Because there is no nexus between the proposed Project and Applicants' mobility disability, the City Council cannot make the findings required by SRMC § 14.26.06 0, and the appeal should be granted.
I. The Planning Commission Erred by Approving the Revised January 13, 2025 Plans without Exclusion of the ADU
First and most basically, the Resolution signed by the Planning Commission confusingly approves a set of plans that includes an ADU. All parties, including the Applicants and City Staff, agree that the ADU included in the January 2025 Revised Plans is NOT a part of the reasonable accommodations project, and was not approved by the Planning Commission.
However, the wording of the Planning Commission's Resolution is misleading on this point, as the approval extends "to include the revised project plans submitted on January 13, 2025".
Moreover, a condition of approval states that "all information ... as present for approval on plans, dated January 13, 2025 ... shall be the same as required for the issuance of a building permit." This language is confusing and, viewed without context of the meeting, can be interpreted as approving the ADU, as it is included in the January 13, 2025 plans. It needs to be clarified that the ADU shown in the January 2025 Revised Plans is not approved as part of the Reasonable Accommodations project, and the ADU must go through a separate plan review process if the Applicants wish to pursue building an ADU.
Moreover, given that the ADU was not approved, the result is that the Planning Commission approved an incomplete set of plans, that do not show any support for the proposed master bedroom and bathroom addition. Approval of plans with such a basic and critical omission is error by the City.
Therefore, Appellants request that the City Council issue a revised Resolution that makes clear that the ADU shown in the January 2025 plans is not included in any approvals by the City, and requests Applicants to submit a full set of plans, including structural support for the master bedroom addition, prior to approval of the Project.
II. There is No Nexus Between the Proposed Plans and the Applicants' Mobility Disability
The law requires both necessity and reasonableness before granting a reasonable accommodation. See SRMC § 14.26.06 0(A ) (2).1 Appellants do not question the Applicants' need for modifications to their home due to a mobility disability. However, most of the 1 See also HUD guidance document attached to Planning Commission Staff Report, at pages 2-3.
EXHIBIT A
EXHIBIT A
1 The Fair Housing Act is codified at 42 U.S.C. §§ 3601 - 3619. 2 The Act uses the term “handicap” instead of the term "disability." Both terms have the same legal meaning. See Bragdon v. Abbott, 524 U.S. 624, 631 (1998) (noting that definition of “disability” in the Americans with Disabilities Act is drawn almost verbatim “from the definition of 'handicap' contained in the Fair Housing Amendments Act of 1988”). This document uses the term "disability," which is more generally accepted.
3 42 U.S.C. § 3604(f)(3)(B).
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
CIVIL RIGHTS DIVISION
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT
OFFICE OF FAIR HOUSING AND EQUAL OPPORTUNITY
Washington, D.C.
May 17, 2004
JOINT STATEMENT OF
THE DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT
AND THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
REASONABLE ACCOMMODATIONS UNDER THE
FAIR HOUSING ACT
Introduction
The Department of Justice ("DOJ") and the Department of Housing and Urban Development ("HUD") are jointly responsible for enforcing the federal Fair Housing Act1 (the "Act"), which prohibits discrimination in housing on the basis of race, color, religion, sex, national origin, familial status, and disability.2
One type of disability discrimination prohibited
by the Act is the refusal to make reasonable accommodations in rules, policies, practices, or services when such accommodations may be necessary to afford a person with a disability the equal opportunity to use and enjoy a dwelling.3 HUD and DOJ frequently respond to complaints alleging that housing providers have violated the Act by refusing reasonable accommodations to persons with disabilities. This Statement provides technical assistance regarding the rights and obligations of persons with disabilities and housing providers under the Act relating to 4 Housing providers that receive federal financial assistance are also subject to the requirements of Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of l973. 29 U.S.C. § 794. Section 504, and its implementing regulations at 24 C.F.R. Part 8, prohibit discrimination based on disability and require recipients of federal financial assistance to provide reasonable accommodations to applicants and residents with disabilities. Although Section 504 imposes greater obligations than the Fair Housing Act, (e.g., providing and paying for reasonable accommodations that involve structural modifications to units or public and common areas), the principles discussed in this Statement regarding reasonable accommodation under the Fair Housing Act generally apply to requests for reasonable accommodations to rules, policies, practices, and services under Section 504. See U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, Office of Public and Indian Housing, Notice PIH 2002-01(HA) (www.hud.gov/offices/fheo/disabilities/PIH02-01.pdf) and “Section 504: Frequently Asked Questions,” (www.hud.gov/offices/fheo/disabilities/ sect504faq.cfm#anchor272118).
5 The Fair Housing Act’s protection against disability discrimination covers not only home seekers with disabilities but also buyers and renters without disabilities who live or are associated with individuals with disabilities 42 U.S.C. § 3604(f)(1)(B), 42 U.S.C. § 3604(f)(1)(C), 42 U.S.C. § 3604(f)(2)(B), 42 U.S.C. § (f)(2)(C). See also H.R. Rep. 100-711 – 24 (reprinted in 1988 U.S.C.A.N. 2173, 2184-85) (“The Committee intends these provisions to prohibit not only discrimination against the primary purchaser or named lessee, but also to prohibit denials of housing opportunities to applicants because they have children, parents, friends, spouses, roommates, patients, subtenants or other associates who have disabilities.”).
Accord: Preamble to Proposed HUD Rules Implementing the Fair Housing Act, 53 Fed. Reg. 45001 (Nov. 7, 1988) (citing House Report).
6 42 U.S.C. § 3604(f)(3)(B). HUD regulations pertaining to reasonable accommodations may be found at 24 C.F.R. § 100.204.
- 2 -
reasonable accommodations.4
Questions and Answers
1. What types of discrimination against persons with disabilities does the Act prohibit?
The Act prohibits housing providers from discriminating against applicants or residents because of their disability or the disability of anyone associated with them5 and from treating persons with disabilities less favorably than others because of their disability. The Act also makes it unlawful for any person to refuse “to make reasonable accommodations in rules, policies, practices, or services, when such accommodations may be necessary to afford ... person(s) [with disabilities] equal opportunity to use and enjoy a dwelling.”6 The Act also prohibits housing providers from refusing residency to persons with disabilities, or placing conditions on their residency, because those persons may require reasonable accommodations.
In addition, in certain circumstances, the Act requires that housing providers allow residents to 7 This Statement does not address the principles relating to reasonable modifications. For further information see the HUD regulations at 24 C.F.R. § 100.203. This statement also does not address the additional requirements imposed on recipients of Federal financial assistance pursuant to Section 504, as explained in the Introduction. - 3 -
make reasonable structural modifications to units and public/common areas in a dwelling when those modifications may be necessary for a person with a disability to have full enjoyment of a dwelling.7 With certain limited exceptions (see response to question 2 below), the Act applies to privately and publicly owned housing, including housing subsidized by the federal government or rented through the use of Section 8 voucher assistance.
2. Who must comply with the Fair Housing Act’s reasonable accommodation requirements?
Any person or entity engaging in prohibited conduct – i.e., refusing to make reasonable accommodations in rules, policies, practices, or services, when such accommodations may be necessary to afford a person with a disability an equal opportunity to use and enjoy a dwelling – may be held liable unless they fall within an exception to the Act’s coverage. Courts have applied the Act to individuals, corporations, associations and others involved in the provision of housing and residential lending, including property owners, housing managers, homeowners and condominium associations, lenders, real estate agents, and brokerage services. Courts have also applied the Act to state and local governments, most often in the context of exclusionary zoning or other land-use decisions. See e.g., City of Edmonds v. Oxford House, Inc., 514 U.S. 725, 729 (1995); Project Life v. Glendening, 139 F. Supp. 703, 710 (D. Md. 2001), aff'd 2002 WL 2012545 (4th Cir. 2002). Under specific exceptions to the Fair Housing Act, the reasonable accommodation requirements of the Act do not apply to a private individual owner who sells his own home so long as he (1) does not own more than three single-family homes; (2) does not use a real estate agent and does not employ any discriminatory advertising or notices; (3) has not engaged in a similar sale of a home within a 24-month period; and (4) is not in the business of selling or renting dwellings. The reasonable accommodation requirements of the Fair Housing Act also do not apply to owner-occupied buildings that have four or fewer dwelling units.
3. Who qualifies as a person with a disability under the Act? The Act defines a person with a disability to include (1) individuals with a physical or mental impairment that substantially limits one or more major life activities; (2) individuals who are regarded as having such an impairment; and (3) individuals with a record of such an impairment.
The term "physical or mental impairment" includes, but is not limited to, such diseases and conditions as orthopedic, visual, speech and hearing impairments, cerebral palsy, autism, epilepsy, muscular dystrophy, multiple sclerosis, cancer, heart disease, diabetes, Human Immunodeficiency Virus infection, mental retardation, emotional illness, drug addiction (other than addiction caused by current, illegal use of a controlled substance) and alcoholism. 8 The Supreme Court has questioned but has not yet ruled on whether "working" is to be considered a major life activity. See Toyota Motor Mfg, Kentucky, Inc. v. Williams, 122 S. Ct. 681, 692, 693 (2002). If it is a major activity, the Court has noted that a claimant would be required to show an inability to work in a “broad range of jobs” rather than a specific job. See Sutton v. United Airlines, Inc., 527 U.S. 470, 492 (1999). 9 See, e.g., United States v. Southern Management Corp., 955 F.2d 914, 919 (4th Cir. 1992) (discussing exclusion in 42 U.S.C. § 3602(h) for “current, illegal use of or addiction to a controlled substance”).
- 4 -
The term "substantially limits" suggests that the limitation is "significant" or "to a large degree."
The term “major life activity” means those activities that are of central importance to daily life, such as seeing, hearing, walking, breathing, performing manual tasks, caring for one’s self, learning, and speaking.
8 This list of major life activities is not exhaustive. See e.g., Bragdon v. Abbott, 524 U.S. 624, 691-92 (1998)(holding that for certain individuals reproduction is a major life activity).
4. Does the Act protect juvenile offenders, sex offenders, persons who illegally use controlled substances, and persons with disabilities who pose a significant danger to others?
No, juvenile offenders and sex offenders, by virtue of that status, are not persons with disabilities protected by the Act. Similarly, while the Act does protect persons who are recovering from substance abuse, it does not protect persons who are currently engaging in the current illegal use of controlled substances.9 Additionally, the Act does not protect an individual with a disability whose tenancy would constitute a "direct threat" to the health or safety of other individuals or result in substantial physical damage to the property of others unless the threat can be eliminated or significantly reduced by reasonable accommodation.
5. How can a housing provider determine if an individual poses a direct threat? The Act does not allow for exclusion of individuals based upon fear, speculation, or stereotype about a particular disability or persons with disabilities in general. A determination that an individual poses a direct threat must rely on an individualized assessment that is based on reliable objective evidence (e.g., current conduct, or a recent history of overt acts). The assessment must consider: (1) the nature, duration, and severity of the risk of injury; (2) the probability that injury will actually occur; and (3) whether there are any reasonable accommodations that will eliminate the direct threat. Consequently, in evaluating a recent history of overt acts, a provider must take into account whether the individual has received intervening treatment or medication that has eliminated the direct threat (i.e., a significant risk of substantial harm). In such a situation, the provider may request that the individual document - 5 -
how the circumstances have changed so that he no longer poses a direct threat. A provider may also obtain satisfactory assurances that the individual will not pose a direct threat during the tenancy. The housing provider must have reliable, objective evidence that a person with a disability poses a direct threat before excluding him from housing on that basis.
Example 1: A housing provider requires all persons applying to rent an apartment to complete an application that includes information on the applicant’s current place of residence. On her application to rent an apartment, a woman notes that she currently resides in Cambridge House. The manager of the apartment complex knows that Cambridge House is a group home for women receiving treatment for alcoholism. Based solely on that information and his personal belief that alcoholics are likely to cause disturbances and damage property, the manager rejects the applicant. The rejection is unlawful because it is based on a generalized stereotype related to a disability rather than an individualized assessment of any threat to other persons or the property of others based on reliable, objective evidence about the applicant’s recent past conduct.
The housing provider may not treat this applicant differently than other applicants based on his subjective perceptions of the potential problems posed by her alcoholism by requiring additional documents, imposing different lease terms, or requiring a higher security deposit. However, the manager could have checked this applicant’s references to the same extent and in the same manner as he would have checked any other applicant’s references. If such a reference check revealed objective evidence showing that this applicant had posed a direct threat to persons or property in the recent past and the direct threat had not been eliminated, the manager could then have rejected the applicant based on direct threat.
Example 2: James X, a tenant at the Shady Oaks apartment complex, is arrested for threatening his neighbor while brandishing a baseball bat. The Shady Oaks’ lease agreement contains a term prohibiting tenants from threatening violence against other residents. Shady Oaks’ rental manager investigates the incident and learns that James X threatened the other resident with physical violence and had to be physically restrained by other neighbors to keep him from acting on his threat. Following Shady Oaks’ standard practice of strictly enforcing its “no threats” policy, the Shady Oaks rental manager issues James X a 30-day notice to quit, which is the first step in the eviction process. James X's attorney contacts Shady Oaks' rental manager and explains that James X has a psychiatric disability that causes him to be physically violent when he stops taking his prescribed medication. Suggesting that his client will not pose a direct threat to others if proper safeguards are taken, the attorney requests that the rental manager grant James X an exception to the “no threats” policy as a reasonable accommodation based on James X’s disability. The Shady Oaks rental manager need only grant the reasonable accommodation if James X’s attorney can provide satisfactory assurance that James X will receive appropriate counseling and - 6 -
periodic medication monitoring so that he will no longer pose a direct threat during his tenancy. After consulting with James X, the attorney responds that James X is unwilling to receive counseling or submit to any type of periodic monitoring to ensure that he takes his prescribed medication. The rental manager may go forward with the eviction proceeding, since James X continues to pose a direct threat to the health or safety of other residents.
6. What is a "reasonable accommodation" for purposes of the Act? A “reasonable accommodation” is a change, exception, or adjustment to a rule, policy, practice, or service that may be necessary for a person with a disability to have an equal opportunity to use and enjoy a dwelling, including public and common use spaces. Since rules, policies, practices, and services may have a different effect on persons with disabilities than on other persons, treating persons with disabilities exactly the same as others will sometimes deny them an equal opportunity to use and enjoy a dwelling. The Act makes it unlawful to refuse to make reasonable accommodations to rules, policies, practices, or services when such accommodations may be necessary to afford persons with disabilities an equal opportunity to use and enjoy a dwelling.
To show that a requested accommodation may be necessary, there must be an identifiable relationship, or nexus, between the requested accommodation and the individual’s disability.
Example 1: A housing provider has a policy of providing unassigned parking spaces to residents. A resident with a mobility impairment, who is substantially limited in her ability to walk, requests an assigned accessible parking space close to the entrance to her unit as a reasonable accommodation. There are available parking spaces near the entrance to her unit that are accessible, but those spaces are available to all residents on a first come, first served basis. The provider must make an exception to its policy of not providing assigned parking spaces to accommodate this resident.
Example 2: A housing provider has a policy of requiring tenants to come to the rental office in person to pay their rent. A tenant has a mental disability that makes her afraid to leave her unit. Because of her disability, she requests that she be permitted to have a friend mail her rent payment to the rental office as a reasonable accommodation. The provider must make an exception to its payment policy to accommodate this tenant.
Example 3: A housing provider has a "no pets" policy. A tenant who is deaf requests that the provider allow him to keep a dog in his unit as a reasonable accommodation. The tenant explains that the dog is an assistance animal that will alert him to several sounds, including knocks at the door, sounding of the smoke detector, the telephone ringing, and cars coming into the driveway. The housing - 7 -
provider must make an exception to its “no pets” policy to accommodate this tenant.
7. Are there any instances when a provider can deny a request for a reasonable accommodation without violating the Act?
Yes. A housing provider can deny a request for a reasonable accommodation if the request was not made by or on behalf of a person with a disability or if there is no disabilityrelated need for the accommodation. In addition, a request for a reasonable accommodation may be denied if providing the accommodation is not reasonable – i.e., if it would impose an undue financial and administrative burden on the housing provider or it would fundamentally alter the nature of the provider's operations. The determination of undue financial and administrative burden must be made on a case-by-case basis involving various factors, such as the cost of the requested accommodation, the financial resources of the provider, the benefits that the accommodation would provide to the requester, and the availability of alternative accommodations that would effectively meet the requester's disability-related needs.
When a housing provider refuses a requested accommodation because it is not reasonable, the provider should discuss with the requester whether there is an alternative accommodation that would effectively address the requester's disability-related needs without a fundamental alteration to the provider's operations and without imposing an undue financial and administrative burden.
If an alternative accommodation would effectively meet the requester's disability-related needs and is reasonable, the provider must grant it. An interactive process in which the housing provider and the requester discuss the requester's disability-related need for the requested accommodation and possible alternative accommodations is helpful to all concerned because it often results in an effective accommodation for the requester that does not pose an undue financial and administrative burden for the provider.
Example: As a result of a disability, a tenant is physically unable to open the dumpster placed in the parking lot by his housing provider for trash collection.
The tenant requests that the housing provider send a maintenance staff person to his apartment on a daily basis to collect his trash and take it to the dumpster.
Because the housing development is a small operation with limited financial resources and the maintenance staff are on site only twice per week, it may be an undue financial and administrative burden for the housing provider to grant the requested daily trash pick-up service. Accordingly, the requested accommodation may not be reasonable. If the housing provider denies the requested accommodation as unreasonable, the housing provider should discuss with the tenant whether reasonable accommodations could be provided to meet the tenant's disability-related needs – for instance, placing an open trash collection can in a location that is readily accessible to the tenant so the tenant can dispose of his own trash and the provider's maintenance staff can then transfer the trash to the dumpster when they are on site. Such an accommodation would not involve a - 8 -
fundamental alteration of the provider's operations and would involve little financial and administrative burden for the provider while accommodating the tenant's disability-related needs.
There may be instances where a provider believes that, while the accommodation requested by an individual is reasonable, there is an alternative accommodation that would be equally effective in meeting the individual's disability-related needs. In such a circumstance, the provider should discuss with the individual if she is willing to accept the alternative accommodation. However, providers should be aware that persons with disabilities typically have the most accurate knowledge about the functional limitations posed by their disability, and an individual is not obligated to accept an alternative accommodation suggested by the provider if she believes it will not meet her needs and her preferred accommodation is reasonable.
8. What is a “fundamental alteration”?
A "fundamental alteration" is a modification that alters the essential nature of a provider's operations.
Example: A tenant has a severe mobility impairment that substantially limits his ability to walk. He asks his housing provider to transport him to the grocery store and assist him with his grocery shopping as a reasonable accommodation to his disability. The provider does not provide any transportation or shopping services for its tenants, so granting this request would require a fundamental alteration in the nature of the provider's operations. The request can be denied, but the provider should discuss with the requester whether there is any alternative accommodation that would effectively meet the requester's disability-related needs without fundamentally altering the nature of its operations, such as reducing the tenant's need to walk long distances by altering its parking policy to allow a volunteer from a local community service organization to park her car close to the tenant's unit so she can transport the tenant to the grocery store and assist him with his shopping.
9. What happens if providing a requested accommodation involves some costs on the part of the housing provider?
Courts have ruled that the Act may require a housing provider to grant a reasonable accommodation that involves costs, so long as the reasonable accommodation does not pose an undue financial and administrative burden and the requested accommodation does not constitute a fundamental alteration of the provider’s operations. The financial resources of the provider, the cost of the reasonable accommodation, the benefits to the requester of the requested accommodation, and the availability of other, less expensive alternative accommodations that would effectively meet the applicant or resident’s disability-related needs must be considered in determining whether a requested accommodation poses an undue financial and administrative - 9 -
burden.
10. What happens if no agreement can be reached through the interactive process? A failure to reach an agreement on an accommodation request is in effect a decision by the provider not to grant the requested accommodation. If the individual who was denied an accommodation files a Fair Housing Act complaint to challenge that decision, then the agency or court receiving the complaint will review the evidence in light of applicable law and decide if the housing provider violated that law. For more information about the complaint process, see question 19 below.
11. May a housing provider charge an extra fee or require an additional deposit from applicants or residents with disabilities as a condition of granting a reasonable accommodation?
No. Housing providers may not require persons with disabilities to pay extra fees or deposits as a condition of receiving a reasonable accommodation.
Example 1: A man who is substantially limited in his ability to walk uses a motorized scooter for mobility purposes. He applies to live in an assisted living facility that has a policy prohibiting the use of motorized vehicles in buildings and elsewhere on the premises. It would be a reasonable accommodation for the facility to make an exception to this policy to permit the man to use his motorized scooter on the premises for mobility purposes. Since allowing the man to use his scooter in the buildings and elsewhere on the premises is a reasonable accommodation, the facility may not condition his use of the scooter on payment of a fee or deposit or on a requirement that he obtain liability insurance relating to the use of the scooter. However, since the Fair Housing Act does not protect any person with a disability who poses a direct threat to the person or property of others, the man must operate his motorized scooter in a responsible manner that does not pose a significant risk to the safety of other persons and does not cause damage to other persons' property. If the individual's use of the scooter causes damage to his unit or the common areas, the housing provider may charge him for the cost of repairing the damage (or deduct it from the standard security deposit imposed on all tenants), if it is the provider's practice to assess tenants for any damage they cause to the premises.
Example 2: Because of his disability, an applicant with a hearing impairment needs to keep an assistance animal in his unit as a reasonable accommodation.
The housing provider may not require the applicant to pay a fee or a security deposit as a condition of allowing the applicant to keep the assistance animal.
However, if a tenant's assistance animal causes damage to the applicant's unit or the common areas of the dwelling, the housing provider may charge the tenant for - 10 -
the cost of repairing the damage (or deduct it from the standard security deposit imposed on all tenants), if it is the provider's practice to assess tenants for any damage they cause to the premises.
12. When and how should an individual request an accommodation? Under the Act, a resident or an applicant for housing makes a reasonable accommodation request whenever she makes clear to the housing provider that she is requesting an exception, change, or adjustment to a rule, policy, practice, or service because of her disability. She should explain what type of accommodation she is requesting and, if the need for the accommodation is not readily apparent or not known to the provider, explain the relationship between the requested accommodation and her disability.
An applicant or resident is not entitled to receive a reasonable accommodation unless she requests one. However, the Fair Housing Act does not require that a request be made in a particular manner or at a particular time. A person with a disability need not personally make the reasonable accommodation request; the request can be made by a family member or someone else who is acting on her behalf. An individual making a reasonable accommodation request does not need to mention the Act or use the words "reasonable accommodation." However, the requester must make the request in a manner that a reasonable person would understand to be a request for an exception, change, or adjustment to a rule, policy, practice, or service because of a disability.
Although a reasonable accommodation request can be made orally or in writing, it is usually helpful for both the resident and the housing provider if the request is made in writing.
This will help prevent misunderstandings regarding what is being requested, or whether the request was made. To facilitate the processing and consideration of the request, residents or prospective residents may wish to check with a housing provider in advance to determine if the provider has a preference regarding the manner in which the request is made. However, housing providers must give appropriate consideration to reasonable accommodation requests even if the requester makes the request orally or does not use the provider's preferred forms or procedures for making such requests.
Example: A tenant in a large apartment building makes an oral request that she be assigned a mailbox in a location that she can easily access because of a physical disability that limits her ability to reach and bend. The provider would prefer that the tenant make the accommodation request on a pre-printed form, but the tenant fails to complete the form. The provider must consider the reasonable accommodation request even though the tenant would not use the provider's designated form.
13. Must a housing provider adopt formal procedures for processing requests for a reasonable accommodation?
- 11 -
No. The Act does not require that a housing provider adopt any formal procedures for reasonable accommodation requests. However, having formal procedures may aid individuals with disabilities in making requests for reasonable accommodations and may aid housing providers in assessing those requests so that there are no misunderstandings as to the nature of the request, and, in the event of later disputes, provide records to show that the requests received proper consideration.
A provider may not refuse a request, however, because the individual making the request did not follow any formal procedures that the provider has adopted. If a provider adopts formal procedures for processing reasonable accommodation requests, the provider should ensure that the procedures, including any forms used, do not seek information that is not necessary to evaluate if a reasonable accommodation may be needed to afford a person with a disability equal opportunity to use and enjoy a dwelling. See Questions 16 - 18, which discuss the disabilityrelated information that a provider may and may not request for the purposes of evaluating a reasonable accommodation request.
14. Is a housing provider obligated to provide a reasonable accommodation to a resident or applicant if an accommodation has not been requested? No. A housing provider is only obligated to provide a reasonable accommodation to a resident or applicant if a request for the accommodation has been made. A provider has notice that a reasonable accommodation request has been made if a person, her family member, or someone acting on her behalf requests a change, exception, or adjustment to a rule, policy, practice, or service because of a disability, even if the words “reasonable accommodation” are not used as part of the request.
15. What if a housing provider fails to act promptly on a reasonable accommodation request?
A provider has an obligation to provide prompt responses to reasonable accommodation requests. An undue delay in responding to a reasonable accommodation request may be deemed to be a failure to provide a reasonable accommodation.
16. What inquiries, if any, may a housing provider make of current or potential residents regarding the existence of a disability when they have not asked for an accommodation?
Under the Fair Housing Act, it is usually unlawful for a housing provider to (1) ask if an applicant for a dwelling has a disability or if a person intending to reside in a dwelling or anyone associated with an applicant or resident has a disability, or (2) ask about the nature or severity of such persons' disabilities. Housing providers may, however, make the following inquiries, provided these inquiries are made of all applicants, including those with and without disabilities:
- 12 -
• An inquiry into an applicant’s ability to meet the requirements of tenancy; • An inquiry to determine if an applicant is a current illegal abuser or addict of a controlled substance;
• An inquiry to determine if an applicant qualifies for a dwelling legally available only to persons with a disability or to persons with a particular type of disability; and
• An inquiry to determine if an applicant qualifies for housing that is legally available on a priority basis to persons with disabilities or to persons with a particular disability.
Example 1: A housing provider offers accessible units to persons with disabilities needing the features of these units on a priority basis. The provider may ask applicants if they have a disability and if, in light of their disability, they will benefit from the features of the units. However, the provider may not ask applicants if they have other types of physical or mental impairments. If the applicant's disability and the need for the accessible features are not readily apparent, the provider may request reliable information/documentation of the disability-related need for an accessible unit.
Example 2: A housing provider operates housing that is legally limited to persons with chronic mental illness. The provider may ask applicants for information needed to determine if they have a mental disability that would qualify them for the housing. However, in this circumstance, the provider may not ask applicants if they have other types of physical or mental impairments. If it is not readily apparent that an applicant has a chronic mental disability, the provider may request reliable information/documentation of the mental disability needed to qualify for the housing.
In some instances, a provider may also request certain information about an applicant's or a resident's disability if the applicant or resident requests a reasonable accommodation. See Questions 17 and 18 below.
17. What kinds of information, if any, may a housing provider request from a person with an obvious or known disability who is requesting a reasonable accommodation?
A provider is entitled to obtain information that is necessary to evaluate if a requested reasonable accommodation may be necessary because of a disability. If a person’s disability is obvious, or otherwise known to the provider, and if the need for the requested accommodation is also readily apparent or known, then the provider may not request any additional information 10 Persons who meet the definition of disability for purposes of receiving Supplemental Security Income ("SSI") or Social Security Disability Insurance ("SSDI") benefits in most cases meet the definition of disability under the Fair Housing Act, although the converse may not be true. See e.g., Cleveland v. Policy Management Systems Corp., 526 U.S. 795, 797 (1999) - 13 -
about the requester's disability or the disability-related need for the accommodation.
If the requester's disability is known or readily apparent to the provider, but the need for the accommodation is not readily apparent or known, the provider may request only information that is necessary to evaluate the disability-related need for the accommodation.
Example 1: An applicant with an obvious mobility impairment who regularly uses a walker to move around asks her housing provider to assign her a parking space near the entrance to the building instead of a space located in another part of the parking lot. Since the physical disability (i.e., difficulty walking) and the disability-related need for the requested accommodation are both readily apparent, the provider may not require the applicant to provide any additional information about her disability or the need for the requested accommodation.
Example 2: A rental applicant who uses a wheelchair advises a housing provider that he wishes to keep an assistance dog in his unit even though the provider has a "no pets" policy. The applicant’s disability is readily apparent but the need for an assistance animal is not obvious to the provider. The housing provider may ask the applicant to provide information about the disability-related need for the dog.
Example 3: An applicant with an obvious vision impairment requests that the leasing agent provide assistance to her in filling out the rental application form as a reasonable accommodation because of her disability. The housing provider may not require the applicant to document the existence of her vision impairment.
18. If a disability is not obvious, what kinds of information may a housing provider request from the person with a disability in support of a requested accommodation? A housing provider may not ordinarily inquire as to the nature and severity of an individual's disability (see Answer 16, above). However, in response to a request for a reasonable accommodation, a housing provider may request reliable disability-related information that (1) is necessary to verify that the person meets the Act’s definition of disability (i.e., has a physical or mental impairment that substantially limits one or more major life activities), (2) describes the needed accommodation, and (3) shows the relationship between the person’s disability and the need for the requested accommodation. Depending on the individual’s circumstances, information verifying that the person meets the Act's definition of disability can usually be provided by the individual himself or herself (e.g., proof that an individual under 65 years of age receives Supplemental Security Income or Social Security Disability Insurance benefits10 or a credible statement by the individual). A doctor or other (noting that SSDI provides benefits to a person with a disability so severe that she is unable to do her previous work and cannot engage in any other kind of substantial gainful work whereas a person pursuing an action for disability discrimination under the Americans with Disabilities Act may state a claim that “with a reasonable accommodation” she could perform the essential functions of the job).
- 14 -
medical professional, a peer support group, a non-medical service agency, or a reliable third party who is in a position to know about the individual's disability may also provide verification of a disability. In most cases, an individual's medical records or detailed information about the nature of a person's disability is not necessary for this inquiry.
Once a housing provider has established that a person meets the Act's definition of disability, the provider's request for documentation should seek only the information that is necessary to evaluate if the reasonable accommodation is needed because of a disability. Such information must be kept confidential and must not be shared with other persons unless they need the information to make or assess a decision to grant or deny a reasonable accommodation request or unless disclosure is required by law (e.g., a court-issued subpoena requiring disclosure).
19. If a person believes she has been unlawfully denied a reasonable accommodation, what should that person do if she wishes to challenge that denial under the Act?
When a person with a disability believes that she has been subjected to a discriminatory housing practice, including a provider’s wrongful denial of a request for reasonable accommodation, she may file a complaint with HUD within one year after the alleged denial or may file a lawsuit in federal district court within two years of the alleged denial. If a complaint is filed with HUD, HUD will investigate the complaint at no cost to the person with a disability.
There are several ways that a person may file a complaint with HUD:
• By placing a toll-free call to 1-800-669-9777 or TTY 1-800-927-9275; • By completing the “on-line” complaint form available on the HUD internet site:
http://www.hud.gov; or
• By mailing a completed complaint form or letter to:
Office of Fair Housing and Equal Opportunity
Department of Housing & Urban Development
451 Seventh Street, S.W., Room 5204
Washington, DC 20410-2000
- 15 -
Upon request, HUD will provide printed materials in alternate formats (large print, audio tapes, or Braille) and provide complainants with assistance in reading and completing forms.
The Civil Rights Division of the Justice Department brings lawsuits in federal courts across the country to end discriminatory practices and to seek monetary and other relief for individuals whose rights under the Fair Housing Act have been violated. The Civil Rights Division initiates lawsuits when it has reason to believe that a person or entity is involved in a "pattern or practice" of discrimination or when there has been a denial of rights to a group of persons that raises an issue of general public importance. The Division also participates as amicus curiae in federal court cases that raise important legal questions involving the application and/or interpretation of the Act. To alert the Justice Department to matters involving a pattern or practice of discrimination, matters involving the denial of rights to groups of persons, or lawsuits raising issues that may be appropriate for amicus participation, contact:
U.S. Department of Justice
Civil Rights Division
Housing and Civil Enforcement Section – G St.
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W.
Washington, DC 20530
For more information on the types of housing discrimination cases handled by the Civil Rights Division, please refer to the Housing and Civil Enforcement Section's website at http://www.usdoj.gov/crt/housing/hcehome.html.
A HUD or Department of Justice decision not to proceed with a Fair Housing Act matter does not foreclose private plaintiffs from pursuing a private lawsuit. However, litigation can be an expensive, time-consuming, and uncertain process for all parties. HUD and the Department of Justice encourage parties to Fair Housing Act disputes to explore all reasonable alternatives to litigation, including alternative dispute resolution procedures, such as mediation. HUD attempts to conciliate all Fair Housing Act complaints. In addition, it is the Department of Justice's policy to offer prospective defendants the opportunity to engage in pre-suit settlement negotiations, except in the most unusual circumstances.
EXHIBIT B
EXHIBIT B
EXHIBIT C
EXHIBIT C
4/16/25, 9:27 AM Fire Hazard Severity Zones (FHSZ) - 2025 LRA Map Update - San Rafael https://www.cityofsanrafael.org/fire-hazard-severity-zones-fhsz-2025-lra-map-update/ 2/6
EXHIBIT D
EXHIBIT D
1 IBHSRESEARCH
2025 LA County Wildfires:
Early Insights from Field Observations
Insurance Institute for Business & Home Safety
March 6, 2025
Insurance Institute for Business & Home Safety 2
FROM WILDFIRE TO CONFLAGRATION
The Palisades and Eaton Fires raged through Los Angeles County neighborhoods creating catastrophic conflagration. More than 16,000 structures were destroyed in the fires which now rank as two of California’s three most destructive fires on record. In the days following the conflagration, the Insurance Institute for Business & Home Safety (IBHS) deployed teams to study the damage and further advance the understanding of fire spread into and through communities.
Conflagrations follow humans, drought, and wind. Fire weather conditions in Los Angeles County reached their extreme just before the first fire reports: relative humidity dropped as the strong northerly Santa Ana winds kicked in. At these wind speeds, fixed-wing firefighting aircraft could not operate safely. With the fire environment primed for rapid growth and aerial firefighting grounded, wind-driven fire dynamics took over, accelerating both the spread and intensity of the flames in the early critical stages.
Since the early 20th century, urban conflagrations have resulted in significant financial losses across the United States. From historic fires like the Big Blowup Fire of 1910 in the Northwest to more recent devastating urban fires— the Tubbs Fire (2017) and the Camp Fire (2018) in California, the Marshall Fire (2021) in Colorado, the Lahaina Fire (2023) in Hawaii, and now the Palisades and Eaton Fires in Southern California—these events highlight the vulnerability of communities with dense housing, interconnected urban fuels (e.g., fences, vehicles, and sheds), and vulnerable building components that struggle to withstand even non-intense fire conditions.
Fire Behavior
Wildfires spread at different rates, influenced by factors like available fuel, topography, weather conditions, and suppression efforts. In California, these driving factors differ across the state's diverse wildland regions. In central and Northern California where conifer forests are more common, wildfires are primarily fuel driven. In contrast, Southern California, characterized by chaparral shrubland, experiences fires where fuel is more limited, and wind plays a dominant role in fire spread.
These Southern California wildfires generally fall into two categories:
• fall fires that are typically driven by strong offshore Santa Ana winds, and • summer fires which typically occur under hot, dry conditions with comparatively weak onshore winds1.
Most wildland ignitions in Southern California occur during the summer under the weaker onshore winds. However, the Santa Ana-driven fires receive the most attention and drive the majority of losses.
Santa Ana Winds
The Santa Ana downsloping wind events are often the driving factor for damaging wildfires that enter the built environment across Southern California, as was the case for the Palisades and Eaton Fires. • Climatologically, Santa Ana wind events typically peak in November and December. Their seasonal occurrence typically spans October through April with the region averaging two events per month during this time.2
1 Jin, Yufang, et al. "Contrasting controls on wildland fires in Southern California during periods with and without Santa Ana winds." Journal of Geophysical Research: Biogeosciences 119.3 (2014): 432-450. 2 Guzman-Morales, J., A. Gershunov, J. Theiss, H. Li, and D. Cayan (2016) Santa Ana winds of Southern California: Their climatology, extremes, and behavior spanning six and a half decades, Geo Phys Res. Lett, 43 (6), 2827-2834. https://doi.org/10.1002/2016GL067887
Insurance Institute for Business & Home Safety 3
• The intradecadal frequency of these wind events is generally tied to the El Niño/Southern Oscillation (ENSO) phases, with El Niño years typically seeing a reduced number of Santa Ana events compared to neutral or La Niña conditions, which was the case in January of 2025.3 • The most intense Santa Ana events both in magnitude and duration occur primarily in December and January. On average, events last 1.5 days, which is near the duration of peak downsloping winds that occurred during the Palisades and Eaton Fires.
• Santa Ana wind events exhibit a diurnal cycle which differs from typical convectively driven wind events that reach their peak in the mid-afternoon during peak daytime heating. Santa Ana wind events often peak in the early morning hours and decay during the daytime. During these fires, the winds reached their initial peak during the late afternoon and early evening hours on January 8, followed by a secondary wind maximum during the early morning hours of January 9.
This strong Santa Ana wind event, combined with dry conditions and low relative humidity, created extreme fire conditions on Tuesday, January 7. Once the Palisades and Eaton Fires ignited, they quickly became two of California’s most destructive, together destroying more than 16,000 structures.
Drought
In early December 2024—just over a month before the fires, Los Angeles County was not experiencing any drought conditions (Figure 1a). However, by the end of the month, parts of the county fell under D0 (abnormally dry) and D1 (moderate drought) intensity levels (Figure 1b). Drought conditions persisted throughout January. On the day both fires started, the US Drought Monitor expanded the severe drought classification to cover most of Los Angeles County: 40% of the county was classified as moderate drought, while 60% of the county—including the areas where both fires ignited—was in severe drought. The overall intensity and extent of drought leading up to the fires and throughout January are summarized by the time history of the Drought Severity and Coverage Index shown in Figure 2, which indicates that Los Angeles County experienced drought conditions ranging from extreme (200–299) to exceptional (300–400) during January.
With the highly flammable chaparral fuels primed for ignition by the flash drought, strong winds pushed the fire quickly into heavier vegetation, including shrubs and trees, leading to medium- and long-range spotting. 3 Rafael, M.N. (2003) The Santa Ana winds of California, Earth Interactions, 7(8), 1-13. https://doi.org/10.1175/1087- 3562(2003)007%3C0001:TSAWOC%3E2.0.CO;2
Insurance Institute for Business & Home Safety 4
(a) Valid 7 a.m. EST December 3, 2024. (b) Valid 7 a.m. EST December 31, 2024. (c) Valid 7 am EST January 7th, 2025.
Figure 1. US Drought Monitor showing changes in drought conditions in Los Angeles County (outlined in red) during the weeks leading up to the fires. Location of the fire ignition is indicated in the map.
Insurance Institute for Business & Home Safety 5
Palisades Fire
On January 7, 2025, just before 10:30 a.m. local time, a fire ignited near Skull Rock in the Summit neighborhood.
As shown in Figure 3, data from the National Weather Service Automated Surface Observing Station (ASOS) at Van Nuys, located approximately 9 miles north of Pacific Palisades, indicates that at the time of ignition, the mean wind speed was around 30 mph, with gusts reaching up to 60 mph. These intense winds combined with a falling relative humidity created a highly volatile environment that contributed to the rapid spread of the fire and spotting across the Palisades neighborhood. Further, these winds created very unstable conditions for flight operations hindering aerial firefighting containment efforts.
Figure 3. Mean wind speed, wind gusts, and relative humidity recorded by the Van Nuys Automated Surface Observing Station (ASOS). The time of ignition of the Palisades Fire and when it reached nearly 70% of the fire’s final size are indicated.
Figure 2. Time history of the Drought Severity and Coverage Index (DSCI) in Los Angeles County during December 2024 and January 2025, highlighting the intensification of drought conditions.
Insurance Institute for Business & Home Safety 6
After ignition, the fire quickly spread downhill toward the Riverview Country Estates while also advancing eastward.
According to the CAL FIRE incident reports, within just an hour and a half—by 12:00 p.m.—the fire spotted across Palisades Drive. Shortly after 2:00 p.m., the fire had grown to 771 acres and reached the Castellammare neighborhood to the southwest near the coast. Within 8 hours, by 6:00 p.m., the fire spread along Temescal Canyon Road toward the Pacific Coast Highway in the south and crossing Topanga Canyon Boulevard on the west, consuming 2,920 acres on its path through neighborhoods to the Pacific Ocean.
Strong winds persisted throughout the night, and by 1:00 p.m. on January 8, the fire had reached 15,832 acres, extending from Eastern Malibu to Rustic Canyon in the east. While the fire continued to burn for 43 more days, this 27-hour period of rapid growth accounted for nearly 70% of the fire’s final size, highlighting the intensity and speed at which the fire spread under extreme winds and dry conditions. As winds subsided and aerial firefighting returned, targeted, strategic large drops of fire retardant aided containment efforts and kept fire from entering the next communities—the Monte Nido community in northwest Malibu and Crestwood Hills east of Mandeville Canyon (Figure 4). Additional fire growth was primarily backward, as forward growth had reached the Pacific Ocean fire break (Figure 5). While wind drives forward fire progression, fuels drive lateral spread.
The Palisades Fire was fully contained on February 20 after burning over 23,000 acres, destroying 6,833 structures, and claiming 12 lives. The final fire perimeter abuts the perimeters of two historical fires in the area in the past four years (Figure 6). The Franklin Fire, which started on December 9, 2024, burned over 4,000 acres and destroyed 20 structures in Malibu. The 2021 Palisades Fire began on May 4, 2021, in Topanga State Park and consumed 1,202 acres. These previous fires created a fuel break for the 2025 Palisades Fire, as the fire-prone vegetation was significantly depleted following these incidents, reducing available fuel for the active fire.
Figure 4. Strategic areas where fire retardant was dropped as part of the containment operations to prevent the fire spreading into Crestwood Hills.
Insurance Institute for Business & Home Safety 7
Figure 5. Progression of the Palisades Fire reflected in the fire perimeters from January 7 to January 11.
Figure 6. Final Palisades Fire perimeter, shaded in red, with historical fire perimeters in the area outlined in green, including the 2024 Franklin Fire to the west and 2021 Palisades Fire to the north.
Insurance Institute for Business & Home Safety 8
Eaton Fire
The Eaton Fire ignited on January 7 at approximately 6:20 p.m. local time in the Eaton Canyon area of the San Gabriel Mountains, according to CAL FIRE status reports—eight hours into the Palisades Fire. At the time of ignition, relative humidity had dropped to around 10%, sustained winds exceeded 40 mph, and peak gusts surpassed 60 mph, as recorded by the ASOS at Burbank, located approximately 16 miles from the ignition site (Figure 7), creating extreme fire weather conditions.
As with the Palisades Fire, the combination of low humidity, dry fuels, and shifting winds created ideal conditions for rapid fire spread and spot fire development. The fire posed a significant threat to nearby communities and made containment efforts challenging. In less than an hour, the wind-driven fire had already spread to 200 acres.
By 10:00 a.m. on January 8—just 16 hours after ignition—it had surged past 10,000 acres. Within 24 hours, by 6:10 p.m. on January 8, the fire had grown to over 13,600 acres, reaching 96% of its final size and devastating entire neighborhoods in Altadena. Maxar Satellite imagery shows the widespread destruction and active burning in Altadena on January 8 (see Figure 8). While the Eaton Fire continued to burn for 42 more days, the extreme fire conditions during this initial 24-hour period led to conflagration.
In the early hours of January 9, winds dropped below 10 mph, which allowed firefighting aircraft to operate along the northeast perimeter near Chantry Flats to suppress multiple hotspots. Despite ongoing containment challenges, minimal fire growth was observed after January 10. The fire became fully contained on February 20, 2025, after burning over 14,000 acres, destroying 9,418 structures, and claiming 17 lives.
As observed, the fire spread into Altadena for nearly two miles toward Historic Highlands in the southwest, completely burning neighborhoods between Lincoln Avenue (west of the fire footprint) and Sinaloa Avenue (east of the fire footprint). In the southeast, several structures in the wildland-urban interface (WUI) were destroyed.
However, unlike in Altadena, the fire did not spread deep into these communities.
Figure 7. Mean wind speed, wind gust, and relative humidity recorded by the Burbank Automated Surface Observing Station (ASOS) and the time of ignition of the Eaton Fire.
Insurance Institute for Business & Home Safety 9
Figure 8. Infrared Maxar Satellite image showing active burning in Altadena on January 8, 2025. 4 Figure 9. Final Eaton Fire perimeter shaded in red.
4 https://globalnews.ca/news/10950343/los-angeles-wildfires-photos-satellite-imagery/ Insurance Institute for Business & Home Safety 10
Overview of the Deployment
From January 13 through 19, IBHS conducted a post-disaster investigation in Los Angeles County, California, with a team of nine staff who evaluated 247 structures affected by the fires. The deployment aimed to gain a better understanding of:
• the exposure to fire from both the wildland and the built environment, • the potential pathways for fire spread into communities, and • building materials and mitigation strategies that increase the likelihood of structural survivability.
The team collected specific data across three key categories: building components, separation distance, and fuel factors, with a particular emphasis on connective fuels around the main structure on a parcel. In some cases, aerial drone imagery provided a broader perspective of the surrounding environment, including property boundaries and nearby connective fuels.
Key Data Collected:
• Building Type: 97% of the evaluated structures were single-family residential homes. • Roofing Material: The most common roof materials of the evaluated structures were asphalt shingles and clay or concrete tiles. 46% of the evaluated structures had an asphalt shingle roof. 18.6% had clay or concrete barrel tile, 11.8% clay or concrete flat tile. • Vents: Among structures with vents, only 7.8% had a 1/8-inch or finer metal mesh. • Wall Material: 80% of structures had stucco as the primary exterior wall material. • Windows: Window frames were most commonly metal (38%) and vinyl (34%). • Decks: 63% of the structures had decks, most commonly with a wood walking surface. • Fencing: Over 95% of the surveyed parcels had a fence, and in 61% of cases, the fence was either directly attached to the structure or located within Zone 0 (the 0–5 foot noncombustible zone). Additionally, 65% of fences were made of wood, increasing fire risk and serving as a dominant connective fuel.
Transition to Urban Fire
Post-event investigations consistently indicate that most initial structure ignitions in conflagrations result from the accumulation of airborne embers and wind-driven, ground-traveling burning debris near urban connective fuels or the buildings themselves, rather than direct contact with the main fire front. Under fire-conducive conditions, these small spot fires can grow vertically and lead to sporadic large fires within a community. In extreme fire weather, these scattered fires can spread, merge, generate significant embers, and evolve into full-scale conflagrations depending on the community’s characteristics. (a) (b)
Figure 10. Examples of airborne and ground-traveling structural embers observed during the LA County fires shared by local residents with IBHS staff during the post-disaster investigation. Note that in (b), the fire on the connective fuel vegetation was successfully suppressed.
Insurance Institute for Business & Home Safety 11
Studies of past conflagrations and the observations by the IBHS team in the Eaton and Palisades fires reveal two distinct patterns in the destruction5:
1. sporadic losses where smaller clusters of homes are burned.
2. large-scale urban conflagration driven by structure-to-structure fire spread resulting in widespread devastation.
On a microscale, direct flame contact and radiation become the main fire spread mechanisms in conflagrations. On the macroscale, especially in high-wind events where ember generation markedly increases, embers remain a crucial factor in fire spread.
While even typical building materials that comply with modern building codes are likely to fail under the extreme heating rate of direct flame contact, fire intensity remains highly localized—even in strong wind conditions. This occurs because shifts in wind direction and natural breaks in fuel continuity—such as roads, parking lots, and parks— can disrupt fast and uniform fire spread.
When windflow characteristics—influenced by upstream buildings, terrain, vegetation, etc.—create pockets of reduced fire intensity, homes constructed with vulnerable materials or those with connective fuels that create paths to burning structures do not benefit from this variation in intensity. Slow-moving, low-intensity fires can still consume available connective fuels, reach structures, and eventually ignite vulnerable materials. However, homes built with resilient components—such as those required in the IBHS Wildfire Prepared Home™ standard—can withstand prolonged exposure and help break the chain of conflagration. In the Eaton and Palisades fires, the three pillars of conflagration, as identified by IBHS after the Lahaina Fire (2023), remained highly relevant: structure separation, connective fuels, and building materials.
Structure Separation
Structure density is a key factor in determining wildfire risk in WUI communities. Once the first few homes ignite in densely built neighborhoods, downwind structures are more likely to experience extreme heating by direct flame contact. Additionally, higher-density communities tend to have more connective fuels—such as fences, landscaping, and debris—which can allow low-intensity fires to build strength and potentially exceed the tolerance of building materials.
Dense neighborhoods pose challenges for evacuation where roads are one of the few fire breaks. Abandoned vehicles and congestion obstruct roads which reduces their effectiveness as natural fuel breaks, adds to the fuel load, and complicates firefighting efforts. These combined factors make high-density, unmitigated communities particularly vulnerable to rapid fire spread and complicate emergency response.
In wind-driven fires, flames are forced to tilt downward and extend forward, intensifying radiative heat transfer to downwind ground fuels and urban connective fuels. Stretched flames help fire spread rapidly from one building to another along the local wind vector. Meanwhile, homes positioned crosswind, or perpendicular to the wind vector, experience a level of convective cooling, as the surrounding air temperature remains lower than the temperature of the flames and the wind-driven plume. For these buildings, radiative heat transfer and intermittent flame contact act as the primary heating mechanisms. Understanding these dynamics is critical to understanding how to effectively and wholistically mitigate communities against fire exposure. 5 In the densely built areas of Pacific Palisades and Altadena, the typical structure separation ranged from 8 to 20 feet.
Differing exposures unique to the wind patterns of this event explain damage patterns in these communities.
Downwind
Research from IBHS shows that with about 10 feet of separation between a fully engulfed structure and a downwind structure no building material on the downwind structure is likely to survive. However, when the separation distance increases to approximately 20 feet, the benefits of fire-resistant building components become evident.
A home’s overall fire resilience is only as strong as its weakest link. A combination of noncombustible building materials and double-pane tempered windows in a resilient frame—such as fiberglass or metal—significantly reduces 5 F. Hedayati, X. Monroy, E. Sluder, H. Fallahian, M. Shabanian, The 2023 Lahaina Conflagration, IBHS Research Report, September 2024.
Insurance Institute for Business & Home Safety 12
the likelihood of total loss. In contrast, vulnerable materials can fail even at greater separation distances due to intense downwind heat exposure, as illustrated in Figure 11 from the Palisades Fire. In this instance, a road with sidewalks provided a separation distance of approximately 60 feet from a burning upwind structure. The downwind home's window—a wood frame, single-pane annealed glass window—failed under moderate heat exposure. This highlights the critical role of both separation distance and material choice in determining a building’s ability to withstand wildfire exposure.
(a) (b)
Figure 11. Example of damage to less resilient building materials from a downwind exposure at approximately 60 feet.
Crosswind
Exposure in crosswind conditions is significantly lower than in downwind scenarios, as radiation becomes the primary heating mechanism with some convective cooling and possible intermittent flame contact. In these crosswind conditions, buildings with resilient materials can provide effective protection, even at a separation distance of just 10 feet, as illustrated in Figure 12 in the Eaton Fire. In this crosswind scenario, the highlighted building experienced moderate to high heat exposure from a neighboring structure. However, because the highlighted building featured noncombustible siding and double-pane windows, the damage was limited and not a total loss. Notably, this home had a larger setback from the street than the neighboring destroyed structure, which helped reduce lateral radiation exposure to only a small portion of the side of the home. Field observations further revealed that only the overlapping sections of the highlighted structure sustained window damage, while others remained unaffected. This highlights the potential of strategically varying setbacks in high-density neighborhoods to help mitigate fire spread and reduce structural losses. (a) (b)
Figure 12. Example of a home with a crosswind exposure from the Eaton Fire.
Insurance Institute for Business & Home Safety 13
Connective Fuels
The connectivity of fuels between the wildland and the built environment, as well as between homes within a community, plays a critical role in both the initial entry of fire and its spread in a community.
Figure 13 highlights a case in the Eaton Fire where ignition was likely caused by embers traveling across a golf course and landing on flammable materials around a home or entering through openings. These embers ignited the corner home exposing the neighboring structure to crosswind heat. A tall concrete masonry unit block fence between the two buildings significantly reduced heat exposure, but the presence of connective fuels—in this case, an awning—between properties allowed the fire to spread closer to the neighboring home. It appears that first responders were able to suppress the fire on the awning before it could cause major structural damage. As a result, damage to the neighboring home was limited to broken window glass. The survival of this house effectively disrupted the chain of conflagration, creating an island of undamaged homes within a heavily impacted community.
Figure 13d further highlights the importance of fuel management in Zone 0. The leeward side of a tree in Zone 0 was completely consumed by fire, while the windward side remained green. This suggests that strong winds removed heat at a rate that prevented fire from spreading in the opposite direction toward the house. Without the persistent wind pushing the fire away from the home, the damage to the adjacent building could have been significantly worse. By maintaining Zone 0, homeowners become more in control of potential exposure to their homes rather than relying on stochastic fire behavior.
(a) (b)
(c) (d)
Figure 13. Example of connective fuel exposure in the Eaton Fire. (b) shows the noncombustible wall bordering the property, which acted to reduce exposure. (c) shows the damaged window. (d) shows the tree in Zone 0 which burned similarly to the tree in the foreground.
Insurance Institute for Business & Home Safety 14
Figure 14 depicts another example of connective fuel in Zone 0 where rows of woody shrubs created a direct connective fuel pathway between the home and its neighbor. With a crosswind exposure, the fire used this vegetation to spread closer to the structure and heat the eave area, which showed signs of light charring suggesting that suppression efforts likely prevented further damage. The damage and the need for first responder intervention could have been prevented by removing the connecting fuel. This emphasizes that even under extreme fire conditions—where heat intensity along the wind can surpass the resistance of any building material—fire intensity in the crosswind direction varies locally. By implementing the requirements of Wildfire Prepared Home, homeowners can use all available opportunities to reduce damage and improve survivability, even in extreme fire events.
(a)
(b)
(c)
Figure 14. Impact of connective fuel on damage spread in the crosswind direction from the closest destroyed neighbor on the side. This home is the same home shown in Figure 11 where the home’s downwind structure separation was considered.
Insurance Institute for Business & Home Safety 15
In addition to permanent connective fuels such as trees and shrubs, portable connective fuels—such as trash cans, hot tubs, and small storage sheds—further impact a building’s risk of ignition. The potential hazard these items pose depends on their contents, as certain materials can significantly increase fuel load and fire intensity. • Trash Cans: IBHS researchers observed instances where ignited trash cans caused damage to the adjacent buildings (Figure 15a, 15b, 15c). In these instances, the fire was suppressed by first responders, limiting the damage to the building’s cladding.
• Hot Tubs: Figure 15d depicts damage caused by a burning hot tub, likely ignited by embers. Fortunately, in this case, the wind direction helped limit fire spread to the building itself. However, the intense heat from the burning hot tub led to the failure of a nearby window and door, causing the frame and panes to collapse and creating an opening in the structure. Since this opening was on the leeward side, the likelihood of ember entry into the building was minimal, preventing a total loss. Nonetheless, the building still sustained severe damage.
These examples demonstrate how even seemingly minor external fuel sources can significantly impact fire behavior and the subsequent damage level to a home.
(a) (b)
(c)
(d)
Figure 15. Examples of portable connective fuels observed in the Palisades and Eaton Fires. (a), (b), and (c) show examples of trash cans while (d) shows a hot tub.
Insurance Institute for Business & Home Safety 16
Building Materials
Building materials play a decisive role in fire resistance when fire intensity is not extreme. Fire intensity in urban fires can vary significantly due to changes in available fuel, wind speed, and wind direction. While wind patterns are beyond human control, reducing fuel connectivity and availability—by removing or spacing out combustible materials—creates an opportunity for fire-resistant building materials to mitigate damage. This, in turn, can help slow fire spread and potentially break the chain of conflagration.
IBHS researchers identified numerous cases where a combination of fire-resistant building materials and lower fire intensity—either due to shifts in wind patterns or fuel discontinuity—helped contain fire damage (Figure 16). Figure 16 shows a home exposed to radiant heat from burning wildland shrubs along a nearby hiking trail. A break in the fuel continuity caused by the driveway reduced overall thermal exposure and limited damage to the home to the failure of annealed windowpanes, while the structure itself remained largely intact. Notably, two windows faced the fire and experienced similar levels of heat exposure—an annealed glass window and a tempered glass window. Only the annealed glass failed; the tempered glazing remained in place, sustaining only frame damage.
(a) (b)
(c) (d)
Figure 16. Example of building material impacts in non-extreme fire conditions. (b) shows lack of connective fuels. (c) shows the two windows— one annealed glass and one tempered—on the side of the home that experienced similar fire exposure, but only the annealed glass window failed. (d) shows the tempered window etching.
Insurance Institute for Business & Home Safety 17
Figure 17 shows reduced exposure due to crosswind conditions and a lack of connective fuels. The building's noncombustible siding received enough heat to spall; had it been combustible, it likely would have ignited in a manner similar to the wood window frame, which did ignite before being suppressed. The annealed single-pane windows broke; however, because this window was not on the windward side, it received minimal ember exposure, and embers did not enter the house.
Figure 18 highlights an example of avoidable damage. While connective fuel in the form of a fence carried the fire close to the building, the stucco siding was able to withstand more heat than the burning fence could generate.
This case demonstrates the effectiveness of fire-resistant materials when exposed to moderate heat and their ability to contain damage. However, it is important to note that if a window had been located near the fence, or if the local wind pattern had directed the flames from the fence toward the open eaves, the resulting heat could have caused window failure or eave ignition— potentially leading to the total loss of the building. This potential reinforces the need to avoid connective fuels between homes, even when structures comply with modern WUI building codes.
Decks are also vulnerable to ember ignition. Embers can accumulate on joists between deck boards, igniting debris trapped in those gaps (Figure 19). Once ignited, the fire can spread along the joists in a smoldering phase. When the smoldering fire reaches the board gaps, it can rekindle into open flames, creating a burn pattern where large sections are consumed at the interface of boards and joists. In this case, the deck ignition was successfully suppressed, preventing further fire spread.
(a) (b)
Figure 17. Scorch marks and damaged windows show the exposure this home received and resisted because of the noncombustible stucco cladding.
(a) (b)
Figure 18. Two examples where fences served as connective fuels carrying fire towards structures. In both instances, the noncombustible cladding resisted ignition.
Insurance Institute for Business & Home Safety 18
Figure 19. Decks pose a vulnerability to ember ignitions as seen at this home, where a hose was used to extinguish the ignitions.
Building Materials and Extreme Fire Conditions
Most of the construction in the neighborhoods impacted by the Eaton and Palisades Fires occurred in the 1950s, prior to the development of California’s Chapter 7A building code for wildfire-prone areas. While not required by building code at the time, typical construction in these neighborhoods favored the use of noncombustible siding—such as stucco—and Class A roofs. Many homes also featured double-pane windows for energy efficiency purposes, but few had tempered windows.
Fire intensity increases disproportionately under extreme wind conditions, underscoring the need for resilient building systems. Research by IBHS on wind-driven fires indicates that the energy accumulation rate from a burning shed 20-feet away increases sixfold at a wind speed of 25 mph compared to no-wind conditions and rises twentyfold when exposed to 60 mph winds.
During conflagration conditions, this intense energy is forced onto downwind structures, often overwhelming nearly all construction materials and leading to uncontrollable structure to structure fire spread. Only as these densely built structures experience the local variation in fire intensity can connective fuels and building materials compliant with modern WUI codes impact the chain of conflagration. Noncombustible building materials alone cannot stop conflagration.
Firefighter Interventions
IBHS surveyed numerous buildings that demonstrated the effectiveness of on-the-ground firefighter interventions. These interventions typically occurred at the initial point of fire development on or near buildings.
Security camera footage shared by homeowners also revealed that some residents who did not evacuate suppressed ignitions in fuels near their homes. In one case, footage showed an individual applying fire retardant gel to a home a few hours before the arrival of the fire front. However, the timestamped footage indicated that about three hours later, the gel had dried out due to dry and windy conditions, minimizing its effectiveness. This observation aligns with previous IBHS research on fire retardant gels, which, while initially effective, undergo weathering and lose their protective properties within a few hours under extreme fire conditions. 6In these conditions, the effectiveness of the gels largely depends on the time gap between their application and the fire front's arrival. IBHS advises homeowners against using valuable evacuation time to apply gels to their property. 6 Kadel, J., Hedayati, F., Quarles, S.L. et al. Effect of Environmental Conditions on the Dehydration and Performance of FireProtective Gels. Fire Technol 57, 1241–1257 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10694-020-01045-2 Insurance Institute for Business & Home Safety 19
SUMMARY
The Palisades and Eaton Fires collectively scorched approximately 60 square miles, resulting in the tragic loss of at least 29 lives and the destruction of over 16,000 structures. • From Wildfire to Conflagration: Strong Santa Ana winds fueled an extreme fire weather setup and, once an ignition occurred, led to rapid, wind-driven, building-to-building fire spread through densely populated communities. The same weather conditions that fuel rapid fire spread grounded the air resources equipped to battle the blazes.
• Structure Density: Under such strong winds, flames from burning buildings bent down and stretched along the wind. For tightly spaced structures, this allowed flames to directly reach from one building to the next. Each home ignition generated high flux of short-range embers and ground-traveling embers, further amplifying the fire. In downtown Altadena and Pacific Palisades, the exposure was so extreme that even homes with some fire-resistant features had little chance of survival because the fire exploited the unmitigated weakest links.
• Connective Fuels & Building Materials: Where structure separation distances were closer to 20 feet, or when exposure was not directly downwind of the fire, fire-resistant building materials played a crucial role in reducing damage severity. These instances interrupted the chain of conflagration, leaving islands of undamaged homes within the scorched community. These homes typically did not have any connective fuels to their surrounding destroyed neighborhoods.
Exposure & Resilience: Among the three pillars of conflagration—structure density, connective fuel, and building materials—structure density and connective fuels couple with environmental conditions to determine thermal exposure intensity. Meanwhile, building materials determine a structure’s resilience to this exposure. When exposure intensity surpasses resilience, structures are not expected to survive. With tight structure density, significant connective fuel, and Santa Ana winds, the exposure level becomes so intense that nearly all building materials are overwhelmed.
• In existing communities where structure separation cannot be changed, removing connective fuels becomes the meaningful lever to reduce exposure levels. Where connective fuels have been addressed, resilient building materials have a better chance of reducing damage. • Noncombustible fences, such as brick and concrete masonry, can effectively minimize radiation and intermittent flame contact from burning neighbors and compartmentalize fire.
Work towards Wildfire Prepared Home: Typical construction in these communities featured some resilient elements compliant with the Wildfire Prepared Home requirements—such as stucco cladding, Class A roofs, doublepaned tempered windows—but lacked the full system of mitigations. While individually these components provide an acceptable degree of fire resistance, the overall resilience of a structure is determined by its weakest component.
Until all components are addressed, the property cannot reap the benefits of the individual component’s fire resistance. Because the remaining weak component varied structure to structure from relatively inexpensive features like vents to more costly features like windows, the cost to mitigate homes in this area varies. But the investment required to enhance resilience in these communities is not as substantial as commonly estimated.
Strengthening strategic vulnerable components within an already robust system can significantly improve a home's resistance to fire.
____________________________________________________________________________________
FOR CITY CLERK ONLY
Agenda Item No: 6.a
Meeting Date: April 21, 2025
SAN RAFAEL CITY COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT
Department: Community and Economic Development
Prepared by: Micah Hinkle, Director
Alexis Captanian, Housing Manager
City Manager Approval: ____
TOPIC COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT (CDBG)
SUBJECT RESOLUTION RECOMMENDING COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT (CDBG) PROJECT FUNDING FOR THE FISCAL YEAR 2025-2026 TO THE MARIN
COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends that the City Council adopt a resolution recommending Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) project funding for Fiscal Year (FY) 2025-26 to the Marin County Board of Supervisors.
BACKGROUND:
The Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) is a federally funded program administered by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) designed to enhance local quality of life by supporting essential community-based projects. CDBG funding prioritizes the creation and preservation of affordable housing, improvements to community infrastructure and facilities, and the provision of critical public services benefiting residents in need.
In 2023, the City of San Rafael entered into a cooperative agreement with the County of Marin to coordinate the allocation and management of CDBG funds more effectively. Through this partnership, Marin County is organized into three distinct planning areas: Countywide, the City of San Rafael, and the City of Novato. Funding recommendations across these planning areas are guided by a countywide Priority Setting Committee (PSC), composed of elected City and Town Council representatives, a County Supervisor, and local community members representing federally protected classes—including individuals of diverse races, religions, national origins, genders (including gender identity and sexual orientation), disabilities, and familial statuses—in accordance with fair housing regulations. San Rafael City Councilmember Rachel Kertz currently serves on the PSC. Attachment 3 contains the roster of PSC members for 2025-26.
Under this cooperative arrangement, the City of San Rafael is responsible for reviewing and recommending allocations for CDBG-funded projects specifically benefiting the San Rafael community.
The process consists of the San Rafael City Council forwarding its recommendations to the PSC, which then incorporates San Rafael’s recommendations along with proposals from the other two planning areas into comprehensive recommendations for consideration by the Marin County Board of Supervisors (BOS).
SAN RAFAEL CITY COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT / Page: 2
In June 2025, the BOS will conduct a public hearing to review and formally act on these combined funding recommendations. Following approval by the BOS, the finalized funding plan will be submitted to HUD for authorization, ensuring strategic investment in projects that effectively address community needs and comply with federal guidelines.
The CDBG program has a minimum grant size of $15,000 per project per year, and Countywide projects may receive funding from each planning area to bring their grant amount up to $15,000.
Federal regulation requires that the majority of funds be spent on housing and community infrastructure/capital projects. The funding is allocated formulaically by HUD to entitled cities and counties. Three factors are included in the San Rafael Planning Area allocation formula: population, overcrowding, and poverty. The San Rafael Planning Area is expected to receive approximately $481,541 in CDBG funding.
ANALYSIS:
Evaluation Guidelines
The Priority Setting Committee, County and City staff evaluated all applications received based on the criteria listed below:
HUD National Objective Thresholds:
• Benefit low- and moderate-income persons.
• Prevent or eliminate blight or meet other community development needs for low- and moderateincome persons.
Last year, the PSC established the following additional criteria:
• Support projects that affirmatively further fair housing and have the commitment and capacity to engage in affirmative marketing.
1 • Prioritize projects that serve members of protected classes as defined by HUD. • Prioritize projects that serve low-income persons.
Project Evaluation Criteria:
• Readiness—can awarded funds be completely expended during the grant year? • Sustainability—does the organization have the capacity to sustain a project or program beyond this federal funding period?
• Effectiveness and Accountability—does the organization have the capacity and track record to effectively execute the project and administer federal funds? • Prioritize projects with the greatest impact.
In addition to the criteria set forth by HUD, the PSC approved establishing two additional priorities for funding CDBG and HOME housing projects:
• Family Housing2
1 Affirmative Marketing is targeted outreach about program opportunities to groups of people otherwise least likely to apply for or receive those opportunities. Given Marin’s history of segregation, the protected class populations typically included in Affirmative Marketing are Black/African American, Asian/Pacific Islander, and Latinx.
Programs that do not conduct broad Affirmative Marketing are less competitive in the allocation process. 2 Family Housing is identified as a need in both the County’s Consolidated Plan and Analysis of Impediments. In addition, HUD requires that Marin’s CDBG and HOME grants contribute to the creation of new family housing units.
SAN RAFAEL CITY COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT / Page: 3
• Land trust model in eastern Marin provides homeownership opportunities (in this context, Eastern Marin is defined as all areas in Marin outside West Marin).
The PSC also established the following priorities for public service projects:
• Children, Youth, and Parent Support Services – includes services that target low-income families and address disparities in access to early childhood education, high costs of childcare countywide, and family self-sufficiency. Programs and services include but are not limited to supporting childcare scholarships, student extracurricular activities, parent engagement and training, case management, therapeutic services, transportation, home visitations, and family legal support.
• Housing Support Services – includes services that assist individuals in accessing stable housing, prevent discrimination in housing choice, and aid renters in maintaining stable housing.
Programs and services include but are not limited to fair housing counseling, legal support, housing locators, and down payment and rental assistance.
CDBG Funding – City of San Rafael Planning Area
Tables A, B, and C show below on pages 4-6 of this report, provide funding recommendations based on the evaluation criteria outlined above. The San Rafael Planning Area allocations are in bold.
Following each chart is a brief description of the project(s) recommended for funding.
The County of Marin has not yet received formal notification from HUD regarding the final allocation for the 2025–26 CDBG program. Consequently, the recommendations presented in this report are preliminary and have been developed based on an assumption of funding consistent with the prior year's total allocation of $1,559,706.
Once HUD announces the final funding amount, the recommendations will be reviewed and adjusted as necessary. If HUD’s FY 2025-26 allocation is not as anticipated, staff will adjust funding recommendations proportionately, with no award falling under $15,000 per program guidelines.
Based on the HUD funding formula established in the cooperative agreement, the San Rafael Planning Area is expected to receive approximately $481,541 in CDBG funding, distributed across the following categories: (1) $200,500 dedicated specifically for housing projects; (2) an additional $208,525 that may be allocated flexibly between housing or capital/community infrastructure projects; and (3) a maximum of $72,515 available for public service activities. These amounts reflect federal regulatory requirements, ensuring a strategic investment that meets community priorities while adhering to HUD guidelines.
Attachment 2 contains the recommended allocation of San Rafael planning area CDBG funds to applications received for the San Rafael Planning Area and Countywide projects serving the San Rafael Planning Area. The list also indicates the total expected allocation for each application, including funding recommended from the other planning areas. Attachment 4 shows all funding requests received for the 2025-26 cycle.
Housing Projects
A total of four (4) housing projects submitted applications for CDBG funding under the San Rafael Planning Area, with a combined funding request of $1,894,881. • Two projects are located in San Rafael, requesting a total amount of $800,000. • One is a countywide program that benefits San Rafael residents, requesting $94,881.
SAN RAFAEL CITY COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT / Page: 4
• One is a regional development project located in Novato (Redwood Blvd), requesting $1,000,000.
In accordance with CDBG guidelines, a minimum of $200,500 must be allocated to housing projects.
For FY 2025–26, staff recommends a total of $219,026 in housing funding, as outlined in Table A. This higher allocation was made possible by shifting a portion of capital improvement funds into the housing category, prioritizing essential housing preservation and rehabilitation efforts.
Table A: Housing Projects
Funding Applications received CDBG
Request
San Rafael
Recommendation
Expected Total
CDBG Allocation
Canal Alliance – Marin Villas
Rehab* $ 400,000 $ 138,525 $ 138,525
Habitat for Humanity – Home Rehab
Program $ 94,881 $ 13,000 $ 40,000
Habitat for Humanity – Redwood
Blvd $1,000,000 $ 67,501 $ 424,401
Marin Foster Care Association –
158-166A Park Street* $ 400,000 -- --
TOTAL $1,894,881 $ 219,026 $ 602,927
* San Rafael-only request
Marin Villas Rehabilitation Project (Canal Alliance) will complete full renovations for two units and bathroom upgrades for two additional units at a four-unit affordable rental property in San Rafael.
Renovations will improve safety, ventilation, and habitability. Canal Alliance has owned the property for over 20 years and will provide temporary relocation during construction.
Marin County Home Rehabilitation Program (Habitat for Humanity) provides zero-interest deferred loans to rehabilitate approximately 20 low-income, owner-occupied homes countywide. The program supports essential repairs including roofing, plumbing, and ADA accessibility modifications to help homeowners remain safely in their homes.
Redwood Blvd Project (Habitat for Humanity) A proposed 80-unit affordable homeownership development in Novato that includes a mix of two-, three-, and four-bedroom units for families earning between 60%–90% of Area Median Income (AMI). The San Rafael contribution supports predevelopment activities and demonstrates regional collaboration to increase affordable housing options within Marin County.
158–166A Park Street Acquisition (Marin Foster Care Association) will acquire six one-bedroom units in San Rafael to house transition-age foster youth. The project will offer stable housing paired with supportive services to help young adults exiting the foster care system avoid homelessness and achieve independence. Given the administrative complexity associated with federal funding sources and considering the size and capacity of the applicant organization, City and County staff have recommended the project for funding through the City and County Affordable Housing Trust Funds rather than CDBG.
Capital Projects
Two capital projects submitted applications from the San Rafael Planning Area, totaling $721,150 in requested funding.
• One project is located specifically in San Rafael, requesting $150,000.
SAN RAFAEL CITY COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT / Page: 5
• One project serves Marin County residents broadly, including residents of San Rafael, requesting $571,150.
In accordance with CDBG guidelines, up to $208,000 may be allocated to capital or housing projects.
For FY 2025–26, the City of San Rafael recommends $190,000 in capital funding, as outlined in Table B below.
Notably, $18,525 of the capital allocation was strategically shifted to support a housing rehabilitation project (Canal Alliance – Marin Villas), as discussed in the Housing section above. This reflects the City’s prioritization of critical housing preservation needs within the allowable capital funding cap.
Table B: Capital Projects
Funding Applications received CDBG Request San Rafael
Recommendation
Expected Total
CDBG Allocation
Ritter Center – Ritter Builds Hope
Capital Campaign* $ 150,000 $ 125,000 $ 125,000
Homeward Bound – New
Beginnings Shelter Repairs $ 571,150 $ 65,000 $ 219,714 TOTAL $ 721,150 $ 190,000 $ 344,714
* San Rafael-only request
Ritter Builds Hope Capital Campaign (Ritter Center) will renovate and upgrade the Ritter Center facility at 800 A Street, San Rafael, to expand healthcare, behavioral health, and supportive housing services for low-income and homeless residents. Improvements include ADA accessibility enhancements, trauma-informed counseling spaces, energy-efficient system upgrades, and exterior façade improvements.
New Beginnings Center Infrastructure Repairs (Homeward Bound of Marin) involves critical repairs and upgrades to Marin County’s largest emergency shelter in Novato, including roof replacement, interior/exterior painting, bathroom safety improvements, and installation of an emergency backup generator system to ensure continuous operation during power outages.
Public Services
The County anticipates an allocation of approximately $72,515 in CDBG public services funding for the San Rafael Planning Area in the FY 2025–26 program year, based on 15% of the total CDBG entitlement after deducting administrative and required fair housing costs. While the City Council may choose to allocate a lower amount annually, it cannot exceed this 15% cap.
A total of 15 public service applications were received that listed the San Rafael Planning Area in their funding request. Of those, staff recommends four projects for funding. While most applications propose countywide services, the City of San Rafael’s Pickleweed Preschool specifically serves the San Rafael community.
Due to limited funding and based on program priorities, staff recommend allocating the full $72,515 to a targeted set of high-impact projects, shown in Table C below. The Expected Total CDBG Allocation column in Table C represents the total funding recommended from the San Rafael, Novato, and Countywide Planning Areas combined.
SAN RAFAEL CITY COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT / Page: 6
Table C: Public Services
Funding Applications received CDBG
Request
San Rafael
Recommendation
Expected Total
CDBG
Allocation
Legal Aid of Marin – Keeping
Marginalized Marin Tenants Housed $ 135,000 $ 27,515 $ 78,956 Adopt A Family of Marin – Emergency
Rental Assistance for Families at Risk
for Homelessness
$ 25,000
Marin YMCA – Expanding Affordable
Childcare through YMCA ElementaryAged Programs$ 65,000 Front Porch Communities – Home
Match $ 20,000
Marin Housing Authority – Older and
Disabled Adult Service Initiative 2025 $ 230,000
Marin Center for Independent Living –
Residential Access Modification
Program (RAMP)
$ 45,000 $ 10,000 $ 15,000
Community Action Marin –
Community Supports and Emergency
Services
$ 49,680
Vivalon – Nourish by Vivalon $ 67,200
Fair Housing Advocates of Northern
California – Fair Housing Counseling
and Education*
$ 85,000 $ 50,000
ExtraFood – Creating a More
Equitable Food System in Marin
County
$ 52,513
Make It Home – One Cozy Bed $ 25,000 $ 15,000 $ 15,000
Subtotal: Countywide Public Services $ 799,393 $ 52,515 $ 108,956 San Rafael-only requests:
City of San Rafael – Pickleweed
Preschool $ 27,991 $ 20,000 $ 20,000
Center for Employment Opportunities
– CEO Marin’s Rapid Response
Housing & Assistance Program
$ 60,000
WelcomingHome.org – 4 homes in
2025 (San Rafael and Novato) $ 20,000
Road to Empowerment Restorative
Services – Peer Mentor Program (San
Rafael and Novato)
$ 30,000
Subtotal: San Rafael Public Services $ 137,991 $ 20,000 $ 20,000 TOTAL PUBLIC SERVICES $ 937,384 $ 72,515 $ 128,956
*Required Fair Housing Services
Marin Center for Independent Living – Residential Access Modification Program (RAMP) Provides home modifications such as ramps, grab bars, and stair lifts to increase accessibility and housing stability for residents with disabilities.
SAN RAFAEL CITY COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT / Page: 7
City of San Rafael – Pickleweed Preschool Provides affordable early childhood education for 68 children in the Canal neighborhood. Funding helps retain a key staff position after the loss of state funding.
Make It Home – One Cozy Bed Distributes beds and bedding to vulnerable families transitioning into permanent housing, helping to stabilize housing conditions and promote comfort and dignity.
Legal Aid of Marin – Keeping Marginalized Marin Tenants Housed Provides legal advocacy, education, and outreach to prevent eviction and housing discrimination for low-income tenants, including seniors, immigrants, and individuals with disabilities. The program helps prevent displacement and promotes housing stability through free legal services and fair housing enforcement.
FISCAL IMPACT:
There is no direct cost or revenue impact from the recommended action as the City would be recommending CDBG funding for specific projects to be disbursed by the County of Marin. However, allocating federal funds to potential City projects may allow City general and capital funds to be allocated to other priorities.
OPTIONS:
The City Council has the following options to consider on this matter:
1. Approve the recommended CDBG funding allocations as outlined in this report.
2. Modify the CDBG funding allocations by adjusting individual project awards.3
3. Defer to the Countywide Priority Setting Committee to finalize funding recommendations for the San Rafael Planning Area.
4. Provide alternative direction to staff regarding project selection or funding priorities.
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
Staff recommends that the City Council adopt a resolution recommending Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) project funding for Fiscal Year (FY) 2025-26 to the Marin County Board of Supervisors.
ATTACHMENTS:
1. Resolution
2. Exhibit A to Resolution: 2025-26 CDBG Project Allocations
3. 2025-26 PSC Roster
4. 2025-26 All Funding Requests Received
3 Note: Funds may be reallocated within categories; however, the Public Services category cannot exceed $72,515, per federal cap guidelines.
RESOLUTION NO.
RESOLUTION OF THE SAN RAFAEL CITY COUNCIL RECOMMENDING
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT (CDBG) PROJECT FUNDING FOR THE FISCAL YEAR 2025-2026 TO THE MARIN COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the City of San Rafael as follows:
WHEREAS in June 1999, the City Council revised the Cooperation Agreement with the County of Marin for Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) funds whereby the City remained in the County system; and
WHEREAS in December 1999, the City devised a project selection process for CDBG projects; and
WHEREAS on April 21, 2025, in accordance with the adopted project selection process the City Council reviewed the submitted applications; NOW, THEREFORE IT IS HEREBY RESOLVED that the City Council recommends to the Marin County Board of Supervisors that the $481,541.48 in CDBG funds available for allocation by the City of San Rafael be distributed to the projects and in the amounts shown on Exhibit A to this resolution, subject to adjustments necessary to accommodate any changes in the final allocation given to the County of Marin by the federal Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD).
I, LINDSAY LARA, City Clerk of the City of San Rafael, hereby certify that the foregoing resolution was duly and regularly introduced and adopted at a regular meeting of the Council of said City held on the 21st day of April 2025, by the following vote:
AYES: Councilmembers:
NOES: Councilmembers:
ABSENT: Councilmembers:
Lindsay Lara, City Clerk
Funding Applications received CDBG Request San Rafael
Recommendation
Expected Total
CDBG Allocation
Canal Alliance – Marin Villas Rehab
(San Rafael) $ 400,000.00 $ 138,525.47 $ 138,525.47
Habitat for Humanity – Home Rehab
Program (Countywide) $ 94,881.00 $ 13,000.00 $ 40,000.00 Habitat for Humanity- Redwood Blvd $ 1,000,000.00 $ 67,500.59 $ 424,401.41 Marin Foster Care Assoc. – 158–166A
Park Street (San Rafael) $ 400,000.00
Housing SubTotal $ 1,894,881.00 $ 219,026.06
* San Rafael-only request $ 721,150.00 $ 190,000.00
Legal Aid of Marin – Keeping
Marginalized Marin Tenants Housed $ 135,000.00 $ 27,515.42 $ 78,955.91 Marin Center for Independent Living –
Residential Access Modification
Program (RAMP)
$ 45,000.00 $ 10,000.00 $ 15,000.00
Make It Home – One Cozy Bed $ 25,000.00 $ 15,000.00 $ 15,000.00 Countywide Public Services subtotal $ 205,000.00 $ 52,515.42 San Rafael-only request
City of San Rafael – Pickleweed
Preschool $ 27,991.00 $ 20,000.00 $ 20,000.00
* San Rafael-only request $ 27,991.00 $ 20,000.00
$ 481,541.48
$ 125,000.00 $ 125,000.00
Homeward Bound – New Beginnings
Shelter Repairs (Countywide) $ 571,150.00 $ 65,000.00 $ 219,713.88
PUBLIC SERVICE
Total San Rafael Funding Recommendation
Ritter Center – Ritter Builds Hope
Capital Campaign (San Rafael) $ 150,000.00
HOUSING CAPITAL HOUSING
Exhibit A to Resolution: 2025-26 CDBG Project Allocations 2025-26 PSC Roster
CM - Countywide Nancy Johnson
CM - Lower Ross Tracie Palmer
CM - Novato Crystal Lewis
CM - San Rafael Craig Yates
CM - Southern Marin Ida Green
CM - Upper Ross Philip "PJ" Feffer
CM - West Marin Hal Russek
EM - BOS Supervisor Eric Lucan
EM - Belvedere Peter Mark
EM - Corte Madera Rosa Thomas
EM - Fairfax Barbara Coler
EM - Larkspur Sarah Margulies
EM - Mill Valley Stephen Burke
EM - Novato Mark Milberg
EM - San Anselmo Chantel Walker
EM - San Rafael Rachel Kertz
EM - Sausalito Melissa Blaustein
EM- Tiburon Holli Their
PROJECT SPONSOR PROJECT NAME Planning Area CDBG Request Canal Alliance
Canal Alliance - Marin Villas
Affordable Housing
Renovations, Phase II San Rafael
$ 400,000.00
Abode Housing Development
519 4th Street Community
Apartments (official name has
not been selected yet)
San Rafael
Eden Housing, Inc. Oak Hill Eden
Habitat for Humanity Greater San
Francisco Habitat Redwood Blvd. Novato $ 1,000,000.00
Habitat for Humanity Greater San
Francisco
Habitat Marin County
Rehabilitation Program County Wide $ 94,881.00
EAH Riviera and Turina Scattered
Site Renovation San Rafael
Marin Foster Care Association 158-166 Park Street San Rafael $ 400,000.00 Housing Request Subtotal $ 1,894,881.00
North Marin Community Services
680 Wilson Siding
Replacement; Northern
Facade and Upper Roof
Novato $ 110,000.00
Ritter Center Ritter Builds Hope Capital
Campaign Project San Rafael $ 110,000.00
Two Valleys Community Land Trust Forest Knolls Mobile Home Park Common Building County Other $ 59,000.00
Homeward Bound of Marin
New Beginnings Center
Infrastructure Repairs and
Improvements
County Wide $ 571,150.00
North Bay Children's Center Outdoor Classrooms, Learning Lab Novato $ 75,000.00
Capital Request Subtotal $ 850,150.00
Marin Center For Independent Living Residential Access
Modification Program County Wide $ 45,000.00
Fair Housing Advocates of Northern
California
Fair Housing Counseling and
Education County Wide $ 85,000.00
Community Action Marin Community Supports and
Emergency Services County Wide $ 49,680.00
ExtraFood Creating a More Equitable
Food System in Marin County County Wide $ 52,512.50
Legal Aid of Marin Keeping Marginalized Marin
Tenants Housed County Wide $ 135,000.00
Fairfax-San Anselmo Children's Center After School Transportation Project County Other $ 20,000.00
Vivalon Nourish by Vivalon County Wide $ 67,200.00
Adopt A Family of Marin
Emergency Rental Assistance
for Families at Risk for
Homelessness
County Wide $ 25,000.00
City of San Rafael Pickleweed Preschool San Rafael $ 27,991.00 Marin YMCA
Expanding Affordable
Childcare through YMCA
Elementary-Aged Programs
County Wide $ 65,000.00
Planned Parenthood Shasta Diablo Inc. Increasing Equitable Access to Care in Marin County County Other $ 30,000.00
North Marin Community Services Nourishing North Marin Novato $ 25,000.00 Make It Home One Cozy Bed County Wide $ 25,000.00
San Geronimo Valley Community Center Child and Family Food Access County Other $ 30,000.00 Center for Employment Opportunities, Inc.
CEO Marin’s Rapid Response
Housing & Assistance
Program
San Rafael $ 60,000.00
Front Porch Communities Home Match County Wide $ 20,000.00 Marin Housing Authority Older and Disabled Adult
Service Initiative 2025 County Wide $ 230,000.00
2025-26 Marin County NOFA - All Applications Received
Housing Capital Public Services
Performing Stars of Marin
Youth Afterschool and
Summer Enrichment
Programming
County Other $ 20,000.00
WelcomingHome.org 4 homes in 2025 San Rafael, Novato $ 20,000.00 North Bay Children's Center, Inc. Childcare Scholarship Novato $ 20,000.00 Road to Empowerment Restorative
Services Peer Mentor Program San Rafael, Novato $ 30,000.00 Public Services Request Subtotal $ 1,082,383.50
____________________________________________________________________________________
FOR CITY CLERK ONLY
Council Meeting:
Disposition:
Agenda Item: 6.b
Meeting Date: April 21, 2025
SAN RAFAEL CITY COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT
Department: Public Works
Prepared by: Grey Melgard, Associate Civil Engineer
April Miller, Public Works Director
City Manager Approval: __________
TOPIC: SECOND STREET AND FOURTH STREET INTERSECTION IMPROVEMENTS
PROJECT
SUBJECT: RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE A SECOND
AMENDMENT TO THE PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT WITH
CSW/STUBER-STROEH ENGINEERING GROUP, INC. FOR ADDITIONAL DESIGN
SERVICES ASSOCIATED WITH THE SECOND STREET AND FOURTH STREET
INTERSECTION IMPROVEMENTS PROJECT, IN THE AMOUNT NOT TO EXCEED $66,000, INCREASING THE TOTAL NOT-TO-EXCEED AMOUNT UNDER THE AGREEMENT OF $294,482.
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends that the City Council adopt a resolution authorizing the City Manager to execute the second amendment to the professional services agreement with CSW/Stuber-Stroeh Engineering Group, Inc. for additional engineering design and construction support services associated with the Second and Fourth Street Intersection Improvements Project, in the amount not-to-exceed $66,000, increasing the total not-to-exceed amount under the agreement of $294,482.
BACKGROUND:
This Project proposes new design configurations at the Second Street/Fourth Street/Miracle Mile intersection, which will improve traffic, pedestrian, and bicycle access in the area.
On June 20th, 2022, the City Council authorized the City Manager to execute a Professional Services Agreement with CSW/Stuber-Stroeh Engineering Group (CSW/Stuber-Stroeh) for engineering design services in an amount not-to-exceed $131,582.
On May 6th, 2024, the City Council awarded a first amendment to CSW/Stuber-Stroeh for additional engineering design services in an amount not to exceed $96,900. This amendment increased the total not-to-exceed amount to $227,582.
SAN RAFAEL CITY COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT / Page: 2
ANALYSIS:
Additional design and construction support services are needed for the Project to successfully deliver complete Plans, Specifications, and Estimates (PS&E) package ahead of the Project being released for construction bids.
Due to the complexity of the Project with the grant funding, staff recommends an amendment to the Professional Services Agreement with CSW/Stuber-Stroeh Engineering Group, Inc., to ensure a sufficient funding to work through the entirety of the construction duration.
COMMUNITY OUTREACH:
City staff maintains a Project website that provides information and updates on the Project’s progress.
Staff are currently working with the CSW/Struber-Stroeh Engineering Group, Inc. to update the “Frequently Asked Questions” section of the website to address questions received from the Community related to the Project. The Project has been presented at several community meetings in recent months, and it has recently concluded a public comment collection period. Staff are working to compile comments and questions from this period ahead of further design advancements.
FISCAL IMPACT:
CSW/Stuber-Stroeh Engineering Group, Inc. has estimated that $66,000 is needed to provide additional design and construction support services as previously described. This would increase the total contract amount to $294,482.
Funding to support the recommended contract amendment is provided for within the approved FY 2024- 25 capital budget through appropriations totaling $4.7 million within the Gas Tax Fund (Fund 206) for the Project.
OPTIONS:
The City Council has the following options to consider on this matter:
1. Adopt the resolution as presented.
2. Do not adopt the resolution and provide further direction to staff.
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
Staff recommends that the City Council adopt a resolution authorizing the City Manager to execute the second amendment to the professional services agreement with CSW/Stuber-Stroeh Engineering Group, Inc. for additional engineering design and construction support services associated with the Second and Fourth Street Intersection Improvements Project, in the amount not to exceed $66,000, increasing the total not-to-exceed amount under the agreement of $294,482.
ATTACHMENTS:
1. Resolution – Second Amendment to Professional Services Agreement with CSW/Stuber-Stroeh Engineering Group, Inc.
2. Second Amendment to Professional Services Agreement with CSW/Stuber-Stroeh Engineering Group, Inc.
RESOLUTION NO.
RESOLUTION OF THE SAN RAFAEL CITY COUNCIL AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER
TO EXECUTE A SECOND AMENDMENT TO THE PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT WITH CSW/STUBER-STROEH ENGINEERING GROUP, INC. FOR
ADDITIONAL DESIGN SERVICES ASSOCIATED WITH THE SECOND STREET AND
FOURTH STREET INTERSECTION IMPROVEMENTS PROJECT, IN THE ADDITIONAL AMOUNT NOT TO EXCEED $66,000, FOR A REVISED TOTAL AGREEMENT AMOUNT OF $294,482
WHEREAS, pursuant to the City Council Resolution No. 15097, the City of San Rafael entered into a Professional Services Agreement dated July 14, 2022, with CSW/Stuber-Stroeh Engineering Group, Inc. (“CSW/Stuber-Stroeh”), for engineering design services associated with the Second and Fourth Street Intersection Improvements Project (the “Project”; “Second Street/Fourth Street/Miracle Mile Intersection Improvements”) in an amount not-to-exceed $131,582; and
WHEREAS, the City of San Rafael awarded a first amendment dated May 6, 2024, to the Professional Services Agreement for additional engineering design services from CSW/StuberStroeh in an amount not-to-exceed $96,900; and WHEREAS, the City of San Rafael requires additional engineering design and construction support services from CSW/Stuber-Stroeh to deliver the design phase of the Project; and
WHEREAS, staff received a proposal from CSW/Stuber-Stroeh for said services in a total amount not to exceed $66,000; and
WHEREAS, staff has reviewed the proposal and found it to be complete and within industry standards; and
WHEREAS, the current FY 2024-25 budget approved by the City Council on June 17, 2024 includes appropriations totaling $4.7 million within the Gas Tax Fund (#206) for the Project (Project No. 11409).
NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN RAFAEL RESOLVES as follows:
1. The City Manager is hereby authorized to execute a Second Amendment to the Professional Services Agreement with CSW/Stuber-Stroeh Engineering Group, Inc. for design and construction support services in the amount of $66,000 for a total contract amount of $294,482, in a form approved by the City Attorney.
I, LINDSAY LARA, 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 City Council of said City on Monday the 21st day of April 2025, by the following vote, to wit:
AYES: Councilmembers:
NOES: Councilmembers:
ABSENT: Councilmembers:
Lindsay Lara, City Clerk