SAN RAFAEL CITY COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT

Transcription

1 Agenda Item No: 6.c Meeting Date: June 5, 2017 SAN RAFAEL CITY COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT Department: COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT Prepared by: Paul Jensen Community Development Director City Manager Approval: TOPIC: SUBJECT: GRAND JURY REPORT OVERCOMING BARRIERS TO HOUSING AFFORDABILITY RESOLUTION APPROVING AND AUTHORIZING THE MAYOR TO EXECUTE THE RESPONSE TO THE MARIN COUNTY CIVIL GRAND JURY REPORT ENTITLED OVERCOMING BARRIERS TO HOUSING AFFORDABILITY; FILE NO. P EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: The Marin County Civil Grand Jury has published a report entitled Overcoming Barriers to Housing Affordability. The Grand Jury Report lists seven findings and seven suggested recommendations to address the housing affordability challenge in Marin County. The Grand Jury has requested that the City of San Rafael review and respond to four of the suggested recommendations, which focus on improvements to current processing procedures. A response to the suggested recommendations has also been requested of the County of Marin, the other Marin cities and towns, public school districts and utility services. The City s written response must be submitted to the Grand Jury by July 12, Staff has reviewed the Grand Jury Report and has prepared responses to the four suggested recommendations. It should be noted that while the suggested recommendations are very good, nearly all of them are currently being implemented or employed by the City. Staff has also provided some general comments on the report methodology and findings. It is requested that the City Council authorize the Mayor to execute the City s response to the Grand Jury Report. RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that the City Council: a. Accept public comment and deliberate; b. Adopt the attached resolution (Attachment 1) BACKGROUND: On April 12, 2017, the Marin County Civil Grand Jury released a report entitled Overcoming Barriers to Housing Affordability (Grand Jury Report). This Grand Jury Report addresses the cost of living in Marin and offers suggested solutions to improve housing affordability for all households. The FOR CITY CLERK ONLY File No.: Council Meeting: Disposition:

2 SAN RAFAEL CITY COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT / Page: 2 report does not focus on affordable housing, meaning housing that is subsidized by the government and made available to households meeting certain income thresholds (e.g., a below-market-rate unit of Section 8 resident). Rather, the primary focus of the report is on housing affordability, which is the measure of whether a typical household in Marin can afford to rent or purchase a market-rate home. This Grand Jury Report can be accessed at the following link: The Civil Grand Jury researched how the local jurisdictions in Marin have addressed the following key problems that influence and create barriers to achieving housing affordability: Community residence; The expense to build in Marin County; The planning process that is required in Marin stifles development progress; and The cities/towns in Marin and the County of Marin have taken individual approaches to address the problem, resulting in a lack of countywide consistency. The methodology used for preparing this report included the following measures: Conducting research into the physical and economic demographics of Marin County; Interviewing County department managers and staff associated with planning approvals of housing projects; Obtaining responses to a questionnaire completed by the Planning staff of the County and the 11 Marin County cities/towns. The questionnaire focused on low-income affordable housing policies, processes and fees; Interviewing people involved in developing market-rate and low-income affordable housing within and outside of Marin County; Obtaining responses to a questionnaire interviewing advocacy groups in support of and opposition to developing low-income affordable housing in Marin; and researching best practices; and Researching successful approaches to reconciling community resistance to housing developments. The Discussion section of the Grand Jury Report (report pages 4 through 18) summarizes five barriers: community resistance; the excessive expense to build; the planning process; the unique challenges facing low-income affordable housing; and myths and perceptions. The Grand Jury has identified at least one suggested solution for each barrier. All of the suggested solutions are linked to adjustments in the current civic practices. The suggested solutions cite real examples of successful approaches to overcoming the specific barrier. For example, one of the suggested solutions to overcoming community resistance and outreach is to adopt a specific plan for a geographic area (example used is the Redwood City Downtown

3 SAN RAFAEL CITY COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT / Page: 3 Precise Plan). The upfront work of creating a specific plan allows citizens to work together to define a community vision and set land use and design parameters for future development. The specific plan provides the community and the developer with a clear understanding on what is expected, and the extent and type of development that is acceptable before a development project is designed and submitted for public review. The Grand Jury Report presents the following findings, which are listed on report page 20: F1. Political will for the construction of new housing is constrained by County-wide vocal citizen opposition. F2. The costs of land and development make it too expensive to build low-income affordable housing in Marin. F3. Developers routinely respond that they do not try to build housing in Marin because of the difficulties imposed by the local regulatory requirements and citizen complaints. F4. Responsibility for housing in Marin is fragmented with little overall coordination among different agencies in the County as well as the Cities and Towns. F5. Active planning for the creation of low-income affordable housing does not occur within our cities, towns, and the County. F6. Over 60,000 people commute each day to jobs in Marin, many living outside the County. F7. Proposals to build low-income affordable housing create immediate neighbor opposition. Efforts to mediate with neighborhood groups are often too late in the process and have been ineffective. The Grand Jury Report presents the following list of suggested recommendations, which are listed on page 20 of the report: R1. Each planning department should begin regularly scheduled meetings at which developers can speak, early in the process, with all relevant members of staff to discuss impacts of proposed development and potential solutions to problems. R2. Each planning department should develop a proactive community outreach strategy for any project that might be considered potentially controversial (including going beyond legal noticing minimums and initiating outreach efforts as early as possible in the development cycle). R3. Each planning department should use succinct plain-speak to convey issues in their outreach. R4. Each school district should investigate building teacher and staff workforce housing on their land. R5. Each utility district should adopt waivers for hook-up fees for low-income housing projects and accessory dwelling units. R6. Each jurisdiction should adopt procedures so that low-income housing projects are fast-tracked through the planning and permitting process.

4 SAN RAFAEL CITY COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT / Page: 4 R7. The County should create and fund the position of Regional Housing Coordinator. The Coordinator's responsibilities should include: working with funding sources and developers, identifying underutilized properties, working with jurisdictions to create specific plans, and creating a County-wide Civic mediation program for all civic project community dialogues. The Grand Jury Report dated April 12, 2017 was distributed to the County of Marin and all cities/towns in Marin County. In addition, the report was distributed to all service and utility districts, as well as all public school districts in Marin County. The City of San Rafael has been requested to respond to recommendations R1, R2, R3 and R6. The City is required to respond to the Grand Jury Report. Penal Code section 933(c) states in part: No later than 90 days after the Grand Jury submits a final report the governing body of the public agency shall comment to the presiding Judge of the Superior Court on the findings and recommendations [contained in the report]. To comply with this statute, the City s response to the Grand Jury report must be approved by Resolution of the City Council and submitted to the Presiding Judge of the Marin County Superior Court and the Foreperson of the Grand Jury on or before July 12, A proposed Resolution is attached that would approve the City s response. ANALYSIS: General Comments on Report and Scope of Research: Overall, the Grand Jury Report does not present any previously unknown findings or information. Most of the suggested solutions are very good and nearly all of these solutions have been employed and implemented by San Rafael for decades. Staff offers the following general comments on the report and scope of research: First, consultation with the City was limited and the report does not acknowledge local efforts and housing performance. The questionnaire did not inquire about the number of housing units (including affordable housing units) that have been entitled and built in the community. The City of San Rafael has had an inclusionary housing policy in-place since Since 1987, all market rate residential projects have been required to incorporate a percentage of below-market rate units within the project. As a result, over the past 30 years, between below-rate rental and for-sale units were created and integrated throughout the community. Further, in 2002, the City (in partnership with the County of Marin) completed a nexus study, which fostered the adoption of a commercial linkage fee for affordable housing. New commercial development is required to comply with the City s below-market rate housing requirements, which may include payment of an affordable housing in-lieu fee. Second, the Grand Jury Report provides no acknowledgement of current housing approval performance within the local jurisdictions. Had the questionnaire included this request, we would have reported that there are over 100 residential units that are approved and fully entitled in Downtown San Rafael (Downtown San Rafael Development Watch List). These projects are approved with both market rate and below market rate units. Third, the questionnaire was not structured to solicit information on other efforts and practices employed by the local jurisdictions to promote housing. Had the questionnaire included this request, we would have reported that San Rafael has an adopted residential density bonus ordinance which has

5 SAN RAFAEL CITY COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT / Page: 5 been applied to nearly all new residential projects processed and approved in the past 10 years. Lastly, like the City of Novato, San Rafael has adopted a Junior Second Unit Ordinance. Comments on Report Findings: The Grand Jury has not requested a response from the City to the report findings listed above. Nonetheless, staff has reviewed these findings and presents the following comments on Findings F4 and F7: Finding F4 states that the responsibility for housing in Marin is fragmented with little overall coordination among the different agencies in the County as well as the cities/towns. This finding has merit. However, the Grand Jury Report does not recognize that the County and each local city/town are required by State law to address their individual housing needs. Each jurisdiction is required to adopt a General Plan Housing Element and must demonstrate how the regional housing need allocation (RHNA) is met (appropriate zoning for housing) within their jurisdiction. Lastly, it is important to note that each local jurisdiction is a separate entity with its own unique housing goals and policies and elected body. Finding F7 states that efforts to mediate neighborhood opposition to low-income affordable housing proposals are often too late in the process and have been ineffective. This finding is generalized and not necessarily correct. As summarized in the response to report recommendation R2 below, San Rafael engages in and promotes early outreach. Neighborhood meetings are mandated for large and controversial projects. One example is the neighborhood meeting that was held for the proposed Northgate Walk residential development (Four Points Sheraton Hotel site). This neighborhood meeting, which was attended by approximately 200 people, was held prior to any formal applications filed by the developer. As a result of the extensive opposition expressed at the neighborhood meeting, significant changes to the project were made by the developer and incorporated into the formal planning applications. Response to Report Recommendations: The Civil Grand Jury has requested that the City of San Rafael specifically respond to report recommendations R1, R2, R3 and R6. Each recommendation is listed below, which is followed by a response: R1: Each planning department should begin regularly scheduled meetings at which developers can speak, early in the process with all relevant members of staff to discuss impacts of proposed development and potential solutions to problems. Response: This is a very good suggestion and one that San Rafael has been implementing for over 25 years. San Rafael employs the following practices and procedures to encourage direct and consistent communication between the developer and City staff: On larger, more complicated projects, City staff encourages regular team meetings with the developer. The regular team meetings provide an opportunity to better navigate the steps in the process and share information. Team meetings also provide an opportunity to hold participants accountable for actions, which keeps the process moving.

6 SAN RAFAEL CITY COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT / Page: 6 San Rafael has a Development Coordinating Committee (DCC) that is composed of representatives from all city departments that are part of the development review process. The DCC includes representatives from Community Development (Planning, Building and Code Enforcement), Fire Prevention, Economic Development, Public Work (Land Development and Traffic), and Police and Community Services Dept (as needed). The DCC has been in-place since the 1980's and meetings are held two times per month (currently on the 2nd and 4th Thursdays at 3:30pm). The purpose of the DCC is to collectively review development projects, coordinate comments and hear about policies and regulations for each of the departments. The developer is offered an opportunity to attend the DCC meetings. Developer attendance fosters a more transparent and hands-on working relationship with City staff and assists in better communication of City policies and regulations. San Rafael offers both a Pre-Application and Conceptual Review process. Essentially, these processes provide preliminary review and feedback on a concept or schematic project before formal development applications are filed with the City. The feedback provided to the developer by the Pre-Application (in-house staff review) and Conceptual Review (early design feedback from the Design Review Board) processes will usually flush-out major policy issues or matters of code compliance very early in the review process. This early feedback has proven to save a developer time and money. R2. Each planning department should develop a proactive community outreach strategy for any project that might be considered potentially controversial (including going beyond legal noticing minimums and initiating outreach efforts as early as possible in the development cycle). Response: This is a very good suggestion and one that San Rafael has been implementing for more than 25 years. San Rafael employs the following practices and procedures to facilitate community outreach: Encourage contact with neighborhood associations. For nearly every inquiry received at the Planning Division public counter, applicants are encouraged reach out to their neighbors and their neighborhood association. This advice is even provided on smaller projects (like upper story additions, etc.), where a neighbor could be impacted by this project. Staff also provides the applicant with direct contact information for the neighborhood association, as well as the list of neighboring residents that are expected for be notified for a public hearing or action. The City cannot mandate or force an applicant to follow-through with outreach but this encouragement is strong. Applicants are told that early outreach usually helps diffuse potential issues and opposition. Require Conceptual Review for all major projects. As noted above, the City has administered the Pre-Application and Conceptual Review processes for many years. The Conceptual Review process encourages early feedback on project design through a public forum process. A preliminary review by the Design Review Board offers an opportunity for feedback on building scale, mass and design. As the Board holds public meetings, the public has an opportunity to comment. On occasion, the Planning Commission has been afforded an opportunity to participate in the Conceptual Review process to weigh-in on higher level policy issues. Application and plan referrals. All planning applications that are filed require a referral of the application and plans to City departments and utilities for review and comment. Distribution of the application and plans is also provided to the pertinent neighborhood association. This

7 SAN RAFAEL CITY COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT / Page: 7 typically provides an initial introduction of the project to neighborhood residents, as well as an initial contact with City staff and the developer. As you are aware, San Rafael neighborhood associations are very active and are diligent in sharing such applications and plans with their residents. Project introduction to Federation of San Rafael Neighborhoods/North San Rafael Coalition. On larger and controversial projects, staff will provide an introduction of the project at the City s monthly meeting with the Federation of San Rafael Neighborhoods/North San Rafael Coalition. This monthly meeting provides an excellent opportunity as it is attended by representatives from many of the neighborhood associations. Mandated neighborhood meetings. Applicant-hosted neighborhood meetings are mandated for larger and controversial projects. In 1989, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 8037, which established this mandated practice. Applicants are responsible for coordinating and noticing a neighborhood meeting with City staff providing a meeting notice template and property owner/resident mailing list. The mandated neighborhood meeting provides the applicant and their design team to present their project and to obtain feedback from residences. City staff will attend a neighborhood meeting but staff participation is limited to providing information on the City process and general policies. R3. Each planning department should use succinct plain-speak to convey issues in their outreach. Response: This is a very good suggestion. The City needs to be conscious of this issue as many times, the public notice is the recipient s initial introduction to the project. The Community Development Department has developed a standard public noticing template, which contains a lot of information. Much of the information on the notice is required by state and federal laws, which must be included in the notice. Because there are legal requirements for noticing, merely scaling back the language in the notice would make the City vulnerable to a legal challenge. A good example is the requirement to include the noticing of environmental (CEQA) review for the project. The language and jargon used for environmental review noticing can be foreign to most people. However, it can be crafted in a way to be understandable to the layperson. Staff intends to review and revise its standard notices within the next 30 days. R6: Each jurisdiction should adopt procedures so that low-income housing projects are fast-tracked through the planning and permitting process. Response: It should be noted that the City has adopted policies and procedures which encourage the fast-tracking of affordable housing projects through the review process. However, the City rarely receives applications for new low-income housing projects. Most of our housing projects are market rate, with the required set aside of affordable housing as a percentage of the overall project. Fasttracking is only effective if: a) there is a staff planner assigned and has their time exclusively devoted to the project; and b) there is limited to no controversy. The downsides of fast-tracking are: a) corners can be cut and procedures can be missed, which can make the project vulnerable to litigation; and b) there is public criticism that the review process has been compromised often giving the impression that project action has been rubber-stamped. Fast-tracking comes in several forms and is now being administered on new accessory (second) dwelling units (ADU). While there is mention in the Grand Jury Report about encouraging ADUs

8 SAN RAFAEL CITY COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT / Page: 8 and junior second units, the discussion is not in the context of permit process streamlining. Accessory dwelling units and junior second units have proven to be a good source of affordable housing. In January 2017, the State laws mandating ADUs were significantly changed, resulting in a requirement for local jurisdictions to adopt and administer a permit process that is ministerial (non-discretionary provided that specified standards are met) and subject to processing time limits (applications must be processed and action taken within 120 days). Since January 2017, the City has been operating under the new ADU provisions set forth in the State law. As a result, we have received 14 applications for ADUs, which is about three-to-four times the number of ADU applications the City has historically processed in one calendar year. Comments on Other Recommendations Although not requested by the Grand Jury, staff has reviewed several of the other report recommendations and offers the following comments: R4: Each school district should investigate building teacher and staff workforce housing on their land. Response: This is a very good recommendation. The City has addressed potential housing opportunities for the school sites to indirectly promote teacher workforce housing. General Plan 2020 Land Use Element Policy LU-11 (School Site Reuse and Redevelopment) and Neighborhood Element Policy NH-12 (Schools) permit residential use on public school sites. In addition, Policy NH-122 encourages the redevelopment of the San Rafael High School Corporation Yard with multiple-family housing for seniors and/or school district staff. R5: Utility districts should adopt waivers for hook-up fees for low-income housing projects and accessory dwelling units. Response: Several of the local utility districts have already waived their connection fees for junior second units (MMWD, San Rafael Sanitation District). As discussed above, there were recent changes in the State law for ADUs (discussed above). The new law prohibits the utility service to charge connection fees for an ADU that is created within an existing residence. Conclusions The Grand Jury Report recommendations focus on local jurisdiction development review processes. Nearly all of the suggested recommendations are presently being implemented or administered by the City, and have been for many years. The suggested recommendation to improve the public noticing is one that staff will pursue. While all of the suggested recommendations may foster a better process for the developer and may better educate the public, they do little to address or dissolve community resistance. The example of pursuing better up-front planning work such as developing a specific plan for a geographic area will not necessarily diffuse community resistance. Many residents do not get involved in the front end planning and vision process. Residents are more likely to react to an individual project when it is in their neighborhood. Lastly, recommendations such as providing more expeditious review for affordable housing projects would likely heighten community resistance.

9 SAN RAFAEL CITY COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT / Page: 9 COMMUNITY OUTREACH: Notice of this item was provided to the Federation of San Rafael Neighborhoods, North San Rafael Coalition, local housing advocate groups/organizations and San Rafael Chamber of Commerce. FISCAL IMPACT: City review and comment on this Civil Grand Jury Report has no fiscal impact on the City of San Rafael. OPTIONS: The City is required to respond, however, the City Council has the following options to consider on this matter: 1. Adopt resolution as presented, approving the proposed response. 2. Adopt resolution with modifications to the proposed response. 3. Direct staff to return with more information. RECOMMENDED ACTION: Adopt resolution approving and authorizing the Mayor to execute the proposed response to the Marin County Civil Grand Jury Report. ATTACHMENTS: 1. Resolution, with attached City response to Grand Jury report

10 ATTACHMENT 1 RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN RAFAEL APPROVING AND AUTHORIZING THE MAYOR TO EXECUTE THE CITY S RESPONSE TO THE APRIL 12, 2017 MARIN COUNTY CIVIL GRAND JURY REPORT ENTITLED "OVERCOMING BARRIERS TO AFFORDABLE HOUSING WHEREAS, pursuant to Penal Code section 933, a public agency which receives a Grand Jury Report addressing aspects of the public agency s operations must, within ninety (90) days, provide a written response to the Presiding Judge of the Superior Court with a copy to the Foreperson of the Grand Jury, responding to the Report s findings and recommendations; and WHEREAS, Penal Code section 933 specifically requires that the governing body of the public agency provide said response and, in order to lawfully comply, the governing body must consider and adopt the response at a noticed public meeting pursuant to the Brown Act; and WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of San Rafael has received and reviewed the Marin County Grand Jury Report, dated April 12, 2017, entitled Overcoming Barriers to Housing Affordability; and WHEREAS, at a regular City Council meeting held on June 5, 2017, the Grand Jury Report was presented, public testimony was accepted and the City Council discussed the report findings and recommendations. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of San Rafael hereby: 1. Approves and authorizes the Mayor to execute the City s response to the Marin County Grand Jury s April 12, 2017 report, entitled Overcoming Barriers to Affordable Housing, a copy of which response is attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference. 2. Directs the City Clerk to forward the City s response forthwith to the Presiding Judge of the Marin County Superior Court and to the Foreperson of the Marin County Grand Jury. I, Esther Beirne, 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 San Rafael City Council held on the 5th day of June 2017, by the following vote to wit: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: Councilmembers: Councilmembers: Councilmembers: ESTHER C. BEIRNE, City Clerk

11 RESPONSE TO GRAND JURY REPORT FORM Report Title: Overcoming Barriers to Housing Affordability Report Date: April 6, 2017 Response By: Title: City Council of the City of San Rafael Mayor and City Council FINDINGS: We agree with the findings numbered _ N/A (See Attachment A) We disagree wholly or partially with the findings numbered _N/A RECOMMENDATIONS: Recommendations numbered R1, R2, and R6 have been implemented. (See Attachment A) Recommendations numbered R3 have not yet been implemented, but will be implemented in the future. (See Attachment A) Recommendation numbered N/A requires further analysis. (Attach an explanation.) Recommendations numbered N/A will not be implemented because they are not warranted or are not reasonable. (Attach an explanation.) DATED: Signed: GARY O. PHILLIPS, Mayor ATTEST: Esther Beirne, City Clerk Number of pages attached: 4

12 ATTACHMENT A RESPONSE OF THE CITY OF SAN RAFAEL TO GRAND JURY REPORT OVERCOMING BARRIERS TO HOUSING AFFORDABILITY RECOMMENDATIONS AND RESPONSES: R1: Each planning department should begin regularly scheduled meetings at which developers can speak, early in the process with all relevant members of staff to discuss impacts of proposed development and potential solutions to problems. Response: This is a very good suggestion and one that San Rafael has been implementing for over 25 years. San Rafael employs the following practices and procedures to encourage direct and consistent communication between the developer and City staff: On larger, more complicated projects, City staff encourages regular team meetings with the developer. The regular team meetings provide an opportunity to better navigate the steps in the process and share information. Team meetings also provide an opportunity to hold participants accountable for actions, which keeps the process moving. San Rafael has a Development Coordinating Committee (DCC) that is composed of representatives from all city departments that are part of the development review process. The DCC includes representatives from Community Development (Planning, Building and Code Enforcement), Fire Prevention, Economic Development, Public Work (Land Development and Traffic), and Police and Community Services Dept (as needed). The DCC has been in-place since the 1980's and meetings are held two times per month (currently on the 2nd and 4th Thursdays at 3:30pm). The purpose of the DCC is to collectively review development projects, coordinate comments and hear about policies and regulations for each of the departments. The developer is offered an opportunity to attend the DCC meetings. Developer attendance fosters a more transparent and hands-on working relationship with City staff and assists in better communication of City policies and regulations. San Rafael offers both a Pre-Application and Conceptual Review process. Essentially, these processes provide preliminary review and feedback on a concept or schematic project before formal development applications are filed with the City. The feedback provided to the developer by the Pre-Application (inhouse staff review) and Conceptual Review (early design feedback from the Design Review Board) processes will usually flush-out major policy issues or matters of code compliance very early in the review process. This early feedback has proven to save a developer time and money. R2. Each planning department should develop a proactive community outreach strategy for any project that might be considered potentially controversial (including going beyond legal noticing minimums and initiating outreach efforts as early as possible in the development cycle). 1

13 Response: This is a very good suggestion and one that San Rafael has been implementing for more than 25 years. San Rafael employs the following practices and procedures to facilitate community outreach: Encourage contact with neighborhood associations. For nearly every inquiry received at the Planning Division public counter, applicants are encouraged reach out to their neighbors and their neighborhood association. This advice is even provided on smaller projects (like upper story additions, etc.), where a neighbor could be impacted by this project. Staff also provides the applicant with direct contact information for the neighborhood association, as well as the list of neighboring residents that are expected for be notified for a public hearing or action. The City cannot mandate or force an applicant to follow-through with outreach but this encouragement is strong. Applicants are told that early outreach usually helps diffuse potential issues and opposition. Require Conceptual Review for all major projects. As noted above, the City has administered the Pre-Application and Conceptual Review processes for many years. The Conceptual Review process encourages early feedback on project design through a public forum process. A preliminary review by the Design Review Board offers an opportunity for feedback on building scale, mass and design. As the Board holds public meetings, the public has an opportunity to comment. On occasion, the Planning Commission has been afforded an opportunity to participate in the Conceptual Review process to weigh-in on higher level policy issues. Application and plan referrals. All planning applications that are filed require a referral of the application and plans to City departments and utilities for review and comment. Distribution of the application and plans is also provided to the pertinent neighborhood association. This typically provides an initial introduction of the project to neighborhood residents, as well as an initial contact with City staff and the developer. As you are aware, San Rafael neighborhood associations are very active and are diligent in sharing such applications and plans with their residents. Project introduction to Federation of San Rafael Neighborhoods/North San Rafael Coalition. On larger and controversial projects, staff will provide an introduction of the project at the City s monthly meeting with the Federation of San Rafael Neighborhoods/North San Rafael Coalition. This monthly meeting provides an excellent opportunity as it is attended by representatives from many of the neighborhood associations. Mandated neighborhood meetings. Applicant-hosted neighborhood meetings are mandated for larger and controversial projects. In 1989, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 8037, which established this mandated practice. Applicants are responsible for coordinating and noticing a neighborhood meeting with City staff providing a meeting notice template and property owner/resident 2

14 mailing list. The mandated neighborhood meeting provides the applicant and their design team to present their project and to obtain feedback from residences. City staff will attend a neighborhood meeting but staff participation is limited to providing information on the City process and general policies. R3. Each planning department should use succinct plain-speak to convey issues in their outreach. Response: This is a very good suggestion. The City needs to be conscious of this issue as many times, the public notice is the recipient s initial introduction to the project. The Community Development Department has developed a standard public noticing template, which contains a lot of information. Much of the information on the notice is required by state and federal laws, which must be included in the notice. Because there are legal requirements for noticing, merely scaling back the language in the notice would make the City vulnerable to a legal challenge. A good example is the requirement to include the noticing of environmental (CEQA) review for the project. The language and jargon used for environmental review noticing can be foreign to most people. However, it can be crafted in a way to be understandable to the layperson. Staff intends to review and revise its standard notices within the next 30 days. R6: Each jurisdiction should adopt procedures so that low-income housing projects are fast-tracked through the planning and permitting process. Response: The initial reaction to this recommendation is easier said than done. Nonetheless, it should be noted that the City has adopted policies and procedures which encourage the fast-tracking of affordable housing projects through the review process. However, the City rarely receives applications for new low-income housing projects. Most of our housing projects are market rate, with the required set aside of affordable housing as a percentage of the overall project. Fast-tracking is only effective if: a) there is a staff planner assigned and has their time exclusively devoted to the project; and b) there is limited to no controversy. The downsides of fasttracking are: a) corners can be cut and procedures can be missed, which can make the project vulnerable to litigation; and b) there is public criticism that the review process has been compromised often giving the impression that project action has been rubber-stamped. Fast-tracking comes in several forms and is now being administered on new accessory (second) dwelling units (ADU). While there is mention in the Grand Jury Report about encouraging ADUs and junior second units, the discussion is not in the context of permit process streamlining. Accessory dwelling units and junior second units have proven to be a good source of affordable housing. In January 2017, the State laws mandating ADUs were significantly changed, resulting in a requirement for local jurisdictions to adopt and administer a permit process that is ministerial (non-discretionary provided that specified standards are met) and subject to processing time limits (applications must be processed and action taken within 120 days). Since January 2017, the City has been operating under the new ADU 3

15 provisions set forth in the State law. As a result, we have received 14 applications for ADUs, which is about three-to-four times the number of ADU applications the City has historically processed in one calendar year. 4