HomeMy WebLinkAboutCD Streamlined Review for Certain Residential Projects (Formerly Design Review Advisory Committee, DRAC)____________________________________________________________________________________
FOR CITY CLERK ONLY
Council Meeting: April 18, 2022
Disposition: Passed Ordinance No. 2006 to print and Resolution 15055
Agenda Item No: 6.a
Meeting Date: April 18, 2022
SAN RAFAEL CITY COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT
Department: COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
Prepared by: Ali Giudice, AICP, CDD Director
Alexis Captanian, Housing Analyst
Jacob Noonan, AICP CEP
Housing Program Manager
City Manager Approval: ______________
TOPIC: STREAMLINED REVIEW FOR CERTAIN RESIDENTIAL PROJECTS (FORMERLY
DESIGN REVIEW ADVISORY COMMITTEE, DRAC)
SUBJECT: CONSIDERATION OF AN ORDINANCE AMENDING SECTION 14.25.070 OF TITLE 14
(ZONING ORDINANCE) OF THE SAN RAFAEL MUNICIPAL CODE TO ESTABLISH
STREAMLINED REVIEW FOR CERTAIN RESIDENTIAL PROJECTS; AND
RESOLUTION ESTABLISHING A ONE YEAR PILOT PROGRAM FOR STREAMLINED
REVIEW FOR CERTAIN RESIDENTIAL PROJECTS
RECOMMENDATIONS:
1.Pass to print an Ordinance of the City of San Rafael amending Section 14.25.070 of Title 14
(Zoning Ordinance) of the San Rafael Municipal Code to establish a streamlined design review
process for certain residential projects, and
2.Adopt a Resolution establishing a One-Year Pilot Program for streamlined review for certain
residential projects.
BACKGROUND:
This item was initially proposed as the Design Review Advisory Committee one year pilot program. It has
since been renamed the proposed one-year pilot program for Streamlined Review for Certain Residential
Projects. The Design Review Advisory Committee approach has been modified to no longer include a
subcommittee of the Design Review Board. On further review it was determined a subcommittee was not
needed for two representatives of the Design Review Board to participate in the streamlined review.
Over the past few years, the City Council has received informational reports related to housing and the
challenges to housing development in San Rafael. The City Council has directed staff to explore the
issues related to the challenges to the approval and development of housing in San Rafael and to identify
changes that could be made to facilitate housing development. In addition, for several years the state
legislature has adopted laws intended to streamline residential project review. This has included: a
requirement to establish Objective Design Standards (Senate Bill 35) intended for a ministerial review
process to provide more certainty for applicants in design review approval; enactment of the Housing
SAN RAFAEL CITY COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT / Page: 2
Crisis Act of 2019 (SB 330, as amended by SB 8), which limits the number of meetings a city may hold
to five for certain residential projects and mixed use projects that are two-thirds residential by square
footage; and, more recently, SB 9, which mandates a ministerial review for certain types of residential
projects and lot splits. To implement evolving state laws, additional changes to how development
applications are processed might be necessary.
Since 2018, staff has presented several reports to the City Council on addressing the local challenges to
building housing. Staff has met with community members and stakeholder groups, and prepared a list of
recommended measures that, if implemented, could address challenges to housing production by
providing clarity in and simplifying the review process, providing options for development of affordable
housing, and exploring other opportunities to increase housing production.
The following is a summary of the reports and presentations provided to the City Council over the past
few years on streamlining development application review for residential projects.
August 20, 2018: The City Council was presented a comprehensive, informational report on challenges
to housing development and the approval process. In response to the housing report information, the
City Council directed staff to follow up on four specific housing topics and issues. One of these four
topics/issues was the challenges to the approval and development of housing in San Rafael.
September 3, 2019: City staff presented an updated informational report on challenges to housing
development. The report presented 11 key challenges pertaining to the approval and development of
housing in San Rafael and identified 13 recommended measures to address these challenges. Staff was
directed to host several public housing workshops to solicit the public’s view on the housing crisis, as
well as to get feedback on the prioritization of the proposed policy actions. The City hosted two housing
workshops that were attended by the Mayor, City Council, and the public. These workshops informed the
public about issues surrounding the housing crisis and obtained input from the public and City Council.
January 21, 2020: City staff presented an updated informational report on staff recommendations for
prioritization, timing, and future City Council actions on proposed policy actions to address challenges to
approving and developing housing. At this meeting, the City Council directed staff to return with a report
on potential amendments to the San Rafael Municipal Code (SRMC) aimed at encouraging development
and streamlining approvals.
One item proposed in the January 21, 2020 report was to establish a Design Review Advisory Committee
(DRAC) with advisory authority over the architectural design of certain projects. As envisioned, the DRAC
would review certain housing development applications in-lieu of the full Design Review Board (DRB).
The DRAC review would occur concurrently with the Planning Commission review, which would reduce
the number of meetings needed to approve the development application while maintaining design review
over the project.
August 11, 2020: Staff presented a report to the Planning Commission analyzing potential amendments
to the SRMC resulting from City Council direction. At this meeting the Planning Commission provided
feedback and supported the amendments proposed by staff.
September 8, 2020 and September 21, 2020: The City Council received reports on the status of measures
to facilitate housing development & streamline approvals and focused on four main areas of the San
Rafael Municipal Code (SRMC):
A. Inclusionary Housing Requirement
B. Density Bonus
C. SRMC Amendments to Encourage Development and Streamline Approvals, including
amendments related to small lot development, hillside exceptions process and appeals
process.
D. Formalize Design Review Board Subcommittee (Streamlined Development Review)
SAN RAFAEL CITY COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT / Page: 3
At the September 21st meeting, the City Council directed staff to proceed with Code Amendments related
to Items A-C above, and to explore a pilot program for item D for streamlined development review
assuring continued transparency and public participation. Items A-C have been completed through
adoption of code amendments that occurred in March 2021. This report is focused on Item D, streamlined
development review.
November 4, 2020: Staff presented the Design Review Board with a report on the streamlined review
concept, then referred to as the Design Review Advisory Committee, or DRAC. Staff requested feedback
from the board regarding structure, membership, noticing options, and types of projects to be reviewed.
Members of the DRB provided feedback to assure adequate public notice and process, allow projects to
be referred to the full DRB, and reduce the size of staff reports as a time savings measure. Staff used
the comments received at the DRB meeting and prepared a draft document defining the structure of the
one-year Pilot Program.
February 17, 2021: Staff presented the DRB with a report on the draft pilot program, which incorporated
the comments received from the DRB on November 4, 2020. The structure of the streamlined review is
described in more detail under the Proposed Pilot Program section below. In summary, the program
would be structured to have members of the DRB participate in the Planning Commission meeting on
certain types of projects defined in the Program (Exhibit 3). The meeting would be a fully noticed public
meeting and all members of the public would be allowed to provide comment on the project prior to a
decision. The proposed format was presented to the DRB and the DRB provided the following comments:
• Most preferred three members to participate (note: Three members had originally been explored.
The City Attorney has advised however this would constitute a quorum of the Design Review
Board and would merely replicate the full, five-member Board.);
• Felt it important that building design is right, since buildings will be around for 50 to 100 years;
concerned the streamline review may lead to less-than-ideal design;
• Concerned that participating in a separate streamlined review process could result in a substantial
amount of work by DRB members; and
• Hoped that items receiving streamlined review could be placed near the beginning of the Planning
Commission meeting agenda so attending Board members could be excused after their item(s).
January 25, 2022: The Planning Commission (PC) held a duly noticed public hearing and received a
report on the proposed draft pilot program for streamlining certain types of residential projects. The PC
recommended approval of the proposed pilot program but asked staff to include clarification regarding
the following:
• What types of projects would be eligible for review through this streamlined review process?
• How would projects be referred to the full Design Review Board?
• Clarify the flow of the PC meeting when the DRB representatives are participating.
• Provide assurance that public notice would be provided for these projects.
• Clarify how members from the full board would be selected to serve as representatives in the
streamlined process.
Planning Commissioners also mentioned workload as a possible concern and the potential to overwhelm
the attending Design Review Board members, as well as a concern that members of the Design Review
Board not participating in streamlined review might be under-utilized.
Three members of the public also provided comments. Some of the questions were similar to the
questions asked by the PC. In addition, the public expressed an interest in staff addressing the following:
• How will the pilot program be evaluated/what metrics would be used?
• Need to ensure that alternates include one architect and one landscape architect.
SAN RAFAEL CITY COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT / Page: 4
ANALYSIS:
Staff recommends a one-year pilot program to test this streamlined review process, beginning
immediately upon approval of the City Council. It is envisioned members of the Design Review Board
and the Planning Commission will collaborate with staff on the flow of the meeting for these types of
projects and will have the opportunity to provide input at the one year mark, or shortly after. All meetings
will occur during open public meetings allowing members of the public to participate and provide
feedback, thus allowing for full evaluation of the merits of the pilot program for City Council consideration.
After the pilot program has been in effect for the one-year term, the effectiveness of the program will be
assessed by staff with participation from the Planning Commission and Design Review Board and
members of the public, and a recommendation will be provided to the City Council. The recommendation
may include continuation of the program, opportunities to modify and/or expand the program, or
discontinuation of the program entirely.
Proposed Pilot Program
Staff has prepared a draft ordinance (Attachment 1) and draft resolution (Attachment 2) that would
establish a one-year pilot program. The program is based on input provided by the Planning Commission
on January 25, 2022, and by Design Review Board members on November 4, 2020, and February 17,
2022. The Ordinance, Attachment 1, provides the required language amendment to the SRMC necessary
to effectuate the Pilot Program. The resolution, Attachment 2, provides the framework for the pilot
program. Attachment 3 is a flow chart illustrating how the review process would flow under the proposed
Pilot Program. Attachment 4 is the Planning Commission resolution recommending the pilot program to
the City Council.
Streamlined Review can be summarized as follows. Once a residential project is deemed complete, the
project will be reviewed for design following one of two pathways. The pathway selected will be based
on whether the project is categorized as a “minor” or “major” project as defined in SRMC Section
14.25.040.
1. Projects subject to Minor Environmental Design Review (SRMC §14.25.040.B) will continue to be
reviewed by the Zoning Administrator following current procedures (SRMC §14.25.020.B) and
members from the Design Review Board may be invited at the discretion of the Zoning
Administrator to provide consultation. The public will be noticed and there will be an opportunity
to comment prior to a decision on the project.
2. Projects subject to Major Environmental Design Review (SRMC §14.25.040.A) will be reviewed
as follows:
a. Projects eligible (see bulleted list below) will be reviewed concurrently by the appointed
Design Review Board members and the Planning Commission during the public hearing
on the project. The Board members will be able to ask questions and will have an
opportunity to comment during the public hearing on the project. The public will be noticed
of the meeting and provided the opportunity to provide comment and participate in the
meeting prior to the Planning Commission issuing its decision.
b. Projects not eligible will continue to be reviewed by the full Design Review Board following
the current review process.
Criteria for Streamlined Review:
• Review will be limited to the following residential projects:
o New construction of up to ten residential units, and
SAN RAFAEL CITY COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT / Page: 5
o Additions to existing multi-family residential property with three to ten existing units of no
more than 40% of building area and no more than three additional units.
• Membership will include two (2) members and one (1) alternate member selected from the sitting
Design Review Board.
• The appointed Design Review Board Members may recommend to the Planning Commission
(PC), and the PC could refer a project to the full Design Review Board (if a project is controversial,
for example);
• Meetings will be combined with the Planning Commission meeting (and Zoning Administrator
hearing, if requested for consultation) for efficiency;
• Public notice will be provided as part of the regular noticing requirements for Planning
Commission and Zoning Administrator meetings; and
• Transparency in decision making will be maintained with the public continuing to have
opportunities to review applications and provide comments prior to and during the combined
meeting.
Staff responses to Design Review Board and Planning Commission questions: In response to the
questions raised during staff presentations to the Design Review Board and Planning Commission, staff
has developed the following recommendations for the program:
• Projects eligible for Streamlined Review would be limited to the following residential projects:
o New construction of up to ten (10) residential units, and
o Additions to existing multi-family residential property with three to ten existing units of no
more than 40% of building area and no more than three additional units.
These types of projects were pulled from projects that are listed as being within the purview of
the DRB. Projects that also require Hillside Exception would not be eligible for streamlined review.
• How would projects be referred to the full Design Review Board
The framework established under the proposed streamlined review process gives the Planning
Commission the authority to refer the project to the full DRB.
• Clarify the flow of the PC meeting when the DRB representatives are participating
The flow of the PC meeting would be established as part of the Planning Commission procedures
which are agreed upon and adopted by the PC. However, staff envisions the following:
o Staff provides presentation
o Applicant provides presentation and public provides comments
o The DRB representatives ask questions of the applicant and provides their
recommendations to the PC
o PC deliberates and takes action on the project.
• Provide assurance that public notice would be provided for these projects
Public notice will be required in the same manner as we currently do for Planning Commission
meetings.
• Clarify how members from the full board would be selected to serve as representatives in the
streamlined process
Staff recommends that the Chair as well as a landscape architect serve as representatives for a
full 1-year term. If the representatives are unable to attend, they will contact the Community
Development Director ahead of time. The Community Development Director will select a
replacement from the full board based on tenure as spelled out in the Design Review Board
SAN RAFAEL CITY COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT / Page: 6
rules and procedures. The references to a Design Review Advisory Committee or DRAC would
be eliminated. While the concept of DRB representation at the Planning Commission is
unchanged, the DRB representatives are not really a “committee” since they would not meet to
review the applications outside of the Planning Commission meetings.
• How will the pilot program be evaluated and what metrics will be used
The following is a list of recommended measures staff would use to evaluate the success of the
pilot:
o Total number of applications received and subject to design review.
o Total number of applications that received a streamlined review.
o Total number of projects that were scheduled for streamlined review but were referred
back to the full DRB.
o Conditions that were required for the projects to move forward.
o Number of planning meetings and total amount of time in planning approval process.
o Total time savings achieved.
o Any other costs or benefits to the applicant.
o Amount of staff time savings through administering the streamlined approach.
o Changes to length of Planning Commission meetings.
o Increased workload by certain DRB members.
o Decreased utilization of the full DRB.
o Assurance there is notification of PC meetings that are utilizing representatives of the
DRB.
Staff may include additional information about the review process.
• Need to ensure that alternates include one architect and one landscape architect
Staff will make every effort to assure both an architect and a landscape architect are represented
in streamlined review and will make an effort to use alternates in accordance. However, staff
proposes that this not be a requirement if neither of the two landscape architects are available.
This is true of the current process.
Additional comments provided by Planning Commissioners included that Planning Commission meetings
could become long, and that the Planning Commission Chair and staff liaison would need to be clear in
running the meeting to assure there is no confusion of the role of the Planning Commission versus the
role of attending Design Review Board representatives.
Staff estimates a minimum two months of savings in time processing applicable housing development
applications, with a median average processing efficiency of three to four months.
ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION:
Adoption of this ordinance and the accompanying pilot program resolution are not subject to the California
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) under Public Resources Code Section 15060(c)(2) which provides
that CEQA does not apply if the activity will not result in a direct or reasonably foreseeable indirect
physical change in the environment. The Pilot Program for Streamlined Review for Certain Residential
Projects only affects administration of the design review program, which is advisory to the Planning
Commission and does not take any action on entitlement applications. Further, CEQA does not apply to
the adoption of the Pilot Program for Streamlined Review for Certain Residential Projects because the
action is not a Project under Section 15060(c)(3) and Section 15378(b) which includes continuing
administrative activities.
SAN RAFAEL CITY COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT / Page: 7
COMMUNITY OUTREACH:
Notice of this April 18, 2022 City Council meeting and the January 25, 2022 PC meeting was mailed to
all neighborhood groups and homeowner associations within the city, as well as other commercial and
housing advocacy groups. A public notice ran in the Marin Independent Journal on April 2, 2022.
Additional community outreach on the streamlined review process is described in the Background
Section. The City Council held meetings on August 20, 2018, September 3, 2019, January 21, 2020,
September 8, 2020, and September 21, 2020. Staff also held two evening public workshops dedicated
to the housing topics and policies to streamline the development review process on November 3, 2019,
and November 14, 2019. Feedback received at these meetings was used to create the draft structure of
the streamlined review proposal and the draft structure was presented to the DRB on February 17, 2021.
All meetings and workshops were publicly noticed to stakeholders, agencies, and special interest groups
15-days prior to each of these meetings.
FISCAL IMPACT: There is no direct fiscal impact to the City in connection with the action requested in
this report.
OPTIONS:
1. Pass the ordinance to print and adopt the resolution establishing the one-year pilot program for
streamlined review of certain residential projects.
2. Do not approve the ordinance and resolution, and direct staff to return with additional information
or changes.
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
1. Pass to print an Ordinance of the City of San Rafael amending Section 14.25.070 of Title 14
(Zoning Ordinance) of the San Rafael Municipal Code Establishing Streamlined Review for
Certain Residential Projects; and
2. Adopt a Resolution of the City of San Rafael Establishing a One Year Pilot Program for
Streamlined Review for Certain Residential Projects.
ATTACHMENTS:
1. Ordinance
2. Resolution
3. Streamlined Review Program Flow Chart
4. Planning Commission Resolution
5. Report to the Planning Commission, January 25, 2022
6. Public Comment
ATTACHMENT 1
Page-1
ORDINANCE NO. 2006
ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY SAN
RAFAEL AMENDING SECTION 14.25.070 OF TITLE 14 (ZONING
ORDINANCE) OF THE SAN RAFAEL MUNICIPAL CODE TO
ESTABLISH STREAMLINED REVIEW FOR CERTAIN
RESIDENTIAL PROJECTS
WHEREAS, the City Council has directed staff to explore the issues related to the
challenges to the approval and development of housing in San Rafael and to identify
changes that could be made to facilitate housing development; and
WHEREAS, the City’s zoning regulations in Title 14 – “Zoning”, contain
requirements for environmental and design review of certain development projects by the
five-member Design Review Board. The regulations governing the Design Review Board
are located in Section 14.25.070 of the San Rafael Municipal Code (SRMC); and
WHEREAS, staff has advanced a proposal to streamline the processing of certain
housing development projects by delegating the Design Review Board’s (DRB) advisory
authority over the architectural design of those projects to two members who would
participate in duly noticed Planning Commission meetings as representatives of the DRB
at; and
WHEREAS, on January 21, 2022, the Planning Commission held a duly-noticed
public hearing on staff’s proposed amendment to SRMC Section 14.25.070 to establish a
Design Review Advisory Committee (DRAC) and its authority. The Planning Commission
accepted all public testimony and the written report of the Community Development
Department, and recommended the City Council approve the municipal code amendment;
and
WHEREAS, on April 18, 2022, the City Council held a duly-noticed public hearing
on the ordinance and accepted all public testimony and the written report of the
Community Development Department; and
WHEREAS, the City Council, pursuant to SRMC 14.27.060, finds the proposed
amendment consistent in principle with the General Plan, and that the public health, safety
and general welfare are served by adopting the amendment. The amendment aligns with
the General Plan Housing Element Program H-17d for Efficient Project Review and the
public health, safety and general welfare are served through exploring how the City can
maintain the quality of project review while reducing time and the associated costs of doing
so; and
WHEREAS, adoption of the amendment to SRMC Section 14.25.070(A) regulating
the Design Review Board is not subject to the California Environmental Quality Act
(CEQA) under Public Resources Code Section 15060(c)(2) which provides that CEQA
does not apply if the activity will not result in a direct or reasonably foreseeable indirect
physical change in the environment. The streamlined review of certain residential projects
would allow a combined review of those projects in a duly noticed public meeting.
ATTACHMENT 1
Page-2
NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN RAFAEL
DOES ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS:
Division 1. Amendment of Municipal Code.
Section 14.25.070(A) of Title 14 of the San Rafael Municipal Code (SRMC) is hereby
amended to read as follows.
14.25.070 Design review board.
A. Purpose and Authority.
1. The design review board shall serve as an advisory body to the city for the purpose
of reviewing and formulating recommendations on all major physical improvements
requiring environmental and design review permits, except that an alternate
streamlined review process is allowed for certain eligible projects as described below.
The design review board may also serve as an advisory body on other design
matters, including minor physical improvements or administrative design permits,
referred to the board by the community development director, planning commission
or city council. The design review board shall provide professional design analysis,
evaluation and judgment as to the completeness, competence and appropriateness
of development proposals for the use and setting and to recommend approval,
approval with conditions, redesign or denial based on design standards adopted by
the city council.
2. Streamlined Review of Certain Residential projects. The following residential
projects shall be eligible for a streamlined review process, as established by city
council resolution under a pilot program known as the “Streamlined Review for
Certain Residential Projects”.
a. Residential structures of 3 to 10 units.
b. Additions to multifamily residential structures of between three (3) to ten
(10) units, where the addition constitutes no more than forty percent (40%)
of the total square footage of the building and would not increase the unit
count by more than 3 units.
This streamlined review process allows for a joint meeting of the planning
commission and two (2) representatives of the design review board. The framework,
roles and membership of the design review board representatives for a streamlined
review process shall be as established by City Council resolution.
Division 2. CEQA Determination.
Adoption of this ordinance and the accompanying pilot program resolution are not
subject to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) under Public Resources
Code Section 15060(c)(2) which provides that CEQA does not apply if the activity will
not result in a direct or reasonably foreseeable indirect physical change in the
environment. The Pilot Program for Streamlined Review for Certain Residential Projects
only affects administration of the design review program, which is advisory to the
Planning Commission and does not take any action on entitlement applications. Further,
CEQA does not apply to the adoption of the Pilot Program for Streamlined Review for
ATTACHMENT 1
Page-3
Certain Residential Projects because the action is not a Project under Section
15060(c)(3) and Section 15378(b) which includes continuing administrative activities.
Division 3. Severability.
If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase or word of this Ordinance is for any
reason held to be invalid by a court of competent jurisdiction, such decision shall not
affect the validity of the remaining portions of this Ordinance. The City Council hereby
declares it would have passed and adopted this Ordinance and each and all provisions
hereof irrespective of the fact that any one or more of said provisions be declared
invalid.
Division 4. Publication; Effective Date.
This Ordinance shall be published once, in full or in summary form, before its final
passage, in a newspaper of general circulation, published, and circulated in the City of
San Rafael, and shall be in full force and effect thirty (30) days after its final passage. If
published in summary form, the summary shall also be published within fifteen (15) days
after the adoption, together with the names of those Councilmembers voting for or against
same, in a newspaper of general circulation published and circulated in the City of San
Rafael, County of Marin, State of California.
KATE COLIN, Mayor
ATTEST:
LINDSAY LARA, City Clerk
The foregoing Ordinance No. 2006was introduced at a Regular Meeting of the City Council
of the City of San Rafael, held on the 18th day of April, 2022 and ordered passed to print by
the following vote, to wit:
AYES: Councilmembers: Bushey, Kertz, Llorens Gulati & Mayor Kate
NOES: Councilmembers: None
ABSENT: Councilmembers: Hill
and will come up for adoption as an Ordinance of the City of San Rafael at a Regular Meeting
of the Council to be held on the 2nd day of May, 2022.
ATTACHMENT 1
Page-4
LINDSAY LARA, City Clerk
ATTACHMENT 2
1
RESOLUTION NO. 15055
RESOLUTION OF THE SAN RAFAEL CITY COUNCIL ESTABLISHING A ONE YEAR PILOT
PROGRAM FOR STREAMLINED REVIEW FOR CERTAIN RESIDENTIAL PROJECTS
BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the City of San Rafael as follows:
WHEREAS, over the past few years, the City Council has received informational reports
related to housing and the challenges to housing development. The City Council directed staff to
explore the issues related to the challenges to the approval and development of housing in San
Rafael and to identify changes that could be made to facilitate housing development. Staff
presented follow-up reports, met with community members and stakeholder groups, and
prepared identified a list of recommended measures that, if implemented, could address
challenges to housing production by providing clarity in and simplifying the review process,
providing options for development of affordable housing and exploring other opportunities to
increase housing production.
WHEREAS, one item identified was to establish a streamlined review process with
advisory authority over the architectural design of certain projects. As envisioned, streamlined
review would review certain housing development applications in-lieu of the full Design Review
Board. The streamlined review would occur concurrently with the Planning Commission review,
which would reduce the number of meetings necessary to approve the development application
while maintaining design review of the project.
WHEREAS, on September 21, 2020, the City Council directed staff to explore a pilot
program; and
WHEREAS, on November 4, 2020, staff presented the Design Review Board with a
report on the concept streamlining review, at the time referred to as “Design Review Advisory
Committee.” Staff requested feedback from the board regarding structure, membership, noticing
options, and types of projects to be reviewed. Members of the Design Review Board provided
feedback to assure adequate public notice and process, allow projects to be referred to the full
Board, and reduce the size of staff reports as a time savings measure. Staff used the comments
received and prepared a draft document defining the structure of the one-year Pilot Program.
WHEREAS, on February 17, 2021, staff presented the Design Review Board with a
report on the draft Pilot Program which incorporated the comments received from the Board on
November 4, 2020. In summary, the streamlined review program would allow members of the
Design Review Board to participate in the Planning Commission meeting for certain types of
projects that would be defined in the Pilot Program. The meeting would be a fully noticed public
meeting and all members of the public would be allowed to provide comment on the project prior
to a decision. The proposed format was presented to the Design Review Board, the Board
provided comments which were incorporated into the proposed pilot program, and
ATTACHMENT 2
2
WHEREAS, on January 21, 2022, the Planning Commission held a duly noticed public
hearing on the proposed streamlined review pilot program and proposed amendment to the
municipal code, accepted all public testimony and the written report of the Community
Development Department, and recommended the City Council approve the one-year pilot
program; and
WHEREAS, on April 18, 2022, the City Council held a duly noticed public hearing on the
ordinance and accepted all public testimony and the written report of the Community
Development Department; and
NOW, THEREFORE IT IS HEREBY RESOLVED that the City Council establishes a
streamlined review for certain residential projects one-year pilot program, as follows:
Streamlined Review of Certain Residential Projects
(1-Year Pilot Program)
A. Purpose and Authority. Members of the Design Review board as described below shall
participate in the streamlined review of certain residential development applications as
established under San Rafael Municipal Code Section 14.25.070. The streamlined review
will operate for a temporary one-year term. At the end of the term, a final report with
recommendations shall be provided to the City Council with input and recommendations
from the Planning Commission and Design Review Board to continue, continue with
modifications, or to discontinue the program.
The streamlined review will be for the purpose of reviewing and formulating
recommendations on the following development project applications which are subject to
Major Environmental Design Review (requiring planning commission action):
Residential structures of 3 to 10 units.
Additions to multifamily residential structures of between three (3) to ten (10) units,
where the addition constitutes more than forty percent (40%) of the total square
footage of the building but would not increase the unit count by more than 3 units.
In addition, the appointed members may also advise on Minor Environmental and Design
Review and Administrative Design Review items as well as other items referred by the
community development director, zoning administrator, planning commission or city council.
The purpose is to provide professional design analysis and design guidance to the
applicant and may include comments on the completeness, competence, and
appropriateness of development proposals in regard to use and setting.
B. Design Review Board Representatives. The Design Review Board Representatives shall
consist of the Design Review Board Chair, and a board member who is a landscape
architect. Both members shall serve for the one year term.
C. Alternate Representatives. If one of the members is unable to attend a meeting or has a
conflict, they will contact the Community Development Director ahead of time. The
Community Development Director will select a replacement from the full board based on
tenure. The Community Development Director may also appoint an alternative member in
the event that a member leaves office prior to completion of the member’s term.
D. Attendance at Planning Commission Meetings. The Representative members shall
participate at a public hearing by the Planning Commission as may be required from time to
ATTACHMENT 2
3
time to provide recommendations on the types of projects described in Section A above.
The members shall be notified of such meetings by the Staff Liaison to the Design Review
Board. The members may also be invited to provide consultation on projects subject to
staff level review or Zoning Administrator level review and may be requested to attend
meetings on such projects.
E. Referral to the full Design Review Board. If at any time, it is determined that a project
meeting the criteria in Section A above, would benefit from the full Design Review Board
due to proposed design, size, or surroundings, the project may be referred to the full Design
Review Board by an affirmative vote of the Planning Commission.
F. No Action by Representatives. The Representative members represent the Design Review
Board, which is an advisory board. No official action is taken. The members will be
provided an opportunity to ask questions and provided an opportunity to comment as part of
the Planning Commission meeting on the project. Recommendations from the members
will be considered by the Planning Commission and may be incorporated as conditions of
approval.
J. Public Notice. Notice of projects subject to review shall be made in tandem with
notifications for the Planning Commission meetings as required for such projects. In
addition to other noticing requirements, notices shall include a statement that the project is
subject to streamlined review which will occur at the same time the Planning Commission
reviews the project.
I, LINDSAY LARA, City Clerk of the City of San Rafael, hereby certify that the foregoing
resolution was duly and regularly introduced and adopted at a regular meeting of the Council of
said City held on the 18th day of April 2022, by the following vote:
AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: BUSHEY, KERTZ, LLORENS GULATI & MAYOR KATE
NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: NONE
ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: HILL
Lindsay Lara, City Clerk
Planning Application
Submitted
Route for completeness
Review
30 days
Deemed
Complete?
NO
Yes
Major or Minor
Porject?1
Is the project eligible for
streamlined review? 2
1.Per SMRC 14.25.040
2.Eligible Projects include the following:
a)Residential structures of 10 units or less (does not apply to projects subject to Minor Environmental Design Review).
b)Additions to multifamily residential structures of between three (3) to ten (10) units, where the addition constitutes more than forty percent (40%) of the
total square footage of the building but would not increase the unit count by more than 3 units.
NO
Schedule for
Design Review
Board Meeting
Yes
Schedule for
Planning
Commission with
Joint DRB review
Provide
Public Notices
Major
Scheduled for
Zoning
Administrator
Review
Provide Public
Notice
Provide Public
Notices
Hold Public Hearing
ZA approves project
Hold Public Meeting
DRB recommends
approval to the
Planning
Commission
Hold Public Hearing
DRB members
provides design
recommendations
PC approves project
Schedule for
Planning
Commission
Provide Public
Notices
PC approves project
Applicant submits
Building Permit
Application
City of San Rafael
Development Review
and Streamlined
Review Comparison
Minor
ATTACHMENT 3
Proposed
Streamlined Review2Major Project
Review
RESOLUTION NO. 22-05
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF SAN RAFAEL PLANNING COMMISSION
RECOMMENDING TO THE CITY COUNCIL ADOPTION OF AN ORDINANCE OF THE
CITY OF SAN RAFAEL AMENDING TITLE 14.25.070 (DESIGN REVIEW BOARD) TO
ESTABLISH THE DESIGN REVIEW ADVOSORY COMMITTEE (DRAC); AND
ADOPTION OF A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF SAN RAFAEL TO ESTABLISH A
1-YEAR DRAC PILOT PROGRAM
(P22-01)
WHEREAS, regulations relating to the Design Review Commission are located in
Section 14.25 (Environmental and Design Review Permits) of the San Rafael Municipal
Code (SRMC); and
WHEREAS, the City Council has received informational reports on the challenges
to housing development in San Rafael on August 20, 2018, September 3, 2019, and
January 19, 2020 and directed the exploration of solutions to encourage residential
development and streamline development approval; and
WHEREAS, the draft amendment to Section 14.25.070 of the SRMC would
establish the Design Review Advisory Committee (DRAC) to serve as environmental
design review advisory body for certain development projects as defined in the 1-year
DRAC Pilot Program; and
WHEREAS, establishing a 1-year DRAC Pilot Program would explore how the City
might reduce process and streamline development approval while continuing the achieve
environmental design and maintain opportunities for the public to comment on new
development applications and participate in the approval process, and
WHEREAS, on February 4, 2021 and 17, 2021, the Design Review Board
considered the proposed 1-year DRAC Pilot Program and provided feedback that was
incorporated into the proposed program; and
WHEREAS, on January 25, 2022, the Planning Commission held a duly-noticed
public hearing on the proposed amendments to Section 14.25.070 of the San Rafael
Municipal Code and the proposed 1-year DRAC pilot program, accepted all public
testimony and the written report of the Community Development Department; and
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that:
The Planning Commission recommends to the City Council adoption of the
amendments to the San Rafael Municipal Code provided in Attachment A of this
resolution, based on the following findings as required under Section 14.27.060 of the
SRMC:
1.The amendment to Section 14.25.070 of the SRMC is consistent in principle
with the San Rafael General Plan and serves the public health, safety and
general welfare in that:
a.As proposed, the amendment would establish the Design Review
Advisory Committee as a subset of the Design Review Board to review
ATTACHMENT 4
development applications for certain residential development projects
and in so doing reduced and streamline approval processes which
aligns with the requirement of the housing element of the general plan
to identify and reduce governmental constraints and barriers to the
development of housing, and
b.As proposed, the amendment would serve the health, safety and
general welfare of the public by establishing the advisory committee of
the design review board as an exploratory means of reducing process
and streamlining residential development approval while achieving
environmental design and maintaining opportunity for public comment
and participation.
The Planning Commission further recommends to the City Council adoption of a
resolution establishing the 1-year Design Review Advisory Committee (DRAC) Pilot
Program provided in Attachment B of this resolution.
The foregoing Resolution was adopted at the regular City of San Rafael Planning
Commission meeting held on the 25th day of January 2022.
Moved by Commissioner Mercado and seconded by Commissioner Harris.
AYES: Commissioners: Harris, Haveman, Mercado, Samudzi & Chair Previtali
NOES: Commissioners: None
ABSENT: Commissioners: Saude
ABSTAIN: Commissioners: None
SAN RAFAEL PLANNING COMMISSION
ATTEST: BY:
Leslie Mendez, Secretary Jon Previtali, Chair
ATTACHMENTS:
A.Draft amendment to Section 14.25.070 (Design Review Board) of the San Rafael
Municipal Code.
B.Draft 1-year Design Review Advisory Committee (DRAC) Pilot Program
ATTACHMENT 4
Attachment A of Attachment 4
Proposed Amendments to San Rafael Municipal Code
Page 1 of 1
Proposed amendments to the San Rafael Municipal Code establishing the Design Review
Advisory Committee are provided below. Proposed new language is underlined.
14.25.070 Design review board & Design Review Advisory Committee.
A.Purpose and Authority. The design review board and design review advisory committee
(DRAC) shall serve as an advisory body to the city for the purpose of reviewing and
formulating recommendations on all major physical improvements requiring environmental
and design review permits and on other design matters, including minor physical
improvements or administrative design permits, referred to the board by the community
development director, planning commission or city council. The design review board shall
provide professional design analysis, evaluation and judgment as to the completeness,
competence and appropriateness of development proposals for their use and setting and to
recommend approval, approval with conditions, redesign or denial based on design
standards adopted by the city council. The DRAC shall serve as a subcommittee of the full
design review board and shall provide recommendations on matters delegated to the
DRAC by the City Council per City Council Resolution.
ATTACHMENT 4
Attachment B of Attachment 4
Design Review Advisory Committee
Pilot Program
A.Purpose and Authority. The Design Review Advisory Committee (DRAC) shall serve as a
subcommittee of the full Design Review Board established under San Rafael Municipal
Code Section 14.25.070. The DRAC will operate for a temporary one-year term.
The DRAC will be an advisory body to the city for the purpose of reviewing and formulating
recommendations on the following major physical improvements which are subject to Major
Environmental Design Review (requiring planning commission action):
Residential structures of 10 units or less (does not apply to projects subject to
Minor Environmental Design Review).
Additions to multifamily residential structures of between three (3) to ten (10)
units, where the addition constitutes more than forty percent (40%) of the total
square footage of the building but would not increase the unit count by more
than 3 units.
The DRAC will serve as an advisory body on Minor Environmental and Design Review and
Administrative Design Review items as well as other items referred to the DRAC by the
community development director, zoning administrator, planning commission or city council.
The DRAC purpose is to provide professional design analysis, and design guidance to the
applicant on behalf of staff and may comment on the completeness, competence, and
appropriateness of development proposals for their use and setting. The DRAC is not a
formal body and does not take formal action on a project. However, the DRAC may provide
recommendation to the zoning administrator, planning commission or city council.
B. Membership of the DRAC. The DRAC shall be made up of a total of two (3) active members
of the full Design Review Board who shall serve on a one-year rotational basis. Members
shall be made up of the following:
1.One (1) licensed architect,
2. One (1) licensed landscape architect, and
3.One (1) alternate member who shall be a licensed architect or licensed landscape
architect
C.Alternate Member. The alternate member may temporarily fill in in the event a regular DRAC
member is unable to participate or if one of the following occurs:
o a regular member leaves office prior to completion of the member's term,
o a regular member cannot attend a meeting, or
o a regular member cannot otherwise participate on a particular matter due to a
conflict of interest.
D.Meetings. The DRAC members shall participate at a public hearing by the Planning
Commission as may be required from time to time to provide recommendations on the
types of projects described in Section A above. The DRAC members shall be notified of
such meetings by the Staff Liaison to the Design Review Board. The DRAC may also be
invited to provide consultation on projects subject to staff level review or Zoning
Administrator level review and may be requested to attend meetings on such projects.
ATTACHMENT 4
Attachment B of Attachment 4
E. Referral to the full DRB. If at any time, it is determined that a project meeting the criteria in
Section A above, would benefit from the full Design Review Board due to proposed design,
size, or surroundings, the project may be referred to the full DRB.
F.Action by the DRAC. The DRAC serves as an informal subcommittee. No official action is
taken. The DRAC will be provided an opportunity to ask questions and provided an
opportunity to comment as part of the Planning Commission deliberation during a public
hearing on the project. Recommendations will be considered by the Planning Commission
and may be incorporated as conditions of approval.
J.Public Notice. Notice of projects subject to the DRAC review shall be made in tandem with
notifications for the Planning Commission meetings as required for such projects. In
addition to other noticing requirements, notices subject to DRAC recommendation shall
include a statement that the project is subject to DRAC review which will occur at the same
time the Planning Commission reviews the project.
ATTACHMENT 4
Attachment 5 –
Report to the Planning Commission, January 25, 2022
Attachment 5-
https://storage.googleapis.com/proudcity/s
anrafaelca/uploads/2022/01/3.-DRAC.pdf
1
February 24, 2022
To: Jacob Noonan, Housing Manager
cc: Ali Giudice, Planning Commissioners, Leslie Mendez
Re: 1/25/22 Planning Commission: DRAC Pilot Evaluation Criteria – FOR PUBLIC RECORD
Dear Jacob,
We appreciated your PowerPoint presentation on the DRAC one-year pilot program at the January 25
Planning Commission meeting. The presentation clearly described the pilot program and answered
several previously raised questions
During the presentation you clarified that at the end of the one-year pilot a report would be prepared
for the City Council evaluating the effectiveness to “reduce process and timing while maintaining
design review board program expectations”. In reply to Commissioners questions, you replied that the
evaluation would be internal; the Planning Commissioners & Design Review Board Members would be
invited to participate in the draft and then it would go to City Council with recommendation to
continue, continue & amend, or discontinue.
There were several additional comments by Planning Commissioners and the public regarding detailing
the evaluation criteria prior to commencement of Pilot. However, the resolution to initiate the Pilot
was approved and you stated that the staff report would be amended to include detailed pilot
evaluation criteria.
Several of us who attended the meeting took copious notes and later discussed the questions and data we think
are needed to turn the stated evaluation goals into measurable observations. We recommend that the
following items be included in your amended staff report as parameters for a full evaluation of the DRAC pilot
project. (Note: Several of these items were included in Responsible Growth in Marin’s January 24,
2022, letter on the same subject.)
DRAC Pilot Evaluation Criteria:
1)Data on all the projects reviewed during the year should be summarized including:
a) total number of projects reviewed,
b) number of projects referred to Zoning Administrator (ZA) or staff without DRAC or DRB input
c) number of projects referred to DRB for specific reasons (variance, zoning change, height increase,
hillside, etc.),
d) number (and basic description/location) of projects referred to DRAC and ZA
e) number (and basic description/location) of projects referred to DRAC and PC
ft Responsible Growth in Marin
ATTACHMENT 6
2
f) number of projects referred back to full DRB after being reviewed by DRAC (at ZA and at PC). Who
referred the project back to DRB? What conditions were required for the projects moving
forward? Did projects return to PC for approval after DRB?
4) Costs/Benefits to applicant: Number of planning meetings and total amount of time in planning
approval process for projects referred to DRAC--what savings of time (for applicant), if any, were
achieved? How will this be compared to time/number of meetings that would have been expended if
the project went through the current process with DRB review? Did the prediction of 2 months saved
prove true? Were there any other costs or benefits to the applicant?
5) Costs/Benefits to City: How much was staff time reduced or increased through administering the
DRAC program? How will staff hours be measured? Were there additional costs or savings to the City?
6) Costs/Benefits to the Planning Commission and DRB: How will costs and benefits be
measured? E.g., increased length of PC meetings with DRAC participation? Longer public hearing
times? Increased workload by DRB members on DRAC? Decreased utilization of the full DRB? Change
in quality of PC meetings (e.g., decreased discussion time/ Q&A) when the meeting expanded to 10
members (DRAC plus PC)?
7) Transparency--where were projects referred to DRAC listed on the City website? (They are not
major planning projects, so are not on that list in the Community Development Department. At the
1/25 meeting, it was stated that the projects referred to DRAC would be listed on the website.)
a) Timeliness of posting of projects on website should be verified
b) notification of ZA/DRAC hearings should be verified--who was notified and when?
c) notification of PC/DRAC hearings should be verified--who was notified and when?
d) what public comments were received about DRAC projects and what actions, if any, resulted from
public comments?
8) Quality of design review-- how will it be determined if "design review board program expectations"
were maintained?
9) Criteria for success of the project-- What parameter and what threshold in that parameter will
determine whether the project should be continued, amended, or discontinued?
Thank you for your attention to this matter. We believe that defining the criteria and measurement
methods at the beginning of the pilot project are essential to ensuring that everyone will have a clear
idea of how the pilot project will be evaluated and will make clear the basis for decisions at the end of
the year.
Jacob, please don’t hesitate to contact us if you have any questions or if we may be of help.
Thanks for your ongoing commitment and service to our community.
Respectfully submitted,
Responsible Growth in Marin
info@rgmarin.org
Shirley Fischer, Team Leader
Grace Geraghty, Executive Director
Claire Halenbeck, Team Leader
Pamela Reaves, Team Leader
ATTACHMENT 1