HomeMy WebLinkAboutCD Measures to Facilitate Housing Development & Streamline Approvals PPTInformational Report on Potential
Amendments to the San Rafael
Municipal Code to Encourage
Development and Streamline Approvals
San Rafael City Council
September 8, 2020
Roadmap
1)Report Background
2)Inclusionary Housing
3)Density Bonus
4)Design Review Board
5)Amendments to SRMC
6)Discussion & Feedback
San Rafael City Council
September 8, 2020
1) Report Background
Background
Comprehensive Report to City Council on Housing-August 20, 2018
Staff Directed to follow-up on four topics:
•Renter Protection
•Short-term Rentals
•Housing for an aging population
•Challenges to approving and developing housing
Report on Challenges to Approving/Developing Housing –September 4, 2019
Purpose: Informational report identifying challenges, which included:
•Stakeholder interviews, research, gathering best practices, data collection
•Identified 11 challenges
•Identified 13 recommended measures and actions to consider
San Rafael City Council
September 8, 2020
Housing Work Plan
January 21, 2020-City Council approved
Housing Work Plan outlining 15 Policies to
incentivize and streamline housing
development:
•6 policies implemented to date (Policies
1-6);
•5 policies proposed in this informational
report (Policies 7, 8, 11, 12, & 15)
•2 policies under development (Policies 9
& 10)
San Rafael City Council
September 8, 2020
Community Engagement
Housing Work Plan Development
•3 City Council meetings
•2 Housing Community Workshops
“Strawman” Draft Proposal
•One-on-One meetings with interested community stakeholders;
•Presentations to Marin Environmental Housing Collaborative and San Rafael Chamber of Commerce
Governmental Affairs Committee (including representative of the Marin Builders Association)
Planning Commission-August 11th, 2020
•Present an earlier version of this informational report
•Feedback included after each policy discussion
San Rafael City Council
September 8, 2020
Community Survey
Partnered with ZenCity to conduct simple 10-question survey
Conducted between July 31st to August 19
Survey in English and Spanish, released through Snapshot, Nextdoor, Facebook, and Twitter
162 resident responses
San Rafael City Council
September 8, 2020
Community Survey-Key Findings
1.Near consensus from respondents on need for more affordable housing
•80% of San Rafael residents responding to survey believe there is a need for more affordable housing
2.Mixed response on allowing an in-lieu fee
•43%-No
•36%-Yes
•19%-Unsure
3.Respondents supported denser development citywide
Where should the more housing & mixed-use
be allowed? (multiple choice)
•42%-Citywide
•34%-Downtown
•23%-Canal
How do you envision these developments?
(multiple choice)
•52%-2-4 story mixed use
•39%-Duplex/Triplex/Fourplex
•31%-5-8 story Town Center
San Rafael City Council
September 8, 2020
2) Inclusionary Housing
Policy Background
Current Inclusionary Housing Requirement
2-10 Units 11-20 Units 21+ Units
10% BMR
Minimum 50% of BMR units affordable to Very Low Income
households; remainder affordable to Low Income households
15% BMR
Minimum 50% of BMR units affordable to Very Low Income
households; remainder affordable to Low Income households
20% BMR
Minimum 50% of BMR units affordable to Very Low Income
households; remainder affordable to Low Income households
2-10 Units 11-20 Units 21+ Units
10% BMR
Minimum 50% of BMR units affordable to Low Income households;
remainder affordable to Moderate Income households.
15% BMR
Minimum 50% of BMR units affordable to Low Income households;
remainder affordable to Moderate Income households.
20% BMR
Minimum 50% of BMR units affordable to Low Income households;
remainder affordable to Moderate Income households.
Rental
For Sale
San Rafael City Council
September 8, 2020
Current Affordable Housing In-Lieu Fee
San Rafael City Council
September 8, 2020
Current Inclusionary Fee: $343,969 per unit
•Set in 2006 at $236,000 per unit
•Adjusted annually to account for inflation in housing and construction costs.
•Paid at same time as Building permits fees
Fee amount reflects the “Affordability Gap”: the difference in price between market rate
and affordable units.
Currently allow only for “fractional” units or if applicant can establish financial need or
project infeasibility.
•Example: 22-unit project * 20% inclusionary requirement= 4.4 BMR units
4-units provided onsite (2-low income, 2-very -low income)
$137,587 in-lieu fee (0.4 units * $343,969 fee)
Inclusionary Housing Impacts
PROS
Affordable units are built
quickly
Can provide some economic
and racial integration
No subsidy needed from City
CONS
Produces fewer affordable units compared to
100% affordable housing developments
Doesn’t produce units for the extremely low-
income
Reduces project revenues: can potentially
restrict production and raise housing prices if
poorly designedSan Rafael City Council
September 8, 2020
Affordable Housing In-Lieu Fee Effectiveness
prices if poorly designed
San Rafael City Council
September 8, 2020
Are fees effective at producing more housing units?
•$6:$1 nationwide average leverage ratio of trust fund dollars for affordable housing.
•3 units built for every 1 units worth of fees (Seattle)
•~$45,500 average local/county funding to make a LIHTC project feasible in Marin ($125,000 in Oakland)
Does affordable housing need to be provided onsite to be effective at creating inclusive communities
•Nearly all available studies looking at this relationship indicate that access to higher opportunity neighborhoods is the most
important factor. Access to specific market rate buildings is not the influencing factor.
What are the equity impacts of changing the inclusionary housing requirements?
•Ensuring high-housing quality and robust resident services are as important to resident success housing stability.
•In neighborhoods with higher rates of poverty, LIHTC developments are providing better housing quality and stronger property
management than what is available in the private market.
Inclusionary Housing White Paper
Recommendations
Provide a by-right in-
lieu fee option
to fulfill the
inclusionary housing
requirement.
Ensure that by-right
in-lieu fees are set
sufficiently high.
Alter the inclusionary
requirement
depending on
development type and
location; conduct further
study.
Consider reducing it for
ownership units
specifically.
3. City Council should
take a strong, unified
pro-housing stance
to manage community
opposition to new housing.
Allow developers to fulfill
the inclusionary
requirement more
creatively and efficiently
E.g. provide more smaller-
sized affordable units
rather fewer large-sized
affordable units,
Set a schedule to review
and revise the Inclusionary
Housing Ordinance on a
regular basis.
Make sure requirements
reflect market conditions.
Update cycle of 3-5 years.
San Rafael City Council
September 8, 2020
Inclusionary Housing-Best Practices
3. City Council should
take a strong, unified
pro-housing stance
to manage community
opposition to new housing.
Two Main Elements:
Baseline Requirement-A percentage of BMR units required to be provided on-site as part of all
projects.
Additional Requirement-Options provided to the developer to meet the remaining inclusionary
housing requirement
San Rafael City Council
September 8, 2020
Inclusionary Housing-Additional
Requirements 3. City Council should
take a strong, unified
pro-housing stance
to manage community
opposition to new housing.
Four main types of additional requirements:
1)Additional Onsite Units-Onsite BMR units provided in addition to the baseline requirement. Often the developer has several
options at varied depth (the percentage of units) and breadth (the affordability level) of affordability restrictions.
2)In-Lieu Fee-A per unit fee paid to City by the developer instead of onsite units. Fee is placed in a Trust Fund to dedicated to
creating more affordable housing.
3)Offsite Units-BMR units are provided offsite at a nearby site. Must provide similar economic benefit and requires Director
Approval.
4)Land Conveyance-Developable land is provided to the City of future affordable housing development. Must provide similar
economic benefit and requires Director Approval.
San Rafael City Council
September 8, 2020
Policy Proposal
Inclusionary Housing-Scenarios
Goal was to design requirements that are simple and
transparent
Three Scenarios:
•20% Onsite BMR Equivalent,
•15% Onsite BMR Equivalent,
•10% Onsite BMR Equivalent.
All scenarios include the below elements:
•Condense project size categories from three (2-
10 units, 11-20 units, 21+ units) to two (2-15
units, 16+ units)
•Baseline Requirement
•Additional Requirement
Feasibility:
•Low-Rise (36 unit) & Mid-Rise Prototype (72 unit)
•Analyzed for Additional Onsite BMR units
•Feasible if profit is greater than 15% of cost.
San Rafael City Council
September 8, 2020
Scenario 1-20% Equivalent
2-15 Units 16+ Units 2-15 Units 16+ Units
Baseline Requirement
(All Projects)10% Low-Income 5%- Low Income
5%- Very Low Income 10% Low-Income 5%- Moderate Income
5%- Low Income
Additional Requirement (Must choose one option below in addition to the Baseline Requirement)
Option 1) Onsite No Requirememt
5%- Very Low Income
or
10%- Low Income
or
15%- Moderate Income
No Requirememt
5%- Very Low Income
or
10%- Low Income
or
15%- Moderate Income
Option 2) In-Lieu Payment Allowed for Fractional Units Payment equal to 10% of
Total units Allowed for Fractional Units Payment equal to 10% of
Total units
Option 3) Offsite No Requirememt
* Within 1/2 mile of project
* Similiar economic benefit
* Requires Director approval
No Requirememt
* Within 1/2 mile of project
* Similiar economic benefit
* Requires Director approval
Option 4) Land Conveyance No Requirememt
* Must be developable
* Similar economic benefit
* Requires Director approval
No Requirememt
* Must be developable
* Similar economic benefit
* Requires Director approval
Rental For Sale
* In-lieu fees allowed for fractional unit up to 0.5 Units, after 0.5 units they must provide one on-site unit
**Very Low Income- 50% AMI or lower, Low Income- 80% AMI or lower, Moderate Income- 120% AMI or Lower
Low-Rise Mid-Rise
Estimated Cost $19.71M $39.71M
Estimated Profit $2.82M $4.98M
Feasibility Not Feasible (14.3%)Not Feasible (12.6%)
*A project is considered feasible if profit is greater than 15% of cost
Low-Rise Mid-Rise
Estimated Cost $19.71M $39.71M
Estimated Profit $3.22M $6.16M
Feasibility Feasible (16.4%)Feasible (15.5%)
*A project is considered feasible if profit is greater than 15% of cost
Feasibility-Low/Very -Low
Feasibility-Moderate
San Rafael City Council
September 8, 2020
Scenario 2-15% Equivalent
Feasibility-Low
Feasibility-Moderate
2-15 Units 16+ Units 2-15 Units 16+ Units
Baseline Requirement
(All Projects)10% Low-Income 5%- Low Income
5%- Very Low Income 10% Low-Income 5%- Moderate Income
5%- Low Income
Additional Requirement (Must choose one option below in addition to the Baseline Requirement)
Option 1) Onsite No Requirememt
5%- Low Income
or
10%- Moderate Income
No Requirememt
5%- Low Income
or
10%- Moderate Income
Option 2) In-Lieu Payment Allowed for Fractional Units Payment equal to 5% of
Total units Allowed for Fractional Units Payment equal to 5% of
Total units
Option 3) Offsite No Requirememt
* Within 1/2 mile of project
* Similiar economic benefit
* Requires Director approval
No Requirememt
* Within 1/2 mile of project
* Similiar economic benefit
* Requires Director approval
Option 4) Land Conveyance No Requirememt
* Must be developable
* Similar economic benefit
* Requires Director approval
No Requirememt
* Must be developable
* Similar economic benefit
* Requires Director approval
Rental For Sale
* In-lieu fees allowed for fractional unit up to 0.5 Units, after 0.5 units they must provide one on-site unit
**Very Low Income- 50% AMI or lower, Low Income- 80% AMI or lower, Moderate Income- 120% AMI or Lower
Low-Rise Mid-Rise
Estimated Cost $19.71M $39.71M
Estimated Profit $2.98M $5.48M
Feasibility Feasible (15.1%)Not Feasible (13.8%)
*A project is considered feasible if profit is greater than 15% of cost
Low-Rise Mid-Rise
Estimated Cost $19.71M $39.71M
Estimated Profit $3.48M $6.40M
Feasibility Feasible (17.6%)Feasible (16.1%)
*A project is considered feasible if profit is greater than 15% of cost
San Rafael City Council
September 8, 2020
Scenario 3-10% Equivalent
Feasibility-Overall2-15 Units 16+ Units 2-15 Units 16+ Units
Baseline Requirement
(All Projects)10% Low-Income 5%- Low Income 10% Low-Income 5%-Low Income
Additional Requirement (Must choose one option below in addition to the Baseline Requirement)
Option 1) Onsite No Requirememt
5%- Low Income
or
10%- Moderate Income
No Requirememt
5%- Low Income
or
10%- Moderate Income
Option 2) In-Lieu Payment Allowed for Fractional Units Payment equal to 5% of
Total units Allowed for Fractional Units Payment equal to 5% of
Total units
Option 3) Offsite No Requirememt
* Within 1/2 mile of project
* Similiar economic benefit
* Requires Director approval
No Requirememt
* Within 1/2 mile of project
* Similiar economic benefit
* Requires Director approval
Option 4) Land Conveyance No Requirememt
* Must be developable
* Similar economic benefit
* Requires Director approval
No Requirememt
* Must be developable
* Similar economic benefit
* Requires Director approval
Rental For Sale
* In-lieu fees allowed for fractional unit up to 0.5 Units, after 0.5 units they must provide one on-site unit
**Very Low Income- 50% AMI or lower, Low Income- 80% AMI or lower, Moderate Income- 120% AMI or Lower
Low-Rise Mid-Rise
Estimated Cost $19.71M $39.71M
Estimated Profit $3.92M $6.72M
Feasibility Feasible (19.8%)Feasible (16.9%)
*A project is considered feasible if profit is greater than 15% of cost
San Rafael City Council
September 8, 2020
Buyouts for Entitled Projects
San Rafael City Council
September 8, 2020
Approached by several developers with entitled projects about potential for paying in-lieu for a portion of
their onsite below market rate units.
If pursued by City Council, staff recommends:
•Allow only for entitled projects who have not pulled building permits;
•Setting buyout amount at $609,000 per unit for up to half of approved onsite units;
•Building permits within one (1) year of agreement;
Entitled Projects (pre-construction)
•Lower opportunity cost
•Mutual incentives-
o City: expedite construction, funding for
affordable housing
o Developer: reduced onsite requirement
Entitled Projects (construction)
•High opportunity cost
•Lack of incentive-
o City:high in-lieu fee to account for opportunity cost;
project already under construction
o Developer: Fee too high, likely already financed
Planning Commission Feedback
San Rafael City Council
September 8, 2020
Overall supportive of allowing in-lieu fee and any policy changes necessary to encourage
housing development.
Highly supportive of the proposed policy design (i.e. baseline requirement and additional
requirement) but not clear recommendation for a specific scenario.
3) Density Bonus
Policy Background
AB2501
3. City Council
should take a strong,
unified pro-housing
stance
to manage community
opposition to new housing.
AB2501 became effective in 2017
1)Clear submittal requirements
2)Fractional number are to be rounded-up to the next whole number. Applies to:
•Base density-base density is the density that is allowed by the Zoning
District
•Number of affordable units required to be eligible for the density bonus
•Number of density bonus units
•Number of replacement units (if applicable)
•Number of required parking space
San Rafael City Council
September 8, 2020
AB2501
3. City Council
should take a strong,
unified pro-housing
stance
to manage community
opposition to new housing.
3)Limitations on the studies/reports that the City can require of the applicant.
4)Granting of concession or incentive is mandatory unless the City makes a
written finding :
•"does not result identifiable and actual cost reductions”
•impact on the environment or to historic resources.
San Rafael City Council
September 8, 2020
AB1934
3. City Council
should take a strong,
unified pro-housing
stance
to manage community
opposition to new housing.
AB1934 became effective 2017
Provides non-residential commercial development projects that enter into an agreement
to contribute affordable housing development bonuses that includes:
• Up to 20% increase in height, floor area and/or intensity
• Up to a 20% reduction in parking
• Allows for an exception to zoning regulations
San Rafael City Council
September 8, 2020
AB2442
3. City Council
should take a strong,
unified pro-housing
stance
to manage community
opposition to new housing.
AB2442 became effective in 2017
Expands the categories of specialized/supportive housing that could qualify for a 20%
density bonus to include:
•transitional foster youth
•disabled veterans
•homeless persons
San Rafael City Council
September 8, 2020
AB1227
3. City Council
should take a strong,
unified pro-housing
stance
to manage community
opposition to new housing.
SB1227 became effective in 2019
Allows a 35% density bonus for housing developments that will include at least 20% of
the units for low income college students.
San Rafael City Council
September 8, 2020
AB1763
3. City Council
should take a strong,
unified pro-housing
stance
to manage community
opposition to new housing.
AB1763 became effective in 2020
Density bonus provisions for 100% affordable housing projects:
•Allows an 80% density bonus;
•No density limits for projects located within ½ mile of a major transit stop;
•Height bonus of 33 feet [by right if near major transit stop];
•Up to 4 concessions;
•No parking requirements for special needs/supportive housing if the project provides
paratransit service or is located within ½ mile from an accessible bus route.
San Rafael City Council
September 8, 2020
Policy Proposal
Changes to SRMC Chapter 14.16
3. City Council
should take a strong,
unified pro-housing
stance
to manage community
opposition to new housing.
Section 14.16.030 would be amended to include:
1)Establish submittal and procedural requirements
2)Tables will be modified to align with SDBL
3)Expands definition of specialized housing and expands concessions/incentives for
this type of housing
4)Incorporate special incentives for 100% affordable housing projects
•33-foot height bonus
•one additional incentive
San Rafael City Council
September 8, 2020
Changes to SRMC Chapter 14.16
3. City Council
should take a strong,
unified pro-housing
stance
to manage community
opposition to new housing.
6)Allows additional parking incentives for:
•100% affordable housing
•Specialize/supportive housing
•Senior housing
•Housing with ½ mile of transit
7)Include special provisions for non-residential projects that partner with affordable
housing developers
San Rafael City Council
September 8, 2020
Planning Commission Feedback
San Rafael City Council
September 8, 2020
Support for the proposed changes
Solution should be adaptable to everchanging state regulations
4) Design Review Board
Policy Background
History of Design Review Board
3. City Council
should take a strong,
unified pro-housing
stance
to manage community
opposition to new housing.
Created in the 1970 with to provide input on major development in the downtown district as an informal
advisory board
•Expanded to citywide
Transformed to a more formal format in 1990s
Current Full DRB format:
•Meets in City Council chambers
•Public notification is provided
•Intended to be design focuses but public comments are often policy-focused
San Rafael City Council
September 8, 2020
Background
3. City Council
should take a strong,
unified pro-housing
stance
to manage community
opposition to new housing.
DRB Purpose-reviewing and formulating recommendations on all major physical improvements requiring
Environmental and Design Review permits.The DRB may also advise on other design matters, including minor physical
improvements or administrative-level design review permits, referred to the Board by the Community Development
Director, Planning Commission or City Council.
Housing Work Plan-Three options identified to change the DRB process
1.Eliminate the DRB
2.Shifting the role of the DRB
3.Appoint a DRB Liaison to review smaller housing projects
DRB Subcommittee
•Established to respond to Shelter-in-Place restrictions
•Has been highly successful
San Rafael City Council
September 8, 2020
Policy Proposal
Design Review Advisory Committee
3. City Council
should take a strong,
unified pro-housing
stance
to manage community
opposition to new housing.
Replaces the full DRB
Includes one (1) licensed architect, one (1) licensed landscape architect, one (1) alternate
Provide professional advice on design to applicant
Meetings are not a public meeting; no noticing is required.
Public continues to be afforded public participation when the project moves forward for formal permit
noticing and action (Zoning Administrator, PC, or CD Director).
San Rafael City Council
September 8, 2020
Planning Commission Discussion
3. City Council
should take a strong,
unified pro-housing
stance
to manage community
opposition to new housing.
Concerns about eliminating or reducing public participation.
Option of creating a Hybrid
•Smaller project would be reviewed by the DRAC and
•Larger projects could be referred to the full DRB
Option of reducing the review process for certain projects small projects to staff level
San Rafael City Council
September 8, 2020
Staff Response-Public Participation:
3. City Council
should take a strong,
unified pro-housing
stance
to manage community
opposition to new housing.
San Rafael City Council
September 8, 2020
Staff Response-Public Participation:
3. City Council
should take a strong,
unified pro-housing
stance
to manage community
opposition to new housing.
San Rafael City Council
September 8, 2020
Staff Response-Hybrid DRAC/DRB:
3. City Council
should take a strong,
unified pro-housing
stance
to manage community
opposition to new housing.
Will the Hybrid concept go far enough / accomplish the goal of streamlining housing
production?
San Rafael City Council
September 8, 2020
Staff Response-Reducing the level of review
for minor projects:3. City Council
should take a strong,
unified pro-housing
stance
to manage community
opposition to new housing.
Additional research is needed to determine where streamlining can occur.
Proposed Amendments to the Zoning Code could be ready for City Council consideration in
2021
San Rafael City Council
September 8, 2020
5) Amendments to SRMC
Policy Background
Background
3. City Council
should take a strong,
unified pro-housing
stance
to manage community
opposition to new housing.
As part of Housing Work Plan, City Council encouraged staff to continue to look for amendments that could
be made to encourage development and streamline approvals.
Proposed amendments reflect an initial review of amendments that could be made to meet these goals.
Additional amendments may be identified and would be brought later for future consideration.
San Rafael City Council
September 8, 2020
Policy Proposal
Proposed Amendments to SRMC
3. City Council
should take a strong,
unified pro-housing
stance
to manage community
opposition to new housing.
SRMC Section Amendments
SRMC Section 14.12.040
Hillside Exception
•Downgrades review and action to Planning Commission rather than City
Council. Decision can still be appealed to City Council.
SRMC Section 14.16.190
Height Bonus
•Per state law, allows up to 33 ft. height bonus for Residential Development
projects that make 100% of the total units available to lower income
households, and such development project is located within one-half mile of
a major transit stop.
SRMC Section 14.16.300
Small Lots
•Removes references to development limitations on lots under 5,000 SF,
•Allows these lots to be developed at currently established density.
SRMC Section 14.28
Appeals
•Establishes scheduling procedures;
•Clarifies public noticing requirements.
San Rafael City Council
September 8, 2020
Other possible Future Amendments to SRMC
3. City Council
should take a strong,
unified pro-housing
stance
to manage community
opposition to new housing.
San Rafael City Council
September 8, 2020
Ways to provide opportunities for smaller housing developments to incorporate affordable units within their
development.
Changes to Accessory Dwelling Unit Ordinance
Establishing Objective Standards for by-right projects
Planning Commission Discussion
3. City Council
should take a strong,
unified pro-housing
stance
to manage community
opposition to new housing.
San Rafael City Council
September 8, 2020
Support for the proposed changes
6) Discussion & Feedback
Framing Questions
3. City Council
should take a strong,
unified pro-housing
stance
to manage community
opposition to new housing.
Policy Key Staff Questions
Inclusionary Housing •Should the City allow developers expanded options to pay an affordable housing in-
lieu fee instead of onsite units?
•Should the City move forward with an inclusionary housing policy design with baseline
and additional requirements, as proposed by staff?
If yes, at which levels should these requirements be set?
If no, how would the City Council like the policy designed?
•Should the City allow buyouts for entitled projects?
Density Bonus •Comments or Concerns?
Formalize Design Review Subcommittee •Should the City formalize the DRB subcommittee process replacing the DRB with the
DRAC?
SRMC Amendments to Encourage Development
and Streamline Approvals
•Comments or Concerns?
San Rafael City Council
September 8, 2020
City Council Options
3. City Council
should take a strong,
unified pro-housing
stance
to manage community
opposition to new housing.
The City Council has the following options to consider on this matter :
1.Accept report and provide staff direction regarding proposed changes.
2.Direct staff to return with more information.
3.Take no action.
San Rafael City Council
September 8, 2020
Thank You!