HomeMy WebLinkAbout2011-05-02_cityofsanrafael_63d8a2466e8744d05ef8d2f157f57dabCITY OF
Agenda Item No: 10
Meeting Date: May 2, 2011
SAN RAFAEL CITY COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT
Department: Community Development
1/0 YA
Prepared by: Robert M. rown
---,_.
Comm
Director
City Manager Approval, U6
SUBJECT: Response to Sustainable Communities Strategy Initial Vision Scenario,
RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Council provide feedback on draft responses to ABAG
on the Initial Vision Scenario.
BACKGROUND: On February 22, 2011 the City Council held a study session to learn about the
Sustainable Communities Strategy (SCS), which is mandated by SB 375. The purpose of the SCS is to
create a regional land use/transportation plan that will result in reduced greenhouse gas emissions from
passenger vehicles. This would be achieved by increasing land use intensity within existing urbanized
areas with good access to transit, and by focusing available transportation funding into areas where
growth is programed.
The process for developing and adopting the SCS for the Bay Area will involve three iterations of regional
land use plans indicating the desired locations for future job and housing growth. Each iteration will
provide opportunities for jurisdictional and community feedback to ABAG and MTC. The first iteration is
the Initial Vision Scenario (IVS), described in more detail below. The next iteration will be the Detailed
Scenarios which are anticipated to be released in July. The final SCS is expected to be adopted towards
the end of 2011/early 2012.
An SCS Ad Hoc Advisory Committee has been formed through the Transportation Authority of Marin to
provide a forum for Marin councilmembers to discuss the various SCS scenarios. Councilmember Heller
is San Rafael's representative. The Ad Hoc Advisory Committee is intended to distill and forward any
common comments from Marin jurisdictions to ABAG/MTC, in addition to the comments that may be
generated by individual cities. To that end, the Ad Hoc Advisory Committee asked the county planning
directors to draft possible statements of agreement between the cities in response to the Initial Vision
Scenario that they would review at the next committee meeting of May 5.
A draft of fourteen possible statements of agreement reviewed by the planning directors is attached as
Exhibit 1. These statements:
• Support the need for regional coordination of land use to respond to climate change,
• Concur with the relatively low housing growth rate projected for Marin compared to other Bay
Area counties,
• Emphasize the significant increase in transportation funding that will be necessary to
accommodate increased densities in urbanized areas,
FOR CITY CLERK ONLY
File No.:
Council Meeting:
Disposition:
SAN RAFAEL CITY COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT / Page: 2
• Call for greater flexibility and consideration of SCS objectives by HCD in reviewing Housing
Elements,
• Call for greater coordination of policies by ABAG, MTC, BAAQMD and BCDC to implement the
SCS vision,
• Suggest that ABAG/MTC prepare the next Detailed Scenario based on a more equitable share of
housing among Marin jurisdictions based on proximity to the Highway 101 and SMART corridors,
and
• Requesting funding for a subsequent countywide land use/transportation planning effort with
public involvement to refine this recommended land use pattern.
The county planning directors discussed these draft potential points of agreement on April 20. Most of the
directors concluded that the draft points are likely to be very controversial for their city/town councils,
primarily because most are accepting of the Initial Vision Scenario housing numbers for their jurisdictions.
The planning directors decided to simply pass along, without comment, these draft points of agreement
for consideration by the Ad Hoc Committee.
The IVS is based on an expectation that the vast majority of growth in Marin County over the next 25
years will occur in San Rafael's Priority Development Areas (PDA), ABAG is aware of the inequity of this
growth distribution, both in housing which is needed throughout the County, and in jobs, which needs a
greater dispersion for jobs -housing balance. ABAG has asked San Rafael for comments on the IVS; this
report outlines a response for Council's consideration.
ANALYSIS: In early March, the Initial Vision Scenario was released by ABAG and MTC for public
comment. The IVS provides projections of both household and job growth between 2010 and 2035.
Marin County is shown to have a relatively low growth rate compared to other Bay Area counties (only
1.2% of the Bay Area's housing growth over 25 years). The distribution of household growth within Marin
County, however, is heavily skewed towards San Rafael (see Exhibit 2)., About half of the housing growth
in, Marin is projected to occur in San Rafael; by comparison, San Rafael today has 22% of the total county
population.
ABAG staff identifies two reasons for placing much of Marin's growth in San Rafael:
• San Rafael is the only Marin city which opted to apply for Priority Development Area (PDA)
designations. PDAs have been approved for both our Downtown and the area surrounding the
Civic Center SMART station. The designation of PDAs is intended to qualify jurisdictions for
higher allocations of transportation funds and other available infrastructure and planning grants.
• Each Bay Area county contains at least one "City Center" (a concentrated, mixed use area), and
it was felt that San Rafael should be the City Center for Marin.
At previous meetings of the Ad Hoc Committee and with ABAG/MTC staff, San Rafael representatives
have made the case that the IVS housing numbers for San Rafael are inequitable compared with other
Marin jurisdictions (particularly with Novato which has a similar population and jobs and the same number
of planned SMART stations) and unrealistic in terms of future market demand and infrastructure capacity.
A chart for San Rafael showing past trends in housing and job increases with the IVS projections is
attached as Exhibit 3.
Since it is unlikely that the Ad Hoc Committee will choose to adopt a common response to the IVS, San
Rafael should be prepared to forward its own comments to ABAG/MTC. First, staff recommends that San
Rafael's response includes Statements 1-11 of Exhibit 1. In addition, ABAG/MTC staff have requested
that jurisdictions who wish to have reconsideration of their housing or jobs projections in the upcoming
Detailed Scenarios submit proposals outlining an alternate strategy. Staff recommends that our
comments include an alternate housing allocation strategy for Marin (replacing Statements 12-14 of
Exhibit 1) which would be based on two proposed factors:
1. Half of the future housing growth in Marin would be based on an even distribution of housing
among jurisdictions based on their current proportion of countywide housing, and
2. Half of the future housing growth would be located along the SMART corridor, which would result
in an additional increment of housing growth equal to 10% per SMART station. Under this
SAN RAFAEL CITY COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT / Palze: 3
scenario, Larkspur would receive 20% of this additional allocation above their countywide
distribution, and San Rafael and Novato would each receive an additional 40% allocation.
This revised scenario would result in the following changes in housing projections for San Rafael:
Under this alternate scenario San Rafael's housing projections decrease by about one-third, In addition,
this housing growth rate would be less than our previous RHNA (Regional Housing Needs Allocation)
allocation, which was 1,403 units over a 7 -year period. It is expected that the SCS allocations will
eventually be divided in some manner between three future RHNA cycles (previous RHNA cycles have
been 7 -year allocations, while the new RHNA cycles will be 8 -year allocations to better align with the
Regional Transportation Plan cycles). Dividing the 3,297 units shown above into three RHNA cycles
would yield approximately 1,100 units per cycle, which is about a 22% reduction from the 1,403 units that
is San Rafael's current RHNA allocation.
FISCAL IMPACT: Hard to predict. By retaining two designated Priority Development Areas, San Rafael
may be able to obtain increased transportation funding as well as available infrastructure and planning
,grants.
OPTIONS:
1. Submit the alternate scenario described above: (50% total growth to each jurisdiction based on
current percentage of total county population) + (50% total growth to each SMART station
location — or 10% per SMART station.
2. Submit an alternate scenario which differs from the staff proposal above.
3. Submit an alternate scenario that is more qualitative, which does not include a mathematical
formula.
4. The City could choose to not respond to the IVS, and allow ABAG/MTC to modify the allocations
as they determine for the Detailed Scenarios.
ACTION REQUIRED: Provide direction to Councilmember Heller for representation to the SCS Ad Hoc
Committee meeting on May 5 and to staff to prepare a City response to ABAG/MTC on the Initial Vision
Scenario
ATTACHMENTS:
Exhibit 1: Draft Statements of Countywide Agreement in Response to the Initial Vision Scenario
Exhibit 2: Initial Vision Scenario: Household and Job Totals and Growth by Marin Jurisdiction
Exhibit 3: Past and Future Housing and Job Growth in San Rafael under the Initial Vision Scenario
Housing Growth (units)
2010-2035
Housing Growth Rate
2010-2035
IVS
Alt. Scenario
IVS
Alt, Scenario
San Rafael
5,045
3,297
21.8%
14.2%
Marin County Total
10,678
10,678
Under this alternate scenario San Rafael's housing projections decrease by about one-third, In addition,
this housing growth rate would be less than our previous RHNA (Regional Housing Needs Allocation)
allocation, which was 1,403 units over a 7 -year period. It is expected that the SCS allocations will
eventually be divided in some manner between three future RHNA cycles (previous RHNA cycles have
been 7 -year allocations, while the new RHNA cycles will be 8 -year allocations to better align with the
Regional Transportation Plan cycles). Dividing the 3,297 units shown above into three RHNA cycles
would yield approximately 1,100 units per cycle, which is about a 22% reduction from the 1,403 units that
is San Rafael's current RHNA allocation.
FISCAL IMPACT: Hard to predict. By retaining two designated Priority Development Areas, San Rafael
may be able to obtain increased transportation funding as well as available infrastructure and planning
,grants.
OPTIONS:
1. Submit the alternate scenario described above: (50% total growth to each jurisdiction based on
current percentage of total county population) + (50% total growth to each SMART station
location — or 10% per SMART station.
2. Submit an alternate scenario which differs from the staff proposal above.
3. Submit an alternate scenario that is more qualitative, which does not include a mathematical
formula.
4. The City could choose to not respond to the IVS, and allow ABAG/MTC to modify the allocations
as they determine for the Detailed Scenarios.
ACTION REQUIRED: Provide direction to Councilmember Heller for representation to the SCS Ad Hoc
Committee meeting on May 5 and to staff to prepare a City response to ABAG/MTC on the Initial Vision
Scenario
ATTACHMENTS:
Exhibit 1: Draft Statements of Countywide Agreement in Response to the Initial Vision Scenario
Exhibit 2: Initial Vision Scenario: Household and Job Totals and Growth by Marin Jurisdiction
Exhibit 3: Past and Future Housing and Job Growth in San Rafael under the Initial Vision Scenario
14 Potential Areas of Agreement for Marin County re: the Sustainable Community
Strategy Initial Vision Scenario
1. Marin County endorses the value of regional planning with the intent to affect climate
change by reducing greenhouse gas emissions (All Marin jurisdictions have already
supported climate action on their own).
2. Marin County acknowledges the need to effectively coordinate jobs, housing and
transportation investments that maintain a dynamic and growing regional economy
that benefits everyone in the Bay Area.
3, Marin County recognizes the coming demographic changes to the region (particularly
household formation trends'and an aging population) and how that will impact
housing needs and the demand for housing types other than traditional low density,
detached single family development.
4. The jobs numbers are inflated and need to be reexamined by ABAG staff. The SCS
job forecast for Marin is greater than the job growth rate we have experienced
between 1995 and 2010. There are virtually no vacant commercially zoned sites
remaining in Marin, and there is currently a vacancy rate in excess of 20% for office
space.
5. The total projected households for Marin is a reasonable proportion of the growth
being planned for the Bay Area.
6. Marin's role in providing recreational space for the Bay Area should be taken into
consideration in the allocation of regional transportation funds allow the use of transit
to recreational amenities.
7. Since the basis for the proposed density increases is the reduction of greenhouse gas
emissions from passenger vehicles, Marin should be given credit for what will
certainly be a ignificantly higher proportion of electric vehicle ownership, powered
by Marin Clean Energy,
8. The desired increase in density in already developed areas is dependent upon
significant increases in the funding of transit and alternative modes of transportation
if quality of life is to be maintained.
9. Housing Element law should be amended to give deference to compliance with the
adopted SCS in HCD's evaluation of housing elements.
10. State HCD needs to be more flexible in its administrative policies related to the
counting of housing units towards local needs, particularly housing for seniors and
mixed use redevelopment of underutilized sites.
11. ABAG, MTC, BCDC and BAAQMD need to coordinate their policies to support the
implementation of the SCS, and not create impediments. CEQA exemptions are
needed for di-welopment consistent with the adopted SCS.
12. Development in Marin should be focused along the Highway 101 corridor and
SMART stations. Communities without 101 frontage or SMART stations should
encourage nodal mixed use development served by transit.
EXHIBIT 1
13. ABAG and MTC staff should be requested to prepare an SCS Detailed Scenario
based upon land use/transportation framework described above, working with the
county's planning directors.
14. A subsequent land use/transportation plan must be funded to refine and detail the
development framework described above, along with design guidelines to assure that
future development reduces vehicular trips, maximizes the use of convenient transit
and retains community character. This countywide planning process must include
extensive community input since opportunities for public input in the SCS process
has been constrained by required timelines. There should be an,opportunity at the
completion of the land use/transportation plan to revisit and revise the adopted SCS
Scenario for Marin to refine the division of Marin's portion of the Bay Area's
planned growth.
EXHIBIT 2
4.4 0
0
0l
0
01
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0) =
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
L O
O
O
r
I`
O
r
I`
00
M
M
;t
r
Ltd
d .0
o0
N
I`
(0
r
r
00
Lo
00
d
(3)
CO
CL U
It
r
N
N
r
r
r
r
T-
N
N
O
r
r
M
M
I`
CO
CD
M
M
f`
00
�'
CO
N
00
LL)
r
CO
M
r
I`
M
O
N
T
3
N
N
'd'
I`
M
d
M
r
LC)
M
d'
0
LV
�-
Ljj
CO
r
r
r
�
N
U)
-0
O
Ln
00
N
M
00
O
M
It
O
d
O
Il-
M
h
CP)
M
O
N
LO
O
LO
N
I-
N
It
M
(C)
CR
O
00
N
M
r
M
I-
M
r
M
I�
M
r
O
N
M
I�
M
O
v
O
I`
M
M
r
M
Ln
N
T
O
(D
N
N
00
r
Lf)
I`
�T
M
CO
T
(0
a)
T
I`
M
dT
O
W
00
N
LC)
It
IT
M
M
h
O
I`
d'
CO
r-
r
M
CO
I`
CO
L)
"t
N
w
N
(
r
C.O
00
Ln
d
(7
6
C7
CA
N
d
N
N
T
C 0)
�
\
o
\
0
\
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
�.lo
�
O O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
L O
r
(O
o0
N
00
00
M
r
w
r
�t
LO
O
O i
N
M
r
4
Lf)
M
r
r
r
N
0
0
C=;
IZ U
r
N
r
r
T
.O
O
CM
O
r
cj'
00
O
O
LO
O
00
00
00
N�
M
M
r
C0
0
M
j
CM7
�
CM7
ti
w
O
L
Ln
N
O
U)
'n
T
O
L
41
U)
LO
M
r
r
I`
r
M
0
0
(7)
O
N
O
ItT
M
C9
N
CO
t~
M
LC)
M
I`
0
0
d
O
N
O
O
M
I`
M
CO
CO
r
I`
M
N
It
N
M
T-
X
=
N
d'
M
00
CO
L()
00
1q:,lq
00
h
N
N
N
r
T
O
M
M
r
CO
I-
M
O
O
d"
O
d'
N
h
T
d"
IT
O
M
M
I`
00
r
C.0
r
d"
M
d'
O
M
M
M
O
N
M
I'-
CM
r
M
M
r
'd'
N
M
C7
00
CD
C7
Ln
M
d'
M
Cfl
Cfl
N
N
N
Cl
T
C
3
0
O
O
U
E
O
,
N
O
o
O Q
LLC
�
X
Q
(z
O
-+-�
c
vO-
k
Cif
C
0
U o
U
.�+
L
L
�_
>
U)
C
C.
�
L
=
a)
o0.S2
RS C
O
m
U
LL
J
Z
P
U)
(n
(n
P
U
EXHIBIT 2
aau=