San Rafael council asks staff to study reintroducing downtown density limits to address building heights

The San Rafael City Council on June 4 directed staff to proceed with a consultant-led study to determine whether reintroducing explicit downtown density limits could be done without reopening the city's certified housing element.

Staff presentations at the special study session laid out two paths: Pathway A, to gather data and potentially add density limits through technical amendments (estimated cost about $80,000 and roughly one year of work); and Pathway B, which would require reopening and reallocating sites in the housing element (preliminary estimate about $160,000 and roughly two years). Planning Manager Margaret Kavanagh Lynch told the council that the California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) had expressed interest in the conversation but cautioned that any changes would have to comply with the Housing Accountability Act, the Housing Crisis Act and housing-element law.

"How would the council like to move forward?" Lynch asked, presenting the two pathways and a recommended first step of data collection. Council members from across the dais agreed they wanted staff to start with step one and return with findings to the housing and economic development subcommittee or the full council rather than immediately reopening the housing element.

Supporters of a study said step one would clarify whether adding a density metric for downtown would alter the mathematical "base project" used under state density-bonus calculations and therefore reduce the vertical bonuses developers claim. Vice Mayor Curts and Council Member Bushy both said they favored gathering data and consulting experts but opposed pursuing Pathway B unless necessary. "We could finish step one. We could stop right here tonight," Lynch said, adding the consultant contract could be structured so the city pays only for data collection if councilists decide to halt afterward.

Staff warned the outcome is uncertain. Lynch said HCD staff acknowledged confusion in practice about "unspecified density" terms — e.g., how to treat interstitial spaces and average dwelling-unit calculations — and that even if density limits were reintroduced there is no guarantee heights would fall. "There's math involved," she said, and noted that previously approved projects had received height increases tied to density-bonus calculations.

Public comment produced mixed views. Several residents urged caution. Richard Faulk Loman told the council he "strongly disagree[d] with the proposal," recommending the city first seek an HCD determination on how the law treats base-project calculations. Development-sector speakers urged incremental change and warned that higher inclusionary requirements could prevent projects from penciling out.

Staff said the data collection is useful in any case: it will inventory metrics in the housing element and downtown precise plan, review regional housing allocation numbers, and analyze applicable state laws and no-net-loss requirements. Staff committed to returning with findings that will identify whether the city can move forward under Pathway A or would instead need to open the housing element under Pathway B.

Next steps: staff will proceed with the consultant-supported data collection (step one) and report back to council or the housing and economic development subcommittee. No formal vote was taken; the council recorded consensus direction to proceed with step one and not to open the housing element unless data show it is required.