HomeMy WebLinkAboutCD Plan Bay AreaAgenda Item No: 6. b
Meeting Date: May 6, 2013
SAN RAFAEL CITY COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT
Department: Community Development Department
rPrepared by: Paul A. Jensen, Director
City Manager ApprovalX, fRA'di(
SUBJECT: Report onDraft Plan Bay Area and Draft Environmental Impact Repqrt(QBR);
City File No. P89'019.
RECOMMENDATION:
Accept Report. Direct staff to forward comments on the Draft Plan Bay Area and DBR to ABAB and
MTC.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Consistent with Assembly Bill 32 (California Global warming Solutions Act) and Senate Bill 375
(Sustainable Communities Strategy), the Association of Boy Area Governments (4BAG) and the
Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC) have jointly completed the Draft Plan Bay Area (Draft
Plan). The Draft Plan senxso as the Bay Anyo'o Sustainable Communities Strategy (SCS) to plan for
future growth with the goal to reduce the region's greenhouse gas emissions (GHG) by2O20and 2040.
The Draft Plan is complex as itcombineo/jnino regional land use planning and transportation planning
practices that have been historically employed and implemented independently by ABAG and MTC. The
Draft Plan incorporates: e land use component that covers the State -mandated Regional Housing Need
Allocation (RHNA) as well oothe ABAG jobs and housing growth projections for 2040; a transportation
and investment component addressing transportation projects and funding; and a conservation
component.
Pursuant to the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines, ABAG/MTC prepared a
Draft Environmental Impact Report (DBR) assessing the environmental impacts of the Draft Plan and its
implementation. The DBR is o "program -level" douument, meaning that it assesses environmental
impacts at a very broad, mostly regional level. The OE|R does not assess the impacts of specific
transportation or development projects at o countywide or local level. Rmther, it is the intent ofthis
environmental document to be used or"Uenad" from as part oflocal jurisdiction review oflocal projects.
GB375requires that aregion's SCS include ''CEQ/\Stream|ining.^ The OE|Raddresses and covers this
requirement. The {}EOAStreamlining provisions presented in the OE|Rare recommended toapply to
certain, qualifying "Transit Priority Projects" (TPP) and reside ntia I/m ixed use developments.
|nsummary, the Draft Plan meets the regional goals for reducing GHGemissions mandated byA832and
5B375, However, the DBR concludes that Draft Pian adoption and implementation will result in 40
significant environmental impacts, which cannot be mitigated to a less -than -significant level. Therefore, in
FOR CITY CLERK ONLY
File No.:
Council Meeting:
Disposition: CX zj�
' ^-
CITlVOF&AN RA.
2st6erC Jxvne
14NnFifthA,c. /'x)
San Aat'nd.LA94V1S-|.�x
SAN RAFAEL CITY COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT / Page: 2
order for ABAG/MTC to adopt this Draft Plan, these agencies will need to make findings of overriding
consideration. For local jurisdictions such as San Rafael, while local compliance with AB32 is mandated,
it is critical to note that local jurisdictions are not required to adopt this Draft Plan, nor mandated to meet
the Draft Plan's 2040 jobs and housing projections through property rezoning, General Plan amendments
or actual construction.
The Draft Plan and process has been controversial with public focus on concerns over: loss of local land
use control; recommendations for increased, concentrated growth in the inner -urban areas of the region
(introduction of "Priority Development Areas"); the ABAG jobs and housing growth projections for 2040;
and the linkage of the State -mandated Regional Housing Need Allocation (RHNA). However, there are
other, important elements of the Draft Plan, which are summarized in this report.
Staff has reviewed the Draft Plan and accompanying DEIR; staff comments are outlined in the Analysis
section of this staff report. In brief, the critical comments are as follows:
The inclusion of the State -mandate Regional Housing Need Allocation (RHNA) in the Draft
Plan requires local jurisdiction compliance with the next 2014-2022 RHNA cycle. For this
next cycle, the RHNA for San Rafael (1,003 residential units for the 2014-2022 cycle) is
reasonable and acceptable as it is less than what has been planned for in our current,
adopted Housing Element (1,403 units zoned for the 2007-2014 cycle).
The 2040 jobs and housing projections identified for Marin and San Rafael (including our two
Priority Development Areas): a) are overly ambitious given the built environment and
constrained transportation network; and b) exceed our planning projections in the San Rafael
General Plan 2020. Further, growth projections recently published by the State Department of
Finance (DOF) report a considerably lower growth for 2040 than the Draft Plan projections.
3. The Draft Plan DEIR has some but limited "tiering" value for use by local jurisdictions. While
this document will be useful to local jurisdictions for assessing cumulative impacts on specific
topic areas such as air quality, climate change/GHG emissions and transportation, most of
the topic areas studied include mitigation measures that are presently and commonly
required by local jurisdictions. Lastly, while this DEIR presents provisions for CEQA
Streamlining, local jurisdictions are not mandated to apply these provisions.
Staff is requesting that the City Council review and discuss the staff comments and direct staff to submit
written comments to ABAG/MTC.
BACKGROUND:
Bay Area Regional Planning and Transportation (ABAG & MTC)
The Bay Area, which encompasses nine counties, is served by a number of regional agencies, including
the ABAG and MTC. ABAG and MTC manage, administer and oversee regional planning and
transportation matters. Since the early 1970's, ABAG has served as the Bay Area's "Council of
Governments" (COG). As a COG, ABAG: a) projects and monitors jobs and housing growth for the
region; and b) administers the State -mandated Regional Housing Need Allocation (RHNA). These roles
are described as follows:
Since 1978, ABAG has been responsible for developing and publishing jobs and housing growth
projections for the region. The projections are based, in part on the growth and development
projections of local general plans, input from local agencies and trends in the economy.
Historically, ABAG published the jobs and housing projections every two-four years. Local
jurisdictions are not bound by or required to comply with the jobs/housing projections, but they
are often used by local jurisdictions as a base for forecasting build -out in local general plans.
2. The Regional Housing Need Allocation (RHNA) is the housing need allocation that is set and
determined for each region (e.g., the SF Bay region) by the State of California Department of
Housing and Community Development (HCD). Required by State law since 1981, RHNA
represents a target number for planning and accommodating new housing units for a broad range
of affordability levels. For the Bay Area region, ABAG is provided this RHNA from HCD and it is
SAN RAFAEL CITY COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT / Page: 3
the job of ABAG, in coordination with the nine Bay Area counties and respective cities/towns, to
distribute this allocation to each community. Each county and local municipality must take the
share of the allocation and incorporate it into their respective General Plan Housing Elements.
The Housing Element must demonstrate how the local allocation can be met or achieved through
zoning for housing and supportive General Plan implementation measures. While RHNA does
not require municipalities to build housing to meet this allocation, the Housing Element must
demonstrate, to the satisfaction of HCD, that the local municipality zoning and property inventory
can accommodate the allocation. Further, approved and proposed housing development projects
are counted toward meeting the RHNA. Once incorporated into the local Housing Element and
adopted by the local municipality, the Housing Element must be certified by HCD. At present,
RHNA is administered in seven -year -cycles. In 2011, San Rafael complied with the last RHNA
cycle (2007-2014) by adopting an updated Housing Element. Our adopted Housing Element,
which has been certified by HCD, demonstrates that the 2007-2014 RHNA allocation of 1,403
residential units has been met through current zoning and identified housing opportunity sites. An
inventory of properties demonstrating compliance with RHNA is presented in Appendix B of the
Housing Element.
MTC oversees and manages transportation planning and coordination for the Bay Area region. MTC is
responsible for developing a regional transportation plan (RTP) which sets the long-term transportation
needs (transportation improvements) for a region and the funding to implement these needs. In addition,
MTC is responsible for coordinating with the State (Caltrans) on transportation projects for the region, and
administering funds and grants received from the State and Federal level. MTC is responsible for
allocating and distributing the Federal and State funds and grants to the congestion management
agencies throughout the nine Bay Area counties. Transportation Authority of Marin (TAM) serves as the
congestion management agency for Marin County.
Assembly Bill 32 (AB 32) and Senate Bill 375 (SB 375)
Assembly Bill 32 (AB 32), the California Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006, established state
legislation requiring a statewide reduction in greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions to 1990 levels by 2020.
The reduction of GHG emissions is to be achieved in numerous ways. In response, in 2009, San Rafael
adopted a Climate Change Action Plan (CCAP), which includes a list of robust implementation measures
to locally reduce GHG emissions.
In 2008, Governor Schwarzenegger signed Senate Bill 375 (SB 375), which promoted a direct linkage of
regional transportation plans (RTP) with the statewide goals to reduce GHG emissions. SB 375 requires
that metropolitan transportation organizations (such as MTC) develop a Sustainable Communities
Strategy (SCS), which is to serve as a new element of the RTP. The goal of the SCS is to reach a GHG
reduction target for each region. The target for the Bay Area is a seven percent (7%) GHG reduction per
capita by 2020 and a 15% reduction per capita by 2040. The primary contributor to GHG impacts is
emissions from fossil -fueled vehicles. Therefore, the greatest effort to reach this target is to develop ways
to reduce the amount of vehicle miles traveled, such as planning for more housing and jobs that can be
concentrated in the urban/developed areas and around or near transit.
Bay Area Sustainable Communities Strategy (SCS)
Partnership of Agencies
For the Bay Area region, the SCS process involves a partnership of four regional agencies: a) MTC; b)
ABAG; c) the Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD); and d) the Bay Conservation and
Development Commission (BCDC). MTC and ABAG are leading the SCS coordination effort of the "Plan
Bay Area," which is required to be completed and adopted by summer 2013. The goal of the Plan Bay
Area is to focus and concentrate future growth in and around a sustainable transportation system in the
inner, urban areas of the Bay Area, thus reducing the need to continue to reach out to the undeveloped
"green field" areas of the region to accommodate housing growth. By focusing growth in the inner -urban
areas, there would be less reliance on vehicle travel, which would reduce GHG emissions.
Elements of Plan Bay Area — Linkage to RHNA
The Plan Bay Area is structured to add three new elements to the Bay Area's RTP: a) a land use
component demonstrating how the region could house the entire population by 2040; b) a discussion of
resource and farmland areas to be protected; and c) a demonstration on how the development pattern
and the transportation network can work together to reduce GHG emissions. To add to the complexity of
SAN RAFAEL CITY COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT / Page: 4
this effort, the Plan Bay Area is also structured to ultimately synchronize the separate, State -mandated
Regional Housing Need Allocation (RHNA) process with the RTP process. While the Plan Bay Area is
intended to plan for concentrated growth in the urban core of the Bay Area, there is no mandate that this
planned growth be built. However, as discussed above, the RHNA process mandates that the housing
allocation that is distributed to each local municipality be addressed in their respective Housing Elements.
Right now, Housing Elements are on a seven-year review and update cycle. The Plan Bay Area inclusion
of RHNA would reduce the Housing Element review and update cycle to once every 8.8 years for local
jurisdictions that demonstrate compliance with the adopted Plan Bay Area.
Over the past five years, ABAG and MTC have been working to develop the Plan Bay Area, which has
involved numerous steps and studies that have resulted in: adjustments for the regional jobs and housing
projections through 2040; adjustments to the RHNA methodology; and development of strategies and
measures that are proposed to reduce the vehicle trips that are traveled in the region.
Priority Development Areas (PDA)
The key tool to achieving concentrated growth and reduction in vehicle trips has been the establishment
of "Priority Development Areas" (PDA). A PDA is a geographic area that is close to, along, or within
transit nodes and connections that can be earmarked for concentrated growth, particularly housing
growth. ABAG established a process by which a local jurisdiction can designate a PDA. This designation
applies a higher percentage of projected growth for the PDA, but it also comes with incentives. The
incentives for a PDA include, among others: a) the potential for reduced requirements for and/or an
exemption from CEQA review for future development in these areas; and b) greater grant and funding
opportunities for planning, transportation and infrastructure (note: to date, the City has already been
awarded funds through the One Bay Area Grant process, which include funding for critical transportation
improvements to prepare for "Day One" operations of SMART).
Approximately 200 PDAs are designated in the nine Bay Area counties. At present, in Marin County
there are two designated PDAs in San Rafael (Downtown and Civic Center) and a planned PDA covering
several, unincorporated areas along the US 101 corridor (Marin City, Strawberry, Greenbrae/Larkspur,
Marinwood). The two San Rafael PDAs were designated by City Council action in 2008-2009. San
Rafael received MTC grant funding for the development of two SMART station area plans (the Downtown
and Civic Center PDAs), which were completed last year. The two Station Area Plans cover a geographic
area encompassing a '/-mile radius surrounding the two SMART rail stations, which generally represent
the PDA boundaries. A map of the two San Rafael PDAs is attached (Attachment 1).
Jobs -Housings Connection Scenario- 2012
Last year, as a phase of the Plan Bay Area preparation process, ABAG/MTC developed and published
the "Jobs -Housing Connection Scenario," which includes the latest jobs and housing growth projections
for 2040. The methodology that was used to develop the jobs/housing projections is complicated;
however, simply stated, the projections consider trends (both past and projected) that are specific to: a)
regional growth patterns; b) employment (by sector/job type); c) population changes (by age,
demographics and immigration); and d) housing (production and choices in housing). Downward
adjustments to the projections were made in this scenario to response to many comments made by the
local jurisdictions (including San Rafael) and the public. The adjusted projections take into consideration:
a) recession recovery (re -tenanting commercial vacancies); b) an increase in home-based businesses; c)
absorption of current housing vacancies; and d) an aging population. Nonetheless, the reduced
projection numbers for San Rafael were unrealistic. This scenario was presented to the City Council in
May 2012. As reported to the City Council at that time, City staff has been carefully monitoring this
process and has submitted comments to ABAG/MTC through various phases of this process.
Marin SCS Ad -Hoc Committee
The Marin SCS Ad -Hoc Committee has been formed to track and monitor the Plan Bay Area process for
Marin County. The SCS Ad -Hoc Committee is comprised of elected officials (Councilmember Barbara
Heller representing San Rafael) and public agency staff that meet regularly to discuss information as it is
distributed or made available by ABAG/MTC. The SCS Ad -Hoc Committee is coordinated by
Transportation Authority of Marin (TAM) to promote collective review and comments from all
communities/cities in Marin.
SAN RAFAEL CITY COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT / Page: 5
Draft Plan Bay Area- March 2013
In late March 2013, ABAG/MTC published the Draft Plan Bay Area (Draft Plan). The Draft Plan has been
prepared to address two critical mandates: a) reducing the region's GHG emissions by 15% by 2035 (per
AB 32); and b) housing 100% of the projected growth for the region by 2040. The Draft Plan can be
accessed at http://onebayarea.org/regional-initiatives/plan-bay-area.htmi. A summary of the Draft Plan is
provided as follows:
Land Use Component— RHNA & Jobs/Housing Projections
As noted above, the RHNA has been incorporated into the Draft Plan to synchronize with the timing of the
Regional Transportation Plan (RTP). The Draft Plan includes the next 2014-2022 cycle. For the Bay
Area, the RHNA is 187.990 housing units for an 8.8 -year projected period. ABAG, in coordination with a
committee of representatives from local planners and elected officials (ABAG Housing Methodology
Committee) developed an updated methodology for distribution of the RHNA to the nine counties and
municipalities. For Marin County, the RHNA is 2,292 housing units, which is one -percent (1%) of the
region's allocation. The following table provides a breakdown of the latest draft Marin County RHNA
2014-2022 by municipality, which also provides a comparison with the 2007-2014 RHNA cycle:
Regional Housing Need Allocation (RHNA) for Marin Count
Municipality
RHNA 2007-2014
RHNA 2014-2022
Draft
Change
Belvedere
17
16
1
Corte Madera
244
72
172
Fairfax
108
61
47
Larkspur
382
132
250
Mill Valley
292
129
163
Novato
1,241
414
827
Ross
27
18
9
San Anselmo
113
106
7
San Rafael
1,403
1,003
400
Sausalito
165
79
86
Tiburon
117
78
39
Marin Co. uninc.
773
184
589
Marin Co. Total
4,882
2,292
(2,590)
As the table shows, the RHNA has been significantly reduced from the last cycle. Our current General
Plan Housing Element accommodates this allocation. Please note that the RHNA for San Rafael is for
citywide application; there is no RHNA for our two PDAs.
The 2040 jobs/housing projections presented in the land use component of the Draft Plan rely on the
"Jobs -Housing Connection Scenario" that was published in 2012. The jobs and housing projections are
relatively the same as those reported to the City Council last year. The Draft Plan projects a 30%
increase in the Bay Area population by 2040 (increase of 2.1 million persons). For Marin, the Draft Plan
projects a population increase of 13% (33,000 persons) by 2040, which is far less than the average of the
growth projected for the individual Bay Area counties (e.g., by comparison, projected growth for San
Mateo County is 26%). In January 2013, the State Department of Finance (DOF) published population
growth projections, which forecast a 3% growth for Marin by 2040. The 10% difference in the ABAG and
DOF projections is significant. The difference is attributed to ABAG's assumptions for strong economic
growth in the region by 2040, and that the DOF used a different methodology. ABAG and DOF have
agreed to work together on developing a "joint" projection for the next projections cycle (Plan and
projections will be reviewed in four years).
The Draft Plan projects a growth of 1.9 million jobs and 660,000 housing units for the region by 2040.
These projections were distributed among the nine Bay Area counties, as presented in the table below.
Overall, Marin County's household and employment is projected to grow more slowly and far less than all
other counties in the 2010-2040 period (e.g., 9% housing unit growth projection for Marin County, as
compared to a 27% housing growth projection for the Bay Area).
SAN RAFAEL CITY COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT / Page: 6
As presented in the table below, the countywide jobs and housing growth projections were distributed to
the Marin communities. Please note that San Rafael represents 45% of the 2040 housing growth
projection and 40% of the 2040 job growth projection for Marin County. The higher percentage projected
for San Rafael is attributed to it: a) being the urban center for Marin County; and b) containing two
designated PDAs. The 2040 housing growth projection for San Rafael (14%) is higher than the Marin
average (9%) and the 2040 job growth projection (20%) is slightly higher than the projected average for
the county (17%).
Draft Plan Bay Area Jobs -Housing Pro'ections for Marin Count
Jobs -Housing
Connection Scenario by Bay Area Coun
Coun
Housing Units
Em to `meat Jobs
Em to rnent Jobs
2010
2010
2040'
addition
0% Increase
2010
2040'
addition
%Increase
Alameda
582,550
147,980
29%
694,450
253,190
36%
Contra Costa
400,260
80,130
23%
344,920
122,080
35%
Marin
111,210!,
7,510
9%
110,730,
18,390
17%
Napa
54,760
6,050
15%
70,650
18,880
27%
San Francisco
376,940
92,410
29%
568,720
190,740
34%
San Mateo
271,050
55,700
22%
345,200
100,110
29%
Santa Clara
631,930
211,190
36%
926,260
303,530
33%
Solano
152,690
22,820
19%
132,350
47,560
36%
Sonoma
204,580
31,870
19%
192,010
65,430
34%
Region
2,785,990
660,000
27%
3,385,300
1,119,920
33%
As presented in the table below, the countywide jobs and housing growth projections were distributed to
the Marin communities. Please note that San Rafael represents 45% of the 2040 housing growth
projection and 40% of the 2040 job growth projection for Marin County. The higher percentage projected
for San Rafael is attributed to it: a) being the urban center for Marin County; and b) containing two
designated PDAs. The 2040 housing growth projection for San Rafael (14%) is higher than the Marin
average (9%) and the 2040 job growth projection (20%) is slightly higher than the projected average for
the county (17%).
ABAG/MTC has reported that every four years, the jobs and housing forecasts will be updated as part of
the regular review of funding for transportation projects. Please note that for San Rafael, the projection
totals include the two San Rafael PDAs. A summary of the City staff comments on the projections is
provided in the Analysis section of this report, below. It should be noted that the projected, more
concentrated growth that is presented in the Draft Plan will achieve the goal of housing 100% of the
regional need by 2040, but would not achieve the mandated 15% reduction in the region's GHG
emissions by 2040. This projected growth alone is estimated to reduce the region's GHG emissions by
nine percent (9%) by 2040. In order to achieve the 15% reduction, the Draft Plan is relying on other
recommended strategies (listed below under Transportation Plan and Investment Strategy).
Transportation Plan and Investment Strategy
This component of the Draft Plan covers the strategies for the planned regional transportation
improvements/investments to support the projected growth, as well as the funding needed to achieve the
improvements/investments. The Draft Plan recommends that investments be focused in four functions: a)
maintaining the existing road and bridge system; b) maintaining existing transit; c) expanding the existing
road and bridge system; and d) expanding transit (e.g., SMART rail service for the North Bay). In brief,
the investment strategies include the following:
Draft Plan Bay Area Jobs -Housing Pro'ections for Marin Count
Munlci al
Housing Units'
Em to `meat Jobs
2010
2040
addition
% Increase'
2010
2041)
addition ,
% lncrease
Belvedere
1,050
20
2%
430
50
12%
Corte Madera
4,030
230
6%
7,940
320
4%
Fairfax
3,590
210
6%
1,490
330
22%
Larkspur
6,380
390
6%
7,190
620
9%
Mill Valley
6,530
380
6%
5,980
810
14%
Novato
21,160
1,060
5%
20,890
3,490
17%
Ross
880
50
6%
510
80
16%
San Anselmo
5,540
250
5%
3,740
610
16%
San Rafael
CC PDA
Downtown PDA
24,010
1,990
2,610
3,390
1,040
1,380
14%
37,620
7,340
1,200
2;230
20%
Sausalito
4,540
250
60%
6,220
1,420
23%
Tiburon
4,030
220
5%
2,340
340
15%
Marin uninc.
29,500
1,050
4%
16,380
2,980
18%
Marin Total
L 1111240
7,510
9%
110,730
18,390
17%
ABAG/MTC has reported that every four years, the jobs and housing forecasts will be updated as part of
the regular review of funding for transportation projects. Please note that for San Rafael, the projection
totals include the two San Rafael PDAs. A summary of the City staff comments on the projections is
provided in the Analysis section of this report, below. It should be noted that the projected, more
concentrated growth that is presented in the Draft Plan will achieve the goal of housing 100% of the
regional need by 2040, but would not achieve the mandated 15% reduction in the region's GHG
emissions by 2040. This projected growth alone is estimated to reduce the region's GHG emissions by
nine percent (9%) by 2040. In order to achieve the 15% reduction, the Draft Plan is relying on other
recommended strategies (listed below under Transportation Plan and Investment Strategy).
Transportation Plan and Investment Strategy
This component of the Draft Plan covers the strategies for the planned regional transportation
improvements/investments to support the projected growth, as well as the funding needed to achieve the
improvements/investments. The Draft Plan recommends that investments be focused in four functions: a)
maintaining the existing road and bridge system; b) maintaining existing transit; c) expanding the existing
road and bridge system; and d) expanding transit (e.g., SMART rail service for the North Bay). In brief,
the investment strategies include the following:
SAN RAFAEL CITY COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT / Page: 7
Funding to support focused growth and local transportation. The Draft Plan du
continuing the One Bay Area Grant (OBAG) funding program to support planning for focused
growth at the local level. To date, the City was successful in receiving OBAG funding for SMART
"Day One" readiness improvements in Downtown San Rafael. For 2015-2016 the funds being
made available to Marin is $10 million. For Marin, TAM administers this program and is required
to develop a "PDA Investment y., This strategy mus[ include near-term projects that
would be candidates for (]BAG funding. TAM has prepared o draft ^K8ahn Transportation
Investment Strategy" to comply with this nequirement, which spans a four year period. For San
Rafael, the Marin Investment Strategy recommends priority consideration for near-term projects
for the Civic Center PDA (promenade improvements; North yWerryda|e Road turnaround; public
parking management study for rail service and infrastructure for transit amenities and operations
at the SMART station) and the Downtown PDA (Toma|poisAvenue improvamento, public plaza
@4m Street and Teme|peisAvenua and potential CEC)A review for proposed General Plan and
zoning amendments). Please note that the strategy does not include any near-term major
planning studies for the two PDAs or San Rafael at large. The City Traffic Engineer has
recommended that no major planning studies and traffic modeling be conducted until SMART is
up -and -running (eat. 2015-2016). The SMART rail service will impact local intersections and
arterial operations. The extent of these impacts will not be known until the rail service is in
operation.
2. Fundinq to maintain and expand existinq roads, bridges and transit. Plannedmajor transportation
projects in Mahn include the: n) US101 Novato "narrows" project; b) U8 101 Greenbrae
Interchange; and c) SMART rail service.
3. Funding earmarked for boosting freewaV and transit efficiency (e.g., ramp metering, arterial
management). Funding would besupported by"road phcing.^which would include: o)mregional
express lane network that would promote high -occupancy huU (HOT) |anma' which would allow
solo drivers to use a carpool lane subject hothe payment ofafee; and b\ congestion phcing,
which would charge drivers o fee to drive in a congested area. Regarding the fornner, the stretch
of US 10 1 from Windsor to Corte Madera has been identified as a road pricing zone.
4. Initiating and promoting climate program initiatives to reduce vehicle use, vehicle miles traveled
and to encourage the purchase or leasing of more electric vehicles. Draft Plan initiatives include,
among others: a) adoption of commuter benefit ordinance that would provide pre-tax benefit
programs and employer-provided incentives for free shuttles and vanpools; b) car sharing; u)
clean vehicle rebate program; and d)vehicle buy-back/purchaaeincentive program for plug-in or
electric vehicles.
The transportation plan and investment strategy portion of the Draft Plan is estimated to reduce GHG
emissions for the region by8.8% by 2040.
Rm000rceFrotection— Priority Conservation Areas
Another key tool inthe Plan Bay Area iathe proposal hodesignate PhoritvConeenxaUunAreoa(PCAa). A
PCA is a geographic area that is designated for conservation/protection because of its significant
resource value to the region. Federal Surface Transportation Program (STP)funds have been mode
available for the Bay Area to be used to support projects that will preserve and enhance the natunai,
economic and social value ofrural |ando, including productive agricultural |anda, recreation opportunides,
unique ecosystems and areas critical for climate protection. The portion of this fund that is nneda
available toMarin County is$125million.
In 2007. ABAG/MTC initiated the "FOCUS" process setting forth procedures and guidelines for
nominating properties and projects in the Bay Area counties for PCA designation. The FOCUS process
was also employed hzsolicit and designate PDAs. For Marin, 15 properties (mostly in West Marin) were
nominated by a number of conservation and agricultural organizations and agencies. |tshould benoted
that the |Voa| jurisdictions were not consulted on the PCA nominations. Of the 15 properties, one PCA -
designated site is located in San Rafael. The ''Canm|vvoys" property in Southeast Son Rafael was
nominated by the Marin Audubon Society. This undeve|oped, bay front property isapproximately SO
acres, and largely contains low-lying diked bay|onda. Pie000 see the attached map (Attachment 2). which
SAN RAFAEL CITY COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT / Page: 8
shows that this site is bordered to the north by Baypoint Lagoon, to the east by the Bay and to the south
by Home Depot/Target. Historically, the Canalways site has been identified to contain valuable habitat for
special -status (rare and/or endangered) species. The Canalways site also includes a bay front levee,
which is publicly -used (Bay trail access) but not improved. This stretch of levee is the sole portion of the
East San Rafael shoreline trail system that is not publicly -owned and improved and provides a key link to
completing the Bay Trail in this area. The Canalways property meets some of the criteria (e.g., majority of
the site is designated for Conservation use in the San Rafael General Plan 2020 Land Use Plan; site
provides an important link to completing the Bay Trail). However, the criteria for selection require a
sponsorship by the local jurisdiction, a commitment to matching funds (1:1), and the submittal of a
`statement of participation' by the property owner. This designation has been discussed with the
Canalways property owner, which is summarized in the Analysis section of this staff report.
The 15 PCA -designated properties have been included in the TAM -prepared "Marin Transportation
Investment Strategy," which is discussed above (under Transportation Plan and Investment Strategy).
The Marin Transportation Investment Strategy is to be used to administer the allocation of the $1.25
million funds. The selection process must include a matched financial commitment (50%) through local
sources (e.g., Measure A sales tax proceeds, contributions from non-governmental organizations, local
jurisdiction contributions). ABAG will be calling for new PCA nominations, which will include and consider
the 15 designated properties referenced above. Ultimately, TAM will consider the designated PCAs and
determine how the $1.25 million in funds will be distributed.
Planning for Resilience- Climate Adaptation and Sea Level Rise
The Draft Plan includes a very brief section addressing climate adaptation and sea level rise. As BCDC
is a partner in the Plan Bay Area, the Draft Plan includes the BCDC sea level rise prediction maps and a
report on Bay Area efforts to study vulnerability. Surprisingly, the Draft Plan contains very little
information on this topic, but the DEIR provides somewhat more detailed information (see DEIR section
below). The Draft Plan endorses and commits to regional efforts to conduct vulnerability and risk
assessments, a sea level rise adaptation strategy, and the development of a Transportation Asset
Management Plan to provide funding to counties and local jurisdictions.
Summary of Plan Performance in Complying with SB375
According to the Draft Plan, the implementation of the transportation plan and investment strategies
coupled with the projected, concentrated jobs/housing growth outlined above would result in a 10% per
capita reduction in GHG emissions by 2020 (exceeds 7% target) and a 16% per capita reduction by 2035
(exceeds 15% target).
Relationship of Draft Plan and SB375 to Local Jurisdiction Planning
The Draft Plan, particularly the jobs and housing growth projections and RHNA elements have generated
a great amount of public controversy during the Draft Plan preparation and review process. These
elements have been viewed and perceived by some as a regional effort to undermine local land use
control. However, the RHNA has been a State -mandate since 1981. Regardless to its linkage to Plan
Bay Area, local jurisdictions have and will continue to be required to adopt a Housing Element that
complies with RHNA. Regarding the 2040 jobs/housing projections, City staff has continually inquired
about this critical issue and has been repeatedly told by ABAG/MTC staff that local jurisdictions are not
bound by or obligated to plan for these projections, or take action to adopt the Draft Plan. In fact the Draft
Plan Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) includes the following statements, which confirms what
we have been told by ABAG/MTC staff:
"MTC and ABAG have no direct control over local land use planning. Nonetheless, regional efforts
will be made through ABAG funding to assist local plan alignment with the Plan." (DEIR page 2.3-33)
"Local jurisdictions have local land use authority, meaning that in the case where the proposed Plan
conflicts with local zoning or specific plans, the local jurisdiction would have ultimate land use
authority." (DEIR page 2.3-42)
"The proposed Plan will only be implemented insofar as local jurisdictions adopt its policies and
recommendations." (DEIR page 2.3-42)
SAN RAFAEL CITY COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT /Pa2e;9
|ndependantly, staff has reviewed the requirements of SB 375. While the regional planning and
transportation agencies are required to prepare on 8C8 (Plan Bay Area) to demonstrate a regional
reduction in E)HG emissions bythe targeted dates (2820 and 2035). |ono| jurisdictions are encouraged
but not required to adopt the GCS. However, |ouo| jurisdictions are required to meet the GHG target
reductions of SB 32. San Rafael has prepared and adopted a GHG Emissions Reduction Strategy (part
ofthe General Plan 2D2OSustainability Bement). Implementation ofthe measures inthe strategy (which
assumed ear|iarABAG growth assumptions) demonstrated that San Rafael efforts would reduce GHG
emissions by25Y6by2O2O(exceeding the target of1596). Adthe time ofthe preparation ofthis strategy,
information was not available toforecast local GHGreductions for 2O4O.
Plan Bay Area Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) - March 2013
BR
Pursuant to the provisions of the CEQA Guidelines, ABAG/K8TC has completed and published a Draft
Environmental Impact Report (OE|R) to aaoeao the environmental impacts of the Draft Plan. The Draft
Plan OE|R can be accessed at
. The DER pnaaonto u region -wide assessment of the
potential environmental impacts of the Draft Plan. The DE|R is prepared as a "programmatic" document
(Program E|R), moaning that itreviews and assesses impacts eto broad level; it does not address or
assess the impacts of individual transportation projects (e.g., TAM -sponsored o/ inter -county
transportation projects) or development projects in local communities. Hovvever, in some topic areae' the
DE|R provides county -by -county assessment. A Program E|R is typically used as starting point for
conducting subsequent environmental review on individual projects that are broadly covered by the
project (in thiouase. the Draft Plan). The impact assessments focus on the regional transportation plan
and the regional land use p|an, with particular attention on concentrated development planning in the
PDAs.
CEQAStreamlining (8B375)
While the Draft Plan DE|R provides a regional review ofimpacts, its purpose incorporates the "CE{]A
Streamlining" provisions of GB375. Essentially, SB375 mandates that o Sustainable Communities
Strategy incorporate environmental review streamlining provisions for assessing "Transit Priority Projects"
(TPP) and certain mixed-use residential projects. ATPP is development project that: a) contains at
least 5096 residential use; b) contains between 2896 and 50Y6 non-residential use and a floor area ratio
(FAR) of not less than 0.75; c) provides a minimum net density of 20 dwelling units per acre; and d) is
within 1/2 -mile of major transit stop (rail transit station, ferry termino|, or intersection that provides two or
more bus routes providing frequent service intervals) or a high-quality transit corridor (corridor with a fixed
bus service providing service intervals of no more than 15 minutes during the peak commute hours). A
qualifying mixed-use residential project is one that devotes 7596 of the total building square footage to
residential use. The Draft Plan includes o map of geographic areas in the region that eligible for CEC)A
Streamlining. In Marin, the Downtown Son Rafael and Canal anaoo are shown to be eligible forTPPo with
residential densities of greater than 20 dwelling units per acre. The NnrthQete area west of US 101 in
shown tobeeligible for residential projects ofgreoterthan2Odwe||ingun|baperecn*.
The streamlining provisions allow for both "exemptions" from environmental review or limited
environmental n*vievv, depending upon the type ofproject and issues. In both cusea, the environmental
review of a qualifying project would "tier' from the Plan Bay Area E|R. It is important to note that |ooe|
jurisdictions are not obligated or required to utilize or employ the CEC>A Streamlining. The mandate for
this streamlining lies with its inclusion in the 8C8 (Plan Bay Area) only. We have assumed that if local
jurisdiction chooses to employ the CEC>AGtremm||ninQ set forth in this BR, it inherits having to make all of
the findings required ofABAG/W1T(} in adopting the Plan Bay Area and would be required to comply with
the mitigation measures identified in the Plan E|R. However, this assumption has not been confirmed
and ABAG/K8TCstaff imconsulting with their CE<]/\attorney onthis issue.
HeyDEIR Topic Areas and Conclusions
The following is a summary of the key h)piva analyzed in the DBR that are specific to meeting the goals
ofAB32and 8B375horeduce GHGemissions:
1. Transportation. The OBRdoes not analyze oridentify localized traffic and transportation issues
that might be the focus of local General Plan (e.g.. LOS assessment ofintersections or arterial
SAN RAFAEL CITY COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT / Paye: 10
regional or countywide basis. At present, most local jurisdictions do not assess VMT in their
General Plans.
2. Air Quality. The DEIR provides a qualitative analysis of regional air quality impacts and
consistency with the Bay Area Clean Air Plan (CAP). The DEIR provides special, more localized
review for "CARE" areas, which are cities/counties that have poor air quality. Marin County is not
a CARE area. The DEIR proposes air mitigation measures that can be used by local agencies for
CEQA Streamlining of qualified projects.
Climate Change and Greenhouse Gases. The DEIR addresses regional flooding and sea level
rise. As BCDC is a partner in the Draft Plan, local jurisdictions anticipated that this topic section
might be more robust in content, analysis, strategy and direction. However, the Draft Plan and
DEIR commit MTC, ABAG, BAAQMD and BCDC (as a Joint Policy Committee) to work
collectively on: a vulnerability and risk assessment for regional transportation projects; the
creation of a sea level rise adaptation strategy; and the development of a Transportation Asset
Management Plan (TAMP). The TAMP would provide a template of common steps and
measures that could be considered by local jurisdictions in completing local vulnerability
assessments and adaptation. The DEIR includes a list of adaptive measures that could be
studied and implemented by local jurisdictions, which include, but are not limited to: applying
additional zoning restrictions in high risk areas (e.g., an overlay zone); establishing additional
setbacks and buffers along the shoreline; raising the elevation requirement for structures; and
building/raising levees, flood walls and berms.
Other DEIR topic areas that have been analyzed for potential environmental impacts include: land use
and physical environment; noise; geology and seismicity; water resources, biological resources; public
utilities and facilities; visual resources; and cultural resources.
The DEIR concludes that the adoption and implementation of the Plan Bay Area would result in 40
significant environmental impacts, which are unavoidable and cannot be mitigated to a less -than -
significant level. In order for ABAG/MTC to adopt the Draft Plan, findings of overriding consideration will
be required, meaning that the unavoidable impacts of the Draft Plan must be weighted against the
benefits of the Draft Plan.
The DEIR includes the review and assessment of five alternatives (including the Draft Plan, which is the
project). These alternatives are described as follows:
1. Alternative 1- No Project. This alternative presents a 'status quo' approach, meaning the growth
approach to the region would continue as it is presently planned. There would be no effort to
concentrate growth in the urban, inner region through PDAs.
2. Alternative 2- Plan Bay Area (the Project).
3. Alternative 3- Transit Priority. Like the Plan Bay Area, this alternative promotes focused growth in
the inner -urban core of the region. However, this alternative concentrates a greater amount of
this growth in the three, more centrally -located urban areas of San Francisco, Oakland/East Bay
and San Jose where there is high -frequency transit service. Less growth is projected for the
region's Priority Development Areas.
4, Alternative 4- Enhanced Growth Network. This alternative is a hybrid of the Draft Plan and the
No Project Alternative. Growth is focused around the Priority Development Areas but at a lower
level than the Draft Plan.
5. Alternative 5- Environment, Equity and Jobs. This alternative seeks to maximize affordable
housing in high -opportunity urban and suburban areas through incentives and housing subsidies.
Under this alternative, less growth is focused in the Priority Development Areas, but this growth
would be shifted to areas outside the PDA, in areas eligible to qualify for transit priority projects
(TPP). Further, under this alternative investment priorities would be shifted from transportation
infrastructure improvements (uncommitted roadway expansion projects) to the region's transit
SAN RAFAEL CITY COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT / Page: 11
services. This alternative proposes a VMT (vehicle miles traveled) tax, which is contingent upon
State legislative approval.
It should be noted that all five alternatives present jobs/housing growth projections that are very similar in
range with Alternative 5 presenting a slightly lower percent of growth, particularly in the PDAs. So, there
is no one alternative that would significantly reduce the jobs/housing growth projections estimated by
ABAG for the region. Alternatives 1 (No Project) and 4 would not be consistent with the SB 375 as the
GHG emissions reduction targets would not be met.
Alternative 5 has been identified as the environmentally -superior alternative, but the resulting
environmental impacts of this alternative are only marginally lower than the Draft Plan and other project
alternatives.
Public Review Period for Draft Plan Bay Area and DEIR
The public review period for both the Draft Plan Bay Area and DEIR is 55 days. Therefore, the local
jurisdictions and public must submit comments on the Draft Plan and DEIR by May 16, 2013. As we have
done during the steps in the Draft Plan process, it is recommended that the City submit written comments
to ABAG/MTC. The Analysis section of this report summarizes City staff review of the Draft Plan and
DEIR, which should be used as a base for submitting comments to ABAG/MTC.
On April 16, ABAG/MTC sponsored a public hearing on the DEIR, which was well attended. Most of the
public comments submitted at this hearing focused on the Draft Plan rather than the DEIR. A public
hearing on the Draft Plan was held on April 29, which was also well attended.
ANALYSIS:
This section focuses on City staff review and comments on the Draft Plan and DEIR. Following City
Council review and direction on these comments, it is recommended that staff be directed to prepare a
letter of written comments to be submitted to ABAG/MTC. The Draft Plan and DEIR were reviewed and
discussed at the TAM Board meeting on April 25. The TAM Board was presented with draft letters
summarizing Plan and DEIR comments compiled by TAM staff. However, the TAM Board took no action
on the draft letters, instead requested that each of the Marin jurisdictions review and weigh-in on the Draft
Plan and DEIR before TAM comments are finalized.
Comments on Draft Plan Bay Area
As we have reported, City staff has closely monitored the Plan Bay Area process, which has included
continual City participation in the efforts of the Marin SCS Ad -Hoc Committee. Staff presents the
following comments on the Draft Plan (relative to San Rafael):
The 2014-2022 RHNA for San Rafael is reasonable and acceptable. The 2014-2022 RHNA for
San Rafael is 1,004 units, which is supportable for our next Housing Element update. RHNA is
structured to `start over' at each cycle. Therefore, as our currently -certified Housing Element has
demonstrated that we have planned and zoned for 1,403 units, review and update of the next
Housing Element may be uncomplicated. As the current economic recession has lingered, there
have been few approved housing projects that have been built to occupancy. So, currently
approved projects that are not permitted and built by January 1, 2014 will be credited toward
meeting the RHNA in the next Housing Element update.
2. The projections for populationrq owth_presented in the Draft Plan substantially differ from the
population projections recently published by the State Department of Finance (DOF). As
discussed above, the DOF forecasts a 3% population growth for Marin for 2040, which is 10%
lower than the ABAG forecast of 13% growth. Although DOF used a different methodology for its
forecast, the difference in the projections is significant. As noted above, DOF and ABAG have
agreed to work together on developing a `joint' projection for the next projections cycle (Draft Plan
and projections will be reviewed in four years). It is prudent for the City to reinforce and support
this coordination and track the adjustments in projections over the next four years.
3. The 2040 jobs projection growth for San Rafael is overly ambitious given built environment
conditions and constrained transportation network. The 2040 jobs projection (growth of 7,340
jobs citywide) in this scenario has been reduced by 50% from the projections presented in the
SAN RAFAEL CITY COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT / Page: 12
earlier Alternative Scenarios. The jobs projection has been adjusted to account for recession
recovery and some increase in home-based jobs. However, this lower jobs growth projection is
still inflated and would equate to several million square feet in new commercial building area
(even considering recession recovery). This building area equivalent is more than the amount of
commercial development planned in the San Rafael General Plan 2020 (approx. 400,000 sf).
This development equivalent would require major transportation and utility service infrastructure
that exceeds current and planned capacity. For the two PDAs (Civic Center and Downtown), the
jobs projections exceed the land use capacity that is linked to maintaining level of service (LOS)
standards for our circulation network, which is adopted with the San Rafael General Plan 2020.
Since 1988, the San Rafael General Plan has linked land use development with planned
transportation improvements. The General Plan includes policies that are "safeguards," to ensure
the planned transportation improvements must be fully funded and scheduled for implementation
in coordination with land development.
4. The 2040 housing projection growth exceeds the residential capacity analysis in the San Rafael
General Plan 2020. Staff has reviewed the 2040 housing growth projection of 3,390 residential
units with growth projections covered in the currently -adopted San Rafael General Plan 2020
Housing Element. The Housing Element includes the results of a citywide residential capacity
analysis, which analyzed potential sites and areas as opportunities for housing. The analysis
demonstrates opportunities for a potential capacity of approximately 2,500-3,000 units. For the
two PDAs (Civic Center and Downtown), the housing projections exceed the land use capacity
that is linked to maintaining level of service standards for our circulation network, which is
adopted with the San Rafael General Plan 2020.
5. The designation of the "Canalways" property as a Priority Conversation Area is reasonable and
logical but the City does not have the funds to match the grant for site purchase and it does not
have the support of the property owner. The Canalways site offers opportunities for biological
resource protection, climate change adaptation (combating sea level rise) and transportation
networking (completion of Bay Trail connection and Kerner Boulevard connection). Although the
property owner was not contact during the FOCUS nomination process, recent contact was made
by City staff. The property owner has indicated there is no interest in selling the Canalways site
at this time (see Attachment 3- e-mail). Further, San Rafael has no funds to provide a financial
match to the grant. The Canalways site is one of a number of properties in San Rafael that was
studied as `potential open space' in both the San Rafael General Plan 2000 and San Rafael
General Plan 2020. At one time, the City held an open space fund for purchasing land for
conservation or resource protection. However, the remaining balance of this fund was used in
2000-2001 to purchase land on Gold Hill Grade (above Dominican neighborhood).
At the City level, it is recommended that we take a "Wait and See" approach to pursuing subsequent,
major planning efforts for the two PDAs. The SMART system is under construction with service projected
to commence in 2015-2016. The City Traffic Engineer has advised that before we conduct any major
planning, particularly in the two PDAs, we wait and see how the SMART service impacts our local street
network and LOS conditions at signalized intersections and arterial segments. Our San Rafael General
Plan 2020, which was prepared in 2004, does not analyze the local transportation conditions and impacts
with SMART service. Updated traffic modeling, which is critical to land use planning will be conducted
after SMART is up -and -running. The timing for this updated traffic modeling will also coincide with the
timing of the next update of the Plan Bay Area growth projections (four years referenced above).
Comments on the Plan DEIR
As a "Program EIR," the Draft Plan DEIR provides a broad, regional assessment of environmental
impacts. Staff presents the following comments on the DEIR:
The primary value of this document for local jurisdiction use (e.g., for General Plan EIRs and
project assessments) is in the cumulative impact assessment covering the key topic areas of
transportation, air quality, and climate change/greenhouse gases.
2. Because most of the topic areas are broadly assessed, the DEIR offers limited 'tiering' value for
San Rafael or for CEQA Streamlining. In fact, most of the mitigation measures and study
approaches recommended in many of the topic area sections are already implemented or
SAN RAFAEL CITY COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT / Page: 13
employed by San Rafael as part of our current environmental review process. In addition, some
of the recommended mitigation measures are more lenient than our local standards for mitigation
(e.g., Plan DEIR recommends a 1:1 mitigation for impacts to wetland fill/alteration vs. a 2:1 or
more mitigation by the San Rafael General Plan 2020 and City zoning).
The air quality analysis is comprehensive but a bit confusing as the recommendations are at -odds
with the goal of locating housing near transit. The DEIR identifies concentrated areas that would
be exposed to projected, cumulative air pollutants, which in Marin includes the land areas
bordering the US 101 corridor and several other major transportation corridors. The DEIR
recommends a two-step approach to determining the level of study or applicability of mitigation
for a "sensitive receptor" use (e.g., a residential project) that is sited near a pollutant source such
as US 101. First, the DEIR reports that the Air Resources Board recommends that local
jurisdictions avoid siting a sensitive receptor use within 500 feet of a freeway/highway and within
200 feet of a rail line or rail station. However, if a sensitive receptor use is proposed within this
distance zone, a Risk Hazard Assessment must be prepared to determine resident exposure to
health and cancer risks. As San Rafael has residentially -developed and zoned lands within close
proximity to US 101 and the SMART rail line, a study of risk hazards will be critical when
considering more detailed planning for the PDAs and when reviewing individual development
projects.
4. The DEIR section addressing biological resources presents insufficient information for the North
Bay. The maps that present critical habitat information are very detailed and species-specific for
all of the Bay Area counties except the North Bay counties. Marin County contains habitat for
many well-known special -status, rare/endangered species, which are not listed in the documents.
While this issue is not critical for our local planning (as our General Plan is far more detailed and
localized on this topic), the level of information that is provided in this DEIR for all areas of the
region should be consistent.
Regarding the assessment of climate change/sea level rise, the DEIR offers more expanded
discussion of the strategies and partnerships presented in the Draft Plan. Further, the DEIR
includes a list of suggested adaptive measures to combat sea level rise, which will be valuable to
consider when a vulnerability assessment is prepared for San Rafael. Nonetheless, the analysis
of this topic area, albeit an evolving science, seems inadequate and the recommended mitigation
measures are not sufficient at this time for local planning. This issue is of particular concern since
much of the central and Southeast San Rafael areas are vulnerable to projected sea level rise.
6. When the Notice of Preparation was published for this EIR, San Rafael requested that the
availability of utilities/services be assessed, particularly water supply. The DEIR assesses
utilities/services at a program level, with some general conclusions that are locally -applicable:
a. Regarding water supply, the DEIR concludes: `7n general, demand management
strategies allow Bay Area water agencies to continue to meet projected demand through
2030 in average years.". .. `All districts except Solano Water Agency will be able to
provide adequate supplies to meet demand in a year of normal precipitation, although in
doing so require some districts to acquire additional supplies." This finding raised some
concern by City staff as our San Rafael General Plan 2020 (prepared in 2004) concludes
that MMWD may not be able to meet the water supply needs for the current growth
projected in the current General Plan. In response to reviewing the Plan DEIR, City staff
contacted MMWD staff about the DEIR water supply assessment. MMWD staff has
confirmed that the information in the Draft Plan DEIR is correct and accurate. MMWD
has indicated that as a utility provider, they are required and obligated to provide service,
meaning that as demand approaches the supply limit, alternatives are studied,
considered and imposed including conservation measures or seeking other new sources
for water.
b. The DEIR includes a list of all of the wastewater agencies and districts in the Bay Area
region, which include Central Marin Sanitation Agency (CMSA) and Las Gallinas Valley
Sanitary District (LGVSD). The DEIR reports that "...all counties except (except San
Francisco) should have enough existing, overall capacity to meet future projections."
Staff is contacting these two agencies to confirm this conclusion.
SAN RAFAEL CITY COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT / Page: 14
c. The OBR includes minimal discussion of potential school impacts. Specifically, the
document cites AB 2826' which. by State law requires the payment ofschool impact fees
to cover mitigation for increased school enrollment. The fees are used by the local
school districts to build new or expand existing schools to accommodate new enrollment.
7. The Alternatives section of the DE|R has been discussed at length by the Marin
planners and was akey topic ofdiscussion sdthe TAM Board meeting onApril 25. As discussed
above. the OBR assesses five a|burnativoa, which include the Draft Plan (Alternative 2). All five
alternatives were scoped and prepared using very similar jobs/housing projections. Alternative S
has been determined to be the "environmentally superior a|harneUve." but would result in only
marginally lower impacts than the Draft Plan and the other alternatives.
The |oua|oities/bownm have been lobbied hotake a position on a preferred alternative. Public
comment at the April 25 TAM Board meeting called for support of Alternative 1 (No Project) and
Alternative 5. TAM staff had recommended that the TAM Board formally support the Draft Plan
(Alternative 2) over the other 0E|R alternatives for several reasons: a) there is very little
difference inthe environmental impacts resulting from the Draft Plan and Alternative 5; and b)
Alternative 1 would not meet the SB 375 targets for reducing GHG emissions. Staff sees no need
bntake u position on a preferred alternative. However, should the City Council decide hotake a
formal position on a preferred e|tarnotive, staff suggests support for the Draft Plan as
recommended by TAM staff. However, this position should be with the understanding that: a) we
are not obligated or bound to adopting the Plan; and b)vvewait and see how the SMART service
impacts our local transportation network. As noted, the business -as -usual approach of Alternative
1 does not achieve the GHG reduction goa|a, which is the primary purpose of SB 375 and this
regional planning exercise. Furthar, from a |ooul standpoint, while Alternative 5 may offer some
reduction in jobs/housing projections for our PD/\o. little would be gained an this growth would be
shifted to neighboring areas that may be eligible for TPPe.
8. For K8ahn, it appears that the provisions for "CEQA Streamlining" offered by the []raft Phan and
E|R may be limited. Page 59 of the Draft Plan ohovvo that the Downtown and Canal
neighborhoods of San Rafael (for TPP, residential and residential mixed-use projects) would
meet the criteria for eligible CEQA Etneom|ining, and portions of the NorthQate area west of
US101 (for residential projects only) would be possibly eligible. However, as noted above. local
jurisdictions are not bound or required to use this {}EOA Streamlining. Further, it is important to
note that the exemptions from environmental review that are offered under the CEC>AGuide|ineo
are discretionary. As adiscretionary action, a lead agency (e.g.. a local jurisdiction) performing
environmental review could choose to not exercise an exemption if there are unique
characteristics to a site, area or project that warrant completion of environmental review. For
example, Downtown San Rafael contains o significant number of older buildings that may meet
the criteria as o "historic nasounoe.^ which would trump a CEQA exemption or possible
Conclusions
Staff recommends that the some of the above comments on the Draft Plan and DE|Rbe presented in
letter cfcomment hzABAG/W1TC. A draft letter has been pnepansd, which is attached (Attachment 4). If
the City Council concurs with orannanda/supp|ementa staff comments, the letter will be finalized and
submitted bythe comment deadline date ofMay 1S.
OPTIONS:
The City Council has the following options toconsider on this matter:
1� Accept Report; or
2. Direct staff to return with responses to questions
ACTION REQUIRED:
1. Accept Report
SAN RAFAEL CITY COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT / Page: 15
ATTACHMENTS
Attachment 1:
AttaxJhment2
Attachment
Attachment
PlanBayArea.Mpt 5-6-13
Map of San Rafael Priority Development Areas (PDA)
Conakwayssde-PhoritvConaenxaUonArea(PCA)designoUon
E-mail from ^Conakwavo^property owner contesting the PCA designation
Draft comment letter hoABAG/MTC