* this spring.
With support and guidance from professional architects, planners and civic leaders, ,
the Laurel Dell students spent over a month intensively studying the issues, and
formulating recommendations for the Housing Element Working Group. We structured
the students’ experience so that they could work in parallel, contribute, and add value to
the work of the Housing Element Working Group.
The students studied a large 3D map of San
Rafael, focusing on both sides of the Creek/Canal;
the industrial area; and neighborhoods around their
school and Davidson School. We identified sites
that might accommodate affordable housing. We
then introduced the students to nine different
housing types: ADUs, Tiny Houses, Micro-
Apartments, Co-housing, High Rise Housing,
and Adaptive Re-Use of existing old buildings.
ATTACHMENT 5:
REPORT FROM Y-PLAN/ YOUTH IN ARTS
Working in teams of three, the students focused on one housing type per team. They
studied affordable housing best practices in different cities around the world. Then each
team created a site model for their housing type. After much discussion with each other,
adult professionals, and School Board President and Housing Element Working Group
Member, Linda Jackson, the children voted on their top three housing types.
ADUs were by far the most popular housing type. “One or two people can afford to live
there and share the garden (and maybe even a pool) with people who have a big house
and yard”, Tiny Houses were the second most popular housing type. “Homeless people
can live in a nice colorful place, and feel like they are in a neighborhood.” , The
navigation center was also an appealing option. “People can come here to be safe, to
get food, and to get help.” Finally, the students made smaller scale versions of each site
model, and situated them on the large 3D Map of the city — on sites that they felt were
suitable and could accommodate affordable housing
Recommendations
We offer you a set of recommendations, based upon the children’s studies, their
visioning process, input from each other and adults, as well as their own knowledge of
and lived experiences in San Rafael. These values and priorities were reflected In the
students designs for the nine prototypical models. The ideas and features were
highlighted in their voting preferences and were ratified in the group discussions that
ensued after their design, visioning, and prioritizing sessions. These themes apply to all
the housing types explored by the students.
1. Public space within all affordable housing types is a high priority. The children
on all teams focused on creating shared spaces and quality public life within
each housing configuration. Recommended spaces and places include green
spaces, open space, swimming pools, gathering places, and gardens.
2. Community connections and a strong sense of community are also important.
The students repeatedly emphasized that affordable housing developments
should build in opportunities for face-to -face human connections. In their models
the students created spaces and places that enabled residents of all ages and
backgrounds to get to know each other, build relationships, and stay connected.
To this end, in their models the students included gathering places, shared
community rooms, and friendly doors and windows.
3. Access to resources, and opportunities to share resources is another aspect
of affordable housing that the children emphasized as crucial, especially for
homeless and housing insecure folks. In their proposals for tiny homes, a
navigation center, and micro apartments they built in resources that promoted
well-being for all residents. These included: mental and physical health
resources, support services. In all of the housing types shared resources also
included tools, recreational equipment, and gardens/food.
4. Welcoming features that appeal to people of all ages were included in all the
children’s proposals. These included: bright, friendly colors on walls and
walkways; elements that promote fun such as swimming pools and play area;
safety and protection from traffic and danger, and access to public transit, bike
and walking pathways.
Overall, this experience enabled the children to add their voices to everyone on the
Housing Element Working group who ar working affirmatively to promote fairness and
equity in housing in San Rafael.
*Youth in Arts aims for youth of every background and ability to have the creative skills,
compassion, confidence, and resilience to share their voices and achieve their goals.
Y-PLAN (Youth – Plan, Learn, Act, Now) is an educational strategy that empowers young people
to tackle real-world problems in their communities through project-based civic learning experiences.
Y-PLAN centers youth as agents of change by partnering them with the adults who are designing
and planning our cities.