2. DPP Section 2.3.050 (Bicycle Parking). Waiver of requirement to provide a minimum of 271 bicycle parking spaces, authorizing a reduced total quantity of 60 onsite bicycle parking space.
3. SRMC Section 14.18.100.A & B (Parking Space Dimensions). Waiver of minimum dimensional standards for parking spaces to allow for the use of a mechanized parking system on floors 3 through 5.
4. SRMC Section 14.18.130.A (Parking Facility Dimensions and Design). Waiver of minimum dimensions for parking lot layout and drive aisle width in vehicle parking areas managed by the mechanized parking system on floors 3 through 5, to allow for the use of a spacesaving mechanized parking system.
5. DPP Section 2.3.050(H) (Parking). Waiver of the parking controls established in DPP Section 2.3.050(H). The Project requires 170 parking spaces for the residential component and 11 for the commercial component (total of 181). The project proposes to provide 226 spaces accessed via a mechanical lift system, plus 5 conventional spaces. Because the applicant is proposing a mechanical parking system, the requested waiver is also from the drive aisle width requirements. The applicant states that providing additional parking spaces and compliant drive aisle widths and parking space dimensions as required by DPP Section 2.3.050(H) would require dedicating substantially more floor area to parking, which would result in a loss of residential space within the building. Accordingly, the parking requirements established in DPP Section 2.3.050(H) would physically preclude the Project from being constructed at the proposed density.
6. DPP Section 2.3.050 (Building Form and Maximum Envelope – Overall Building Height).
Waiver of 50-foot height limit in T5N 50/70 to allow an overall roof height of 180 feet (excluding parapet) that accommodates the 100 percent bonus density allowed by the state.
7. DPP Section 2.3.050 (Building Form and Maximum Envelope – Stepbacks). Waiver of 10- foot minimum stepback requirement on the front, side street and rear facades at heights 45-feet and above, to allow for a vertical façade without stepbacks.
8. DPP Section 3.3.010 (Frontage Standards). Waiver of the requirement for the side street façade (e.g. Irwin St.) to provide at least one eligible DPP frontage-type on the façade, to allow for a façade type not specified in DPP Section 2.3.050, Table F or Table 3.3.020.B.
The City has determined that enforcement of these affordable housing ordinance policies and general development standards would preclude the Project from achieving the proposed density by requiring removal of proposed units in order to comply with the development standards.
Therefore, the City Council approves the requested concessions and waivers.
C. The project design minimizes adverse environmental impacts:
As proposed and conditioned, the Project complies with all applicable objective regulations intended to minimize adverse environmental impacts.
The Project is required to comply with CalGreen and 2025 California Energy Code standards through the building permit process. Energy efficient rooftop solar panels are currently proposed.
As an area of existing urban development, the site can be adequately served by all required utilities and public services. As discussed in the 2040 General Plan EIR, there are adequate public utilities and services to serve development in the Downtown Precise Plan area.
The property has a current water service connection provided by the Marin Municipal Water District (MMWD), which will continue after meeting the requirement to purchase additional water entitlement. MMWD has issued a will-serve letter and determined there will be sufficient water supply for the Project. Wastewater service will be provided by the San Rafael Sanitation District.
The San Rafael Sanitary District has reviewed the Project and determined that as conditioned, the wastewater demand will not exceed the permitted capacity. Project has been reviewed by city agencies and is required to comply with all agency regulations.
D. The project design will not be detrimental to the public health, safety or welfare, nor materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity.
The Project’s design, together with conditions of approval, will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare, nor materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity of the Project. The Project has been reviewed by the City of San Rafael Fire Department, Department of Public Works, Building Department, the Marin Sanitation District, the San Rafael Sanitation District and MMWD and none have identified any evidence to the contrary. The project will be built in accordance with the applicable California Building Code, which will further ensure that the Project’s design will not be detrimental to the public health, safety or welfare, nor materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity.
SECTION 2. CEQA and ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
The City Council makes the following findings, based on its independent judgment after considering the Project, and having reviewed and taken into consideration all written and oral information submitted in this matter, including the CEQA Exemption Memo prepared by Rincon Consultants, Inc:
A. The Project is exempt from environmental review under Public Resource Code Section 21080.66(a) because it satisfies the criteria specified therein:
PRC § 21080.66 Criteria Proposed Project
Project Details
(a)(1) Project site meets either of the following criteria: ☒ (a)(1)(A) Is not greater than 20 acres. Consistent. The Project Site is
0.58 acres.
(a)(1)(B) If a builder’s remedy project is proposed, the project site or parcel size is not more than 4
acres.
(a)(2) Project site meets either of the following criteria: ☒ (a)(2)(A) Is located within the boundaries of an
incorporated municipality
Consistent. The Project Site is
located within the City of San
Rafael, which is an incorporated
City.
(a)(2)(B) Is located within an urban area, as defined by the United States Census Bureau.
(a)(3) Project site meets any of the following criteria: ☒ (a)(3)(A) Has been previously developed with an urban
use.
Consistent. “Urban use” means
any current or previous residential
or commercial development,
public institution, or public park
that is surrounded by other urban
uses, parking lot or structure,
transit or transportation passenger
facility, or retail use, or any
combination of those uses. (PRC
§ 21080.66(g)(3).) The Project
Site is currently developed with a
4-story commercial building, which
is an urban use.
(a)(3)(B) At least 75 percent of the perimeter of the site adjoins parcels that are developed with urban
uses.
(a)(3)(C) At least 75 percent of the area within a onequarter mile radius of the site is developed with urban uses.
(a)(3)(D) For sites with four sides, at least three out of four sides are developed with urban uses and
at least two-thirds of the perimeter of the site
adjoins parcels that are developed with urban
uses.
(a)(4)(A) The project is consistent with the applicable general plan and zoning ordinance, as well as any applicable
local coastal program.
☒
Consistent. As detailed in Section
1 of this Resolution and Exhibit 1
[General Plan and Zoning
Consistency analysis],
the Project, if the City Council
were to approve the requested
SDBL concessions and waiver,
the Project would be consistent
with General Plan 2040 and the
City’s zoning ordinance.
There is no applicable local
coastal program.
(a)(5) The project will be at least one-half of the applicable density specified in subparagraph (B) of paragraph (3)
of subdivision (c) of Section 65583.2 of the
Government Code.
☒
Consistent. For San Rafael, which
is a suburban jurisdiction, the
applicable density specified in
Government Code Section
65583.2(c)(3)(B) is 20 dwelling
units per acre. Half of that density
is 10 dwelling units per acre. With
200 units proposed on the 0.58-
acre Project Site, the Project’s
density is 385 dwelling units per
acre, which is greater than 10.
(a)(7) The project does not require the demolition of a historic structure that was placed on a national, state, or local historic register before the date a preliminary application was submitted for the project pursuant to
Section 65941.1 of the Government Code.
☒
Consistent. The Project Site
contains an existing 4-story office
building that is not listed on a
national, state or local historic
register.
(a)(8) For a project that was deemed complete on or after January 1, 2025, no portion of the project is
designated for use as a hotel, motel, bed and
breakfast inn, or other transient lodging.
☒
Consistent. The Project
application was deemed complete
on July 14, 2025. No portion of the
project is designated for use as a
hotel, motel, bed and breakfast
inn, or other transient lodging.
Additional Site Details
(a)(6) The project satisfies all the requirements specified in paragraph (6) of subdivision (a) of Section 65913.4 of
the Government Code:
(a)(6)(A) Not located in any of the following coastal zone areas:
1) An area between the sea and the first public
road paralleling the sea or within 300 feet of
the inland extent of any beach or of the mean
high tideline of the sea where there is no
beach, whichever is the greater distance; or
2) Tidelands, submerged lands, public trust
lands, within 100 feet of any wetland, estuary,
☒
Consistent. The Project is not
located within the California
coastal zone area boundary.
or stream, or within 300 feet of the top of the
seaward face of any coastal bluff.
3) An area of the coastal zone that is not subject
to a certified local coastal program or a
certified land use plan.
4) An area of the coastal zone that is vulnerable
to five feet of sea level rise, as determined by
the National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration, the Ocean Protection Council,
the United States Geological Survey, the
University of California, or a local
government's coastal hazards vulnerability
assessment.
5) On a parcel within the coastal zone that is not
zoned for multifamily housing.
6) On a parcel in the coastal zone and located on
or within a 100-foot radius of a wetland, as
defined in Section 30121 of the Public
Resources Code, or on prime agricultural land,
as defined in Sections 30113 and 30241 of the
Public Resources Code.
(a)(6)(B) Not located on prime farmland or farmland of
statewide importance.
☒
Consistent. The Project is located
in an urban area on a site that is
already developed and does not
contain farmland of any type.
(a)(6)(C) Not located on wetlands, as defined in the United States Fish and Wildlife Service Manual.
☒
Consistent. Although the San
Rafael Creek adjacent to the
Project Site is considered an
estuarine and marine deepwater
water body in the wetland layer for
MarinMap Viewer, the Project Site
itself does not contain any
wetlands, as defined in the United
States Fish and Wildlife Service
Manual.
(a)(6)(D) Not located within a very high fire hazard severity zone or within the state responsibility area, unless the site has adopted specified fire hazard mitigation
measures.
☒
Consistent. The Project is not
located within a very high fire
hazard severity zone or within the
state responsibility area. Based on
the CalFire Fire Hazard Severity
Zone online mapping tool, the
State Fire Marshall identified the
Project Site as outside of any Fire
Hazard Severity Zone.
(a)(6)(E) Not located on hazardous waste site that is listed pursuant to Section 65962.5 or a hazardous waste
site designated by the Department of Toxic
Substances Control pursuant to Section 25356 of the
Health and Safety Code, unless either of the following
apply:
1) The site is an underground storage tank site
that received a uniform closure letter based on
closure criteria established by the State Water
Resources Control Board for residential use or
residential mixed uses.
2) The State Department of Public Health, State
Water Resources Control Board, Department
of Toxic Substances Control, or a local agency
making a determination pursuant
to subdivision (c) of Section 25296.10 of the
Health and Safety Code, has otherwise
determined that the site is suitable for
residential use or residential mixed uses.
☒
Consistent. The site is not listed
by the Department of Toxic
Substances Control on the
Cortese list or any other list of
hazardous waste sites.
(a)(6)(F) Not located within a delineated earthquake fault zone as determined by the State Geologist in any official
maps published by the State Geologist, unless the
development complies with applicable seismic
protection building code standards adopted by the
California Building Standards Commission under the
California Building Standards Law, and by any local
building department.
☒
Consistent. The Project Site is not
mapped within an earthquake fault
zone, based on any official maps
published by the State Geologist.
(a)(6)(G) Not located within a special flood hazard area subject to inundation by the 1 percent annual chance flood
(100-year flood) as determined by the Federal
Emergency Management Agency in any official maps
published by the Federal Emergency Management
Agency, unless either of the following apply:
1) The site has been subject to a Letter of Map
Revision prepared by the Federal Emergency
Management Agency and issued to the local
jurisdiction.
2) The site meets Federal Emergency
Management Agency requirements necessary
to meet minimum flood plain management
criteria of the National Flood Insurance
Program.
☒
Consistent. The FEMA Flood
Insurance Rate Map identifies a
portion of the Project Site as
within Zone AE of the Special
Flood Hazard Area, which is
subject to inundation by the 1
percent annual chance flood.
However, the Project is
conditioned such that the Project
Site will include floodproofing that
meets FEMA requirements
necessary to meet minimum flood
plain management criteria of the
National Flood Insurance
Program.
(a)(6)(H) Not located within a regulatory floodway as
determined by the Federal Emergency Management
Agency in any official maps published by the Federal
Emergency Management Agency, unless the
development has received a no-rise certification.
☒
Consistent. FEMA’s National
Flood Hazard Layer (NFHL)
Viewer does not map a Regulatory
Floodway on the Project Site.
(a)(6)(I) Not located on lands identified for conservation in an adopted natural community conservation plan
pursuant to the Natural Community Conservation
Planning Act, habitat conservation plan pursuant to
the federal Endangered Species Act of 1973, or other
adopted natural resource protection plan.
☒
Consistent. The Project Site is
located in a fully developed
downtown area and is not located
on lands identified for
conservation in any adopted
community conservation plan,
habitat conservation plan, or other
adopted natural resource
protection plan.
(a)(6)(J) Not located within a habitat for protected species identified as candidate, sensitive, or species of
special status by state or federal agencies, fully
protected species, or species protected by the federal
Endangered Species Act of 1973, the California
Endangered Species Act, or the Native Plant
Protection Act.
☒
Consistent. Figure 6-3, Special
Status Species, of General Plan
2040’s Conservation and Climate
Change Element identifies
western bumble bee occurrences
in areas of the Downtown Precise
Plan. The General Plan EIR also
identifies Marin western flax plant
species in such area. However,
due to the developed and
disturbed nature of the Project
Site, as well as the minimal
vegetation on the Project Site, the
Project Site does not contain
habitat for protected species.
Likewise, the USFWS Critical
Habitat Map Viewer does not list
the Project site as habitat for
protected species.
(a)(6)(K) Not located on lands under conservation easement. ☒ Consistent. The Project Site is not
subject to any conservation
easement.
B. The City carried out all procedures required by Public Resources Code Section 21080.66(b):
• On July 17, 2025, Applicant notified the City that the Project is exempt from CEQA under PRC Section 21080.66.
• In accordance with PRC Section 21080.66(b)(1)(A)(ii), the City timely provided formal notification via certified mail and email to each California Native American tribe that is traditionally and culturally affiliated with the project site as an invitation to consult on the proposed project, its location, and the project's potential effects on tribal cultural resources on the following dates: July 21, 2025 for the Federated Indians of Graton Rancheria (“FIGR”); July 24, 2025 for the Guideville Rancheria of California. The notification included (i) detailed project information to help inform the consultation, including site maps, proposed project scope, and any known cultural resource studies; (ii) contact information for the local government; (iii) contact information for the project proponent; and (iv) notice that the California Native American tribe had 60 days to request consultation with the City pursuant to PRC Section 21080.66(b).
• In accordance with PRC Section 21080.66(b)(2)(A), on September 18, 2025, the Federated Indians of Graton Rancheria timely accepted the City’s invitation to consult. • In accordance with PRC Section 21080.66(b)(3)(A), on September 26, 2025, the City timely initiated the consultation.
• In accordance with PRC Section 21080.66(b)(3)(B), during the consultation, the City acted in good faith to identify whether a tribal cultural resource could be affected by the proposed Project and gave deference to the tribal information, tribal knowledge and customs, and the significance of the resource to FIGR.
• In accordance with PRC Section 21080.66(b)(3)(D), the consultation sought to find measures that would avoid significant impacts to a tribal cultural resource. • In accordance with PRC Section 21080.66(b)(3)(E), the City documented the results of the consultation.
• In accordance with PRC Section 21080.66(b)(3)(F), on November 17, 2025, FIGR requested a one-time 15-day extension of the consultation. • In accordance with PRC Section 21080.66(b)(3)(F), consultation concluded on November 25, 2025.
• In accordance with PRC Section 21080.66(b)(4), if the City Council approves the Project, the City will include, as binding conditions of approval, all of the following:
• Any enforceable agreements reached during the project consultation • All of the following measures:
• Tribal monitoring during all ground-disturbing activities, with the monitor designated by FIGR and compensated at a reasonable rate, determined in good faith, that aligns with customary compensation for cultural resource monitoring, taking into account factors such as the scope and duration of the project. • Tribal cultural resources shall be avoided where feasible, in accordance with subdivision (a) of Section 21084.3. In furtherance of this requirement, where feasible, the Applicant shall provide deference to tribal preferences regarding access to spiritual, ceremonial, and burial sites, and incorporate tribal traditional knowledge in the protection and sustainable use of tribal cultural resources and landscapes.
• All treatment and documentation of tribal cultural resources shall be conducted in a culturally appropriate manner, consistent with Section 21083.9. • A California Historical Resources Information System archaeological records search and a tribal cultural records search shall be completed for the project site. • A Sacred Lands Inventory request shall be submitted to the Native American Heritage Commission.
• The project shall comply with Section 7050.5 of the Health and Safety Code and Section 5097.98, including immediate work stoppage upon discovery of human remains or burial grounds, and treatment in accordance with applicable law and in consultation with the affected California Native American tribe. • An application of tribal ecological knowledge into habitat restoration efforts undertaken by the project as applicable to the specific environmental context and conditions of the project.
C. The City will impose conditions of approval to ensure compliance with Public Resources Code Section 21080.66(c)-(d):
• In accordance with PRC Section 21080.66(c)(1), Condition of Approval #122 requires the Applicant to complete a phase I environmental assessment, as defined in Section 78090 of the Health and Safety Code. Condition of Approval #122 also requires (i) if a recognized environmental condition is found, the Applicant shall complete a preliminary endangerment assessment, as defined in Section 78095 of the Health and Safety Code, prepared by an environmental assessor to determine the existence of any release of a hazardous substance on the site and to determine the potential for exposure of future occupants to significant health hazards from any nearby property or activity; (ii) if a release of a hazardous substance is found to exist on the site, the release shall be removed or any effects of the release shall be mitigated to levels required by current federal and state statutory and regulatory standards before the local government issues a certificate of occupancy; and (iii) if a potential for exposure to significant hazards from surrounding properties or activities is found to exist, the effects of the potential exposure shall be mitigated to levels required by current federal and state statutory and regulatory standards before the local government issues a certificate of occupancy. • In accordance with PRC Section 21080.66(c)(2), because the Project is located within 500 feet of the 101 Freeway, Condition of Approval #123 requires that (i) the building shall have a centralized heating, ventilation, and air-conditioning system; and (ii) the outdoor air intakes for the heating, ventilation, and air-conditioning system shall face away from the freeway; and (iii) the building shall provide air filtration media for outside and return air that provides a minimum efficiency reporting value of 16; and (iv) the air filtration media shall be replaced at the manufacturer's designated interval; and (v) the building shall not have any balconies facing the freeway.
• In accordance with PRC Section 21080.66(d)(2) and (d)(4), because the Project is over 85 feet in height above grade Condition of Approval #124 requires Applicant to comply with the labor standards of paragraph (8) of subdivision (a) of Section 65913.4 of the Government Code and notes that Section 218.8 of the Labor Code shall extend to Applicant in addition to the direct contractor or subcontractor.
SECTION 3. SEVERABILITY
If any term, provision, or portion of these findings or the application of these findings to a particular situation is held by a court to be invalid, void or unenforceable, the remaining provisions of these findings, or their application to other actions related to the Project, shall continue in full force and effect unless amended or modified by the City.
SECTION 4. CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
GENERAL TERMS AND STANDARD CONDITIONS
The following are general terms and standard conditions that apply to each severable entitlement of the 700 Irwin Mixed Use Project, hereby the “Project”: Environmental and Design Review Permit (ED25-031).
1. For purposes of these Conditions of Approvals, the following terms shall have the following meanings:
“Director” shall mean the Director of the Community and Economic Development Department “First building permit” shall mean the first permit required for any earth-disturbing activities, including, permits for grading, excavation, shoring, utilities, demolition, site preparation, or any other permits required for earth-disturbing activities including any permit required for construction related activities on a structure including permits for building, foundation, or superstructure.
“Building permit” shall mean any permit required for any earth-disturbing activities, including, permits for grading, excavation, shoring, utilities, demolition, site preparation, or any other permits required for earth-disturbing activities, including any permit required for construction related activities on a structure including permits for building, foundation, or superstructure. “Site development permit” shall mean any permit required for earth-disturbing activities, including, permits for grading, excavation, shoring, utilities, demolition, site preparation, or any other permits required for earth-disturbing activities, but excluding building permits. “Applicant” shall mean 700 Irwin Street Partners, LLC and/or any successor in interest. “Property Owner(s)” shall mean 700 Irwin Street Partners, LLC and/or any successor in interest. “Project” shall mean the 700 Irwin Residential Project as approved by the City Council of the City of San Rafael. The Project includes 201,700 gross square feet of mixed use development in one 180-foot tall building, including 200 dwelling units and 5,000 square feet of commercial space. The mix of dwelling units is comprised of 41 studio, 96 one-bedroom, 55 two-bedroom, and 8 three-bedroom units. The project includes 30 deed restricted below market rate units.
Fifteen are specified for very-low income households (50% AMI) and fifteen for moderateincome households (120% AMI). A combination of mechanical (221) and non-mechanical (5) vehicle parking spaces provide 226 stalls.
“Project Site” shall mean the approximately 25,550 square foot property comprised of APN 014- 132-18 as represented on the existing conditions Sheet C1.01 of the approved plan set and included in the plan set received June 17, 2025.
2. Development of the Project. Development of the Project, defined as the project plans and supporting documents attached to the January 13, 2026 Planning Commission staff report (hereinafter the “Plans”), shall be in conformance with the plans received by the City on April 10, 2025, June 11, 2025, June 17, 2025, October 24, 2025, and December 23, 2025 (“the Plans”).
The Plans are incorporated by reference herein. The Plans may only be modified by the conditions contained herein, subject to review and approval of the Community and Economic Development Director or their designee. Any deviation from the Plans shall require be subject to the modification procedures outlined in SRMC 14.25.040.
3. Fees, Dedication Requirements, Reservation Requirements and Other Exactions. The conditions of Project approval set forth herein include certain fees, dedication requirements, reservation requirements and other exactions. Pursuant to Government Code Section 66020(d)(1), these conditions constitute written notice of the statement of the amount of such fees and a description of the dedications, reservation, and other exactions. You are hereby notified that the 90-day period in which you may protest those fees, the amount of which has been identified herein, dedications, reservations, and other exactions required in connection with the instant approvals has begun. If you fail to file a protest complying with all the requirements of Section 66020, you will be legally barred from later challenging such exaction.
4. Right to Audit of the City’s Development Impact Fees. In accordance with Government Code Section 66006(e), the Applicant is hereby notified of the right to file with the City Clerk:
(a) a request for an audit of the City’s development impact fees in accordance with Government Code Section 66023; and (b) a written request for mailed notices of the City’s public meetings to review annual reports of development impact fees under Government Code Section 660066(b)(1). 4. At the times (e.g., building permit) provided for in the City’s fee ordinances, the applicant shall pay all applicable City Development Impact fees.
5. All Third Party Fees Shall be Paid. Prior to issuance of any/each building permit, the applicant shall verify for the City that it has paid all third party-outside agency fees applicable to such portion of the Project, including but not limited to any school fees, water capacity fees, and sewer capacity fees. Unless a condition includes a different time for payment, the applicant shall pay all applicable City fees prior to the issuance of each building permit.
6. Conditions of Approval Shall be Printed. All Conditions of Approval shall be printed on the second sheet of each plan set submitted for a building permit. Additional sheets may also be used if the second sheet is not of sufficient size to list all of the conditions. The sheet(s) containing the conditions shall be of the same size as those sheets containing the construction drawings; 8-1/2” by 11” sheets are not acceptable.
7. Applicant Responsible for Conditions of Approval. Applicant is responsible for conditions of approval. The Applicant shall ensure compliance with all conditions of approval, including submittal to the Project Planner of required approval signatures at the times specified. Failure to comply with any condition may result in construction being stopped, issuance of a citation, and/or revocation or modification of any permits issued for the Project, or other remedies.
8. This Permit authorizes only the proposed Project described in the application. In no way does approval authorize other uses, structures or activities not included in the Project description. When the City approves a new use that replaces an existing use, any prior approval of the existing use becomes null and void when permits for the new use are exercised (e.g., building permit or business license issued). To reestablish the previously existing use, an applicant must obtain all permits required by the Zoning Ordinance for the use.
9. All Plans and Information Become Conditions. All information and representations, whether oral or written, including the building techniques, colors, materials, elevations, and overall appearance of the project, as presented at the Planning Commission meeting dated January 13, 2026, and the City Council meeting February 17, 2026, and as presented in the Project plans as outlined below shall be the same as required for the issuance of a building permit, except as modified by these conditions of approval. Minor modifications or revisions to the project shall be subject to review and approval by the Director. Modifications deemed not minor by the Director may require review and approval as an amendment to the approved project entitlements including the Environmental and Design Review Permit (PLAN25-046, ED25-031), as applicable.
10. Regulation Compliance. Approved use and/or construction is subject to, and shall comply with, all applicable City Ordinances and laws and regulations of other governmental agencies.
Compliance with the Zoning Ordinance does not relieve an applicant from requirements to comply with other federal, state, and City regulations that also apply to the property. Prior to any construction, tenant improvement or installation of signage, the applicant shall identify and secure all applicable permits from all federal, state, and City departments.
11. Construction Hours (Ongoing throughout demolition, grading, and/or construction).
Consistent with the City of San Rafael Municipal Code Section 8.13.050.A, construction hours on private property shall be limited to 7:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. Monday through Friday and 9:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. on Saturdays. Construction shall not be permitted on Sundays or Cityobserved holidays. Construction activities shall include delivery of materials, hauling materials off-site; startup of construction equipment engines, arrival of construction workers, playing of radios and other noises caused by equipment and/or construction workers arriving at, or working on, the site.
12. Construction Noise (Ongoing throughout demolition, grading, and/or construction). During construction, the Project shall:
a. Properly muffle and maintain all construction equipment powered by internal combustion engines.
b. Prohibit unnecessary idling of combustion engines.
c. Locate all stationary noise-generating construction equipment such as air compressors as far as practical from existing nearby residences and other noisesensitive land uses. Such equipment shall also be acoustically shielded. d. Select quiet construction equipment, particularly air compressors, whenever possible.
Fit motorized equipment with proper mufflers in good working order. e. The Applicant shall designate a “Project Liaison” responsible for responding to any local complaints about construction noise. This person shall determine the cause of any noise complaint (e.g., starting too early, bad muffler, etc.) and shall require that reasonable measures be implemented to correct the problem. A telephone number for the Project Liaison shall be posted at the construction site.
f. Erect temporary noise barriers to limit construction noise to no more than 90 dBA Lmax at residences. Temporary noise barriers shall be constructed with solid materials (e.g., wood) with a density of at least 1.5 pounds per square foot with no gaps from the ground to the top of the barrier at a minimum height of 12 feet along the southern and eastern project boundaries. If a sound blanket is used, barriers shall be constructed with solid material with a density of at least one pound per square foot with no gaps from the ground to the top of the barrier and be lined on the construction side with acoustical blanket, curtain or equivalent absorptive material rated sound transmission class (STC) 32 or higher.
13. Construction Vibration (Ongoing throughout demolition, grading, and/or construction).
During construction, the project shall:
a. Avoid the use of large earthmoving equipment (greater than 100 hp) within 15 feet of residential buildings and within 12 feet of commercial buildings, as this is the distance where these buildings are susceptible to damage from vibration from this equipment. b. Schedule construction activities with the highest potential to produce vibration to hours with the least potential to affect nearby institutional, educational, and office uses that the Federal Transit Administration identifies as sensitive to daytime vibration (FTA 2006). c. Notify neighbors of scheduled construction activities that would generate vibration. d. Select quiet construction equipment, particularly air compressors, whenever possible. Fit motorized equipment with proper mufflers in good working order. e. Residences adjacent to the project site shall be notified in advance by writing of the proposed construction schedule before construction activities commence. f. The Applicant shall designate a “Project Liaison” responsible for responding to any local complaints about construction noise. The disturbance coordinator shall determine the cause of any vibration complaint (e.g., starting too early, bad muffler, etc.) and shall require that reasonable measures be implemented to correct the problem. A telephone number for the Project Liaison shall be posted at the construction site.
14. Construction Noise and Vibration Management- Public Notice Required. At least two weeks prior to initiating any construction activities at the site, the Applicant shall provide notice to businesses and residents within 500 feet of the project site. This notice shall at a minimum provide the following: (1) project description, (2) description of construction activities during extended work hours and reason for extended hours, (3) daily construction schedule (i.e., time of day) and expected duration (number of months), (4) the name and phone number of the Project Liaison for the project that is responsible for responding to any local complaints, and (5) that construction work is about to commence. The Project Liaison would determine the cause of all construction-related complaints (e.g., starting too early, bad muffler, worker parking, etc.) and institute reasonable measures to correct the problem. A copy of such notice and methodology for distributing the notice shall be provided in advance to the Planning Manager for review and approval.
15. Encroachment Permit (Ongoing throughout demolition, grading, and/or construction). Any construction work, including on-street traffic control, is subject to review and approval through the Department of Public Works Encroachment Permit process. Truck routes are submitted to review and approval through Department of Public Work’s Transportation Permit process and shall comply with City of San Rafael Municipal Code Chapter 5.52.
16. Construction Management Plan. The applicant shall submit a Construction Management Plan (CMP) for review and approval by the Director of Community and Economic Development Department and Director of Public Works prior to issuance of building or grading permit. The construction management plan shall address at a minimum, the following:
a. Acknowledgement that all materials and equipment shall be staged on-site, unless otherwise approved in writing by the Chief Building Official. b. Contact information (phone number and email) for contractor, property owner project liaison shall be posted on site in an all-weather sign that is visible to the public right of way. c. Another all-weather sign shall be posted at all entrances to the construction site to inform all contractors and subcontractors of the requirements of the City’s Noise Ordinance in accordance with SRMC 8.13.050.
d. Traffic Control Plan to address on-site and off-site construction traffic. This plan shall include:
i. Any alterations, closures, or blockages to sidewalks, pedestrian paths or vehicle travel lanes (including bicycle lanes);
ii. Storage of building materials, equipment, dumpsters, debris anywhere in the public Right of Way;
iii. Hauling route for trucks used for the construction of project.
The TCP shall be stamped and signed by a registered engineer prior to submittal. The TCP shall be consistent with any other requirements of the construction phase. A current copy of this Plan shall be available at all times at the construction site for review by City Staff. e. Designate location of construction worker parking on-site or in another off-street location provided by the applicant. Construction workers may not park on-street in the downtown area or adjacent residential neighborhoods.
f. A screened security fence approved by the Director of Community and Economic Development Department shall be placed and maintained around the perimeter of the project and removed immediately following construction work. g. Proposed construction phasing, schedule of work, and approximate timeline of project. h. In the event that the CMP is conflicting with any conditions imposed by the grading permit for the project, the more restrictive language or conditions shall prevail. The applicant shall be responsible for addressing any unanticipated construction impacts to the neighborhood and surrounding residents to the reasonable satisfaction of the Director of Community and Economic Development Department.
i. Mass grading shall occur between April 15 through October 15, unless otherwise approved in writing by the Department of Public Works.
j. Acknowledgement that the applicant shall be required to repair any roadway damage created by the additional construction truck traffic.
k. Acknowledgement that that the location of construction trailers shall be on-site, unless otherwise approved by the Chief Building Official.
l. Location of construction staging and material storage related to the project. m.Environmental and safety measures:
i. Construction safety fences around the construction area. ii. Dust control and air pollution control measures.
iii. Erosion and sedimentation control measures.
iv. Tree protection fencing.
v. Construction vehicle parking
17. Pre-Construction Meeting. Prior to issuance of the first building permit for each construction area (e.g., on-site parcel(s) or building site(s), or off-site improvement construction area), a preconstruction meeting shall be held, including representatives from the Applicant and the City to review the CMP and including applicable conditions of approval. The general contractor or Applicant shall ensure that all subcontractors involved in subsequent phases of construction aware of the conditions of approval.
18. Applicant to Hold City of San Rafael Harmless. Applicant or permittee shall defend, indemnify, and hold harmless the City of San Rafael or its elected and appointed officials, agents, officers, and employees from any claim, action, or proceeding brought by a third party against the City of San Rafael or its elected and appointed officials, agents, officers, or employees (1) to attack, set aside, void, or annul an approval of the Planning Commission, the City Council, the Director, or any other department, committee, or agency of the City concerning the Project, development of the Project and any development, variance, permit or land use approvals associated with the Project or (2) related to a violation of any condition of approval.
19. Conditions of Approval Validity. If any term, provision, or portion of these conditions or the application of these conditions to a particular situation is held by a court to be invalid, void or unenforceable, the remaining provisions of these conditions, or their application to other actions related to the Project, shall continue in full force and effect unless amended or modified by the City.
ENVIRONMENTAL AND DESIGN REVIEW CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL (ED25-031)
PLANNING DIVISION
20. Encroachment over San Rafael Canal; Optional Project Plans. This Environmental and Design Review Permit (ED25-031) approves demolition and construction activities associated with the Project. The Project will utilize the State Density Bonus Law to achieve the proposed height and density and is statutorily exempt from CEQA pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21080.66. As proposed, the Project design includes a cantilevered exterior boardwalk that extends over the San Rafael Canal, as well as portions of building area that are cantilevered over the San Rafael Canal. Prior to the issuance of the First Building Permit, Applicant shall obtain all approvals from any local, state, or federal agency that are necessary to construct the Project beyond the canal-side property line encroaching into and/or over the San Rafael Canal.
If the applicant does not obtain such approvals, the Project shall be modified such that no portion of the Project is constructed over the canal-side property line. Minor modifications or revisions to the Project shall be subject to review and approval by the Community and Economic Development Department, Planning Division. Modifications deemed greater than minor in nature by the Community and Economic Development Director shall require review and approval by the Planning Commission per SRMC 14.25.040.
21. Average Unit Size. In accordance with Government Code Section 65915(o)(6)(B), Applicant shall ensure that the average unit size of the base project is the same as the average unit size of the proposed project. Plans submitted for building permit shall be in substantial conformance to the plans received on December 23, 2025 with regard to building techniques, materials, elevations, and overall project appearance except as modified by these conditions of approval.
22. Permit Validity. This Permit shall become effective on January 20, 2026 and shall be valid for a period of two (2) years from the date of final approval, or January 20, 2028 unless a building permit has been issued and construction diligently pursued, a Certificate of Occupancy has been issued or a time extension has been applied for pursuant to San Rafael Municipal Code section 14.25.200 prior to the expiration date.
23. Mechanical Equipment. Plans shall demonstrate compliance with regulations set forth in San Rafael Municipal Code (SRMC) Section 14.16.320, requiring a minimum setback of five feet from the property line for all mechanical equipment.
24. Exterior Lighting. All exterior lighting shall be energy efficient where feasible; and shielded and directed downward and away from property lines to conceal light sources from view off-site and avoid spillover onto adjacent properties pursuant to SRMC §14.16.227. The Project shall be subject to a 90-day post installation lighting inspection to evaluate the need for adjustment and assure compliance with SRMC Section 14.16.227.
25. Landscape Maintenance. Per SRMC 14.25.040, all landscaping shall be maintained in good condition and any dead or dying plants, bushes, trees, or groundcover plantings shall be replaced with new healthy stock of a size appropriate and compatible with the remainder of the growth at the time of replacement.
26. Landscape and Irrigation Plan Approval. Prior to issuance of the first certificate of occupancy for the Project, a licensed landscape architect shall submit a letter to the Director of Community and Economic Development certifying that the landscape plan is in compliance with Water Efficient Landscape requirements and the Water Efficient Landscape requirements of San Rafael Municipal Code Section 14.16.370 and MMWD Ordinance No. 414 (including amendments), as applicable.
27. Tree Replacement Plan. Consistent with Program C-1.17B: Tree Management Plan of the General Plan, the applicant shall prepare a tree replacement plan to retain and/or replace all trees removed during construction and replanting. The Plan shall be prepared by a licensed arborist using published standards and practices for protecting and monitoring tree health during and after construction. The plan shall be subject to review and approval by the Community and Economic Development Director.
Any trees approved for removal shall be replaced at a minimum ratio of 2:1 (24-inch box size) with a 2-inch caliper trunk and shall include root barriers and/or at-grade screens. The plan shall identify:
a. Trees proposed for removal the project, including species and size b. Proposed replacement trees, including species and size and planting measures Replacement trees shall be planted under the supervision of a certified arborist and all planting measures recommended by the tree replacement plan shall be implemented. Prior to occupancy, the applicant shall submit verification from the certified arborist that the tree replacement plan was implemented according to the specifications required by the tree replacement plan.
28. Affordable Housing. The Applicant has proposed to provide required thirty (30) residential units as affordable housing within the Project (15 “Very Low Income Units” rented to households earning no more than 50% of the Area Median Income for Marin County and 15 “Moderate Income Units” rented to households earning no more than 120% of the Area Median Income for Marin County) in order to qualify for benefits under the State Density Bonus Law. The Project shall include such affordable units as proposed. As a result, the Project also provides the requisite amount of affordable housing units prescribed in Section 14.16.030 of the San Rafael Zoning Ordinance, City Council Resolution 14890, and City Council Resolution 14891. a. Timing of Construction. Consistent with the City of San Rafael Guidelines for the Administration of the Affordable Housing Trust Fund, all affordable housing units shall be constructed prior to or concurrent with the construction of market rate housing units and the City shall not issue a final certificate of occupancy for the Project, or any certificate of occupancy for any of the market rate units, until the last certificate of occupancy for the affordable housing units has been issued. b. Affordable Housing Agreement. The City Council hereby finds that the attached Below Market Rate (“BMR”) Agreement is hereby required by the State Density Bonus Law to ensure that the Project’s proposed rental units are affordable for 15 moderate and 15 very low-income households for at least fifty-five years, regardless of Project/property ownership, and to ensure that such affordability covenants cannot be subordinated to senior interests or liens. The City Council also finds that the Project does not include a subdivision application to create condominiums nor is there any such application pending. Accordingly, the BMR Agreement also prohibits a filing of a condominium pay to ensure that the Project includes the proposed 30 rental units at affordability levels for 15 moderate and 15 very low-income households for at least fifty five years, and those households will not be displaced due to a condominium conversion. . Therefore, prior to issuance of the first building permit for the Project, the Below Market Rate (“BMR”) Agreement attached hereto as Exhibit 2 shall be executed and recorded in the records of the County of Marin. Prior to issuance of the first building permit, Applicant shall provide to City proof of such recordation. c. Maximum Rent. As set forth in the Affordable Housing Agreement (attached hereto as Exhibit 2), for each Very Low Income Unit, the maximum monthly rent shall be 1/12th of 30 percent of fifty (50) percent of the Area Median Income for Marin County, California, adjusted for family size appropriate for the unit and as otherwise adjusted and published from time to time by HCD in Section 6932 of Title 25 of the California Code of Regulations or successor provision. For each Moderate Income Unit, the maximum monthly rent shall be 1/12th of 30 percent of one hundred ten (110) percent of the Area Median Income for Marin County, California, adjusted for family size appropriate for the unit and as otherwise adjusted and published from time to time by HCD in Section 6932 of Title 25 of the California Code of Regulations or successor provision. Monthly rent means the total of monthly payments actually made by the household for (a) use and occupancy of each BMR Unit and land and facilities associated therewith, (b) any separately charged fees or service charges assessed by Owner which are required of all tenants, other than security deposits, (c) a reasonable allowance for an adequate level of service of utilities not included in (a) or (b) above, and which are not paid directly by Owner, including garbage collection, sewer, water, electricity, gas and other heating, cooking and refrigeration fuels, but not including telephone or internet service, which reasonable allowance for utilities is set forth in the County of Marin’s Utility Allowance Schedule for detached homes, apartments, condominiums and duplexes, and (d) possessory interest, taxes or other fees or charges assessed for use of the land and facilities associated therewith by a public or private entity other than Owner.
29. Incentives, Concessions and Waivers. Pursuant to State Density Bonus Laws, applicant has applied for and been granted waivers from the following development standards:
a. Waiver - DPP Section 2.3.050, Table E, Building Form and Maximum Envelope (Height Limit)
b. Waiver - DPP Section 2.3.050, Table E, Building Form and Maximum Envelope (Stepback Requirement)
c. Waiver - DPP, Section 2.3.050, Table H, Parking (Bicycle Parking) d. Waiver – SRMC Section14.18.090.E (Bicycle Parking Dimensions) e. Waiver - SRMC 14.18.100.A & B (Car Parking Dimensions) f. Waiver – SRMC Section14.18.130A (Parking Facility Dimensions and Design) g. Waiver – DPP Section 2.3.050(H) (Parking)
h. Waiver – DPP Section 3.3.010 (Frontage Standard)
Pursuant to State Density Bonus Laws, Applicant is entitled to three (3) incentives and concessions. Applicant has applied for and been granted concessions from the following development standards:
a. SRMC Section 14.16.030 and City Council Resolution 14890(C)(1) – Unit Size b. SRMC Section 14.16.030 and City Council Resolution 14890(C)(1) – Unit Type c. SRMC Section 14.16.030 and City Council Resolution 14890(C)(2) – Unit Amenities (Terraces)
No additional or different incentives, concessions and/or waivers than those listed above shall be issued for the Project without modification to these Conditions of Approval.
30. Outstanding Fees. Prior to Issuance of the First Building Permit for the Project, the Applicant shall pay all outstanding Planning Division application processing fees.
Development Impact Fees. Prior to Issuance of the First Building Permit for the Project, the applicant shall pay all applicable development impact fees required for this Project, including those fees mentioned herein and other fees required by ordinance.
31. Applicable Ordinances, Plans, Regulations, and Specifications. The Project shall adhere to all ordinances, plans, regulations and specifications of the City of San Rafael in effect on the date the Project applicant submitted a preliminary application containing all the information required by Government Code section 65941.1(a) and all applicable regional, State, and Federal laws and regulations.
32. City of San Rafael Department Compliance. Prior to first Building Permit issuance, the Applicant shall comply with all pre-building permit issuance requirements of the Department of Public Works, Community and Economic Development Department, Building Division and Planning Division, and Fire Department that are directly applicable to the project.
33. Outside Agency Compliance. Prior to first building permit issuance, the Applicant shall comply with all outside local, State and Federal agency regulations, including acquisition of all required permits, licenses and other such approvals, including but not limited to approvals from the Army Corps of Engineers, BCDC, San Rafael Sanitation District and Marin Municipal Water District (MMWD) and utility company regulations that are directly applicable to the Project. Prior to first building permit issuance, the Applicant shall file will-serve letters with the CED establishing that MMWD and San Rafael Sanitation District have capacity to serve the project as proposed. Prior to first certificate of occupancy, Applicant shall file proof of connection and service to MMWD and San Rafael Sanitation District utilities.
34. Project Progress and Completion. The Applicant shall diligently pursue the Project’s construction through to completion, and, if at any point after building permits have been issued, the Applicant abandons construction or the building permits expire, the Applicant shall demolish the uncompleted portions of the Project and restore the site to rough grade condition and shall take reasonable measures to protect public health and safety, protect the building structure from the elements, screen unsightly elements from view (such as fencing, painting or attractive screens or coverings), and maintain temporary landscaping, to the satisfaction of the Director of the Community and Economic Development Department.
35. Construction Site Maintenance. If the Applicant leaves any work of construction in an unfinished state for more than seven (7) consecutive days, the Applicant shall keep the construction site clean and properly secured per best management standards and to the satisfaction of the Chief Building Official.
36. Construction Site Safety. If the Applicant leaves any work of construction in an unfinished state for more than one hundred and twenty (120) consecutive days, the Applicant shall take reasonable measures to protect public health and safety, protect the building structure from the elements, screen unsightly elements from view (such as fencing, painting or attractive screens or coverings), and maintain temporary landscaping, to the satisfaction of the Director of the Community and Economic Development Department.
37. Façade Encroachments. SRMC 11.04.030.020(I) allows for encroachments into the public right-of-way without a permit or license in the case of “[a]wnings, signs, eaves or other minor architectural features of buildings extending no more than four feet (4') into the public right-of-way; provided that nothing herein shall authorize the placement of signs directly on any street or the right-of-way.” A permit may be required for construction activities.
BUILDING DIVISION
38. Building Code. The design and construction of all site alterations shall comply with the latest adopted Building Codes in effect at time of building permit submission. Currently the following codes are adopted: 2025 California Building Code (CBC), 2025 California Plumbing Code (CPC), 2025 California Electrical Code (CEC), 2025 California Mechanical Code CCMC), 2025 California Fire Code (CFC), 2025 California Energy Code, 2025 California Green Building Standards Code and City of San Rafael Ordinances and Amendments.
39. Building Plans. Building permits are required for the proposed work. Applications shall be accompanied by a complete set of construction drawings to include:
a. Architectural plans
b. Structural plans
c. Electrical plans
d. Plumbing plans
e. Mechanical plans
f. Site/civil plans (clearly identifying grade plane and height of the building) g. Structural Calculations
h. Truss Calculations
i. Soils reports
j. Green Building documentation
k. Title-24 energy documentation
40. Occupancy Details on Plans. The occupancy classification, construction type and square footage of each building shall be specified on the plans. In mixed occupancies, each portion of the building shall be individually classified.
41. Occupancy Calculations. The occupancy classification, construction type and square footage of each building shall be specified on the plans in addition to justification calculations for the allowable area of each building.
42. Mixed Occupancy Type. This building contains several different occupancy types.
Individual occupancies are categorized with different levels of hazard and may need to be separated from other occupancy types for safety reasons. Under mixed-occupancy conditions the project architect has available several design methodologies (accessory occupancies, nonseparated occupancies, and separated occupancies) to address the mixed-occupancy concerns.
43. Site/civil Plans. Shall be prepared by a California licensed surveyor or engineer clearly showing topography, identifying grade plane and height of the building.
44. Building Addressing. Each building must have address identification placed in a position that is plainly legible and visible from the street or road fronting the property. Numbers painted on the curb do not satisfy this requirement. In new construction and substantial remodels, the address must be internally or externally illuminated and remain illuminated at all hours of darkness. Numbers must be a minimum 4 inches in height with ½ inch stroke for residential occupancies and a minimum 6 inches in height with ½ inch stroke for commercial applications. The address must be contrasted in color to their background SMC 12.12.20. 11.
Any demolition of existing structures will require a permit. Submittal shall include three (3) copies of the site plan, asbestos certification and PG&E disconnect notices. Also, application must be made to the Bay Area Air Quality Management District prior to obtaining the permit and beginning work.
45. School Fees. School fees will be required for the project. Calculations are done by the San Rafael City Schools, and those fees are paid directly to them prior to issuance of the building permit.
46. Soils Report. Regarding any grading or site remediation, soils export, import and placement; provide a detailed soils report prepared by a qualified engineer to address these procedures. The report should address the import and placement and compaction of soils at future building pad locations and should be based on an assumed foundation design. This information should be provided to Building Division and Department of Public Works for review and comments prior to any such activities taking place. A grading permit may be required for the above-mentioned work.
47. Geotechnical and Civil Pad Certification. Prior to first building permit issuance for the construction of each building, geotechnical and civil pad certifications shall be submitted.
48. Accessibility. The proposed facility shall be designed to provide access to the physically disabled. For existing buildings and facilities to which alterations, structural repairs or additions are made, accessibility improvements for persons with disabilities shall be required unless a CASP report states the facilities are compliant. Improvements that shall be made include, but are not limited to, the following accessibility features:
a. Path of travel from public transportation point of arrival b. Routes of travel between buildings
c. Parking
d. Ramps
e. Primary entrances
f. Sanitary facilities (restrooms)
g. Drinking fountains & Public telephones (when provided) h. Accessible features per specific occupancy requirements i. Accessible special features, i.e., ATM's point of sale machines, etc.
Common sidewalks, parking areas, stairs, ramps, common facilities, etc. must comply with all applicable accessibility standards, including local, state, and federal standards.
Pedestrian walkways shall be at least 48 inches wide, unobstructed, and paved along all accessible routes. Items such as signs, meter pedestals, light standards, trash receptacles, etc., shall not encroach on this 48-inch minimum width. Sidewalk slopes and side slopes shall not exceed published maximums. Civil, grading and landscape plans shall address these requirements to the extent possible.
49. Parking Garage Vertical Clearance. The parking garage ceiling height shall have a minimum vertical clearance of 98 inches (8’-2”) as prescribed in CBC 11B-502.5 where required for accessible parking.
50. Multifamily Accessible Parking. Multifamily dwelling and apartment accessible parking spaces shall be provided at a minimum rate of 2 percent of the covered multifamily dwelling units. At least one space of each type of parking facility shall be made accessible even if the total number exceeds 2 percent.
51. Unassigned and Visitor Accessible Parking. When parking is provided for covered multifamily dwellings and is not assigned to a resident or a group of residents, at least 5 percent of the parking spaces shall be accessible and provide access to grade level entrances of covered multifamily dwellings and facilities (e.g. swimming pools, club houses, recreation areas and laundry rooms) that serve the dwellings per CBC 1109A.5. Accessible parking spaces shall be located on the shortest accessible route to an accessible building, or dwelling unit entrance.
52. Accessible Parking Spaces. Public accommodation disabled parking spaces must be provided according to CBC 11B-208.2 minimum number and must be uniformly distributed throughout the site. For the purposes of this section, electric vehicle charging stations are not parking spaces:
53. Accessible Van Parking. At least one in every eight accessible spaces, but not less than one, shall be van accessible; 9 feet wide parking space and 8 feet wide off- load area and comply with CBC 1109A.8.6.
54. Electric Vehicle (EV) Charging. Newly constructed Group R-1, R-2, and R-3 buildings shall meet requirements for electric vehicle charging with accordance with the California Green Building Standards Code (CALGreen), Chapter 4, Division 4.1.
FIRE DEPARTMENT
FOR DEMOLITION OF EXISTING BUILDINGS & DURING NEW CONSTRUCTION
55. Fire Safety Emergency Plan. A Fire and Safety Emergency Plan prepared by a qualified professional will be on site and available for review at all times & enforced by the designated/qualified Site Safety Director.
56. Fire Inspection. A daily fire inspection performed by Site Safety Director is required.
57. Fire Extinguishers. Fire extinguishers of a 2A10BC type, commercial grade shall be mounted in conspicuous locations every 75 feet of travel distance on all floors and job offices.
58. Fire Standpipe. Prior to framing of the third floor, a fully operational fire standpipe will be provided with outlets at each level as the height of the building progresses. The Fire Department connection shall be within 100 feet of a fire hydrant in a path of travel.
59. Protected Egress. Prior to the framing of the third floor, two separate protected means of egress each directly to a public way will be provided throughout the duration of the project.
60. Knox Key Access. Knox boxes or padlocks shall be provided for 24-hour emergency site access.
61. Emergency Contact Information. 24-hour emergency contact information will be posted in a conspicuous location at all times during the project near the main construction gate of job trailer.
62. Construction Gates. All construction gates shall be a minimum of 20 feet in width and conform to San Rafael requirements for gates and fencing.
63. No Smoking Signage. NO SMOKING signs shall be posted throughout the site & building on all floors.
64. Combustible Debris Disposal. Combustible debris shall be properly disposed of daily.
65. Fire Prevention Permit. A separate Fire Prevention permit is required for all Hot Work operations.
66. Fire Access Ladder. Aerial ladder access conforming to CA Fire Code Section 503 and Appendix D required once the structure exceeds 30 feet in vertical height.
FOR BUILDING PERMIT
67. Fire Code. The design and construction of all site alterations shall comply with the 2022 California Fire Code, current NFPA Standards, and all applicable City of San Rafael Ordinances and Amendments. Note the existence of the Code Cycle Update to 2025 Fire Code in first quarter of 2026.
68. Additional Costs. The developer could be subject to additional costs related to consultants retained by the City for plan review and/or site inspections.
69. Deferred Submittals. Deferred Submittals for the following fire protection systems shall be submitted to the Fire Prevention Bureau for approval and permitting prior to installation of the systems:
a. Fire Sprinkler system with floor control valves.
b. Fire Standpipe system (Class I).
c. Fire Underground Main.
d. Fire Alarm Systems with zoning.
e. Emergency Responder Communication Coverage (ERCCS/DAS). f. Emergency Voice Alarm Communication System.
g. In Building Fire Department Two-Way Communication System. h. Standby Power System.
i. Kitchen Hood Automatic Fire-Extinguishing System plans. (Commercial cooking if applicable)
70. Secondary Water Supply. A secondary water supply in accordance with CA Fire Code section 914.3.2 is required.
71. Hydrant Distance. An approved fire hydrant must be located within 100 feet of the Fire Department sprinkler/standpipe system connection in a path of travel.
72. Fire Apparatus Access Roadway. The fire apparatus access roadway must conform to all provisions in CFC Section 503 and Appendix D.
73. Fire Apparatus Plan. A fire apparatus access plan shall be prepared for this project. Fire apparatus plan shall show the location the following:
a. Designated fire apparatus access roads.
b. Red curbs and no parking fire lane signs.
c. Fire hydrants.
d. Fire Department Connection (FDC).
e. Post Indicator Valve (PIV)
f. Water District approved detector check valve.
g. Street address sign.
h. Recessed Knox Box
i. Fire Alarm annunciator panel.
j. NFPA 704 placards.
k. Provide a note on the plan, as follows: The designated fire apparatus access roads and fire hydrant shall be installed and approved by the Fire Prevention Bureau prior construction of the building.
74. Fire Command Center. A Fire Command Center conforming to CA Fire Code section 508 is required and will in a location approved by the Fire Department.
75. Fire Safety & Evacuation Plans. Fire safety & evacuation plans conforming to CA Fire Code section 403.10.2 & 404.2.1 are required and shall be prepared by a qualified professional.
76. Knox Box Installation Requirements. A recessed Knox Box is required at the primary point of first response to the building. The Knox Box shall be clearly visible upon approach to the main entrance. Note the Knox Box must be installed from 72” to 78” above finish grade. Show the location on the plans.
https://www.knoxbox.com/commercial-knoxboxes/
77. Knox Gate Switch. A Knox key switch is required for driveway or access road automatic gates.
https://www.knoxbox.com/gate-keys-and-padlocks/
78. Additional and Upgraded Hydrants. Additional public fire hydrants could be required and/or existing hydrant bodies upgraded to Commercial Model Clow model 960. The Prevention Bureau will identify the locations.
79. Distance to Fire Apparatus Access Road. When a building is fully sprinklered all portions of the exterior building perimeter must be located within 250-feet of an approved fire apparatus access road.
a. The minimum width of the fire apparatus access road is 20-feet. b. The minimum inside turning radius for a fire apparatus access road is 28 feet. c. The fire apparatus access road serving this building is more than 150-feet in length; provide an approved turn-around. Contact the Fire Prevention Bureau for specific details.
80. Fire Apparatus Access Roadway. An aerial fire apparatus access roadway is required parallel to one entire side of the building.
a. The Aerial apparatus access roadway shall be located within a minimum 15 feet and a maximum of 30 feet from the building.
b. The minimum unobstructed width for an aerial fire apparatus access road is 26-feet. c. Overhead utility and power lines shall not be located within the aerial fire apparatus access roadway, or between the roadway and the building.
81. Fire Lanes. Fire lanes must be designated; painted red with contrasting white lettering stating, “No Parking Fire Lane” A sign shall be posted in accordance with the CFC Section 503.3 and to the satisfaction and approval of the San Rafael Parking Services Division.
82. Hazardous Materials Placards. Hazardous Materials Placards shall be installed in accordance with NFPA 704.
83. Hazardous Materials Management Plan. Provide a Hazardous Materials Management Plan to be submitted to Marin County Department of Public Works, CUPA. (If applicable)
84. Address Numbers. Provide address numbers plainly visible from the street or road fronting the property. Numbers shall contrast with the background and shall be Arabic numbers or letters.
Numbers shall be internally or externally illuminated and be a minimum of 6” tall with ½” stroke.
Larger sizes might be required by the fire code official or in multiple locations for buildings served by two or more roads.
85. Fire Suppression Water Supply. Contact the Marin Municipal Water District (MMWD) to plan for the water supply serving the fire protection system and to ensure existing & proposed fire hydrants in the area meet the required fire flow.
86. Temporary Occupancy Authority. A Temporary Occupancy Permit (TCO) can only be granted by the Chief Building Official. All fire protection & life safety systems, Fire Prevention permits, and other Fire requirements shall be complete, inspected, and approved prior to TCO.
PUBLIC WORKS
General
87. Reimbursement Agreement Required. The Applicant shall enter into a new reimbursement agreement with the City and provide a deposit prior to any post-planning application approval meetings, reviews, construction inspection activities, and other work related to the project.
Drawdowns on the deposit account may include, but are not limited to, fees and actual costs for staff and third-party consultant time associated with the review and inspection of traffic, civil engineering, geotechnical engineering, and surveying aspects of future project submissions.
Deposit and account replenishment accounts shall be established by the City based on project needs. At the end of the project, any remaining deposit amount will be refunded.
88. Permit Submission Schedule. Prior to the submission of any building permit application, the Applicant shall submit to the Public Works Director a permits submission schedule for City review and feedback. The permits submission schedule shall include at a minimum the number and types of permit applications that will be submitted to the City along with their respective scope of work and submission timeline.
89. Southern Public Pedestrian Access Easement Dedication. If the Optional Plans, as identified in the plan set pages A2.01-OP through A3.07-OP are pursued, public pedestrian access shall be maintained along the south side of the property along the San Rafael Canal. Prior to issuance of the First Building Permit, Applicant shall prepare a form of easement dedicating a public pedestrian easement that spans the length and width of the new cantilevered public boardwalk along the south privately owned property to the satisfaction of the City. Given that a portion of the Project may be located on or over land owned by the U.S. Government (i.e., the San Rafael Canal), Applicant may need to secure an agreement with other parties to provide the required easement. Upon approval of said easement by the City, Applicant shall record the easement and associated documentation with the County of Marin Recorder’s Office. Such recordation shall occur prior to the issuance of the First Building Permit.
90. Federal Approval of Improvements within Canal Area. As indicated by the existing conditions plan by BKF Engineers dated 6/11/2025 made a part of the record and approval of the Project, the Canal area south of the property line is the property of the United States of America. The Applicant shall be responsible for obtaining and showing proof of all necessary agency approval(s)/permit(s), including but not limited to the federal government, for all proposed project improvements (e.g., stairs, planters, ramps, seat walls, boardwalk, and more) that are directly adjacent to and encroaching into the San Rafael Canal (i.e. adjacent and beyond the south property line). The City shall review, to its satisfaction, all such required approvals and permits prior to issuance of the First Building Permit.
Special Flood Hazard Area
91. FEMA Special Flood Hazard Area. According to the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) Flood Insurance Rate Map a portion of the subject property is located within a Special Flood Hazard Area (Zone AE) with a Base Flood Elevation (BFE) of 10 based on North American Vertical Datum of 1988 (NAVD 88); therefore, the entire building must comply with applicable floodplain management requirements. Prior to the issuance of the First Building Permit, the Applicant shall demonstrate that the Project complies with applicable provisions of the (1) California Building Code (CBC) Section 1612, (2) ASCE 24-14: Flood Resistant Design and Construction, and (3) San Rafael Municipal Code (S.R.M.C.) Title 18 Protection of Flood Hazard Areas.
Public Right-of-Way
92. Bond Payments. The Applicant shall provide payment and performance bonds or other security sufficient in the City’s discretion to cover 100% of the costs of onsite and offsite public improvements required of the Project and to be dedicated to the City prior to issuance of the first building permit.
93. Minor Temporary Encroachment Permit. A minor temporary encroachment permit is required from the Department of Public Works prior to conducting any work within or any time the Public Right-of-Way (ROW) is impacted, including but not limited to placing debris boxes and traffic control devices in the street. Encroachment permits can be applied for online on the city of San Rafael website: https://www.cityofsanrafael.org/encroachment-permits/
94. Location of Backflow Preventers. All backflow preventers, fire department connections, and other above ground utility structures shall be placed on private property and shall not be allowed to protrude into the public-right-of-way.
95. Exterior Doors. Exterior doors shall not be permitted to swing into or project into the public right-of-way.
96. Frontage Improvements. Prior to issuance of building permit, the applicant shall submit a separate set of drawings detailing the frontage improvements in the public right-of-way (ROW) adjacent to the proposed development for Department of Public Works review and approval as part of the application for an encroachment permit (e.g., sidewalks, pavement restoration, driveway approach, lighting). Frontage improvements shall be designed in accordance with City of San Rafael design standards (including but not limited to SRMC Ch. 15.06.080(a)), meet accessibility requirements per the California Building Code and Public Right-of-Way Accessibility Guidelines (PROWAG), and reference Marin County Uniform Construction Standards (UCS) where applicable. At a minimum, frontage improvements shall include the following:
a. New sidewalk, curb, and gutter along project frontage. Please update plans to show sidewalk with a minimum 6-ft wide unobstructed walkway on 2nd Street. The 6-ft unobstructed width shall not include the tree well grates in accordance with SRMC Ch.
15.06.080(a). Additional sidewalk space will be pushed into the City’s ROW and that will not require any modifications to building form or location. b. Curb ramp at the corner of 2nd St and Irwin St accordance with PROWAG Standards. c. Pavement restoration (minimum 2”-thick grind and overlay) will be required along the property frontage. The limits of pavement restoration will be to the centerline of the street or as required during the encroachment permit application, whichever is mor stringent.
Any modification in the frontage improvements shall be determined by the Department of Public Works at the time of issuance of a building permit, or as approved based on field observations during construction.
Stormwater
97. Storm Drain Profile. Prior to building permit issuance, the Applicant shall submit storm drain profiles detailing the connection between the private property and City storm drain pipe to ensure the proposed connection does not conflict with existing infrastructure.
98. Storm Drain Pipe Size. Minimum storm drain pipe size in the public right-of-way is 12”. Blind connections to an existing storm drain pipe are not permitted. Prior to issuance of building permit, drainage drawings shall be provided showing that new structures will be provided at connections to the existing storm drain system and that the minimum pipe size in the public right-of-way will be 12”. Private maintenance responsibility is for the entire lateral up to the connection point to the City storm drain main.
99. MCSTOPP Requirements. In accordance with section 9.30.151 of the City’s municipal code, this project includes more than 5,000 square feet of total impervious area replacement and creation and therefore is considered a regulated project according to BASMAA standards. The following documents are required to be provided in accordance with BASMAA and Marin County Stormwater Pollution Prevention Program (MCSTOPPP) requirements:
a. Stormwater Control Plan – A written document and exhibit to accompany the plan set used primarily for municipal review to verify compliance with stormwater treatment requirements. (Provide prior to issuance of building or grading permit.) b. Stormwater Facilities Operations and Maintenance (O&M) Plan – A written document and exhibit outlining facilities on-site and maintenance activities and responsibilities for property owners. (Provide prior to issuance of building or grading permit.) c. Stormwater Facilities Operations and Maintenance Agreement – A formal agreement between the property owner and the city that shall be recorded with the property deed prior to occupancy. (Provide prior to issuance of certificate of occupancy.) In accordance with Section E.12.e of the NPDES MS4 permit Non-LID Facilities need to show equivalent effectiveness to bioretention areas in the following areas:
d. Equal or greater amount of runoff infiltrated or evapotranspired. e. Equal or lower pollutant concentrations in runoff that is discharged after biotreatment f. Equal or greater protection against shock loadings and spills g. Equal or greater accessibility and ease of inspection and maintenance Grading and Earthwork
100. Geotechnical Report. Prior to issuance of a building permit, in accordance with Section S-2 (Geotechnical Review) and Appendix F of the San Rafael General Plan, the Applicant shall provide a design-level geotechnical report and/or supplemental letter with design-level geotechnical recommendations prepared by a licensed geotechnical engineer for review by the City or City’s third-party consultant.
101. Erosion and Sediment Control Plan. Prior to issuance of building permit or grading permit, the applicant shall provide an erosion and sediment control plan for review and approval by the City.
102. Geotechnical Drawing Conformance Letter. Prior to issuance of building permit, the applicant shall provide a plan review letter from the geotechnical engineer of record confirming that the project drawings are in conformance with their recommendations. 103. Grading Permit Required. Prior to start of construction, a grading permit shall be required from the Department of Public Works. Applications can be found on the City’s website: https://www.cityofsanrafael.org/grading-permits/. 104. Geotechnical Observation Final Conformance Letter. At the conclusion of construction and prior to issuance of certificate of occupancy, the Applicant shall provide a final conformance letter from the geotechnical engineer of record documenting that the geotechnical aspects of construction (grading, earthwork, foundation prep) were performed under their observation and in accordance with their recommendations.
Traffic
105. Tier 3 Transportation Analysis. The Project will likely cause impacts on traffic in San Rafael, particularly in the vicinity of the Project site. At a future date, the City will likely need to address such impacts. To provide the City with information about such impacts, Applicant or its successor in interest shall, within five (5) years after the issuance of the Certificate of Occupancy for the Project, prepare a Tier 3 Transportation Analysis (Non-CEQA) per the City of San Rafael Transportation Analysis Guidelines (February 2022). Such analysis shall take into account the Local Transportation Analysis trip generation estimates prepared by Hexagon Transportation Consultants dated April 3, 2025 and shall include information about the pre-project and post-project intersections’ LOS. Multimodal circulation and safety analysis shall also be included in the Tier 3 Transportation Analysis. 106. Operational Analysis. Prior to the issuance of the First Building Permit, Applicant shall prepare an Operational Analysis to study the delays and vehicle level of service (LOS) of the localized signalized and non-signalized intersections in the vicinity of the project. Any intersections that receive 10 or more trips per lane from the project’s generated AM/PM peak hour trips shall be included in the analysis.
107. Driveway Width. Driveway width shall be 24’ with no curb median in accordance with the
Local Transportation Analysis prepared by Hexagon Transportation dated April 3,2025. 108. Driveway Profile Required. Prior to building permit issuance provide the underground driveway profile showing slopes The driveway shall have a maximum slope of 10% or less for at least 15 feet from the back of sidewalk to the underground parking. 109. Underground Parking Gates. If there is any gate proposed for underground parking, it shall be set back at least twenty feet from the back of sidewalk. Install mirrors(s) and sound warning system for vehicles exiting the parking garage to alarm drivers to pay attention to pedestrians on the sidewalk.
110. Loading and Waste Collection Area Plans. The Applicant shall submit a plan for the proposed loading zones and trash pickup area on 2nd street as part of the application for an encroachment permit for review by the Department of Public Works and the City Traffic Engineer. The plan shall indicate the proposed colored curb designations, proposed signage, type of loading, and time restrictions for the loading/pickup zones. Proposed loading zones shall comply with all applicable requirements of the California Building Code and PROWAG. a. 20 ft of red curb shall be provided adjacent to the driveways in accordance with the Local Transportation Analysis prepared by Hexagon Transportation. b. Loading zone spaces shall be a minimum of 8-ft in width in accordance with S.R.M.C.
Section 14.18.100. The three passenger loading spaces on Second Sheet, as shown on Sheet A1.01, shall be widened to comply with the S.R.M.C. . One of the passenger loading spaces shall be made accessible in accordance with section R212.1 of the PROWAG.
111. Vision Clearance Triangles. In accordance with S.R.M.C. Section 14.16.295, the vision triangle, measured 15 feet from the curb return, intersection, or driveway, shall be free of visual obstructions between 3 feet and 8 feet in height above street grade elevation. Include the vision triangles on the plans and ensure it is free of visual obstructions. 112. Traffic Mitigation Fee. Prior to issuance of a building permit, the Applicant shall pay a traffic mitigation fee for net new AM peak hour trips and net new PM peak hour trips. The rate per peak-hour trip and the corresponding amount of the traffic mitigation fee will be determined based on the rate in effect on the date of building permit issuance. For reference, the current rate is $6,930 per peak-hour trip. The current rate is valid until January 1, 2026.
The TMF rate will increase to 7,463 per peak-hour trip after January 1, 2026. The rate is adjusted annually per Resolution No. 14983 adopted by City Council on 10/4/2021. 113. Construction Vehicle Impact Fee. A construction vehicle impact fee (Street Maintenance Fee), which is calculated at 1% of the valuation, with the first $10,000 of valuation exempt, shall be required and applied on the building permit. The applicant is required to remit payment of the construction vehicle impact fee prior to building permit issuance.
SAN RAFAEL SANITATION DISTRICT
114. Recycling Collection Container Size. Pick up of recycling material is not serviceable in the currently proposed in 3 CY and 4CY containers. Rolling carts must be used in place of compactors. Marin Sanitary projects higher volumes requiring more frequent collection than twice per week for non-compacted materials. The Applicant must revise the trash hauling plan, including recycling volume projections, to account for rolling carts. The revised trash hauling plan, volume projections, and service frequency must be reviewed and approved by the Marin Sanitary Service Commercial Outreach Manager, Jennifer Selvig. 115. Extended Staging Area. Marin Sanitary finds the entrance and exit along the Second Street roadway sufficient width for collection vehicles. However, a longer staging area or extension of the loading zone is required to adequately accommodate the number, size, and types of containers necessary for waste, recycling and compost collection service. Drivers alone may be unable to move heavy compactor containers staged too closely together.
Coordinate with the Commercial Outreach Manager to confirm the minimum size of the staging area required for the collection containers given the requirement to accommodate recycling collection in rolling carts and the heavy weight of compactor containers. Modify the size of the stagging and or loading area on Second Street accordingly to facilitate compliance with statutory requirements of collection service.
116. Roadway Strength for Service Vehicles. Prior to the start of service collection, the Applicant must confirm the roadway and area are of sufficient strength for the weight of several collection vehicle trips per week, providing technical documentation of compliance by a certified engineering professional to Marin Sanitary.
117. Placement of Containers for Staging. Waste and recycling collection containers must be placed by the property owner or assigned representative within the roadside staging area prior to arrival of Marin Sanitary collection vehicles. No curbs, overhead wires, or other obstructions are allowed in the pick-up area to enable smooth rolling of containers from the staging area to the collection vehicles.
“AB 130” CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
118. Flood Safety
a. Consistent with Public Resources Code Section 21080.66(a)(6) and Government Code Section 65913.4(a)(6)(G) and (H), the project shall meet Federal Emergency Management Agency requirements necessary to meet minimum flood plain management criteria of the National Flood Insurance Program pursuant to Part 59 (commencing with Section 59.1) and Part 60 (commencing with Section 60.1) of Subchapter B of Chapter I of Title 44 of the Code of Federal Regulations and satisfy all federal criteria to qualify for a no-rise certification in accordance with Section 60.3(d)(3) of Title 44 of the Code of Federal Regulations.
b. Prior to issuance of the first building permit for a structure, the applicant shall demonstrate compliance with this condition on the building plans for such structure submitted for approval.
119. Tribal Consultation
a. Pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21080.66(b):
i. At least 60 days prior to commencing any ground disturbing activities on the project site, the applicant shall provide the City with written notice of intent to commence, which the City shall provide to the California Native American tribes (as defined by Public Resources Code section 21073) that are traditionally and culturally affiliated with the project site.
ii. Consistent with Public Resources Code Section 21080.66(b)(4), upon request by a California Native American tribe, the applicant shall include tribal monitoring during all ground-disturbing activities, as follows:
• The California Native American tribe shall designate the monitor. • The tribal monitor shall comply with the project applicant’s site access and workplace safety requirements.
• The project applicant shall compensate the tribal monitor at a reasonable rate, determined in good faith, that aligns with customary compensation for cultural resource monitoring, taking into account factors such as the scope and duration of the project.
iii. Tribal cultural resources shall be avoided where feasible, in accordance with Public Resources Code section 21084.3(a). In furtherance of this requirement, where feasible, the project applicant shall provide deference to tribal preferences regarding access to spiritual, ceremonial, and burial sites, and incorporate tribal traditional knowledge in the protection and sustainable use of tribal cultural resources and landscapes.
iv. All treatment and documentation of tribal cultural resources shall be conducted in a culturally appropriate manner, consistent with Public Resources Code section 21083.9.
v. Prior to the issuance of the first demolition grading, or building permit on the project site, the applicant shall complete a California Historical Resources Information System archaeological records search and a tribal cultural records search for the project site.
vi. Prior to the issuance of the first demolition grading, or building permit on the project site, the applicant shall submit a Sacred Lands Inventory to the Native American Heritage Commission.
vii. During project construction, the applicant shall comply with Health and Safety Code section 7050.5 and Public Resources Code section 5097.98, including immediate work stoppage upon discovery of human remains or burial grounds, and treatment in accordance with applicable law and in consultation with the affected California Native American tribe.
viii. The applicant shall apply tribal ecological knowledge into habitat restoration efforts undertaken in connection with the project, as applicable. b. Enforceable Agreement per Public Resources Code Section 21080.66(b)(4)(A). The City, Applicant, and the Federated Indians of Graton Rancheria did not execute an enforceable agreement by the conclusion of the tribal consultation process described in Public Resources Code Section 21080.66(b); however, Applicant informally agreed to continue working with the Federated Indians of Graton Rancheria to enter into an enforceable agreement (“Enforceable Agreement”) at a later date. If Applicant enters into such Enforceable Agreement, in addition to the conditions specified in subsection (a) of this Condition of Approval #121, Applicant must comply with all of the provisions of the Enforceable Agreement. To the extent the provisions of the Enforceable Agreement conflict with the conditions specified in subsection (a) of this Condition of Approval #121, the provisions of the Enforceable Agreement control.
120. Phase 1 ESA
a. Consistent with Public Resources Code Section 21080.66(c)(1), prior to the issuance of the First Building Permit, the applicant shall complete a phase I environmental assessment, as defined in Health and Safety Code section 78090 and submit the same to the City’s Community and Economic Development Department for review. b. If a recognized environmental condition is found in the phase I environmental assessment, prior to the issuance of the first demolition grading, or building permit on the project site, the applicant shall complete a preliminary endangerment assessment, as defined in Health and Safety Code section 78095, prepared by an environmental assessor and submit the same to the City’s Community and Economic Development Department for review to determine the existence of any release of a hazardous substance on the site and to determine the potential for exposure of future occupants to significant health hazards from any nearby property or activity. c. If a release of a hazardous substance is found to exist on the site, the applicant shall remove the release or mitigate any effects of the release to levels required by then-current federal and state statutory and regulatory standards before the City issues the first certificate of occupancy for the project.
d. If a potential for exposure to significant hazards from surrounding properties or activities is found to exist, the applicant shall mitigate effects of the potential exposure to levels required by then-current federal and state statutory and regulatory standards before the City issues the first certificate of occupancy for the project. 121. Air Quality
a. Consistent with Public Resources Code Section 21080.66(c)(2), prior to issuance of a building permit for a structure including residential units within 500 feet of a freeway, the applicant shall demonstrate compliance with all of the following on the building plans for each such structure submitted for approval:
i. The building shall have a centralized heating, ventilation, and airconditioning system. ii. The outdoor air intakes for the heating, ventilation, and air-conditioning system shall face away from the freeway.
iii. The building shall provide air filtration media for outside and return air that provides a minimum efficiency reporting value of 16.
iv. The building shall not have any balconies facing the freeway. b. Consistent with Public Resources Code Section 21080.66(c)(2)(E), throughout project operations, the applicant shall replace air filtration media in any structure including residential units within 500 feet of a freeway at the manufacturer’s designated interval.
122. Labor
a. As provided in Public Resources Code Section 21080.66(d)(2), the applicant shall include the requirements specified in Government Code Section 65913.4(a)(8) in its contracts with construction contractors for any buildings over 85 feet in height above grade.
b. Prior to the issuance of the first demolition grading, or building permit for any building over 85 feet in height, in a written form reasonably acceptable to the City Attorney, the applicant shall certify to the City that project construction will meet the standards specified in Government Code Section 65913.4(a)(8). c. As provided in Public Resources Code Section 21080.66(d)(4), the provisions of Labor Code section 218.8 shall extend to the applicant in addition to the direct contractor or subcontractor.
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 the City of San Rafael, held on Tuesday, the 17th day of February 2026, by the following vote, to wit:
AYES: Councilmembers:
NOES: Councilmembers:
ABSENT: Councilmembers:
_____________________
Lindsay Lara, City Clerk
Attachment 5
Planning Commission Packet,
including 700 Irwin Staff Report
and all attachments, January 13,
2026
https://www.cityofsanrafael.org/me
etings/planning-commissionjanuary-13-2026/
Exhibit A: Appeal from Steven Bryant
NOTICE OF APPEAL
Chapter 14.28-Appeals
Date: January 15, 2026
Appellant: Steven Bryant
Project: 700 Irwin Street
Decision Appealed: Planning Commission Approval, January 13, 2026
NOTICE OF APPEAL
Pursuant to Chapter 14.28 of the Municipal Code, Appellant hereby appeals the Planning Commission's January 13, 2026 approval of the 700 Irwin Street project.
This appeal is submitted in writing within the time period prescribed by Section 14.28.030 and sets forth the grounds for appeal as required by the Municipal Code.
GROUNDS FOR APPEAL
This appeal is based o·n concerns regarding the scope of legal authority applied by the Planning Commission in approving project concessions, rather than disagreement with the City's housing goals or the production of affordable housing.
In particular, this appeal is based in part on a widespread but incomplete understanding of the scope of state housing law, which limits discretionary denial of housing projects but does not eliminate the City's obligation to apply mandatory statuto.ry prohibitions on approving concessions that are contrary to other state or federal law.
The Planning Commission's approval appears to have proceeded under an understandably narrow interpretation of its authority, without full consideration of:
• The mandatory limitation in Government Code section 65915(d)(1){C) requiring denial of concessions that are contrary to state or federal law; • Whether the approved project design complies with applicable fair housing and anti-segregation requirements;
• Whether differences in unit-level residential conditions raise issues requiring additional findings; and
Notice of Appeal- Planning Commission Approval, January 13, 2026 - 700 Irwin treet • The extent of the (?ommission's retained authority following the City's prior denial of AB 2011 ministerial processing.
These issues are described in greater detail in Appendix A - Statement of Grounds Supporting Appeal, submitted concurrently and incorporated by reference.
RELIEF REQUESTED
Appellant respectfully reque~ts that the City Council, pursuant to Section 14.28.050, review the record of the Planning Commission's decision and:
• Remand the project for further consideration consistent with applicable statutory limitations and fair housing obligations; or
• Take such other action as the City Council determines appropriate based on a clarified understanding of the scope of its authority.
SUPPORTING MATERIALS
This Notice of Appeal is accompanied by Appendix A- Statement of Grounds Supporting Appeal, which is intended to assist the City Council in its review under Section 14.28.040.
Respectfully submitted,
Steven Bryant
Resident of San Rafael, Business Owner, and Real Estate Broker
APPENDIX A
Statement of Grounds Supporting Appeal
Chapter 14.28-Appeal of Planning Commission Decision
700 Irwin Street Project
I. Purpose and Scope of This Appendix
This Appendix is submitted in support of the . Notice of Appeal filed pursuant to Chapter
14.28 of the Municipal Code, appealing the Planning Commission's January 13, 2026 approval of the 700 Irwin Street project.
This Appendix sets forth the grounds for appeal required by Section 14.28.030 and is intended to assist the City Council in its review of the Planning Commission's decision under Section 14.28.040.
The scope of this Appendix is limited. It does not ask the City Council to determine the ultimate legality of the project under every potentially applicable statute. Rather, it focuses on whether the Planning Commission applied the full set of mandatory legal considerations governing its authority when approving project concessions, or whether approval proceeded under an understandably narrow interpretation of those requirements.
II. Application of.th_e State Density Bonus Law
The Planning Commission approved project concessions on the understanding that approval was required under the State Density Bonus Law, SO 330, and related housing statutes.
The State Density Bonus Law does authorize certain incentives, concessions, and waivers.
That authority, however, is expressly bounded. Government Code section 65915(d)(1)(C) provides that a requested concession must be denied if the· resulting project would be contrary to state or federal law. This limitation operates independently of feasibility, cost considerations, or housing production objectives.
Compliance with objective zoning or general plan standards, even as modified by density bonus concessions and waivers, does not by itself resolve whether a requested concession is consistent with this statutory limitation.
~PPENDlX A -Statement of1ffi>unas Supporting Appeal - 700l rwin Street The record suggests that the Planning Commission understood qualification for the Density Bonus Law to require approval, without separate consideration of whether the resulting project configuration was consistent with other applicable legal requirements. Clarifying the scope of this statutory limitation is therefore central to this appeal.
This appeal does not rely on denial authority under the Housing Accountability Act. It instead concerns whether the mandatory statutory limits on concession approval were fully considered.
Ill. Segregated Living Pattern Created by the Approved Design The approved project design locates all affordable housing units on specific, contiguous floors of the building, while market-rate units are located on different floors.
The issue raised by this appeal is not whether such a configuration is categorically prohibited. Rather, the issue is whether the Planning Commission evaluated whether this design results in a segregated living pattern and whether that pattern is consistent with applicable housing and fair housing requirements.
The physical effect of the approved desi~n is that residents are separated by income and identifiable by location within the building. The record does not reflect analysis or findings addressing whether this configuration avoids isolation of affordable units or advances integration within the structure.
State housing policy emphasizes avoiding new segregation and preventing the isolation of affordable housing units in mixed-income developments. The absence of findings addressing these considerations supports further review by the City Council.
IV. Unit-Level Residential Conditions
The approved design also removes private balconies from affordable housing units while providing private balconies to market-rate units.
Private balconies are part of the dwelling unit itself and affect light, air, and private open space available to residents. They are not shared facilities or optional amenities.
The Planning Commission treated the removal of balconies from affordable units as a costrelated concession, without addressing whether providing materially different unit-level conditions based on affordability status is consistent with applicable housing and fair housing requirements.
PPENDlXA - tatement ofUrounds upporting Appeal - 700 Irwin Street Project The record does not reflect findings addressing whether the resulting residential conditions are substantially comparable. Consideration of this issue would assist in ensuring that the project complies with applicable legal standards.
V. Fair Housing Safeguards and AFFH Considerations
The City's Housing Element and related implementing measures are intended to support compliance with the State's obligation to Affirmatively Further Fair Housing and to avoid segregation in mixed.,income housing.
In approving the project, these safeg\Jards appear to have been treated as development standards subject to modification under the State Density Bonus Law.
While the Density Bonus Law authorizes modification of certain physical development standards, it does not displace the City's obligation to consider whether a project design remains consistent with fair housing requirements. Additional review of how these safeguards apply to the approved design would help clarify whether those obligations have been satisfied.
VI. Retained Authority Following Denial of AB 2011 Processing The Applicant previously sought approval of the project under AB 2011, a ministerial approval pathway. The City denied AB 2011 eligibility in July 2025.
As a result, the project is not proceeding under a ministerial framework, and the Planning Commission retained authority and responsibility to apply applicable legal limitations when approving project concessions.
This prior determination underscores that the approval process involved discretionary judgment and legal interpretation, further supporting the appropriateness of appellate review to clarify the scope of that authority.
VII. Findings Supporting the Decision
Section 14.28.040 directs the City Council to review the record of the Planning Commission's decision.
The record does not include findings addressing:
• Whether the approv~d concessions result in a project inconsistent with other state or federal law;
APPENDIX A - Statement of. GroundsSupporting Appeal - 70lflrwin Street ProJect • Whether the concentration of affordable units by floor avoids segregation; • Whether differences in unit-level features raise fair housing considerations; or • How the limitation in Government Code section 65915(d)(1 )(C} was evaluated.
The staff report and hearing record reflect an understanding that approval was required once objective standards were met. Additional findings addressing the issues above would assist in demonstrating that all mandatory legal considerations were applied.
VIII. Conclusion and Requested Action
The Planning Cor:,mission's approval of the 700 Irwin Street project appears to have proceeded under an understandably narrow interpretation of the scope of state housing law.
This appeal seeks to clarify that scope and to ensure that all mandatory statutory limits on concession approval are fully considered.
Pursuant to Section 14.28.050, the City Council has authority to affirm, modify, or reverse the decision. Appellant respectfully requests that the City Council remand the project for further consideration consistent with the statutory limitations discussed above, or take other action the Council determines. appropriate based on a clarified understanding of its authority.
Exhibit A: Appeal from Kasbar and Dickinson
FORMAL NOTICE OF APPEAL
January 16, 2026
To the San Rafael City Clerk, Margaret.Kavanaugh-Lynch and the San Rafael Planning Department
Please accept this letter as a formal Notice of Appeal of the San Rafael Planning Commission's approval of the Environmental and Design Review application for 700 Irwin Street, approved at its meeting on January 13, 2026.
Appellants: Paul Kasbar and Ken Dickinson, San Rafael Residents This appeal is based on the Planning Commission's failure to make required findings, adequately address public safety and operational impacts, and reconcile the approval with the City's adopted policies, as reflected in the staff report, conditions of approval, and statements made on the record during the hearing.
Grounds for Appeal
1. Failure to Make Required Findings for Density Bonus Waivers and Concessions State Density Bonus Law does not mandate automatic approval of requested waivers and concessions. Each waiver must be supported by substantial evidence demonstrating that it is necessary to provide affordable housing and does not create a specific, adverse impact on public health, safety, or the physical environment.
Here, the Commission approved three concessions and eight waivers, including tripling the base height limit, eliminating required setbacks, drastically reducing required bicycle parking, and approving a fully mechanized parking system, without making individualized findings demonstrating that each waiver satisfied statutory criteria.
Approval of this volume and magnitude of waivers without detailed findings constitutes reversible error.
2. Approval Despite Acknowledged and Unmitigated Traffic, Circulation, and Emergency Access Impacts
The staff report expressly acknowledges that the proposed mechanized parking system may exceed processing capacity during peak hours and may result in vehicle queuing onto Second Street, a heavily trafficked corridor adjacent to a freeway off-ramp.
In addition, the City's approval includes conditions stating that the project will "likely cause impacts on traffic" that the City "will likely need to address," yet no enforceable mitigation strategy is identified.
The project's ingress and egress configuration leaves little to no room for emergency contingency, staging, or failure scenarios in an already congested group of intersections.
Approving waivers while acknowledging unresolved circulation and emergency-access risks is internally inconsistent and violates statutory requirements.
3. Failure to Address Evacuation and Resident Vehicle Access During Emergencies The approved project relies almost entirely on a mechanized parking system. The record does not demonstrate that residents would be able to retrieve vehicles during power outages, system failures, fire events, flooding, or other evacuation scenarios.
Failure to evaluate evacuation feasibility and resident vehicle access constitutes a significant omission affecting public safety, particularly given the project's height, density, and proximity to a freeway interchange.
4. Failure to Address Delivery, Loading, and Service Vehicle Impacts The approval record does not demonstrate adequate accommodation for the inevitable volume of delivery, service, and loading vehicles required to serve a 200-unit residential building.
Absent dedicated and sufficient loading facilities, delivery vehicles will predictably doublepark or queue on Second Street, compounding congestion and interfering with emergency access. These impacts are foreseeable and were not meaningfully analyzed or mitigated prior to approval.
5. Improper Reliance on Statutory Timelines and Abdication of Discretion Statements made during the hearing reflect that commissioners believed they had "no choice" and were effectively "rubber-stamping" the proposal. While state law constrains discretion, it does not eliminate the obligation to exercise independent judgment or deny waivers that create public safety impacts.
Approval based on perceived inevitability rather than required findings renders the decision procedurally flawed.
6. Inconsistency With the City's Adopted Strategic Plan San Rafael's Strategic Plan commits the City to context-sensitive growth, infrastructure and public safety keeping pace with development, and transparent, accountable governance.
The cumulative effect of the approved waivers - particularly regarding height, circulation, emergency access, and operational feasibility- represents a major policy decision affecting citywide precedent. The Commission failed to meaningfully analyze or reconcile the approval with these commitments.
Requested Action
We respectfully request that the City Council:
• Grant this appeal.
• Review the Planning Commission's approval and all granted waivers and concessions.
• Determine whether required findings were properly made and supported by substantial evidence.
• Remand the project for further analysis or modify approvals to address evacuation feasibility, emergency access, circulation, and operational safety.
Please advise of the appeal hearing date and any additional materials required.
Sincerely,
0 PaulKasbar
San Rafael Resident
208 Reservoir Road
San Rafael, CA 94901
415.902,5242/pgkasbar@gmaiLcom
Ken Dickinson
San Rafael Resident
223 Mirada Avenue
San Rafael, CA 94903
415.497.8463/[email protected]
My name is Alezz Laielen. I am a long-time San Rafael resident that attended meetings years ago regarding the replacement of the Macy's building. The developer/architect that most ofus that attended the meetings wanted was not chosen. We thought it might be a "follow the money" situation like it might be now.
Also some years back I obtained a matching $54,500 grant from Beryl Buck's Trust for the renovation of the West Point Inn on Mt. Tamalpais that was being managed by the San Francisco Foundation. This was just before the SF Foundation tried to alter the trust that was intended to help those in Marin.
I am appealing the decision made by San Rafael Planning Commission on January 14 to allow a 17-story skyscraper to be constructed at 700 Irwin. Jennifer Manier also a also a resident of San Rafael that said I could also include her name. I'm sure there would be many other residents that would sign on but 5 days isn't very much time to "muster the troops."
My argument that I've posted on Nextdoor.com is that one of the main things that makes Marin desirable is that it is a suburb with some rural areas that provides a pleasant, more health enhancing environment that is different than urbanized San Francisco.
A simple definition of a suburb is that A SUBURB DOES NOT HA VE SKYSCRAPERS. San Rafael is city in the suburb of Marin. I would hope that job of our San Rafael Planning Commission is to help maintain the environment of our suburban city of San Rafael for us residents and protect it from being destroyed forever.
This is what will happen if you don't rescind the approval you gave on Tuesday night to the Boat Haus project, the 17-story skyscraper designed by Solomon Cordwell Buenz (SBC) for Urban Pacific Development Pacific development on property that is owned by the Biotec Marin Pharmaceutical and is next to the 101 highway over pass and the often congested entrance to San Rafael.
SBC is a firm that designs giant buildings for airports, corporations etc., as well as skyscrapers in cities like Chicago, etc and markets itself as at the forefront of dense urban living. If you allow one skyscraper to be built in San Rafael YOU KNOW THERE WILL BE MORE.
Research has shown that BioMarin owns the property, Urban developers want to build it and the architectural firm that designed it is SBC.com. SBC architects are known for designing super large structures for corporations, and airports and now residential skyscrapers. They designed a SO-story skyscraper in San Francisco the developers wanted to build in San Francisco at 2700 Sloat build on Sloat Blvd. in the Sunset area near the beach in San Francisco where there are one two story homes. Residents protested loudly. San Franciso said it was ridiculous like plopping the Salesforce Tower (the tallest skyscraper in the San Francisco Financial District) on the beach and said NO. SBC was named in the lawsuit filed against SF along with the property owner and construction company.
There is more to this story that you can find on the internet. Francisco. It had a happy ending. It wasn't built.
I can see the four-story building currently occupies 700 Irwin from my kitchen, living room and back deck. that exists that is very close to the IOI-freeway overpass, and has the busy, noisy, often congested entrance to San Rafael below.
I have included some photos because a picture is worth a thousand words. l. The beginning paragraph of what the IJ published on January 15 how the attorney for the developers threatened the San Rafael Planning Commission if Commissioners didn't approve the 700 Irwin skyscraper.
2. The black and grey drawing submitted by the developers to the city.
3. The color rendering that was shown in a slide at the January 14 meeting that I photographed that shows it looming above all the other surrounding builds and will be easily seen from other residents that live in surrounding hills.
4. A photo from my back deck that shows the current building at 700 Irwin.
5. A photo of the proposed 50-story that SBC architect designed to be built on Sloat Blvd. in San Francisco that was stopped.
Thank you for considering this appeal that and excuse all the typos. I don't have time to edit it.
Exhibit A: Appeal from Alezz Laielen
Outlook
FW: 700 Irwin San Rafael
From Planning Public Comment <[email protected]> Date Tue 1/27/2026 6:19 PM
To Christina Ratcliffe <[email protected]> -----Original Message-----
From: Ann Marie Sachetti
Sent: Tuesday, January 13, 2026 3:49 PM
To: Planning Public Comment <[email protected]> Subject: 700 Irwin San Rafael
I am a senior who would find it difficult to attend tonight’s meeting. Please take this email as comments I would have made tonight.
In the same vein, I’m opposed to a huge building at the intersection of Irwin and 2nd Street. Those of us with mobility and transportation hindrances will find it ever more difficult to navigate the years of construction anticipated AND the traffic impacts upon completion.
I understand the need for housing but do not wish to see more high end rental inventory such as the Lofts and 2nd and B street and even more new buildings. Always the tantalizing tidbit is held out that low income units will be included but rarely do the units serve the existing population. We must be ready to build for work force, seniors and low income residents that is dynamic, welcoming, appropriate to the current city uses and priced to serve the needs of the residents.
I’m sure no one will even read this email but I’ll be listening tonight and will be ever hopeful. This mayor and city council is rarely responsive so I will look for alternates at the next election.
Ann Sachetti
San Rafael resident since 1990
2/10/26, 10:23 AM FW: 700 Irwin San Rafael - Christina Ratcliffe - Outlook about:blank 1/1
February 11, 2026
Delivered Via Email
San Rafael City Council
Mayor Kate Colin
Councilmember Maika Llorens Gulati
Councilmember Eli Hill
Councilmember Maribeth Bushey
Councilmember Rachel Kertz
1400 Fifth Avenue
San Rafael, CA 94901
Re: 700 Irwin Street (PLAN25-046)
Hearing Date: February 17, 2026
APN 014-132-18
Our File No: 11393.02
Dear Mayor Colin and Members of the City Council:
This office represents 700 Irwin Street Partners LLC, the project sponsor (“Applicant”) of the proposed 200-unit residential project (“Project”) located at 700 Irwin Street in San Rafael (“Property”). This letter responds to the three appeals that challenge the Planning Commission’s approval of the Project.
The Project uses a City-identified Housing Opportunity Site to construct 200 units that achieve 6% of the City’s 3,220 unit RHNA allocation. The Project expects to pay approximately $5 million in citywide impact fees and permit processing fees, generate $25 million in property taxes over the first 20 years of operation, and generate 400 construction jobs and 10-15 permanent jobs.
In addition to the direct financial benefits to the City, the Project provides 30 affordable units, a ground floor commercial space along Irwin Street, and a revitalized canal frontage with a reconstructed pedestrian boardwalk. The Project creates much-needed housing on a transitoriented, walkable site, within the downtown core.
Planning Division Staff thoroughly reviewed the Project over the course of the last nine months and concluded that the Project is eligible for the State Density Bonus Law (“SDBL”) and a statutory CEQA exemption under AB 130, and that it complies with all applicable state and local standards as modified by the requested SDBL waivers and concessions. No new information has been introduced by the three appeals that would justify overturning the Planning Commission’s approval. Further, because there is nothing in the record that indicates the Project would have a San Rafael City Council
February 11, 2026
specific, adverse public health or safety impact, the Housing Accountability Act (“HAA”) requires that the City Council uphold the approval.
A. Appeal Response Executive Summary
The appeals make a number of different claims. In Section D, below, we discuss in detail each claim raised by the appellants and why they must be rejected. In this summary we briefly describe the allegations, as well as the justification for denying each appeal.
Compliance with Fair Housing Laws. In the appeal filed by Steven Bryant, the primary claims relate to alleged violations of supposedly applicable fair housing requirements, both at the state and federal level. These claims appear to arise from the false assessment that the 30 below market rate (“BMR”) units are not materially the same as the market rate units. Many of the allegations set forth in this appeal misunderstand the Project and misrepresent many of the facts, including the location of the BMR units within the building. These claims are unsupported by the extensive and fully vetted documentation before the City Council, cite no specific provisions of state or federal law that allegedly have been violated, and should be rejected.
Compliance with State Density Bonus Law. The appeal filed by Paul Kasbar and Ken Dickinson makes claimsrelated to application of the SDBL. Without citing any specific provisions in the law, or any other statute or case law, the appellants claim the Planning Commission approval of the various waivers violate state law. These allegations are without any truthful foundation or legal basis and should be rejected. The appeal also misconstrues state law in asserting that the Planning Commission was required to make findings in support of the SDBL waivers and concessions that were requested. But the opposite is true, cities must grant the waivers and concessions requested by a qualifying project unless the City can find that the waivers or concessions would have unmitigable public health and safety impacts. The arguments made by the appellants must be rejected as they are no longer consistent with state law.
Traffic related claims. The Kasbar and Dickinson appeal also weaves in all too common complaints about urban infill projects related to traffic, circulation, and emergency access. As discussed at length at the Planning Commission, the Project qualified for a statutory exemption from CEQA under AB 130. The primary purpose of AB 130 is to ensure that qualifying housing projects are exempt from CEQA’s disclosure and review requirements when projects are located in urban infill locations. The California Legislature encourages these types of infill projects to ensure that new development occurs near transit-rich urban areas, and away from sensitive ecological resources. Furthermore, the potential environmental impacts (including transportation impacts) associated with the buildout of new housing units in this Housing Element Cycle have already been studied by the City in a CEQA addendum to the General Plan EIR. The Project will not involve any new environmental impacts that were not studied as part of the public Housing Element process.
Neighborhood context claims. The appeal filed by Alezz Laielen raises personal opinions and potential concerns related to neighborhood context, building size and location. Similar to the San Rafael City Council
February 11, 2026
traffic based objections, these arguments are no longer germane given the applicable state law. “Neighborhood context” claims cannot be the basis of rejecting a housing project that complies with local and state law. It is exactly these kind of claims that have prevented housing construction in San Rafael and greater Marin County for the last 40 years. State law no longer acknowledges these arguments and neither should the City Council. These arguments should be rejected.
B. Housing is Not a Threat to Public Health and Safety
The City’s ability to deny or modify the Project is extremely limited. In order for the City Council to deny the Project, it must make findings that satisfy the threshold established in the HAA (Gov. Code § 65589.5(d)(2)):
The housing development project . . . as proposed would have a specific, adverse impact upon the public health or safety, and there is no feasible method to satisfactorily mitigate or avoid the specific, adverse impact without rendering the development unaffordable to low- and moderate-income households or rendering the development of the emergency shelter financially infeasible. As used in this paragraph, a “specific, adverse impact” means a significant, quantifiable, direct, and unavoidable impact, based on objective, identified written public health or safety standards, policies, or conditions as they existed on the date the application was deemed complete.
In order for the City to disapprove or modify the Project, it must make a finding that the Project will harm the public. That finding must be based on evidence in the record that, when measured against existing public health and safety standards, shows a significant, quantifiable, direct, and unavoidable impact on public health or safety. There are many claims and opinions put forth in the appeals, but no evidence.
Nothing in the three appeals provides any evidence of a measurable impact on public health or safety. In fact, the California Department of Housing and Community Development (“HCD”) recently confirmed that traffic and concerns about emergency services access in tall buildings do not amount to health and safety impacts under the HAA standard. (HCD Letter to City of Beverly Hills, 8844 Burton Way, Notice of Potential Violation (November 20, 2025), pg. 2; attached at Exhibit A.)
The staff report prepared for the Planning Commission meeting on January 13, 2026, similarly concluded that the Project would not result in any specific health and safety impacts:
The Project complies with all applicable, objective general plan and zoning standards and criteria, as modified by a density bonus, concessions, and waivers under the State Density Bonus Law. Staff have not identified any significant, quantifiable, direct, and unavoidable impacts upon public health and safety based on objective, written standards that would result from development of the Project. (Planning Commission Staff Report (January 13, 2025), pg. 2)
San Rafael City Council
February 11, 2026
We agree with Staff. This was the correct, and really the only, decision the Planning Commission could have made given the record before it. There is no evidence before the City Council that would indicate approval of the Project would result in a health and safety impact. This is not a finding that the City Council can make. The construction of new housing on an infill site is not a threat to public health and safety.
C. Project Description
The Project proposes to redevelop a vacant office building to create centrally located housing that includes 30 affordable units, provides new pedestrian access to the San Rafael Canal, and is walkable to the San Rafael Transit Center, Downtown, and Montecito Plaza.
The Project utilizes one of the City’s designated Housing Opportunity Sites (Housing Site Inventory site No. F45), achieves 6% of the City’s 3,220 unit RHNA allocation and is consistent with the Downtown Precise Plan, the Canalfront Guidelines, and the Housing Element.
The Project proposes a mixed-use multi-family residential building that would replace the existing 4-story office building. The Project will be 17 stories, 180 feet tall and include 200 dwelling units, including 30 BMR units, with 221 parking spaces in an automated mechanical parking garage. The Project proposes an expanded boardwalk along the south side of the Property that would connect Second Street to the San Rafael Canal. A 4,000 square foot commercial space (the “Boathaus”) would cantilever over the Canal and activate the Second, Irwin, and Canal frontages of the Property.
The Project uses the SDBL to achieve the proposed height and density, as well as waivers and concessions from otherwise applicable development standards. The Project complies with the City’s affordable housing requirements and qualifies for the SDBL by providing 15% of the base project units (15 units) at very low income levels (Govt. Code § 65915(b)(1)(B); § 65915(f)(2)) and 15% of the base project units (15 units) at moderate income levels (Govt. Code § 65915(v)(2)).
The 30 affordable units qualify the Project for a 100% density bonus, three concessions that would result in “identifiable, financially sufficient, and actual cost reductions,” and unlimited waivers from development standards that would physically preclude construction of a project at the proposed density. (Govt. Code §§ 65915(d)(2)(C); 65915(k)(1); 65915(e)(1)) The Project is also statutorily exempt from CEQA pursuant to AB 130 (2025) (Public Resources Code § 21080.66) and is consistent with and protected by the HAA (Govt. Code § 65589.5), Senate Bill 330 (2019) (Govt. Code §§ 65940 et seq.), and the Permit Streamlining Act (Govt. Code §§ 65920 et seq.).
San Rafael City Council
February 11, 2026
D. Legal Response to Appeals
1. The Bryant Appeal
The Bryant appeal focuses on alleged violations of fair housing laws. It is important to note that the appeal does not cite to any specific legal violation, or even claim there is a violation.
Instead, the appeal asserts that it “does not rely on denial authority under the Housing Accountability Act,” but “concerns whether the mandatory statutory limits on concession approval were fully considered.” But the appellant cannot simply declare that his appeal claims take the Project outside the scope of the HAA.
Importantly, this appeal is based on a misunderstanding of the Project and the distribution of affordable units. On page 2 of appendix A of the appeal, appellant states as follows:
The approved project as designed locates all affordable housing units on specific contiguous floors of the building, while market rate units are located on different floors.
This is simply incorrect. As shown in the chart below (and in the floor plans approved by the Planning Commission), the BMR units are located on floors 5-11 and are mixed in with market rate units on those floors. Contrary to Mr. Bryant’s claims, the BMR units are not segregated from the market rate units at all.
Floor Total Units Market Rate
Units
Affordable
Units
5 14 9 5
6 14 12 2
7 18 13 5
8 18 12 6
9 18 14 4
10 18 14 4
11 18 14 4
As illustrated in the BMR distribution graphic, on levels 5 through 11, both market rate and BMR units sit side-by-side throughout those 7 levels. (See BMR Distribution Graphic; attached at Exhibit B.)
The appellant’s argument regarding fair housing is missing the forest for the trees. This is not a publicly subsidized 100% affordable housing project. The Project provides BMR units in order to comply with local law and achieve the density bonus available under state law. The BMR units amount to a major financial subsidy (equating to over $15 million) that the Project is providing to the City in exchange for a density bonus. The Project design ensures all units will offer quality workmanship, functionality, and livability on par with the market rate units. The BMR units will also have equal access to the on-site amenities, including the large 6th floor common roof deck.
San Rafael City Council
February 11, 2026
There is absolutely nothing in the SDBL or any federal housing law that requires absolute parity between market rate and below market rate units. HCD recently confirmed as much. In a Notice of Potential Violation to the City of Beverly Hills, HCD explains that the California Health & Safety Code requires projects “to disperse affordable units on more than one floor” and provide access to the same common entrances and amenities, but “[t]he HAA and SDBL do not contain specific dispersal requirements.” (HCD Letter to City of Beverly Hills, 8844 Burton Way, Notice of Potential Violation (November 20, 2025), pg. 2)
The state legislature specifically addressed discrimination within mixed-income development projects in 2021 with the passage of AB 491. The bill was a response to cases of developers creating separate entrances to a project’s BMR units and limiting BMR tenant access to common amenities, such as roof decks and pools. (AB 491 Assembly Floor Analysis August 18, 2021); attached at Exhibit C.) AB 491 now requires that mixed-income projects provide the same building entrance and same access to common amenities for the BMR and market rate units. (Health & Safety Code § 17929) The 700 Irwin project already meets these requirements.
The decisions made with respect to specific BMR unit locations were in collaboration with Planning Staff, and the concessions related to the location of those units and the provision of balconies for BMR units are necessary to the financial viability of the Project and its ability to subsidize the affordable housing units. The burden here is on the appellant, not the applicant, to provide substantial evidence that the granting of concessions is inconsistent with state law.
Appellant has provided no such evidence, only questions and opinions.
Further, the Project utilizes three SDBL concessions from City Council Resolution 14890(C) to modify the BMR design and locational requirementsthat would otherwise apply based on local regulations (but not based on any state or federal law). We note that three concessions are included at the direction of City Staff, but our position is that at most, one concession is necessary.
With respect to the location, type, and design of affordable units, Resolution 14890(C) requires the following:
Affordable housing units shall be dispersed throughout the residential development project.
Units may be clustered within the residential project when the city determines that such clustering furthers affordable housing opportunities. The affordable housing units shall be of a similar mix and type to that of the residential development project as a whole, including, but not limited to: (1) The same or substantially similar mix of unit size ( e.g., number of bedrooms, square footage); (2) compatibility with the design, materials, amenities, and appearance of the other developed units. (Emphasis added.) San Rafael City Council
February 11, 2026
As detailed in our prior letters and in the plans, the Project will provide 30 affordable units dispersed throughout the lower 2/3 of the building.1 The affordable units will be proportional in size to the market rate units. All of the affordable units will have access to the same building amenities as the market rate units and will have the same quality of materials as the market rate units. Several of the affordable units will also have a private terrace.
The BMR units comply with the plain language of Resolution No. 14890(C). However, Staff interprets this resolution as requiring 1-to-1 proportionality between the market rate and BMR units related to unit square footage, the number of bedrooms/unit location, and access to public and private amenities. Because the Project will provide 15% of base project units to very low income households, the Project qualifies for 3 concessions, which it has agreed to use for the three BMR-related concessions deemed necessary by Planning Staff. (Gov. Code §65915(d)(2)(C)) The use of these three concessions validates the distribution and design of the Project’s BMR units, but does not result in a violation of any state or federal fair housing regulation.
2. The Kasbar and Dickinson Appeal
The following sections respond to each of the specific claims in the Kasbar and Dickinson appeal. Those claims relate to traffic, garage access, and delivery access, as well as to findings Staff was allegedly required to make in order to grant the waivers and concessions. As HCD and the courts have stated again and again, the HAA allows the denial or reduction in density of a project that meets the applicable objective standards only if it would result in a “significant, quantifiable, direct, and unavoidable impact, based on objective, identified written public health or safety standards, policies, or conditions as they existed on the date the application was deemed complete.” (Govt. Code § 65589.5(d)(2))
This is a very high bar to meet. The HAA explicitly states that few impacts rise to the level of being a specific, adverse impact:
It is the intent of the Legislature that the conditions that would have a specific, adverse impact upon the public health and safety . . . arise infrequently. (Govt. Code § 65589.5(a)(3); emphasis added.)
Directly on point here is a November 2025 Notice of Potential Violation to the City of Beverly Hills, in which HCD concluded that traffic and emergency access within the 26-story building did not amount to specific, adverse health and safety impacts under the HAA. (HCD Letter to City of Beverly Hills, 8844 Burton Way, Notice of Potential Violation (November 20, 2025), pg. 2) For the same reasons that HCD cited in its letter to Beverly Hills, density bonus 1 We also note that the unit distribution strategy is consistent with Zoning Administrator policy in San Francisco, which explicitly allows BMR units to be distributed throughout the lower 2/3 of the building. (San Francisco Zoning Administrator Bulletin No. 10 (December 2018), available at https://sfplanning.org/sites/default/files/documents/ publications/ZAB_10_Designation_Priorities.pdf)
San Rafael City Council
February 11, 2026
waivers, traffic, and emergency access concerns do not amount to specific, adverse health and safety impacts without evidence in the record quantifying some kind of direct, unavoidable impact based on “written public health or safety standards.” (Govt. Code § 65589.5(d)(2)) a) Findings
The Kasbar and Dickinson appeal asserts that “detailed findings” were required in order for the Planning Commission to grant the SDBL concessions and waivers requested for the Project.
This claim reverses the state law mandate, which places the burden on the City to make findings in order to justify a decision to deny waivers or concessions.
Each of the waivers requested and approved for the Project must be granted by the City in order for the Project to take advantage of the state density bonus for which it is eligible. For example, the waiver of the 50-foot height limit is straightforward: the density bonus allows 100 additional units beyond what the base 50-foot building would accommodate. It would be impossible to put 200 units of housing into a 50-foot-tall base project envelope that only accommodates 100 units. Therefore, the waiver for height is necessary to construct the Project at the density proposed. As to the concessions, the arrangement of the BMR units ensure that the market rate units generate enough income for the Project to subsidize the BMR units. In other words, that arrangement results in “identifiable and actual cost reductions to provide for affordable housing costs.” (Govt. Code § 65915(k))
The courts have confirmed that developers do not need to prove that a concession will be necessary to make a project economically feasible; rather, the burden is on the approving city to prove otherwise. (Bankers Hill 150 v. City of San Diego (2022) 74 Cal.App.5th 755, 774-775) Similarly, a waiver may only be denied if granting the waiver “would have a specific, adverse impact ... upon health or safety, and for which there is no feasible method to satisfactorily mitigate or avoid the specific adverse impact” or “would have an adverse impact on any real property that is listed in the California Register of Historical Resources, or to grant any waiver or reduction that would be contrary to state or federal law.” (Id. at p. 775, quoting Gov. Code, § 65915(e)(1)) The SDBL states that an agency “shall bear the burden of proof for the denial of a requested concession or incentive,” (Gov. Code, § 65915(d)(4)) and the Bankers Hill decision held that any denial of a waiver must be supported by substantial evidence. (Bankers Hill 150, supra, 74 Cal.App.5th at pp. 770-771) There is absolutely no evidence in the record (and certainly no substantial evidence) that would warrant the denial of concessions or waivers here. b) Traffic
Appellants claim that “the City's approval includes conditions stating that the project will ‘likely cause impact on traffic’ that the city will ‘likely need to address’ yet no enforceable mitigation strategy is identified.”
San Rafael City Council
February 11, 2026
As described in the materials provided to the Planning Commission, the Project received a statutory exemption from the CEQA pursuant to AB 130. (Pub. Resources Code § 21080.66(a)) Realizing that traffic studies often are used to slow, stall or completely stop housing development in California, the State created a statutory exemption that eliminated the need for traffic studies for qualifying projects. Reviewing the checklist for an AB 130 statutory exemption, you will find nothing related to traffic. However, as discussed at length at the Planning Commission, the Project did do a vehicle miles traveled (“VMT”) analysis pursuant to City guidelines. That study confirmed that the VMT for the Project is less than significant. In addition, two post-approval traffic studies will be prepared in cooperation with the City. And finally, an $840,000 traffic mitigation fee will be paid by the developer to the City—to be used by the City for whatever “traffic mitigation” the City deems necessary.
Furthermore, the potential traffic impacts associated with the buildout of new housing units in this Housing Element Cycle have already been studied by the City in a CEQA addendum to the General Plan EIR. The Project will not involve any new environmental impacts that were not studied as part of the public Housing Element process. All impacts associated with housing constructed under the Downtown Precise Plan were analyzed in the Downtown Precise Plan and General Plan 2040 EIR (General Plan 2040 & Downtown Precise Plan EIR (May 21, 2021)). In 2023, the City concluded that the construction of housing under the Housing Element would not result in new impacts that were not disclosed and analyzed in the General Plan 2040 EIR, including cumulative significant impacts to citywide VMT. (General Plan 2040 Addendum No. 1 (March 2023), section 3.16) The traffic related arguments made by the appellants must be rejected as they are no longer consistent with state law.
Traffic is an issue in San Rafael, as it is in most places in Marin County. A public presentation February 5, 2020 to the SMART Board of Directors entitled “Downtown San Rafael Traffic Circulation Update” identifies a 100% increase in daily traffic volumes on Second Street between 2007-2017, even with no significant new housing built during that period—meaning that Downtown traffic has been increasing even in the absence of any significant new housing being built. (Downtown San Rafael Traffic Circulation Update, SMART Board of Director’s Meeting (February 5, 2020); attached at Exhibit D.) Traffic is a regional issue that is often used as a way to oppose housing projects, which is why the State has removed that issue from the table with respect to many urban infill housing projects. This argument should be rejected. c) Vehicle access to/from garage during emergencies
The Kasbar and Dickinson appeal also raises concerns about vehicle access during an emergency. Planning Staff and the Planning Commission evaluated the Project and concluded that the Project will not result in any health or safety issues related to emergency access. Further, the Project will be required to comply with all applicable Building Code and Fire Code provisions related to emergency access and egress.
San Rafael City Council
February 11, 2026
To the extent that appellants still have concerns about operational limitations, those concerns have been addressed by conditions of approval, which include (but are not limited to) the following:
• Condition of Approval No. 34: requires inspection by the Department of Public Works, Community and Economic Development Department, Building Division and Planning Division, and Fire Department to ensure compliance with all applicable safety regulations. • Condition of Approval No. 57: requires “[a] Fire and Safety Emergency Plan [to be] prepared by a qualified professional will be on site and available for review at all times & enforced by the designated/qualified Site Safety Director.” • Condition No. 69: the Project must comply with emergency access and egress requirements in the California Fire Code.
d) Delivery, Loading and Service Vehicles
The ground level design, layout, and strategies for building operations, maintenance, back of house, servicing, etc. will be developed by the project team including specialized consultants to ensure efficiency and functionality while minimizing impacts on residents, guests, and adjacent properties. Industry best practices for multi-family properties involve the creation of a customized 24 hour daily servicing schedule to ensure that trucks using loading docks and removing trash and recycling are handled “off hours” so as to not conflict with resident life. Large tenant moves are similarly scheduled in advance to ensure coordination with other loading needs. Many of the customary smaller delivery and pick up vehicles can be accommodated during regular hours either in front of the building or in the ground level staging areas.
Additionally, Condition of Approval No. 112 requires the Applicant to submit a loading and waste collection plan to Department of Public Works and the City Traffic Engineer. “The plan shall indicate the proposed colored curb designations, proposed signage, type of loading, and time restrictions for the loading/pickup zones. Proposed loading zones shall comply with all applicable requirements of the California Building Code” and other regulatory requirements. e) Abdication of Discretion
Appellant claims that “while state law constraints discretion, it does not eliminate the obligation to exercise independent judgment or deny waivers that create public safety impacts.” The HAA clearly limits local discretion to impose only objective standards—i.e., those “that involve no personal or subjective judgment.” (Govt. Code § 65589.5(j); Govt. Code § 65589.5(f)(9)) For a housing project that also qualifies for the SDBL, state law prohibits the City from applying standards that would physically preclude construction of the Project at the proposed density. (Govt. Code § 65915(e)(1))
San Rafael City Council
February 11, 2026
When a project is protected by the HAA and the SDBL, the project or a requested density bonus waiver can be denied, or the project’s density reduced, only if the project or waiver would have “a specific, adverse impact upon the public health or safety, and there is no feasible method to satisfactorily mitigate or avoid” that impact. (Govt. Code §§ 65915(d)(1);(e)(1); Govt. Code § 65589.5(d)(2)) This standard does ultimately eliminate much of the discretion that cities previously had to deny or significantly reduce the density of housing projects.
Furthermore, state law places the burden on the City to determine, based on substantial evidence in the record, that the Project, or any of the requested waivers or concessions, would result in a specific health and safety impact, or that the waiver or concession is not actually needed to allow the proposed number of units or lower the costs of providing affordable housing. If a City has not made such findings, then a planning commission or city council cannot deny a project or reduce its density. (Govt. Code § 65915(e); Govt. Code § 65589.5(d)(2); Bankers Hill 150, supra, 74 Cal.App.5th at pp. 770-771)
f) Inconsistency with Strategic Plan
Notwithstanding appellant’s claims, the Project is completely consistent with and advances important elements of the City strategic plan. Under the priority area for housing and homelessness, one of the key goals is as follows:
Advance the development of new housing across all affordability levels to meet the State’s Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA) requirements as outlined in the City’s Housing Element, ensuring diverse, sustainable, and equitable housing opportunities for all residents. D.2.
Appellant alleges that “the Commission failed to meaningfully analyze or reconcile the approval with” Strategic Plan commitments related to “context-sensitive growth” and public safety. This is simply untrue. The Staff report and the Planning Commission completely align with the state mandates, the Housing Element, and the strategic plan referenced above. This argument should be rejected.
3. The Alezz Laielen Appeal
The basis of this appeal is that San Rafael is a suburb, not a city, and that tall buildings do not belong in a suburb. Appellant is asking the City Council to use its discretion and apply subjective and personal opinions in an effort to deny or reduce the size of the Project. This argument was effective for the last 30 or 40 years in keeping most larger scale buildings out of places like San Rafael. The HAA mandate to review housing projects against objective standards rather than subjective neighborhood preferences has put an end to this opposition strategy.
San Rafael is the largest city in Marin County. It has approximately 60,000 residents. It is the center of commercial activity in Marin County and the Project is located at the direct center San Rafael City Council
February 11, 2026
of the city, on a site specifically identified in the City’s housing element for high density housing, close to a major transit station and next to the freeway.
This appellant’s distaste for tall buildings is not a valid legal argument to support overturning the Planning Commission’s approval.
E. Zoning Ordinance and State Law Require Project Approval
1. Environmental and Design Review Criteria
Projects requesting Environmental and Design Review are subject to four findings: (1) that the project is consistent with the General Plan and Zoning Ordinance, (2) that the project is consistent with all applicable design criteria, (3) that the project minimizes adverse environmental impacts, and (4) that project design will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare, nor materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity. (SRMC § 14.25.090) The Project proposes to develop mixed income housing on a site identified for housing by both the Housing Element and the Downtown Precise Plan. After eight months of review (14 months from the submission of the preliminary application), Staff determined that the Project is consistent with the applicable development standards, subject to the waivers and concessions requested under the SDBL. The Project qualifies for a statutory CEQA exemption under AB 130 (Public Resources Code § 21080.66), which provides that CEQA does not apply to urban infill housing projects that meet certain site and project criteria. The redevelopment of a freewayadjacent property in a dense commercial neighborhood will not be detrimental to public health, safety or welfare, or injurious to properties in the vicinity.
2. State Law Mandate
The Project is consistent with and was filed pursuant to the HAA (Govt. Code § 65589.5), Senate Bill 330 (2019) (Govt. Code §§ 65940 et seq.), the SDBL (Govt. Code § 65915), the Permit Streamlining Act (Govt. Code §§ 65920 et seq.), and AB 130 (Public Resources Code § 21080.66). a) HAA and State Density Bonus Law
Under the HAA, housing development projects are only required to comply with the “applicable objective general plan, zoning, and subdivision standards and criteria.” (Govt. Code § 65589.5(j)) Objective standards are “criteria that involve no personal or subjective judgment.” (Govt. Code § 65589.5(f)(9))
For those objective Municipal Code and Downtown Precise Plan standards that apply to the Project, the SDBL prohibits the City from applying standards that would physically preclude construction of the Project at the density (and with the concessions and incentives) allowed by the SDBL. (Govt. Code § 65915(e)(1)) If such standards would physically preclude the Project, the City must waive those standards unless the Project would have a significant, unavoidable impact San Rafael City Council
February 11, 2026
on the environment or a historic resource, or such waiver would be inconsistent with state or federal law. (Govt. Code § 65915(e)(1))
Additionally, for projects that include BMR units for very low, low-, or moderate-income households, the City cannot disapprove the project or impose conditions that make the project infeasible, unless the City makes a finding that the project “would have a specific, adverse impact upon the public health or safety, and there is no feasible method to satisfactorily mitigate or avoid” that impact. (Govt. Code § 65589.5(d)(2)) No such finding has been made with respect to 700 Irwin.
b) AB 130 CEQA Exemption and the Permit Streamlining Act As of July 2025, AB 130 provides a statutory exemption from CEQA for urban infill housing developments that meet certain project and site criteria. Under AB 130, cities are required to issue a CEQA exemption for a qualifying project following completion of a tribal consultation process. The tribal consultation process under AB 130 includes strict timelines, such that the process must end a maximum of 60 days following the initiation of discussions with any tribes that respond to the initial notice. (Pub. Resources Code § 21080.66(b)) AB 130 imposes standard conditions regarding the potential discovery of tribal cultural resources, but CEQA otherwise does not apply to a project that is eligible for the AB 130 exemption. (Pub. Resources Code § 21080.66(a))
This means that under AB 130, the Project is not subject to any project-specific environmental review and CEQA mitigation measures cannot be applied to the construction or operation of the Project.
AB 130 also amended the Permit Streamlining Act, such that cities are required to approve or disapprove a project 30 days after the conclusion of the tribal consultation process or within 30 days of the deadline for the City to provide the applicant with objective standard consistency comments pursuant to the HAA. (Govt. Code § 65950(a)(7)) Planning Staff determined that the Project is consistent with the applicable objective standards on December 19, 2025, which means the City was required to approve or disapprove the Project by January 18, 2026.
F. Revisions to Proposed Affordable Housing Agreement Terms As noted, the HAA prevents cities from imposing conditions on mixed-income housing projects that would make the project infeasible, unless the city makes a finding that the project would have a specific adverse health or safety impact that cannot be mitigated. (Govt. Code § 65589.5(d)(2)) Two of the Affordable Housing Agreement (“AHA”) provisions could make the Project unfinanceable and infeasible, as detailed below:
• AHA Section 2.4 – No Subordination: We understand that the purpose of the no subordination clause is to ensure that the inclusionary housing covenants survive in the San Rafael City Council
February 11, 2026
event of foreclosure. However, the current text of this clause would potentially extend far beyond this intended purpose. Accordingly, we recommend the following edits:
No Subordination. Developer hereby represents, warrants and covenantsthat with the exception of easements of record, absent the consent of the City, the affordability covenants created by this Agreement shall not be subordinated in priority to any lien (other than those pertaining to taxes or assessments), encumbrance, or other interest in the Property or the Project. If at the time this Agreement is recorded, any interest, lien, or encumbrance has been recorded against the Property or the Project in position superior to this Agreement that would frustrate the implementation of the affordability covenants, upon the request of City, Developer hereby covenants and agrees to promptly undertake all action necessary to clear such matter from title or to subordinate such interest to this Agreement consistent with the intent of and in accordance with this Section 2.4, and to provide such evidence thereof as City may reasonably request. No building permit for the Project shall be issued unless and until any superior interests, liens or encumbrances are cleared from title. This clause shall not supersede any rights pursuant to Government Code Section 7060 et seq.
• AHA Section 3.10 – No Condominium Conversion:
o No Condominium Conversion: We request that this prohibition be removed. The owner has the right under state law to put a condominium map on the building, which is also critical for financing the Project.
We understand there is some concern about the different affordability rules that apply to rental BMR units and for sale BMR units. This is a rental project, and it is currently envisioned that all units will be rented when the Project opens. We also fully understand that the Project is committed to renting the BMR units in accordance with the final AHA. We do not see how recording a condominium map would in any way compromise these requirements. Yes, all the units would be mapped.2 But the agreement with the City is that the BMR units be rented. So even if the entire building is mapped, the BMR units cannot be sold. 2 We also note that pursuant to the Ellis Act, property owners have the fundamental right to “go out of business” and to take rental units off the market. (Gov. Code, § 7060 et seq.) San Rafael City Council
February 11, 2026
G. Project Benefits
The Project provides the following benefits:
• Provides 200 homes with 30 affordable units towards meeting the City’s 3,220 unit RHNA goal: The City’s RHNA allocation for 2023-2031 calls for 3,220 units. The Project will deliver 6% of the required RHNA allocation.
• Creates housing consistent with the Housing Element and Downtown Precise Plan:
The Project delivers the high-density housing with the canalfront amenities envisioned by the Downtown Precise Plan and the Housing Element. The Project is exactly the type of project that the Housing Element calls for on this site: “This is a completely vacant 26,000 SF office building, currently fenced off and closed. Has been discussed as a possible housing site and was identified as such in the Downtown Precise Plan. Waterfront site, with opportunities for shoreline amenities.” (Housing Sites Inventory ID No. F45) • Implements the City’s canalfront vision: The Project will be a catalyst for the "Canalfront" vision San Rafael has long championed by replacing a vacant office building, broken boardwalk and fenced scrubland with 200 high-quality homes, including 30 BMR units, an expanded boardwalk, and commercial "Boathaus" space that cantilevers over the water.
• Provides mixed-income housing on a walkable transit-oriented site: The urban infill site is a freeway-adjacent Property in a dense commercial area. The Project will provide housing situated a short walk from the San Rafael Transit Center, Downtown, and Montecito Plaza.
• Job creation: 700 Irwin will create an estimated 400 hundred construction related jobs and when complete approximately10-15 permanent jobs.
• Financial Impact: Development of the Project will contribute to the City’s substantial immediate and long term financial benefits including the following:
$5 million permit, processing, and impact fees;
$25 million in property taxes generated over the first 20 years; $15 million in private investment to design and build 30 designated affordable apartments;
$30+ million anticipated in local spending and sales taxes from new residents in the first 20 years;
$50 million in estimated payroll for 400 construction jobs over the approximately 2-year construction period, plus 10-15 permanent jobs.
San Rafael City Council
February 11, 2026
• Community Support. The Project is endorsed by the San Rafael Chamber of Commerce, the Canal Alliance, and the North Bay Leadership Council.
H. Conclusion
The Project represents an opportunity to convert a blighted site into a vibrant, sustainable, inclusive mixed-income community and gateway experience for San Rafael. Strategically positioned where the Canal district, Downtown, and the regional transit center converge, the development prioritizes transit-oriented density, environmental stewardship and placemaking activation.
The Applicant has a proven track record of successful commercial and residential investment and development and is eager to transform the underutilized property into 200 high quality, transit-oriented homes that will achieve 6% of the City’s 3,220 unit RHNA allocation.
Because the Project has been deemed consistent with the applicable objective development standards and exempt from CEQA under AB 130, the SDBL and the HAA require the City Council to reject these appeals and allow the Project to move forward.
We look forward to presenting the Project to you on February 17. Please feel free to contact me with any questions before then.
Very truly yours,
EXHIBIT A
STATE OF CALIFORNIA - BUSINESS, CONSUMER SERVICES AND HOUSING AGENCY GAVIN NEWSOM, Governor
DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
DIVISION OF HOUSING POLICY DEVELOPMENT
651 Bannon Street, Suite 400
Sacramento, CA 95811
(916) 263-2911 / FAX (916) 263-7453
www.hcd.ca.gov
November 20, 2025
Michael Forbes
Director of Community Development
City of Beverly Hills
Via: [email protected]
455 N Rexford Drive
Beverly Hills, CA 90210
Dear Michael Forbes:
RE: City of Beverly Hills – 8844 Burton Way – Notice of Potential Violation The California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) sent a Letter of Technical Assistance to the Beverly Hills Planning Commission ahead of its consideration of the proposed project at 8844 Burton Way (“Project”) on October 29, 2025.
Despite HCD’s guidance, the Planning Commission recommended denial of the Project.
This Notice of Potential Violation (NOPV) serves to remind the City of its obligations under the Housing Accountability Act (HAA) and specifically the requirements for making findings of denial ahead of the City Council hearing for the Project.
Background
HCD understands that the proposed Project includes 200 units, of which 22 units will be restricted to low-income households. The project site is located within the City’s R-4, Multiple Residential Zone, and has a General Plan designation of Multi-Family Residential – High Density. The preliminary application for the Project was filed pursuant to the Builder’s Remedy provisions of Government Code section 65589.5, subdivision (d)(5), as the City did not have a compliant housing element when a preliminary application was submitted on December 23, 2023. A full development application was then submitted on March 25, 2024. The original application submittal was deemed complete on January 10, 2025, with a revised version deemed complete on July 31, 2025. The revision did not change the overall unit count but did include modifications to height (expanding from 20 to 26 stories) and number of affordable units (reducing from 40 to 22 units). The reduction in affordable units is consistent with the updated affordability requirements under Assembly Bill 1893 (2024), Chapter 268 (Cal.
Stat. 2024).1 The Project also qualified under State Density Bonus Law (SDBL) and applied for several waivers and concessions, including reduced setbacks and parking dimensions, as well as the aforementioned increase in height. 1 Gov. Code, § 65589.5, subd. (h)(3)(C).
Michael Forbes, Director of Community Development, City of Beverly Hills
A previous Notice of Violation (NOV) dated December 2, 2024, was sent to the City on this project – and several others – but highlighted separate issues.2 The City ultimately adhered to guidance provided in the NOV. The issues raised in HCD’s letter to the Planning Commission dated October 28, 2025, are reiterated here for the City Council’s consideration.
Analysis
HCD understands that the Planning Commission considered making findings of denial based on inadequate dispersal of affordable units and impacts to health and safety.
Ultimately, it is HCD’s understanding that the Planning Commission was able to work with the applicant to find a suitable dispersal of affordable units as a condition of approval. Other impacts to health and safety, however, remain outstanding, as evidenced by the Planning Commission’s recommendation to deny the project. Below, HCD reinforces to the City Council that dispersal of affordable units as proposed by the applicant should not be identified as a reason for denial and reminds the City that the HAA provides that a local agency may not disapprove “housing for very low, low-, or moderate-income households housing,” or condition approval in a manner that renders the project infeasible unless it makes appropriate findings, “based upon a preponderance of the evidence in the record….”3 Because the Project is a builder’s remedy project, it qualifies as “housing for very low, low-, or moderate-income households.”4
Dispersal of Affordable Units
The HAA and SDBL do not contain specific dispersal requirements. However, Health and Safety Code section 17929 provides that a project is required to disperse affordable units on more than one floor. Section 17929 also requires that a mixed-income multifamily structure provide occupants of the affordable housing units and occupants of the market-rate housing units with equal access to common entrances, areas, and amenities. While these are the minimum requirements, state law does not prohibit a jurisdiction from adopting regulations or setting forth conditions of approval that require more expansive dispersal requirements.
HCD applauds the City’s motivation to enhance equity for future residents, but dispersal requirements that are not required by state law and not found in the City’s objective 2 These issues included the inability for the City to require a General Plan Amendment and Zone Change for an application qualifying under Gov. Code, § 65589.5, subd. (d)(5), as well as the ability for an application to maintain vesting through multiple 90-day review periods as defined in Gov. Code, § 65941.1, subd. (d)(2).
3 Gov. Code, § 65589.5, subd. (d).
4 Gov. Code, § 65589.5, subd. (h)(11)(A). See also Gov. Code, § 65589.5, subd. (h)(11) for the definition of “housing for very low, low-, or moderate-income households.” Michael Forbes, Director of Community Development, City of Beverly Hills
standards cannot serve as a basis for denial.5 Instead, the City may consider working with the applicant to condition approval on improving dispersal as long as the condition does not render the project infeasible.6 HCD understands that the applicant is willing to further disperse the affordable housing units, as discussed and agreed upon at the October 29, 2025, Planning Commission hearing. HCD urges the City Council to follow suit and not consider dispersal as a basis for denial.
Impacts to Health and Safety
HCD is aware that the City also raised concerns of impacts to public health and safety for the Project at the October 29, 2025, Planning Commission hearing. However, a housing development project qualifying under the HAA that meets all objective standards7 (except those lawfully modified via SDBL concessions and waivers) may only be denied if the City makes written findings, supported by a preponderance of evidence on the record, that (1) a specific, adverse impact upon the public health or safety would result and (2) mitigation of the adverse impact is not possible. 8 The HAA
defines a “specific, adverse impact” as a “significant, quantifiable, direct, and unavoidable impact, based on objective, identified written public health or safety standards, policies, or conditions as they existed on the date the application was deemed complete.”9
HCD understands the two main concerns related to impacts to health and safety are traffic impacts and emergency services access due to the height of the building.
However, a Local Transportation Assessment (LTA) was prepared for the Project to evaluate level of service (LOS) impacts during peak hours at signalized intersections.
The LTA determined that increases in intersection delays at relevant intersections are not expected to exceed the City’s operations criteria and that the Project is not expected to substantially or adversely increase delays at any of the study intersections.10 In other words, there is no “significant, quantifiable, direct, and unavoidable impact” related to traffic found in the study or any submitted materials. Similarly, HCD is not aware of any evidence in the record that would suggest that emergency access to all floors of the building would be an issue. As a reminder, “the burden of proof shall be on the local legislative body” to make the findings contained in subdivision (d) of the HAA.11 Without 5 Gov. Code, § 65589.5, subd. (f)(6)(A). See also Gov. Code, § 65589.5, subd. (h)(9) for the definition of “objective.”
6 Gov. Code, § 65589.5, subd. (d). See also Gov. Code, § 65589.5, subd. (h)(12) for the definition of “condition approval.”
7 The Project qualifies as a builder’s remedy project under the HAA and, according to the October 21, 2025, Planning Commission Report, is consistent with objective standards in the City’s General Plan and Municipal Code.
8 Gov. Code, § 65589.5, subd. (d)(2).
9 Id.
10 Beverly Hills Planning Commission Report (October 21, 2025), available at https://beverlyhills.granicus.com/MetaViewer.php?view_id=57&clip_id=10544&meta_id=656582. 11 Gov. Code, § 65589.5, subd. (i).
Michael Forbes, Director of Community Development, City of Beverly Hills
such documentation, there insufficient evidence to support the findings of denial.
Furthermore, City staff already confirmed as much in the October 21, 2025, Planning Commission Report, stating that “there is no evidence in the record that would enable the City to make the necessary findings in the HAA as grounds to deny the project.” Project to be Considered
Government Code section 65589.5, subdivision (d)(2) describes one of the findings a local jurisdiction may make to potentially disapprove a project. Specifically, it requires a finding that the “housing development project ... as proposed would have a specific, adverse impact upon public health and safety....” (Emphasis added.) Government Code section 65589.5, subdivision (h)(14) defines “as proposed by the applicant” as “the plans and designs as submitted by the applicant, including, but not limited to, density, unit size, unit type, site plan, building massing, floor area ratio, amenity areas, open space, parking, and ancillary commercial uses.”12 In other words, the City must consider the version of the Project whose application was deemed complete on July 31, 2025. The changes in unit count and affordability mix from any previous application submittal may not be considered as part of the deliberation and may not be used as a reason for denial.
Conclusion
The City Council should be mindful of the specific requirements for making findings of denial under the HAA as it considers the Project. If the City Council is unable to make such findings, HCD urges the City Council to approve the Project at the proposed density, with the proposed concessions and waivers. The City may request further dispersal requirements but should only do so as a condition of approval and to the extent that the condition does not render the project infeasible.
Additionally, HCD reminds the City of its enforcement authority over the HAA and SDBL, among other state housing laws. Accordingly, HCD may review local government actions to determine consistency with these laws. If HCD finds that a jurisdiction’s actions do not comply with state law, HCD may notify the California Office of the Attorney General that the local government is in violation of state law.
If you have any questions regarding the content of this letter or would like additional technical assistance, please contact Bentley Regehr at [email protected].
Sincerely,
David Zisser
Assistant Deputy Director
Local Government Relations and Accountability
12 Gov. Code, § 65589.5, subd. (h)(14).
EXHIBIT B
120% AMI UNIT
50% AMI UNIT
LEVEL 05 | 1B | 925 SF
LEVEL 06 | 2B | 1035 SF
LEVEL 08 | 1B | 670 SF
LEVEL 09 | 1B | 670 SF
LEVEL 10 | 1B | 670 SF
LEVEL 11 | 1B | 670 SF
LEVEL 05 | ST | 525 SF
LEVEL 05 | ST | 525 SF
LEVEL 07 | 2B | 890 SF
LEVEL 05 | 1B | 770 SF
LEVEL 05 | 1B | 730 SF
LEVEL 06 | 1B | 730 SF
LEVEL 08 | 1B | 770 SF
LEVEL 08 | 1B | 730 SF
LEVEL 07 | 2B | 930 SF
LEVEL 07 | 2B | 840 SF
LEVEL 07 | 1B | 640 SF
LEVEL 08 | 2B | 840 SF LEVEL 08 | 2B | 890 SF
LEVEL 11 | ST | 560 SF
LEVEL 11 | 1B | 720 SF
LEVEL 10 | ST | 560 SF
LEVEL 11 | ST | 525 SF
LEVEL 10 | 1B | 720 SF
LEVEL 10 | ST | 525 SF
LEVEL 08 | 1B | 720 SF
LEVEL 07 | 1B | 720 SF
LEVEL 09 | ST | 560 SF
LEVEL 09 | 1B | 720 SF
LEVEL 09 | ST | 525 SF
EXHIBIT C
AB 491
CONCURRENCE IN SENATE AMENDMENTS
AB 491 (Ward and Lorena Gonzalez)
As Amended August 18, 2021
Majority vote
SUMMARY
1) Requires that, for mixed income multifamily structures, the occupants of the affordable housing units within the mixed-income multifamily structure shall have the same access to the common entrances, areas and amenities as the occupants of the market-rate housing units. 2) Prohibits a mixed-income multifamily structure from isolating the affordable housing units within that structure to a specific floor or an area on a specific floor. 3) Defines "market rate unit" as any residential unit that is not affordable housing or a manager's unit occupied by on-site property management staff. 4) Defines "affordable housing unit" as any residential dwelling unit that is restricted by deed or other recorded document as affordable housing for persons and families of low or moderate income.
5) Defines "common entrance" as any area used by the occupants of a mixed-income multifamily structure for ingress to or egress from that structure. 6) Provides that this bill is declaratory of existing law.
Senate Amendments
Clarify that market rate units do not include a manager's unit occupied by on-site property management staff.
COMMENTS
Poor Door: Recent news stories covered cases in which developers, in New York City and San Diego, proposed housing developments with features that would discriminate against lower income residents. Developers proposed creating a separate entrance to housing for lower income residents nicknamed a "poor door" and limiting lower income residents' access to amenities like a roof or pool. In the San Diego case, the development was market rate and subject to the local inclusionary housing ordinance which restricted 10 percent of the units to affordable housing.
The developer proposed constructing three towers, two that would be entirely market rate and one that would be affordable to lower income households and a roof-top deck and pool that the residents of the affordable structure would be unable to access. In the situation discussed, the development was denied at the planning stage and was modified to create a common entrance for all residents regardless of income.
Existing prohibition on discrimination: State law includes numerous prohibitions against discrimination in housing. The two most relevant to this bill are Government Code Section 65008 and the Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA, Government Code Section 12955 et seq.) and its implementing regulations (2 California Code of Regulations Section 12005 et seq.).
Government Code Section 65008 prohibits a local government from using public or private land use practices, decisions, or authorizations to discriminate against low or moderate income AB 491
families or individuals. This prohibition applies to publicly subsidized projects, those that receive density bonus, or are subject to an inclusionary zoning ordinance. This bill applies to mixed-income developments in which the lower income units are restricted by deed or other recorded document and would therefore be subject to existing law.
California's Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA) prohibits housing discrimination based on the protected classes of race, color, religion, sex, gender, gender identity, gender expression, sexual orientation, marital status, national origin, ancestry, familial status, source of income, disability, or genetic information. Source of income is defined as Section 8 Housing Choice Vouchers and Department of Housing and Urban Development Veteran Affairs Supportive Housing Voucher. Discrimination includes restrictive covenants, zoning laws, denials of use permits, and other actions authorized under the Planning and Zoning Law that make housing opportunities unavailable. Although FEHA doesn't not explicitly apply to lower income people, some lower income people fall in to other categories of protected class and so receive the protection from discrimination provided by the FEHA.
The statute prohibits housing discrimination against any member of a protected class under FEHA, as well as based on the income of the intended occupants of the housing. This statute is designed to ensure that people are not denied "the enjoyment of residence, landownership, tenancy, or any other land use in this state" because they are low-income. Generally, Section 65008 should be interpreted in parallel to the Fair Housing Act.
The Department of Fair Employment and Housing (DFEH) is the state agency tasked with receiving, investigating, and conciliating complaints relating to housing discrimination. DFEH promulgates regulations to implement the FEHA which prohibit a practice that intentionally discriminates or has a discriminatory effect on members of a protected class including, among other provisions, denies, restricts, conditions, adversely impacts, or renders infeasible the use of privileges, services, or facilities associated with housing opportunities or existing or proposed dwellings, or otherwise makes unavailable such privileges, services or facilities.
California's AFFH: California enacted a statewide version of a policy to affirmatively further fair housing (AFFH) (AB 686, (Santiago), Chapter 958, Statutes of 2018. AB 686 required public agencies to "administer its programs and activities relating to housing and community development in a manner to affirmatively further fair housing, and take no action that is materially inconsistent with its obligation to affirmatively further fair housing." It also required cities and counties to consider AFFH in their housing element's implementation plan. By placing AFFH provisions into housing element law, the California law expanded its reach to all cities and counties, rather than just those that receive federal funding for housing developments.
State Housing Law: This bill adds to the State Housing Law that low-income occupants of a mixed income development have the same access to common entrances and to common areas and amenities as the occupants of market rate housing units. Given the existence of expansive existing law prohibiting discrimination in local land use decisions, this bill explicitly states that it is declaratory of existing law and should not be interpreted to limit the application of those laws or regulations.
According to the Author
"Assembly Bill 491 will put an end to the discriminatory practice of treating residents of affordable housing units in a mixed-income multifamily structure differently from residents of market-rate housing units. Under current law, a developer seeking to construct a mixed-income AB 491
development can construct a building with separate entrances, common areas and amenities for each set of occupants. This can result in a segregated housing complex where a family cannot swim in a pool or enter through the same door as their neighbors. As the state continues to encourage more mixed-income housing throughout California, we need to make sure affordable housing residents are not treated as second-class citizens. AB 491 advances California's values of fair housing, equity, and inclusion
Arguments in Support
Supporters argue that this bill is needed to prevent affordable housing developments from segregating lower income residents to a specific floor or an area of a floor in a development.
Arguments in Opposition
The Hollywood Chamber of Commerce opposes this bill because they argue it will add new regulations to affordable housing developments making them harder to build.
FISCAL COMMENTS
According to the Assembly Appropriations Committee:
1) Minor and absorbable costs to the Department of Housing and Community Development. 2) State-mandated costs to cities and counties, unknown but likely minor, to make necessary administrative changes, if any, to reflect the requirements of this bill. These costs are potentially reimbursable by the state, subject to a determination by the Commission on State Mandates, should a local agency submit a claim.
VOTES:
ASM HOUSING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT: 7-0-1
YES: Chiu, Seyarto, Kalra, Kiley, Ward, Quirk-Silva, Wicks ABS, ABST OR NV: Gabriel
ASM APPROPRIATIONS: 16-0-0
YES: Lorena Gonzalez, Bigelow, Calderon, Carrillo, Chau, Megan Dahle, Davies, Fong, Gabriel, Eduardo Garcia, Levine, Quirk, Robert Rivas, Akilah Weber, Friedman, Stone ASSEMBLY FLOOR: 76-0-2
YES: Aguiar-Curry, Arambula, Bauer-Kahan, Bennett, Berman, Bigelow, Bloom, Boerner Horvath, Burke, Calderon, Carrillo, Cervantes, Chau, Chen, Chiu, Choi, Cooley, Cooper, Megan Dahle, Daly, Davies, Flora, Fong, Frazier, Friedman, Gabriel, Gallagher, Cristina Garcia, Eduardo Garcia, Gipson, Lorena Gonzalez, Gray, Grayson, Holden, Irwin, Jones-Sawyer, Kiley, Lackey, Lee, Levine, Low, Maienschein, Mathis, Mayes, McCarty, Medina, Mullin, Muratsuchi, Nazarian, Nguyen, O'Donnell, Patterson, Petrie-Norris, Quirk, Quirk-Silva, Ramos, Reyes, Luz Rivas, Robert Rivas, Rodriguez, Blanca Rubio, Salas, Santiago, Seyarto, Smith, Stone, Ting, Valladares, Villapudua, Voepel, Waldron, Ward, Akilah Weber, Wicks, Wood, Rendon
ABS, ABST OR NV: Cunningham, Kalra
AB 491
SENATE FLOOR: 39-0-1
YES: Allen, Archuleta, Atkins, Bates, Becker, Borgeas, Bradford, Caballero, Cortese, Dahle, Dodd, Durazo, Eggman, Glazer, Gonzalez, Grove, Hertzberg, Hueso, Hurtado, Jones, Kamlager, Laird, Leyva, Limón, McGuire, Melendez, Min, Newman, Nielsen, Ochoa Bogh, Pan, Portantino, Roth, Rubio, Skinner, Umberg, Wieckowski, Wiener, Wilk ABS, ABST OR NV: Stern
UPDATED
VERSION: August 18, 2021
CONSULTANT: Lisa Engel / H. & C.D. / (916) 319-2085 FN: 0001474
EXHIBIT D
DOWNTOWN SAN RAFAEL
TRAFFIC CIRCULATION UPDATE
SMART Board of Directors’ Meeting
February 5, 2020
DOWNTOWN SAN RAFAEL
2 CONGESTION
3 Hwy 101
SB On-Ramp
SMART
Station
Transit
Center
3 rd Street
2 nd Street 25K Cars/Day
9K passenger/day
35K Cars/day
30K Cars/day
Hwy 101
200K Cars/day
Hetherton
Street
Hwy 101
Offramp
23K/Cars/day
PRE-EXISTING CHALLENGES
4 ▪ Daily Traffic Volumes:
- 3
rd St: 50% increase:(2000-2017)
(20,870 to 30,842)
- 2
nd St: 100% increase (2007-2017)
(17,736 to 35,723)
▪ Highway 101 Access
- Frequently backs-up to City Streets
▪ Pedestrian Volumes
▪ Transit Center Activity
- 9,000 passengers per day
- Local, Regional, Airport Service
- 500 Daily Bus Trips
➢ All existed before SMART operated to Downtown San Rafael 2 ND & 3RD STREETS
5 1. Driver Behavior
- Safety Hazard
- Causes Delays
2. Traffic Delays
- Traffic Signal Timing
- Gate Down Time
2 ND & 3RD STREETS – DRIVER BEHAVIOR
6 SOLUTIONS:
▪ Enforcement
▪ Traffic Signal Timing
▪ Pavement Treatments
2 ND STREET – CARS ON TRACKS
7 Contrasting Pavement Treatment
SMART’S PART
▪ Improve Train Meet
Timing – get trains to “meet”
between 2nd St & Station
▪ Minimize Gate Down Time
8 SUMMARY
9 ▪ Bad Behavior Enforcement
(On-going by SRPD )
▪ Traffic Signal Timing Improvements
(On-going by City of San Rafael)
▪ Contrasting Pavement
(City of San Rafael evaluating)
▪ Train Meets
(Jan 4th – ongoing by SMART)
▪ SMART – City Coordination
(on-going coordination)
CONCLUSION ▪ Excessive Congestion - 50-100% growth in traffic - 0% growth in roadway capacity ➢Before SMART arrived ▪ Partners - City of San Rafael - Town of San Anselmo - Town of Fairfax - Golden Gate Transit - Marin Transit - Caltrans - Transportation Authority of Marin ▪ SMART – Part of the Solution - Getting People out of Automobiles - Downtown Station - Busiest - Bicycle – First/Last Mile 10 Outlook
The city of SR sold out
From John Rising
Date Wed 1/14/2026 12:09 PM
To 700Irwin <[email protected]>
Hard to believe with all the opposition last night that the project was approved.
Shameful!
John Rising
2/10/26, 10:39 AM Inbox - Christina Ratcliffe - Outlook https://outlook.office365.com/mail/none/id/AAkALgAAAAAAHYQDEapmEc2byACqAC%2FEWg0A2zf9%2FGnhQU6id6dsWZgvsQAApZP8kAAA 1/1 Outlook
What can the city do?
From John Rising
Date Fri 1/16/2026 10:58 PM
To 700Irwin <[email protected]>
Even though the city is forced by the developers, using loopholes to build the 17 story building, are there any requirements the city can make of the developers to make it more sustainable? Maybe they could make it a living building? A building that creates all of its own energy through solar panels or recycles all of its water, reducing the need for more MWD water going or purifying the air with outdoor plants… The list is endless.
Maybe they don’t need a garage at all as its proximity to transit which they are touting would make a car obsolete.
Maybe they could have transit passes as part of the rent or a fleet of electric bikes or?.
There are so many people against us in San Rafael and beyond that I feel the city should somehow require the developers to include some reach codes i.e. reaching beyond the current code and doing something exemplary rather than mundane.
John Rising
texting preferred
2/10/26, 10:31 AM Inbox - Christina Ratcliffe - Outlook https://outlook.office365.com/mail/none/id/AAkALgAAAAAAHYQDEapmEc2byACqAC%2FEWg0A2zf9%2FGnhQU6id6dsWZgvsQAAqTpmdwAA 1/1 Outlook
FW: Public Comment: 700 Irwin
From Planning Public Comment <[email protected]> Date Tue 1/27/2026 6:19 PM
To Christina Ratcliffe <[email protected]> From: Jessie Rountree <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, January 13, 2026 4:45 PM
To: Planning Public Comment <[email protected]> Subject: Public Comment: 700 Irwin
Hello,
My name is Jessie Rountree. I am a resident of San Rafael and the Marin Resilience Manager at Greenbelt Alliance, where we work to increase climate resiliency across the Bay Area.
We recognize the housing shortage in Marin and applaud the project and City’s effort to increase units.
When done right, housing can offer both climate mitigation and resilience solutions. We appreciate the proximity to transit. Siting housing close to transit can help to reduce our vehicle miles traveled and reduce our GHG emissions.
We simultaneously need to be prepared for the risk of flooding as well as the displacement of residents.
We've seen a preview of the impacts that flooding will have on our community in the recent king tide event. It’s essential that the housing we build in floodplains is built to standards that protect current and future residents.
We encourage the project developers and City to carefully review the floodplain mitigation plans and overall risk of the building faces directly against the canal.
Thank you,
Jessie
Jessie Rountree (she/her)
Greenbelt Alliance
Marin Resilience Manager
[email protected]
greenbelt.org | Facebook | Instagram | Twitter
2/10/26, 10:24 AM FW: Public Comment: 700 Irwin - Christina Ratcliffe - Outlook about:blank 1/1
Outlook
700 Irwin Street
From lisakk
Date Wed 1/14/2026 10:20 AM
To 700Irwin <[email protected]>
Ms. Ratcliffe,
As a resident of San Rafael for the last 48 years, I am greatly concerned about the proposed project at 700 Irwin Street. Esthetically, a high rise complex at that location would be an unacceptable and unwelcoming entrance to our city. A building 17 stories high on that corner will not only look monstrous, the added density will greatly exacerbate the daily congestion that already exists in that central artery of San Rafael.
We bought our Gerstle Park home in 1980. It is approximately 1 mile from Irwin Street and the north and south exits to Highway 101. Although we live just a short distance away, traffic is often very slow and tedious getting to the Highway 101 exits and onto the freeway. The same applies trying to do our preferred local shopping at United Market at 3rd and Grand, and Trader Joe's at Montecito Center.
There is already considerable traffic congestion trying to cross Irwin, and when we need to get onto Irwin to head north.
There is already a huge project underway a block or two up from 700 Irwin. The impact of 2 new gargantuan complexes will be brutal to daily life in San Rafael. We already are strained by commute traffic coming east and west through our city from San Anselmo, Fairfax and beyond. We have delays and back ups when the Smart Train comes through, and the busy transporation center nearby We have the density of Bio Marin and other office complexes in that area. We have San Rafael High School car and pedestrian traffic in that area, and the aforementioned shopping area around Montecito, United Market and Whole Foods. Kaiser and the newish AC Hotel are also nearby and contribute to traffic going in and out the Irwin Street area. Central San Rafael is used as both a thoroughfare and destination by many living outside our city limits, and San Rafael residents already are heavily impacted trying to go about our daily activities.
There have been a tragic number of fatal pedestrian accidents in San Rafael this year. There are safety issues that must be considered before adding that much density to the 2nd and Irwin corner.
Only a few days ago we saw how high the water rose along San Rafael Canal and San Rafael Creek during the King Tides-- in the very location of 700 Irwin. That location is landfill. There are some very serious seismic, environmental and climate change issues to be addressed.
I have been ill and could not attend the meeting at city hall, but another family member was there.
Please consider reducing the scale of this project at 700 Irwin Street for the greater good of San Rafael.
2/10/26, 10:40 AM 700 Irwin Street - Christina Ratcliffe - Outlook about:blank 1/2
Thank you,
Lisa Kampmeyer
Sent from my Verizon, Samsung Galaxy smartphone
Sent from my Verizon, Samsung Galaxy smartphone
2/10/26, 10:40 AM 700 Irwin Street - Christina Ratcliffe - Outlook about:blank 2/2
Outlook
700 Irwin - Bicycle Parking Waiver
From Matthew Hartzell
Date Thu 1/15/2026 2:51 PM
To 700Irwin <[email protected]>
Dear San Rafael Planning Department,
I watched the video of the Jan. 13, 2026 Planning Commission hearing on the 700 Irwin project.
I saw that the developer had requested a waiver to provide only 60 bicycle parking spaces instead of the 271 bicycle parking spaces required by San Rafael City Ordinance.
I understand that the Planning Commission approved the project at the end of the Jan. 13 meeting.
My question is: Does the Planning Commission's approval mean that the waiver to provide fewer bicycle parking spaces than required by Ordinance has now been formally granted? Or is this waiver still subject to the approval of the San Rafael City Council? Thank you
Matthew Hartzell
2/10/26, 10:35 AM 700 Irwin - Bicycle Parking Waiver - Christina Ratcliffe - Outlook about:blank 1/1
Outlook
FW: 700 Irwin
From Planning Public Comment <[email protected]> Date Tue 1/27/2026 6:19 PM
To Christina Ratcliffe <[email protected]> -----Original Message-----
From: Nancy Worcester
Sent: Tuesday, January 13, 2026 3:53 PM
To: Planning Public Comment <[email protected]> Subject: 700 Irwin
To whom it may concern,
I am against this 17 story project in this location. I live in east San Rafael and it’s already overly congested getting to and from downtown and onto and off of the freeway. Often we limp past the high school and transit center. I’m all for new housing SR but not something this large and dense in that location. The character of our city will be forever changed . And construction will be a nightmare.
Please vote no.
Sincerely,
Nancy
Nancy Worcester
Sent from my iPhone
2/10/26, 10:23 AM FW: 700 Irwin - Christina Ratcliffe - Outlook about:blank 1/1
Outlook
Re: 700 Irwin Street
From Nancy Worthington
Date Thu 1/15/2026 10:49 AM
To 700Irwin <[email protected]>
Dear Christina,
I attended the meeting at City Hall on Tuesday. I wasn’t convinced by the builders that 700 Irwin Street is in any way a benefit to the City of San Rafael. The building is too big for the site. The building is on land fill which would require extensive foundation work to support such a huge structure. The building would cause terrible traffic headaches for the thousands that live in East San Rafael and the Canal trying to get on and off Highway 101. That intersection is probably the busiest in San Rafael, and the addition of 200 plus apartments next to it would be a nightmare. Who would really want to live next to the freeway off-ramp? Their claims of having a positive cultural impact by having a common room and a deck are ridiculous, and their claim that they will beautify the Canal is also far fetched.
This project should be rejected. The presence of a 17 story tall building at the freeway off-ramp does nothing to improve the gateway to the City, nor does it provide any sort of connection to the East and West parts of San Rafael. It will be a huge eyesore.
I understand that the builders have threatened the City with a lawsuit so they can build this monstrosity. I think it would be a good time to ask the City attorney to take them on.
Sincerely,
Nancy Worthington
San Rafael, CA 94901
On Thu, Jan 15, 2026 at 10:28 AM Nancy Worthington wrote:
Dear
On Mon, Jan 12, 2026 at 12:48 PM Nancy Worthington wrote:
Dear Christina,
2/10/26, 10:36 AM Inbox - Christina Ratcliffe - Outlook https://outlook.office365.com/mail/none/id/AAkALgAAAAAAHYQDEapmEc2byACqAC%2FEWg0A2zf9%2FGnhQU6id6dsWZgvsQAAqII9pwAA 1/2 I am writing to ask that the huge project slated to be built at 700 Irwin Street be blocked. I live off San Pedro in East San Rafael, and it already takes a lot of time to get to the freeway and across town due to heavy traffic, several traffic lights and the Smart train. I can’t imagine what it would be like if 700 Irwin Street is built.
Another issue is safety. When the thousands of people in East San Rafael are trying to escape fires or floods, the access to the freeway is all important.
Sincerely
Nancy Worthington
San Rafael 90901
2/10/26, 10:36 AM Inbox - Christina Ratcliffe - Outlook https://outlook.office365.com/mail/none/id/AAkALgAAAAAAHYQDEapmEc2byACqAC%2FEWg0A2zf9%2FGnhQU6id6dsWZgvsQAAqII9pwAA 2/2 Outlook
FW: Project name, (700 Erwin st., San Rafael)
From Planning Public Comment <[email protected]> Date Tue 1/27/2026 6:19 PM
To Christina Ratcliffe <[email protected]> -----Original Message-----
From: Stephen Alsterlind
Sent: Tuesday, January 13, 2026 3:07 PM
To: Planning Public Comment <[email protected]> Subject: Project name, (700 Erwin st., San Rafael)
I am a retired building contractor who has lived in San Rafael for 50 years. I can see many reasons to be against this project. .
1. We are talking about the main entrance to our town coming from the South. This is an area that is routinely blocked up with traffic on a daily basis.
2. The size of the proposed building uses more than the entire property it sits on.
3. This will cause the building materials needed for the project (large semi trucks loaded with steel, and cement trucks and pumps etc.), will be blocking a lane of traffic or being on city streets during the entire time it takes to build the project. This project will only make a bad situation worse.
4. Of all the possible locations for a project of this magnitude, I can’t think of a worse intersection than the one that is proposed!
For the sake of our beloved City, l hope that this project is moved to a more appropriate location where the property is large enough to accommodate the work that is required to build it.
Thank You for considering my concerns.
Steve Alsterlind
Sent from my iPad
2/10/26, 10:20 AM FW: Project name, (700 Erwin st., San Rafael) - Christina Ratcliffe - Outlook about:blank 1/1
Supplemental Statement – 700 Irwin Street Appeal
SUPPLEMENTAL STATEMENT IN SUPPORT OF APPEAL
Chapter 14.28 – Appeal of Planning Commission Decision
700 Irwin Street Project
Submitted by Steven Bryant, Appellant
I. Purpose and Scope of This Supplemental Statement
This Supplemental Statement is submitted in support of the Notice of Appeal and Appendix A filed on January 15, 2026, pursuant to Chapter 14.28 of the Municipal Code.
It identifies additional record-clarity questions that have emerged through the appeal process and that may assist the City Council in its review.
For this project, the staff report, draft resolution, and conditions of approval were made available to the public shortly before the Planning Commission hearing on January 13, 2026. The appeal window closed five days later. Many of the questions identified here reflect the type of cross-referenced, statutory review that becomes possible only after the full record is available for examination. As a practical matter, that opportunity first arose during the appeal period itself. This is not a criticism of the process or timeline; it is simply the context in which these questions surfaced, and it underscores the role of appellate review in ensuring record completeness.
This submission is offered in the same spirit as the original appeal: not as criticism of the work already completed, and not as a request for any particular outcome, but as a contribution to the clarity and durability of the administrative record before the Council takes final action. It does not request analysis beyond what applicable statutes already require. Rather, it identifies statutory determinations that the law calls for and asks where the record reflects that those determinations were made. The intent is to ensure that the Council’s decision – whatever it may be – rests on a record that clearly documents the required reasoning.
II. Concessions and Waivers as Individual Statutory Determinations The approved project includes three concessions and eight waivers under the State Density Bonus Law. The statute establishes distinct legal standards for concessions and for waivers, and those standards operate on an individual, determination-bydetermination basis.
Supplemental Statement – 700 Irwin Street Appeal
For concessions, Government Code section 65915(d)(1) requires approval unless one of three conditions is established:
a) the concession does not result in identifiable and actual cost reductions necessary to make the development affordable;
b) the concession would have a specific, adverse impact upon public health or safety or the physical environment for which no feasible mitigation exists; or c) the concession would be contrary to state or federal law.
These are the statutory criteria that govern concession determinations, including circumstances in which a concession may not be granted.
For waivers, Government Code section 65915(e)(1) requires approval unless granting the waiver would:
a) have a specific, adverse impact upon public health or safety with no feasible mitigation;
b) have an adverse impact on a listed historical resource; or c) be contrary to state or federal law.
Because concessions and waivers are governed by distinct statutory standards, the statute contemplates that each concession and each waiver will be evaluated individually under its applicable criteria.
A request being identified or listed in the staff report is distinct from the record reflecting the City’s application of the applicable statutory criteria to that specific request and the basis for the resulting determination.
The question for this appeal is where the record reflects those request-by-request determinations under the applicable statutory criteria, including the “contrary to state or federal law” criterion, and the record basis supporting each determination. Those statutory criteria govern each request and define the findings the City must apply in acting on that request, whether the outcome is approval or denial.
III. The Base Project as the Foundation for the Density Bonus Analysis The density bonus framework for this project is built on a base project of 100 units. That base project – described as a hypothetical five-story, multi-family residential building complying with all objective standards for the T5N 50/70 district – establishes the Supplemental Statement – 700 Irwin Street Appeal
baseline from which the density bonus percentage, the number of permitted concessions, and waiver eligibility are derived.
Government Code section 65915(o)(6) requires the applicant to demonstrate how many units can be constructed in compliance with all applicable objective development standards, with average unit sizes comparable to the proposed project. The statute then requires the City to rely on that demonstration when calculating the density bonus.
Because the base-project unit count is the foundational input for multiple downstream determinations, the statute necessarily contemplates that the City will evaluate the applicant’s demonstration before relying on it.
The question raised here is not whether a base project was submitted, but where the record reflects the City’s evaluation of that demonstration – specifically, where the record shows how the City confirmed that the base project’s unit count and program assumptions (including unit sizing, building program elements reflected in the base concept, bicycle parking, and civic space requirements) are consistent with applicable objective development standards and other objective constraints applicable to the site, within the dimensional and programmatic limits of the T5N 50/70 envelope, and appropriate to serve as the baseline for the density bonus analysis.
IV. Affordable Unit Placement and Fair Housing Considerations The approved project locates all 30 affordable units on floors 5 through 11, while floors 12 through 17 contain exclusively market-rate units, including upper-floor units and all eight three-bedroom units. No affordable three-bedroom units are provided.
The concession for unit “type” was granted under Resolution 14890(C)(1), which permits clustering of affordable units when the City determines that such clustering furthers affordable housing opportunities. This standard calls for an affirmative City determination. While cost considerations are relevant, the resolution requires a determination that the clustering itself furthers affordable housing opportunities, which is a broader inquiry than cost alone.
Separately, the City is subject to existing Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing (AFFH) obligations under Government Code section 8899.50 and Housing Element law (Gov.
Code § 65583(c)(10)). These obligations require public entities to take meaningful actions to promote inclusive communities and reduce barriers to inclusive housing choice.
Supplemental Statement – 700 Irwin Street Appeal
The questions raised here are:
1) where the record reflects the City’s affirmative determination, under Resolution 14890(C)(1), that the approved clustering pattern furthers affordable housing opportunities; and
2) where the record reflects any consideration of the City’s existing fair housing obligations in connection with that determination.
Because this standard turns on whether the clustering pattern itself furthers affordable housing opportunities (not simply whether the project adds housing overall), the record should identify the basis for that determination.
Separately, this section asks where the “contrary to state or federal law” standard of Government Code section 65915(d)(1)(C) was applied to this concession. Each of these determinations is required by existing law. The question is where they appear in the record.
V. Interaction Between the Amenity Concession and the AB 130 Balcony Restriction
One concession allows a disproportionate number of affordable units to lack private balconies relative to market-rate units. Separately, Condition of Approval 123(a)(iv), implementing Public Resources Code section 21080.66(c)(2), prohibits balconies facing the freeway on the project’s west elevation.
These requirements arise from different legal sources but operate on the same building and can compound one another. The AB 130 restriction eliminates balconies based on orientation; the amenity concession permits fewer balconies based on affordability status.
If the combined effect is a cumulative disparity in exterior access between affordable and market-rate units, that combined effect is relevant to the “contrary to state or federal law” determination required for the amenity concession under Government Code section 65915(d)(1)(C).
Private balconies are unit-level features affecting light, air, and private open space, and they are not interchangeable with shared amenities such as common terraces. That distinction matters when evaluating differences in unit-level features.
The question is where the record reflects consideration of the combined effect of these two provisions as part of the required “contrary to law” determination – evaluated in the context of the project as approved, including applicable conditions of approval.
Supplemental Statement – 700 Irwin Street Appeal
VI. Federal Property Interest and Sequencing of Federal Approvals The staff report and resolution acknowledge that the San Rafael Canal bordering the site is federally owned. The preferred plan includes elements cantilevering over the Canal, and Condition of Approval 20 appropriately requires that all necessary federal approvals be obtained prior to issuance of the first building permit.
Condition of Approval 35 separately requires compliance with all outside local, state, and federal agency regulations, including approvals from the Army Corps of Engineers. The resolution therefore contemplates the possibility of federal agency involvement.
If a federal permit, license, or approval is required, the issuing agency may have independent obligations under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). AB 130’s CEQA exemption does not alter NEPA obligations triggered by a federal action.
The question presented is one of sequencing: whether the potential for federal approval conditioned by NEPA review – which could affect aspects of the preferred plan, including design or building form – has implications for the entitlement determination, or whether deferral to the building-permit stage is appropriate. The resolution addresses the possibility that federal approval may not be obtained; the question is where the record reflects the City’s sequencing rationale if a federal approval is required and is granted with conditions that could affect aspects of the preferred plan. Remand would provide a straightforward opportunity to clarify the City’s sequencing rationale in the approval documents, if the City determines clarification is warranted.
VII. State Highway Proximity and Transportation Review Sequencing The project site is immediately adjacent to the Highway 101 off-ramp as it transitions into Irwin Street. The Local Transportation Analysis projects 817 daily trips and 112 peak-hour trips, and notes that PM peak demand may approach the automated parking system’s processing capacity.
Condition of Approval 107 requires a Tier 3 Transportation Analysis (Non-CEQA) within five years after issuance of the Certificate of Occupancy, including evaluation of intersection operations and multimodal circulation. Condition of Approval 35 requires compliance with outside agency regulations, which may include Caltrans requirements for projects affecting state highway facilities.
The question raised is one of sequencing and record clarity: where the record reflects what traffic and circulation determinations, if any, the City is relying on at the entitlement stage, and how the City is distinguishing between information that is being deferred to post-occupancy and determinations that support the approval decision today. Relatedly, Supplemental Statement – 700 Irwin Street Appeal
where the record reflects whether Caltrans coordination was required and, if so, how it was addressed—or the documented basis for concluding it was not required—given the project’s immediate adjacency to a state highway facility and the deferral of comprehensive intersection analysis to post-occupancy.
VIII. Statutory Standard for Concession Cost-Reduction Determinations Government Code section 65915(k) defines a concession to include a reduction in site development standards that results in identifiable and actual cost reductions to provide affordable housing.
The statutory terms “identifiable” and “actual” establish a standard that contemplates some demonstrable basis in the record. Cost reductions must be capable of being identified and must be real, not theoretical.
The applicant has represented that each of the three concessions produces identifiable and actual cost reductions. The question for this appeal is where the record reflects the City’s determination that those representations satisfy the statutory standard. By way of example:
• for the unit size concession, where the record reflects the basis for concluding that the unit-size approach relied upon produces the required cost reductions; • for the unit type concession, where the record reflects evaluation of how the record supports the conclusion that the unit-type approach relied upon is necessary to achieve the claimed cost reductions, as required by statute; and • for the amenity concession, where the record reflects the basis for determining that the balcony-related amenity reduction produces identifiable and actual cost reductions, and that those cost reductions are necessary to provide affordable housing costs, as required by statute.
These are not requests for new analysis. They are questions about where determinations required by section 65915(k) appear in the record.
IX. Remand as a Governance Measure
The Planning Commission approved the project on January 13, 2026, and this appeal was timely filed on January 15, 2026. The City Council’s review proceeds under Chapter 14.28 of the Municipal Code.
Supplemental Statement – 700 Irwin Street Appeal
Remand is not disapproval. It is the Council exercising its appellate role to ensure that the record supporting the final action is complete and transparent. The Planning Commission has taken action within the AB 130 process timeline, and the appeal is a separate procedural step.
A remand with a defined scope and reasonable timeline serves all parties. It allows the City to ensure that required determinations are clearly documented, provides the applicant with a more durable entitlement, and assures the community that existing legal obligations – including fair housing obligations – were applied as required.
X. Conclusion
This Supplemental Statement identifies record-clarity questions that emerged during the appeal period, including questions that become easier to see once the full staff report, draft resolution, and conditions are read together with the earlier AB 2011 correspondence. The questions below do not assume any particular outcome. They ask where the administrative record reflects the determinations that existing law requires, and – where topics are discussed in one part of the record – where the final action documents reflect how those topics were resolved.
• Where the record reflects the City’s individualized application of the statutory criteria to each concession and waiver – including the “contrary to state or federal law” determinations – and the record basis supporting those determinations (not just a recitation of the standards);
• Where the record reflects the City’s evaluation of the base-project demonstration under Government Code section 65915(o)(6), including what materials the City relied on to confirm the base assumptions and the “comparable average unit size” requirement;
• Where the record reflects the City’s affirmative determination under Resolution 14890(C)(1) that clustering furthers affordable housing opportunities, and where the record reflects how the City considered its existing fair housing obligations in making that determination;
• Whether the record reflects consideration of the combined effect of the amenity concession and the AB 130 freeway-facing balcony prohibition as part of the required “contrary to law” determination;
• Where the record reflects the City’s reasoning on sequencing of any required federal approvals relative to entitlement, given potential NEPA review associated with federal action;
Supplemental Statement – 700 Irwin Street Appeal
• Whether the record reflects Caltrans consultation having been conducted, or the documented basis for concluding it was not required, given adjacency to state highway facilities and deferral of post-occupancy transportation analysis; • Where the record reflects the City’s determinations that the concessions satisfy Government Code section 65915(k)’s “identifiable and actual” cost-reduction standard, and what record evidence supports those determinations (i.e., a documented or demonstrable cost basis), rather than conclusions alone.
None of these questions asks for analysis beyond what existing law requires. Each asks where required determinations appear in the record supporting the City’s final action.
Where certain topics appear in earlier record materials – including materials generated during the AB 2011 review – remand provides a straightforward way to make clear how those topics were resolved in the final approval documents, so the City’s action rests on a complete, transparent, and defensible record.
Respectfully submitted,
Steven Bryant
Resident of San Rafael, Business Owner, and Real Estate Broker Outlook
Fw: 700 Irwin St Proposal
From Mayor Kate <[email protected]>
Date Tue 1/20/2026 9:33 AM
To Lindsay Lara <[email protected]>
Cc Micah Hinkle <[email protected]>
Hi - Forwarding to Lindsay to ensure the email is part of the appeal packet.
Kate Colin (she/her/hers)
Mayor, City of San Rafael
From: sean nowell
Sent: Sunday, January 18, 2026 4:44 AM
To: Community Development <[email protected]> Cc: Mayor Kate <[email protected]>
Subject: 700 Irwin St Proposal
Dear Micah Hinkle,
This is an appeal to rescind acceptance of the project. No one on the planning commission wants it and no one in San Rafael wants it; (& on so many levels & for so many reasons.) This 17 story apartment building proposal must be lower rise & located elsewhere. There are very few worse locations for an apartment building in San Rafael, let alone 17 stories. “Our hands are tied” isn’t the answer.
Everyone, ( & likely even the developers) knows that it’s wrong for San Rafael. The rights of the community far outweigh the ‘rights’ of any developer. Please stand & fight back.
Sincerely,
Sean Nowell
Sent from my iPhone
1/20/26, 10:42 AM Inbox - Lindsay Lara - Outlook
https://outlook.office365.com/mail/inbox/id/AAkALgAAAAAAHYQDEapmEc2byACqAC%2FEWg0AOJ8v9gzPFE6wSNu2pNW1awAJDeDsgQAA 1/1 ____________________________________________________________________________________
FOR CITY CLERK ONLY
Council Meeting: _______________________
Disposition: ___________________________
h
Agenda Item No: 3.d
Meeting Date: February 17, 2026
SAN RAFAEL CITY COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT
Department: Community and Economic Development
Prepared by: Kristina Estudillo, Principal
Planner
City Manager Approval: ______________
TOPIC: APPEAL OF PLANNING COMMISSION APPROVAL FOR MIXED-USE DEVELOPMENT AT 1030 3RD STREET (ALSO KNOWN AS 900 A STREET PROJECT) SUBJECT: RESOLUTION DENYING THE APPEAL OF AND UPHOLDING THE PLANNING
COMMISSION APPROVAL OF AN ENVIRONMENTAL AND DESIGN REVIEW PERMIT
FOR DEMOLITION OF AN EXISTING COMMERCIAL BUILDING, CONSTRUCTION OF A NEW MIXED-USE BUILDING CONTAINING 4,000 SQUARE FEET OF COMMERCIAL SPACE AND 131 RESIDENTIAL UNITS LOCATED AT 1030 3RD STREET (APN 011- 263-21), AND DETERMINING THE PROJECT IS CATEGORICALLY EXEMPT PURSUANT TO SECTION 15332 (IN-FILL DEVELOPMENT) OF THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT (CEQA).
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends the City Council adopt the Resolution Denying the Appeal of and Upholding the Planning Commission Approval of an Environmental and Design Review Permit (Plan25-013 and ED25- 027) for Demolition of an Existing Commercial Building, Construction of a New Mixed-Use Building Containing 4,000 Square Feet of Commercial Space and 131 Residential Units Located at 1030 3rd Street (APN 011-263-21), and Determining the Project is Categorically Exempt Pursuant to Section 15332 (In-Fill Development) of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines (Attachment 1).
BACKGROUND:
On November 18, 2025, the San Rafael Planning Commission approved the issuance of an Environmental and Design Review Permit to construct 131 residential units at 1030 3rd Street, also known as the ‘900 A Street Project’ (see Project Plans, Attachment 2). The Planning Commission’s approval took place at a duly noticed public meeting that included oral and written public testimony, and the written and oral report of the Community and Economic Development (CED) Department staff (Attachment 3 and Attachment 4). The Planning Commission’s approval was subject to CED staff’s proposed conditions of approval and memorialized via a Resolution of Approval (Attachment 5).
Subsequently, the City of San Rafael received a timely appeal by the property owner (the appellant) contesting specific conditions of approval (Attachment 6). The appellant subsequently provided a supplement to the formal appeal, including objections to language in 9 of the conditions of approval on SAN RAFAEL CITY COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT / Page: 2
topics including fees, archeologic and cultural resources, biological surveys, affordable housing agreement, and modifications to outside agency comments (see full condition language below), stating that the conditions “would impose severe delays, increase costs, and effectively prohibit the Property’s timely development - and potentially jeopardize the entire project.” Below are the conditions adopted by the Planning Commission that the appellant challenges:
3. Fees, Dedication Requirements, Reservation Requirements and Other Exactions. The conditions of project approval set forth herein include certain fees, dedication requirements, reservation requirements and other exactions. Pursuant to Government Code Section 66020(d)(1), these conditions constitute written notice of the statement of the amount of such fees and a description of the dedications, reservation, and other exactions. You are hereby notified that the 90-day period in which you may protest those fees, the amount of which has been identified herein, dedications, reservations, and other exactions required in connection with the instant approvals has begun. If you fail to file a protest complying with all the requirements of Section 66020, you will be legally barred from later challenging such exaction.
20. Archaeological Resources (Ongoing throughout demolition, grading, and/or construction). In the event that any archaeological features, including but not limited concentrations of artifacts or culturally modified soil deposits including trash pits older than fifty years of age, are discovered at any time during grading; scraping, or excavation within the property, all work shall be halted in the vicinity of the find, the Planning Division shall be notified, the Federated Indians of Graton Rancheria (FIGR) shall be immediately notified and a qualified archaeologist retained at Developer’s sole cost and expense to consult with the City, FIGR, and the Developer shall be retained to advise on best practices for assessing the significance of the find, developing and implementing a mitigation plan if avoidance is not feasible. If warranted by the concentration of artifacts or soils deposits, an archaeologist shall monitor further work in the discovery area.
21. Human Remains (Ongoing throughout demolition, grading, and/or construction). In accordance with Public Resource Code (“PRC”) Section 5097.98 and Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5, if human remains are encountered within the Project site, all work must stop within 100-feet of the discovery area, the area shall be secured to prevent further disturbance, and the Marin County Coroner shall be notified. The coroner will determine if the remains are precontact period Native American remains or of modern origin and if any further investigation by the coroner is warranted. If the remains are suspected to be those of a precontact period Native American, the coroner shall contact the Native American Heritage Commission (“NAHC”) within 24-hours. The NAHC will immediately notify the person it believes to be the most likely descendant (“MLD”) of the remains. The MLD has 48-hours to make recommendations to the landowner for the treatment or disposition of the human remains. If the MLD does not make recommendations within 48-hours, the landowner is required by law to rebury the remains within an area of property that will not be subject to future disturbances.
A Secretary of the Interior-qualified archaeologist shall also be retained to evaluate the historical significance of the discovery, the potential for additional remains to be present, and provide further recommendations for treatment of the resource in coordination with the MLD.
23. Pre-Construction Nesting Bird Surveys. In accordance with General Plan Policy C-1.13 (Special Status Species), Program C-1.13E (Avoidance of Nesting Birds), and State and federal regulations, if construction, grading, or other project- related construction activities are scheduled during the nesting season, February 1 to September 1, a focused survey for active nests shall be conducted by a qualified biologist within 7 days prior to the beginning of project related activities. If an active nest is found, the qualified biologist shall delineate a no-work- SAN RAFAEL CITY COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT / Page: 3
zone buffer distance around the nest that is site and species specific using high visibility fencing or flagging. The buffer distance shall be specified to protect the bird’s normal behavior and prevent nesting failure or abandonment. No work shall occur within the no-work zone until the nest is no longer active as determined by a qualified biologist. If a lapse in project-related work of 7 days or longer occurs, another focused survey shall occur before project work is reinitiated.
24. Pre-Construction Roosting Bat Habitat Assessment and Surveys. In accordance with General Plan Policy C-1.12 (Native or Sensitive Habitats), Program C-1.12A (Surveys for Sensitive Natural Communities and Special Status Species), prior to any building demolition or tree removal, a qualified biologist shall conduct a habitat assessment for pallid bats. A qualified bat biologist shall have at least 2 years of experience conducting bat surveys that resulted in detections for relevant species, such as pallid bat, with verified project names, dates, and references, and experience with relevant equipment used to conduct bat surveys. The habitat assessment shall be conducted no more than 15 days prior to tree removal or building demolition and shall include a visual inspection of potential roosting features ( e.g., cavities, crevices in wood and bark, exfoliating bark, suitable canopy for foliage roosting species, attics, eaves). If suitable habitat trees or buildings are found, or bats are observed, the following shall also be required.
a. Roosting Bat Building Exclusion Plan. If the qualified biologist identifies buildings scheduled for demolition as potential bat habitat, then building demolition shall not occur until either ( 1) a qualified biologist conducts night emergence surveys or completes visual examination of roost features that establishes absence of roosting bats, or ( 2) an appropriate bat eviction and exclusion plan has been approved by the City of San Rafael and implemented. The City of San Rafael shall seek the California Department of Fish and Wildlife’s input on the exclusion plan. The plan shall: ( a) recognize maternity and winter roosting season as vulnerable seasons for bats and require exclusion outside of these times, generally between March 1 and April 15 or September 1 and October 15; (b) identify suitable areas for excluded bats to disperse or require installation of appropriate dispersal habitat, such as artificial bat houses, prior to project activities and include an associated management and monitoring plan with implementation and funding; and (c) include a requirement that exclusion materials shall be re-evaluated for effectiveness by the qualified biologist up to 2 weeks prior to building demolition.
b. Roosting Bat Tree Protections. If the qualified biologist identifies potential bat habitat trees, then tree trimming and tree removal shall not proceed unless the following occurs: (1) a qualified biologist conducts night emergence surveys or completes visual examination of roost features that establish absence of roosting bats, or (2) tree trimming and tree removal occur only during seasonal periods of bat activity, from approximately March 1 through April 15 and September 1 through October 15, and tree removal occurs using the two-step removal process. Two-step tree removal shall be conducted over two consecutive days.
The first day (in the afternoon), under the direct supervision and instruction by a qualified biologist with experience conducting two-step tree removal, limbs and branches shall be removed by a tree cutter using chainsaws only; limbs with cavities, crevices or deep bark fissures shall be avoided. The second day the entire tree shall be removed.
SAN RAFAEL CITY COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT / Page: 4
47. Affordable Housing – Agreement. Prior to issuance of the first building permit for the Project, the Below Market Rate (“BMR”) agreement (attached to these Conditions of Approval as Exhibit 4 and incorporated herein) for the eleven (11) affordable units shall be approved by the Community and Economic Development Director, executed, and recorded on title in the records of the County of Marin. Prior to issuance of the first building permit, Applicant shall provide to City proof of such recordation.
48. Affordable Housing Agreement – Maximum Rents. As set forth in the Affordable Housing Agreement (attached hereto as Exhibit 4), for each Low Income Unit, the maximum monthly rent shall be 1/12th of 30 percent of sixty (60) percent of the Area Median Income for Marin County, California, adjusted for family size appropriate for the unit and as otherwise adjusted and published from time to time by HCD in Section 6932 of Title 25 of the California Code of Regulations or successor provision. Monthly rent means the total of monthly payments actually made by the household for (a) use and occupancy of each BMR Unit and land and facilities associated therewith, (b) any separately charged fees or service charges assessed by Owner which are required of all tenants, other than security deposits, (c) a reasonable allowance for an adequate level of service of utilities not included in (a) or (b) above, and which are not paid directly by Owner, including garbage collection, sewer, water, electricity, gas and other heating, cooking and refrigeration fuels, but not including telephone or internet service, which reasonable allowance for utilities is set forth in the County of Marin’s Utility Allowance Schedule for detached homes, apartments, condominiums and duplexes, and (d) possessory interest, taxes or other fees or charges assessed for use of the land and facilities associated therewith by a public or private entity other than Owner. 114. Construction Vehicle Impact Fee. A construction vehicle impact fee (Street Maintenance Fee) shall be required at the time of building permit issuance, which is calculated at 1% of the valuation, with the first $10,000 of valuation exempt. 117. The Project is eligible for wastewater service and may be serviced either by the 12- inch sewer main in A Street or the 16-inch main in Third Street, provided that the following conditions are met:
[. . .]
c. The District is currently conducting a flow and capacity study for the downtown area to evaluate the potential impacts of the proposed development on the existing capacity of the sewer facilities downstream. The District will provide an update to the developer once the final report is completed and will work with the developer to determine an appropriate resolution to address capacity issues, if needed.
ANALYSIS:
Staff recommends denying the appeal as the contested conditions of approval do not violate any state or local laws and are within the City’s discretion to impose. Moreover, some of the contested conditions of approval are necessary to comply with state and local laws.
Fees: The appeal implies that the City has violated AB 602 (2021) by imposing Condition of Approval #3. Specifically, the appeal claims that there is an “absence of a complete and legally required fee schedule for the Project.”
AB 602 requires that a city post a current fee schedule on its website. The City’s fee schedule is available on its website and was indeed available at all times during the processing of the Project’s development application and during the Planning Commission hearing. Furthermore, the City updates the fee schedule periodically to ensure currentness. The current fee schedule is posted here:
SAN RAFAEL CITY COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT / Page: 5
https://www.cityofsanrafael.org/master-fee-schedule. A schedule of development impact fees is available here.
Accordingly, the City has complied with the requirement to post a current fee schedule on its website.
The appeal also implies that the City will require the payment of fees earlier than allowed under AB 602, which allows for payment of fees at the issuance of the certificate of occupancy or the final inspection, whichever occurs last. Notably, Condition of Approval #3 does not require the payment of fees before issuance of a certificate of occupancy or final inspection. Thus, Condition of Approval #3 does not violate this provision of AB 602.
Additionally, Condition of Approval #3 complies with Government Code Section 66020 which requires that “each local agency shall provide to the project applicant a notice in writing at the time of the approval of the project [. . .] of the amount of the fees or a description of the dedications, reservations, or other exactions, and notification that the 90-day approval period in which the applicant may protest has begun.” The amount of the fees is specified in the fee schedule available online, and Condition of Approval #3 provides the required notice that such fees will be due and that the 90-day protest period has begun.
Thus, the inclusion of Condition of Approval #3 is required by state law.
Tribal Cultural, Cultural, and Archeological Resources: The appeal claims that the City has violated CEQA, SB 330, and the City’s General Plan by imposing Condition of Approval #20. First, the appeal claims that Condition of Approval #20 violates CEQA, and specifically CEQA Guidelines Sections 15126.4 and 15064.5, which require “clear performance standards, defined procedures, and enforceable timelines” in connection with the imposition of any mitigation measures. The appeal claims that Condition of Approval #20 does not establish “enforceable timelines” for the consultation and assessment required in the event that archaeological resources are discovered on the Project site. While CEQA Guidelines Sections 15126.4 and 15064.5 require “enforceable timelines,” such sections are only applicable where “mitigation measures” will be imposed. “Mitigation measures” is a term of art that refers specifically to conditions imposed to avoid significant environmental impacts identified through the preparation of an environmental review document, such as an Environmental Impact Report (“EIR”) or Mitigated Negative Declaration (“MND”). “Mitigation measures” are not imposed on projects that are exempt from CEQA.
This Project is exempt from CEQA pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15332 (Infill Development Projects), so CEQA Guidelines Sections 15126.4 and 15064.5 do not apply.
Second, the appeal claims that Condition of Approval #20 is contrary to the Housing Crisis Act (SB 330), which prohibits discretionary, unpredictable conditions on housing projects.” As to discretion, while SB 330 limits the circumstances under which a city may disapprove a housing development project or condition its approval on decreased density (Gov. Code § 65589.5(j)(1)), SB 330 does not “prohibit” discretion altogether. The City routinely exercises its discretion to impose conditions of approval on housing development projects. As long as such conditions do not reduce a Project’s density or render it infeasible, and the Project meets applicable objective development standards and State law, such conditions are permissible. Nothing in the Housing Accountability Act (HAA) precludes the imposition of such conditions. As to “unpredictable conditions,” SB 330 states that “a housing development project shall be subject only to the ordinances, policies, and standards adopted and in effect when a [complete] preliminary application [. . .] was submitted.” (Gov. Code § 65589.5(o)(1).) Here, the preliminary application for the Project was deemed complete on August 12, 2024. It has been the City’s policy since before the Project was deemed complete to impose on housing development projects the conditions contained in Condition of Approval #20.
Third, the appeal claims generally that Condition of Approval #20 violates General Plan policies that “support infill development,” though the appeal does not cite any particular General Plan policy. In reality, SAN RAFAEL CITY COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT / Page: 6
by approving the Project using a CEQA exemption for infill development, the Planning Commission acted consistently with General Plan policies that support infill development. Protecting archaeological resources during the construction of the Project, while encouraging infill development, are not mutually exclusive goals.
For the above-stated reasons, this is not a basis to grant the Appeal.
Biological Resources: The appeal also claims that the Conditions of Approval #23 and #24 are inconsistent with the General Plan and internally inconsistent, given the City’s factual findings supporting the applicable CEQA exemption for the Project. Specifically, the appeal claims that Conditions of Approval #23 and #24 improperly “impose biological survey requirements and construction moratoria between Feb 1–Sep 1, Mar 1–Apr 1, and Sep 1–Oct 1,” and that such requirements and moratoria are unnecessary because the project site does not contain any habitat for protected species.
Conditions of Approval #23 and #24 implement General Plan policies and are necessary in order for the Project to avail itself of a CEQA exemption. Specifically, General Plan Policies C-1.12A and C-1.13E require surveys for special status species before development approval and measures to avoid nests of native birds and implements timing requirements for vegetation clearing and construction. . While the Planning Commission determined, in support of its use of the Class 32 CEQA Exemption to approve the Project, that “[t]he Project site [had] no value as habitat for endangered, rare or threatened species” on the date that the Project was approved, Conditions of Approval #23 and #24 recognize that the Project site could gain value as habitat for endangered, rare, or threatened species between the Project’s approval date and the date construction begins. In order to qualify for the Class 32 exemption, a project site must have “no value, as habitat for endangered, rare or threatened species.” (CEQA Guidelines Section 15332(d).) Animals, and birds in particular, are mobile. While previous reports on the Project site have concluded that the Project site has historically had no value as habitat for endangered, rare, or threatened species, it is possible that protected species could relocate to the Project site before construction begins, in which case protective measures would be necessary. The Project can only be developed using the Class 32 CEQA exemption if it continues to have “no value” to protected species, or if protective measures are taken to minimize harm to protected species that may relocate to the Project site before construction. Finally, as a practical matter, the limitations on construction will only apply if protected bird species are identified through a preconstruction survey.
Affordable Housing: With respect to Conditions of Approval #47 and #48, the appeal claims that the Planning Commission acted improperly in attaching a draft Below Market Rate Agreement (“BMR Agreement”) to the Conditions of Approval. The appeal also implies that Conditions of Approval #47 and #48 require recordation of the BMR agreement “at the time of project approval.” The City is not aware of any state or local law that prohibits the attachment of a BMR Agreement to conditions of approval. The Project has invoked the State Density Bonus Law (SDBL) and avails itself of its benefits. As such, the Project is required, pursuant to state and local law, to comply with affordable housing covenant criteria set forth in the SDBL. Specifically, the City must ensure that the low-income units required to invoke the SDBL are deed-restricted for fifty-five years. The BMR agreement imposes such requirements and is required pursuant to State and local law.
Conditions of Approval #47 and #48 are necessary to implement the requirements of the State Density Bonus Law. For any project utilizing the State Density Bonus Law, the SDBL requires that “An applicant shall agree to, and the city [. . .] shall ensure, the continued affordability of all very low and low-income rental units that qualified the applicant for the award of the density bonus for 55 years.” (Gov. Code § 65915(c)(1)(A).) The Project provides 11 units for low-income households and utilizes the SDBL to achieve increased density, concessions, and waivers. Thus, the City must ensure the continued SAN RAFAEL CITY COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT / Page: 7
affordability of the 11 low-income units. Condition of Approval #47 fulfills this obligation. The SDBL also establishes income limits and the maximum permissible rent for low-income households. (Gov. Code § 65915(b)(1)(A), (c)(1)(B)(i).) Condition of Approval #48 thus fulfills the City’s obligation to ensure that the income qualifications and maximum permissible rent conform with the SDBL.
In sum, the BMR Agreement and Conditions of Approval #47 and 48 are required by the SBDL to ensure that the Project’s proposed affordable rental units are affordable for at least fifty-five years, regardless of Project/property ownership, and to ensure that such affordability covenants cannot be subordinated to senior interests or liens. For these reasons, the Appeal has no merit based on these grounds.
San Rafael Sanitation District: The applicant has raised issues with language provided by the San Rafael Sanitation District pertaining to the District informing the applicant that they are performing a flow and capacity study for the downtown area to evaluate the potential impacts of the proposed development on the existing capacity of the sewer facilities downstream. The San Rafael Sanitation District has provided this information to the City and the applicant and is being shared as a condition of approval, along with other applicable information from outside agencies, such as the Marin Municipal Water District and Marin Sanitary Service.
COMMUNITY OUTREACH:
The project has been duly noticed to the public in accordance with San Rafael Municipal Code Chapter
14.29 (Public Notice). As of this date, no comments have been received.
FISCAL IMPACT:
There is no fiscal impact associated with this staff report.
OPTIONS:
The City Council has the following options to consider on this matter:
1. Adopt the Resolution Denying the Appeal of and Upholding the Planning Commission Approval of an Environmental and Design Review Permit, including all Conditions of Approval at 1030 3rd Street.
2. Grant the Appeal, overturn the Planning Commission’s approval of the Environmental and Design Review Permit, and direct staff to return with a revised Resolution, including revised Conditions of Approval.
3. Continue the appeal to allow staff to address any of the City Council’s comments or concerns.
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
Staff recommends the City Council adopt the Resolution Denying the Appeal of and Upholding the Planning Commission Approval of an Environmental and Design Review Permit (PLAN25-013 and ED25- 027) for Demolition of an Existing Commercial Building, Construction of a New Mixed-Use Building Containing 4,000 Square Feet of Commercial Space and 131 Residential Units Located at 1030 3rd Street (APN 011-263-21), and Determining the Project is Categorically Exempt Pursuant to Section 15332 (In-Fill Development) of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines.
ATTACHMENTS:
1. Draft Resolution of the City Council Denying the Appeal of and Upholding the Planning Commission Approval of an Environmental and Design Review Permit (Plan25-013 and ED25-027) for Demolition of an Existing Commercial Building, Construction of a New Mixed-Use Building Containing 4,000 Square Feet of Commercial Space and 131 Residential Units Located at 1030 3rd Street (APN 011- 263-21), and Determining the Project is Categorically Exempt Pursuant to Section 15332 (In-Fill Development) of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines
2. Project Plans, Approved by Planning Commission, November 18, 2025 SAN RAFAEL CITY COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT / Page: 8
3. Planning Commission Staff Report, November 18, 2025
4. CEQA Memorandum and Report, Adopted by Planning Commission, November 18, 2025
5. Resolution 25-09 of the San Rafael Planning Commission Approving an Environmental And Design Review Permit (PLAN25-013 and ED25-027) for Demolition of an Existing Commercial Building, Construction of a New Mixed-Use Building Containing 4,000 Square Feet of Commercial Space And 131 Residential Units Located At 1030 3rd Street (APN 011-263-21), and Determining the Project is Categorically Exempt Pursuant To Section 15332 (In-Fill Development) of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines
6. Appellant Letter, dated and received November 25, 2025 and January 8, 2026 4901-6038-5421 v2 1
RESOLUTION NO.
RESOLUTION OF THE SAN RAFAEL CITY COUNCIL DENYING THE APPEAL OF AND UPHOLDING
THE PLANNING COMMISSION APPROVAL OF AN ENVIRONMENTAL AND DESIGN REVIEW PERMIT (PLAN25-013 AND ED25-027) FOR DEMOLITION OF AN EXISTING COMMERCIAL BUILDING, CONSTRUCTION OF A NEW MIXED-USE BUILDING CONTAINING 4,000 SQUARE FEET OF COMMERCIAL SPACE AND 131 RESIDENTIAL UNITS LOCATED AT 1030 3rd STREET (APN 011-263-21), AND DETERMINING THE PROJECT IS CATEGORICALLY EXEMPT PURSUANT TO SECTION 15332 (IN-FILL DEVELOPMENT) OF THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT (CEQA) GUIDELINES
WHEREAS, on February 6, 2025 the Monohan Pacific Corporation (“Applicant”) submitted a formal development application to the City of San Rafael for an Environmental and Design Review Permit (‘900 A Street Project’) to authorize demolition of an existing 4,400-square-foot commercial building and surface parking area; construction of a new 8-story mixed use building with 4,000-square-foot ground level commercial space, 131 residential units, inclusive of 11 units affordable to low-income households; tenant amenities; frontage improvements; and which seeks a density bonus and a concession and waivers from development standards pursuant to California Government Code Section 65915 (altogether, the “Project”); and
WHEREAS, on November 18, 2025 the San Rafael Planning Commission held a duly noticed public hearing on the proposed Environmental and Design Review Permit, accepting all oral and written public testimony and the written report of the Community and Economic Development Department staff; and
WHEREAS, at the November 18, 2025 public hearing, the Planning Commission determined that the project met all requirements to qualify for a categorical exemption from the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”) under CEQA Guidelines Section 15332 (Infill Development Project) and made all required findings in the affirmative to approve the Environmental and Design Review Permit, with conditions; and
WHEREAS, on November 25, 2025, the City of San Rafael received a timely appeal (“Appeal”) from David Wheeler on behalf of the property owners (“Appellant”) of the “decision and actions taken by the San Rafael Planning Commission on November 18, 2025,” regarding the approval of the Environmental and Design Review Permit for the Project (“Approval”); and WHEREAS, the Appeal claims that the Planning Commission acted improperly in adopting specified conditions of approval in connection with the Approval; and WHEREAS, on January 8, 2026, Appellant provided a supplement to the appeal filed on November 25, 2025, detailing objections to language in 9 conditions of approval on topics including fees, archeologic resources, human remains, biological surveys, affordable housing agreement, and outside agency comments; and
WHEREAS, on February 17, 2026 the City Council held a duly noticed public hearing during which it reviewed, considered, and evaluated the Appeal as well as all public and written comments, pertinent information, documents, plans, and all other evidence in the public record on the Project prior to taking action on the Appeal.
4901-6038-5421 v2 2
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council finds the foregoing recitals are true and correct, and they are hereby incorporated by reference into this Resolution.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Council hereby denies the Appeal and upholds the Planning Commission Approval of the Environmental and Design Review Permit at 1030 3rd Street, including the findings and conditions below, based on the following findings:
SECTION 1. THE GROUNDS UPON WHICH THE APPELLANT HAS APPEALED THE PLANNING COMMISSION’S ACTIONS ARE NOT A BASIS TO REVERSE OR MODIFY THE
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTIONS
A. A number of bases specified in the appeal are moot.
The appeal filed on November 25, 2025 states that the “basis of [the] appeal includes, without limitation, the procedural and substantive concerns described in the [Applicant’s] prior correspondence to the City dated November 13, 2025,” which correspondence is attached to the November 25, 2025 appeal and incorporated by reference “as the grounds for appeal.” The Planning Commission considered Applicant’s November 13, 2025 correspondence during the November 18, 2025 hearing on the Project and accepted some of the requests included in the November 13, 2025 letter. Specifically, the Planning Commission struck draft Conditions of Approval 23 (paleontological resources), 70 (flood zone), 104 (license plate camera), and 116 (traffic mitigation fee). The final version of Resolution No. 25-09 adopted by the Planning Commission does not contain any of the aforementioned conditions of approval.
Thus, to the extent that the appeal is based on such unadopted conditions of approval, such bases are moot. For these reasons, this is not a basis to grant the Appeal.
B. The Appeal does not establish that the City has violated any procedural requirement of state or local law.
The appeal expresses general “frustrat[ion] with the process” of applying for the Project, engaging in tribal consultation, and preparing for the Planning Commission hearing.
Specifically, the appeal states that “what should have been a routine four-to-five month approval process” was “stretched into a thirty-month delay.” The City has complied with all state and local requirements in processing the Project.
The appeal also expresses “frustration” with the fact that the Conditions of Approval presented to the Planning Commission were not finalized well in advance of the Planning Commission hearing.
No local or state law requires that conditions of approval be finalized in advance of a Planning Commission hearing. In fact, as the decision-making body on the Environmental and Design Review Permit for the Project, the Planning Commission has authority to accept staff recommendations, modify staff recommendations, or reject staff recommendations. (See San Rafael Municipal Code “SRMC” Ch. 2.16.110.) The City bears no duty finalize and/or share with Applicant conditions of approval in advance of a public hearing. Nevertheless, as a courtesy, the City provided Applicant all draft conditions of approval on November 5, 2025, 13 days in advance of the Planning Commission hearing. Additionally, staff met with the Applicant multiple times to discuss the conditions of approval and a number of modifications to address the Applicant’s concerns prior to the Planning Commission hearing. 4901-6038-5421 v2 3
For these reasons, this is not a basis to grant the Appeal.
C. The City has complied with all state and local laws regarding the imposition of development impact fees.
1. Condition of Approval #3 is required by state law.
The appeal implies that the City has violated AB 602 (2021) by imposing Condition of Approval #3. Specifically, the appeal claims that there is an “absence of a complete and legally required fee schedule for the Project.”
AB 602 (2021) is codified at Government Code Sections 65940.1, 66016.5, 66019, and 50466.5. Government Code Section 65940.1(a)(1) requires that a city post a current fee schedule on its website. The City’s fee schedule is available on its website and was indeed available at all times during the processing of the Project’s development application and during the Planning Commission hearing. The City updates the fee schedule periodically to ensure currentness. The current fee schedule is posted here:
https://www.cityofsanrafael.org/master-fee-schedule. A schedule of development impact fees is available here:
https://docs.google.com/viewerng/viewer?url=https://storage.googleapis.com/proudcity/s anrafaelca/2026/01/4b008eec-2026-development-impact-fees-01.20.2026-final.pdf.
Accordingly, the City has complied with the requirement to post a current fee schedule on its website.
The appeal also implies that the City will require the payment of fees earlier than allowed under AB 602.
Government Code Section 65940.1(a)(3)(A) specifies that a city “shall request from a development proponent, upon issuance of a certificate of occupancy or the final inspection, whichever occurs last, the total amount of fees and exactions associated with the project for which the certificate was issued.” Condition of Approval #3 does not require the payment of fees before issuance of a certificate of occupancy or final inspection, whichever occurs last. The City will comply with Government Code 65940.1 and will request payment of the fees when due. Thus, Condition of Approval #3 does not violate this provision of AB 602.
As referenced in Condition of Approval #3, Government Code Section 66020 lays out a process by which a project applicant may protest the imposition of specific fees, dedications, reservations, or other exactions imposed on a development project.
Subdivision (d)(1) of Section 66020 requires that “each local agency shall provide to the project applicant a notice in writing at the time of the approval of the project [. . .] of the amount of the fees or a description of the dedications, reservations, or other exactions, and notification that the 90-day approval period in which the applicant may protest has begun.” Condition of Approval #3 is necessary to comply with the legal mandate set by Section 66020(d)(1). The amount of the fees is specified in the fee schedule available online. Condition of Approval #3 provides the required notice that such fees will be due and notice that the 90-day protest period has begun. Thus, the inclusion of Condition of Approval #3 is required by state law.
For these reasons, this is not a basis to grant the Appeal. 4901-6038-5421 v2 4
2. The Appeal does not establish that the imposition of Condition of Approval #114 violates local laws.
The appeal takes issue with the fact that Condition of Approval #114 “does not “acknowledge that the [construction vehicle impact] fee may be adjusted” or waived “under City Resolution 11473.”
City Council resolution 11473 allows the City Council to, on a case-by-case basis, grant a waiver of payment of all or a portion of specified fees when it determines that it is in the public interest to do so. Nothing in Resolution 11473 requires any condition of approval to give notice of the existence of such resolution. (Contrast with Gov. Code § 66020(d)(1), explained above.) The City Council is aware of its authority to reduce or waive fees on a case-by-case basis. Applicant has not requested any reduction or wavier of the construction vehicle impact fee, and the City Council has not determined that it is in the public interest to do so. For these reasons, this is not a basis to grant the Appeal.
3. The Appeal does not establish that the imposition of Condition of Approval #117(c) violates state laws.
The appeal claims broadly that the City has violated SB 330, the Housing Accountability Act (“HAA”), CEQA, and the Permit Streamlining Act (“PSA”) by imposing Condition of Approval #117(c). Specifically, the appeal claims that Condition of Approval #117(c) imposes “an unlawful and open-ended sanitary sewer capacity condition based on future, nonadopted standards” and that it “impose[s] new technical requirements of new discretionary infrastructure conditions” and thereby violates provisions of SB 330, the HAA, CEQA, and the PSA.
Government Code Section 65589.5(o)(1), which was added to the HAA through SB 330, states, “a housing development project shall be subject only to the ordinances, policies, and standards adopted and in effect when a [complete] preliminary application [. . .] was submitted.” (Gov. Code § 65589.5(o)(1).) The appeal implies that Condition of Approval #117(c) will require the imposition of standards that were not adopted an in effect when the preliminary application for the Project was submitted on August 12, 2024. Condition of Approval #117(c) does no such thing. Condition of Approval #117(c) does not require Applicant to comply with future yet-to-be-adopted ordinances, standards or policies. any requirements or to provide any infrastructure. Rather, Condition of Approval #117(c) informs Applicant that the San Rafael Sanitation District is conducting studies in the downtown area and will inform Applicant of the results of such studies once complete.
Condition of Approval #120(c) further notes that based on such studies, the San Rafael sanitation district may “work with [Applicant] to determine an appropriate resolution to address capacity issues, if needed.” Pursuant to State law, the Project will be subject to capacity upgrades if such upgrades are required by the Sanitation District to accommodate the Project’s needs. Thus, Condition of Approval #117(c) does not violate SB 330, the HAA, CEQA, the PSA, or any other state or local law.
For these reasons, this is not a basis to grant the Appeal.
D. The City has complied with all state and local laws regarding tribal, cultural and archeological resources.
1. The appeal does not establish that the imposition of Condition of Approval #20 violates state or local laws.
4901-6038-5421 v2 5
The appeal claims that the City has violated CEQA, SB 330, and the City’s General Plan by imposing Condition of Approval #20.
First, the appeal claims that Condition of Approval #20 violates CEQA, and specifically CEQA Guidelines Sections 15126.4 and 15064.5, which require “clear performance standards, defined procedures, and enforceable timelines” in connection with the imposition of any mitigation measures. The appeal claims that Condition of Approval #20 does not establish “enforceable timelines” for the consultation and assessment required in the event that archaeological resources are discovered on the Project site. While CEQA Guidelines Sections 15126.4 and 15064.5 require “enforceable timelines,” such sections are only applicable where “mitigation measures” will be imposed. “Mitigation measures” is a term of art that refers specifically to conditions imposed to avoid significant environmental impacts identified through the preparation of an environmental review document such as an Environmental Impact Report (“EIR”) or Mitigated Negative Declaration (“MND”). “Mitigation measures” are not imposed on projects that are exempt from CEQA. The Project is exempt from CEQA pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15332 (Infill Development Projects), so CEQA Guidelines Sections 15126.4 and 15064.5 do not apply.
Second, the appeal claims that Condition of Approval #20 is contrary to “the Housing Crisis Act (SB 330), which prohibits discretionary, unpredictable conditions on housing projects.” As to discretion, while SB 330 limits the circumstances under which a city may disapprove a housing development project or condition its approval on decreased density (Gov. Code § 65589.5(j)(1)), SB 330 does not “prohibit” discretion altogether. The City routinely exercises its discretion to impose conditions of approval on housing development projects, and as long as such conditions do not reduce a Project’s density or render it infeasible, where the Project meets applicable objective development standards and State law, such conditions are permissible. Nothing in the HAA precludes the imposition of such conditions. As to “unpredictable conditions,” SB 330 states that a “a housing development project shall be subject only to the ordinances, policies, and standards adopted and in effect when a [complete] preliminary application [. . .] was submitted.” (Gov. Code § 65589.5(o)(1).) Here, the preliminary application for the Project was deemed complete on August 12, 2024. It has been the City’s policy since before that date to impose on housing development projects the conditions contained in Condition of Approval #20.
Third, the appeal claims generally that Condition of Approval #20 violates General Plan policies that “support infill development,” though the appeal does not cite any particular General Plan policy. In reality, by approving the Project using a CEQA exemption for infill development, the Planning Commission acted consistently with General Plan policies that support infill development. The fact that Condition of Approval #20 requires Applicant to take steps to protect archaeological resources during construction of the Project is not inconsistent with such goal.
For these reasons, this is not a basis to grant the Appeal.
2. The appeal does not establish that the imposition of Condition of Approval #21 violates state laws.
The appeal claims that the City must add to Condition of Approval #21 the phrase “in accordance with PRC Code Section 5097.98.” First, the final version of Condition of Approval #21 adopted by the Planning Commission reads, “In accordance with Public 4901-6038-5421 v2 6
Resource Code (“PRC”) Section 5097.98 [. . .],” Applicant must comply with certain requirements related to the discovery of human remains on the Project site. It is not clear what Appellant’s request is here, as it appears that Condition of Approval #21 is already written as Appellant desires. The appeal states that Condition of Approval #21 “must acknowledge” specified sections contained in PRC Section 5098.97. The City acknowledges that the City and Applicant are required to comply with all state laws, including the entirety of PRC Section 5098.97. However, no state law requires the City to restate any particular part of PRC Section 5098.97 in any condition of approval. (Contrast with Gov. Code § 66020(d)(1), explained above.) For these reasons, this is not a basis to grant the Appeal.
E. Requiring pre-construction surveys to identify potential special status species, and requiring protective measures if such species are identified on the Project site, does not violate any state or local law.
The appeal claims the Conditions of Approval #23 and #24 are inconsistent with the General Plan and internally inconsistent given the City’s factual findings supporting the applicable CEQA exemption for the Project. Specifically, the appeal claims that Conditions of Approval #23 and #24 improperly “impose biological survey requirements and construction moratoria between Feb 1–Sep 1, Mar 1–Apr 1, and Sep 1–Oct 1,” and that such requirements and moratoria are unnecessary because the project site does not contain any habitat for protected species.
In response to the appeal’s implication that Conditions of Approval # 23 and #24 will require development moratoria, the City Council notes that limits on construction activities will only be required if protected bird species are identified on the site. As the appeal notes, and the City agrees, protected bird species have not previously been identified on the Project site. Thus, the most likely scenario is that a preconstruction survey will identify no protected bird species, and no construction limitations will be imposed under Conditions of Approval #23 and #24.
General Plan Policies C-1.12A and C-1.13E require surveys for special status species prior to development approval and measures to avoid nests of native birds and implements timing requirements for vegetation clearing and construction. Conditions of Approval #23 and #24 implement these policies. While the Planning Commission determined, in support of its use of the Class 32 CEQA Exemption to approve the Project, that “[t]he Project site [had] no value as habitat for endangered, rare or threatened species” on the date that the Project was approved, Conditions of Approval #23 and #24 recognize that the Project site could gain value as habitat for endangered, rare, or threatened species between the Project’s approval date and the date construction begins. In order to qualify for the Class 32 exemption, a project site must have “no value, as habitat for endangered, rare or threatened species.” (CEQA Guidelines Section 15332(d).) Animals, and birds in particular, are mobile. While previous reports on the Project site have concluded that the Project site has historically had no value as habitat for endangered, rare, or threatened species, it is possible that protected species could relocate to the Project site before construction begins, in which case protective measures would be necessary. The Project can only be developed using the Class 32 CEQA exemption if it continues to have “no value” to protected species, or if protective measures are taken to minimize harm to protected species that may relocate to the Project site prior to construction.
For these reasons, this is not a basis to grant the Appeal.
F. The Appeal does not establish that attaching a draft Below Market Rate Agreement to 4901-6038-5421 v2 7
conditions of approval violates any state or local law.
With respect to Conditions of Approval #47 and #48, the appeal claims that the Planning Commission acted improperly in attaching a draft Below Market Rate Agreement (“BMR Agreement”) to the Conditions of Approval. The appeal also implies that Conditions of Approval #47 and #48 require recordation of the BMR agreement “at the time of project approval.”
The City is not aware of any state or local law that prohibits the attachment of a BMR Agreement to conditions of approval. The Project has invoked State Density Bonus Law and avails itself of the benefits of such laws. As such, the Project is required, pursuant to State and local law, to comply with affordable housing covenant criteria set forth in the SDBL.
Specifically, the City must ensure that the low-income units required to invoke the SDBL are deed restricted affordable for fifty five years. The BMR agreement imposes such requirements and is required pursuant to State and local law.
Conditions of Approval #47 and #48 are necessary to implement the requirements of the State Density Bonus Law. For any project utilizing the State Density Bonus Law, the SDBL requires that “An applicant shall agree to, and the city [. . .] shall ensure, the continued affordability of all very low and low-income rental units that qualified the applicant for the award of the density bonus for 55 years.” (Gov. Code § 65915(c)(1)(A).) The Project provides 11 units for lowincome households and utilizes the SDBL to achieve increased density, concessions, and waivers. Thus, the City must ensure the continued affordability of the 11 low-income units.
Condition of Approval #47 fulfills this obligation. The SDBL also defines the income limits and maximum permissible rent for low-income households. (Gov. Code § 65915(b)(1)(A), (c)(1)(B)(i).) Condition of Approval #48 fulfills the City’s obligation to ensure that the income qualifications and maximum permissible rent conform with the SDBL.
In sum, the City Council hereby finds that the attached Below Market Rate (“BMR”) Agreement and Conditions of Approval #47 and 48 are hereby required by the State Density Bonus Law to ensure that the Project’s proposed affordable rental units are affordable for at least fifty-five years, regardless of Project/property ownership, and to ensure that such affordability covenants cannot be subordinated to senior interests or liens For these reasons, the Appeal has no merit based on these grounds.
SECTION 2. ENVIRONMENTAL AND DESIGN REVIEW FINDINGS (ED25-027) A. The Project design is in accord with the general plan, the objectives of the zoning ordinance and the purposes of this chapter in that:
The site is designated as Downtown Mixed Use on the General Plan 2040 Land Use Map, which provides the highest development intensities in San Rafael and allows for a mix of housing, office, retail, service, and public land uses. The Project design is consistent with the Downtown Mixed Use land use designation as it provides 4,000 square feet of commercial space on the ground floor and utilizes state density bonus to maximize the residential density, thereby achieving a development intensity that supports continued growth Downtown to create a mixed-use neighborhood and quality residential environment The Project site is identified in Appendix B of the San Rafael Housing Element as a housing inventory site, with the potential to accommodate up to 165 future residential units. The Project offers 131 units, including 11 units that will be deed-restricted affordable units. The Project design is consistent with Housing Element of the General Plan, in that it proposes small to mid-sized one- and two-bedroom units to maximize housing opportunities downtown. 4901-6038-5421 v2 8
The Project is consistent with several General Plan goals, policies and programs, including those contained in the Land Use; Neighborhoods; Community Design and Preservation; Conservation and Climate Change; Parks, Recreation, and Open Space; Safety and Resilience; Noise; Mobility; Community Services and Infrastructure; and Housing Elements, as detailed in the General Plan Consistency Table, Exhibit 1.
Section C of City Council Resolution 14890 requires that affordable housing units be of a similar mix and type to that of the residential development project as a whole, including compatibility of amenities provided. As proposed, the Project does not comply with this requirement. As proposed, of the 120 market-rate units, 36 (30%) do not have private open space amenities (balconies). Of the 11 below market rate units, 11 (100%) do not have private open space amenities (balconies). Consistent with State Density Bonus Law, the Project is entitled to one concession and is utilizing the one concession to waive out of this requirement.
As detailed in the October 2, 2025 State Density Bonus Law Concession Request, the applicant has confirmed that the construction of BMR units without balconies will result in identifiable and actual cost savings for the Project. As such, the Planning Commission hereby approves the requested concession.
B. The Project design is consistent with all applicable site, architecture and landscaping design criteria and guidelines for the district in which the site is located:
The Project, as proposed and conditioned, is consistent with applicable regulations contained in Title 14 (Zoning) of the San Rafael Municipal Code (“SRMC”), as detailed in the Zoning Consistency Table, Exhibit 2 and is consistent with applicable regulations contained in Chapter 9 (Downtown Form Based Code) of the Downtown San Rafael Precise Plan, as detailed in the DTFBC Consistency Table, Exhibit 3.
As detailed in the above-referenced exhibits, the Project utilizes provisions contained in Government Code Section 65915(e) to achieve the overall proposed density by requesting waivers or reduction of development standards. As demonstrated below, the requested waivers or reduction of development standards are necessary to physically accommodate the Project.
• Overall Building Height: The “base project” is built to 45’, which is below the 50’ overall building height limit established for the T5N 50/70 zoning district. A waiver of this development standard is required to accommodate the density bonus units, resulting in an overall building height of 83.5’. Without the waiver, the density bonus units could not be physically accommodated, and the Project could not be constructed at the allowable density. As such, the waiver of this development standard is permissible under State Density Bonus Law.
• Top Plate Height: The “base project” is built to the 45’ top plate height limit established for the T5N 50/70 zoning district. A waiver of this development standard is required to accommodate the density bonus units, resulting in a top plate height of 82.6’. Without the waiver, the density bonus units could not be physically accommodated, and the Project could not be constructed at the allowable density. As such, the waiver of this development standard is permissible under State Density Bonus Law.
• Stepbacks: The T5N 50/70 zoning district requires a 10-foot front, side, and rear stepbacks for buildings above 45 feet in height. Stepbacks limit the amount of buildable floor area and would therefore limit the amount of space that could otherwise be utilized for residential units. Without the waiver, density bonus units could not be physically accommodated, and the Project could not be constructed at the allowable density. As such, the waiver from this development standard is permissible under State Density Bonus Law.
4901-6038-5421 v2 9
• Parking Setbacks: A waiver from the 25-foot front, 25-foot side street, 5-foot side, and 5- foot rear parking setbacks is required to accommodate the density bonus units, resulting in 0-foot enclosed parking setbacks along all sides. Without the waiver, the density bonus units could not be physically accommodated, and the Project could not be constructed at the allowable density. As such, the waiver of this development standard is permissible under State Density Bonus Law.
• Civic Space: The T5N 50/70 zoning district requires projects on sites that are between 15,000 and 30,000 square feet to provide a minimum of 200 square feet of civic space.
Providing civic space would physically displace areas where dwelling units are proposed and the project would not be able to be constructed at the allowable density. As such, the waiver from this development standard is permissible under State Density Bonus Law. • Bicycle Parking: Section 2.3.050(H) of the Precise Plan requires a minimum of 1 bicycle parking space for each one-bedroom unit and a minimum of 2 bicycle parking spaces for each two-bedroom unit proposed. The Project is required to provide a total of 185 bicycle parking spaces. In addition, Section 14.18.090(E) of the San Rafael Municipal Code requires bicycle parking facilities to be designed to include at least ten inches clearance (10″) to walls or other obstructions (14.18.090(E)(4)), provide an aisle or other space to be provided for bicycles to enter and leave the facility (14.18.090(E)(5)), and that bicycle and auto parking areas be separated by a physical barrier or sufficient distance to protect parked bicycles from damage by cars (14.18.090(E)(6)). As proposed, the Project includes provides 109 spaces (93 covered, 16 uncovered) which does not meet the minimum 185 spaces required. Additionally, the 93 covered spaces do not comply with the design requirements and are therefore not formally counted towards the bicycle parking spaces.
Bicycle parking would occupy floor area that is otherwise allocated to dwelling units. As proposed, the basement and ground floor of the project are fully built out. Compliance with the minimum bicycle parking and bicycle facility design requirements would physically displace areas where dwelling units are proposed and the project would not be able to be constructed at the allowable density. As such, the waiver from this development standard is permissible under State Density Bonus Law.
• Frontage Standards: Section 3.3.090 of the Precise Plan specifies objective design standards for the Shopfront frontage type, which is the frontage type proposed for the Project. the objective standards establish a 3-foot maximum distance between glazing; 75% minimum ground floor glazing as measured between the sidewalk and finished ceiling height; and a shopfront base between 12- and 30-inches. A waiver from the 3-foot maximum distance between glazing is required for the structural elements necessary to physically accommodate the density bonus units, resulting in 4.5-foot distance between glazing. A waiver from the 75% minimum glazing requirement is required to accommodate the necessary mechanical, electrical, and plumbing spaces, structural shear walls, and parking areas, resulting in a 48% ground floor glazing along 3rd St. Lastly, a waiver from the shopfront base requirement is necessary due to the existing slope of the adjacent sidewalks and in order to meet ADA requirements that the interior floors be flat. As such, the waiver of this development standard is permissible under State Density Bonus Law.
As detailed above, the strict enforcement of these development standards would preclude the project from achieving the proposed density by requiring removal of proposed units to comply with the development standards. As such, the Planning Commission hereby approves the requested waivers.
C. The Project design minimizes adverse environmental impacts, in that:
As an infill development located in the City’s downtown the project minimizes adverse environmental impacts through a compact footprint; location near high quality transit, including 4901-6038-5421 v2 10
the Sonoma Marin Area Rail Transit (“SMART”) Downtown San Rafael Station and the Golden Gate Transit Center; and location near goods and services. The compact footprint limits the Project’s physical area of impact and the location near transit, goods, and services, provides opportunities for occupants to utilize alternative modes of transportation (e.g. walking, biking, transit) which reduces greenhouse gas emissions associated with driving.
The project is required to comply with CalGreen standards which are confirmed through the building permit review process. Water service is currently provided at the site by Marin Municipal Water District (MMWD). MMWD confirmed that the project will not impair the District's ability to continue service to this property, though purchase of additional water entitlement will be required. Wastewater service will be provided by the San Rafael Sanitation District (“SRSD”).
SRSD provided a Will Serve Letter to the Applicant on August 29, 2025, confirming that the project can be served by existing sewer infrastructure, provided that certain conditions are met.
D. The Project design will not be detrimental to the public health, safety or welfare, nor materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity.
The project has been reviewed by the Building Division, San Rafael Fire Department, Police Department, Department of Public Works, Marin Sanitation District, Marin Municipal Water District, and San Rafael Sanitation District. The Project will be built in accordance with the applicable California Building Code and conditions of approval have been incorporated to ensure the Project will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare, nor materially injurious to properties or improvements in the Project vicinity.
SECTION 3. STATE DENSITY BONUS LAW FINDINGS
The base project provides 110 units, of which 11 will be deed restricted to be available and rented to low-income households. Since 10% of the units in the base project will be affordable to low-income households, the Project qualifies for benefits under the State Density Bonus Law, including a 20% density bonus and one incentive or concession. (Gov. Code § 65915(f)(1), (d)(2)(A).) The Project will utilize its one (1) concession to modify the affordable housing standards contained in section C of City Council Resolution 14890 and will utilize waivers as described above.
SECTION 4. NO NET LOSS
Government Code section 65863 “No Net Loss Law” requires the City to maintain a sufficient supply of adequate sites in its housing element at all times throughout the housing element planning period to meet the City’s remaining unmet share of the Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA) for each income category. To comply with the No Net Loss Law, the City must ensure its actions do not create a shortfall of available sites. The City of San Rafael 2023-2031 Housing Element was adopted on May 15, 2023. The Housing Element shows a realistic capacity of 54 units on 0.6-acre site and 131 units are proposed by the project. Therefore, the project would not propose a lower density than what was assumed in the 2023-2031 Housing Element sites inventories and its remaining sites are sufficient to accommodate its remaining RHNA.
SECTION 5. CEQA and ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
The Planning Commission finds, based on its independent judgment after considering the project, and after reviewing and considering all written and oral information submitted in this matter, including the CEQA Exemption Memo prepared by M-Group, that the project is categorically exempt from environmental review pursuant to Section 15332 (Infill Development Projects) because it satisfies the following conditions:
4901-6038-5421 v2 11
A. The Project is consistent with the applicable general plan designation and all applicable general plan policies as well as with applicable zoning designations and regulations.
The project is a mixed-use development with multi-family residential and commercial uses which are permissible uses in the T5N 50/70 zoning district. The Project is consistent with the General Plan, as detailed in the General Plan Consistency Table (Exhibit 1), Zoning Ordinance as detailed in the Zoning Ordinance Consistency Table (Exhibit 2), and Downtown Precise Plan (Exhibit 3). While the Project seeks waivers to development standards pursuant to the State Density Bonus Law, the use of waivers does not render the project inconsistent with applicable development standards. Therefore, the Project is consistent with the applicable General Plan designation and policies, and applicable zoning designation and regulations.
B. The Project occurs within city limits on a project site of no more than five acres substantially surrounded by urban uses.
The Project site is comprised of one (1) lot, 28,667 square feet (0.66 acres). Additionally, the project site is substantially surrounded by urban uses including medical offices to the south, commercial uses to the west and north, and a surface parking lot to the east. Therefore, the project is within city limits on a project site of no more than five acres substantially surrounded by urban uses.
C. The Project site has no value as habitat for endangered, rare or threatened species.
Due to the developed and disturbed nature of the project site and surroundings, as well as the absence of vegetation or water features on or near the site, the site does not support listed species or their habitat. As shown in Figure 6-3 of the General Plan, the site is not designated as critical habitat for endangered, rare, or threatened, species. Thus, the Project site has no value as habitat for endangered, rare, or threatened species.
D. Approval of the Project would not result in any significant effects related to traffic, noise, air quality, or water quality.
The CEQA Categorical Exemption Review Memorandum (Attachment 2 of the staff report) determined that the project would not result in any significant effects related to traffic, noise, air quality or water quality as implementation of uniformly applied development standards, compliance with applicable regulations and policies, and conditions of approval would address all such impacts. Therefore, approval of the Project would not result in any significant effects related to traffic, noise, air quality, or water quality.
E. The site can be adequately served by all required utilities and public services.
The project would be located in an urban area served by existing public utilities and services.
The site itself, which is currently developed with a commercial building, is already served by such public utilities and services. Furthermore, the project is within the development potential anticipated by the San Rafael 2040 General Plan and Downtown Precise Plan and as such can be served by all available local and regional services. As the project is consistent with the Precise Plan, there are adequate public utilities and services to serve the proposed project.
Further, as analyzed in the CEQA Exemption Memo, none of the exceptions to the Class 32 Exemption apply. (CEQA Guidelines Section 15300.2.) The Project would not result in significant cumulative impacts, impacts to scenic highways, or historical resources. The Project does not involve unusual circumstances or a hazardous waste site. Therefore, none of the exceptions to the Class 32 exemption apply.
SECTION 6. SEVERABILITY
4901-6038-5421 v2 12
If any term, provision, or portion of these findings or the application of these findings to a particular situation is held by a court to be invalid, void or unenforceable, the remaining provisions of these findings, or their application to other actions related to the project, shall continue in full force and effect unless amended or modified by the City.
SECTION 7. CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
General Terms and Standard Conditions
The following are general terms and standard conditions that apply to each severable entitlement of the 900 A Street Project, hereby the “project”: Environmental and Design Review Permit (PLAN25-013; ED25-027)
1. For purposes of these Conditions of Approval, the following terms shall have the following meanings:
• “Director” shall mean the Director of the Community and Economic Development Department • “First building permit” shall mean the first permit required for any earth-disturbing activities, including, permits for grading, excavation, shoring, utilities, demolition, site preparation, or any other permits required for earth-disturbing activities including any permit required for construction related activities on a structure including permits for building, foundation, or superstructure.
• “Building permit” shall mean any permit required for any earth-disturbing activities, including, permits for grading, excavation, shoring, utilities, demolition, site preparation, or any other permits required for earth-disturbing activities, including any permit required for construction related activities on a structure including permits for building, foundation, or superstructure. • “Site development permit” shall mean any permit required for earth-disturbing activities, including, permits for grading, excavation, shoring, utilities, demolition, site preparation, or any other permits required for earth-disturbing activities, but excluding building permits. • “Applicant” shall mean Monohan Pacific Corporation and/or any successor in interest. • “Property Owner(s)” shall mean Fasano Properties, LLC and/or any successor in interest. • “Project” shall mean the 900 A Street Project as approved by the City of San Rafael. The project includes demolition of the existing 4,400 square foot commercial building and associated site improvements in a single phase; construction of 190,147 square feet of gross floor area, inclusive of 138,402 square feet of residential area (including residential amenities and 131 units comprised of 77 one-bedroom and 54 two-bedroom units, of which, 11 are deed restricted below market rate units affordable to low-income households); 4,000 square feet of commercial area; and 47,745 square feet of garage, mechanical, electric, and plumbing area in a single phase.
• “Project Site” shall mean the approximately 28,667 square foot property comprised of APN 011-263-21, located at 1030 3rd Street as shown on the Land Title Survey prepared by Alta/NSPS, dated May 2025.
2. Development of the Project. Development of the Project shall be substantially in conformance with the plans and supporting documents attached to the November 18, 2025 Planning Commission staff report (hereinafter the “Plans”), including:
• Architectural and Lighting Plans, prepared by Stackhouse De La Pena Trachtenberg, received on October 8, 2025 and dated August 14, 2025
• Civil Plans, prepared by Lea & Braze Engineering, Inc, received on October 8, 2025 and dated 4901-6038-5421 v2 13
February 6, 2025
• Landscape Plans, prepared by Yamasaki Landscape Architecture, received October 8, 2025 and dated April 22, 2025
• Tree Inventory Report, prepared by Horticultural Associates, dated March 8, 2025 All Plans are hereby incorporated by reference. The Plans may only be modified by the conditions contained herein, subject to review and approval of the Community and Economic Development Director or their designee.
3. Fees, Dedication Requirements, Reservation Requirements and Other Exactions. The conditions of project approval set forth herein include certain fees, dedication requirements, reservation requirements and other exactions. Pursuant to Government Code Section 66020(d)(1), these conditions constitute written notice of the statement of the amount of such fees and a description of the dedications, reservation, and other exactions. You are hereby notified that the 90-day period in which you may protest those fees, the amount of which has been identified herein, dedications, reservations, and other exactions required in connection with the instant approvals has begun. If you fail to file a protest complying with all the requirements of Section 66020, you will be legally barred from later challenging such exaction.
4. Right to Audit of the City’s Development Impact Fees. In accordance with Government Code Section 66006(e), the Applicant is hereby notified of the right to file with the City Clerk: (a) a request for an audit of the City’s development impact fees in accordance with Government Code Section 66023; and (b) a written request for mailed notices of the City’s public meetings to review annual reports of development impact fees under Government Code Section 660066(b)(1).
5. Timing of Payment of Fees. At the times (e.g., building permit) provided for in the City’s fee ordinances, the applicant shall pay all applicable City Development Impact fees.
6. All Third Party Fees Shall be Paid. Prior to issuance of any/each building permit, the applicant shall verify to the City that it has paid all third party-outside agency fees applicable to such portion of the Project, including but not limited to any school fees, water capacity fees, and sewer capacity fees. Unless a condition includes a different time for payment, the applicant shall pay all applicable City fees prior to the issuance of each building permit.
7. Conditions of Approval Shall be Printed. All Conditions of Approval shall be printed on the second sheet of each plan set submitted for a building permit. Additional sheets may also be used if the second sheet is not of sufficient size to list all of the conditions. The sheet(s) containing the conditions shall be of the same size as those sheets containing the construction drawings; 8-1/2” by 11” sheets are not acceptable.
8. Applicant Responsible for Conditions of Approval. Applicant shall ensure compliance with all conditions of approval, including submittal to the project Planner of required approval signatures at the times specified. Failure to comply with any condition may result in construction being stopped, issuance of a citation, and/or modification or other remedies.
9. Limitations of Approval. This Permit authorizes only the proposed Project described in the application. In no way does approval authorize other uses, structures or activities not included in the Project description. When the City approves a new use that replaces an existing use, any prior approval of the existing use becomes null and void when permits for the new use are exercised (e.g., building permit or business license issued). To reestablish the previously existing use, an applicant must obtain all permits required by the Zoning Ordinance for the use.
10. All Plans and Information Become Conditions. All information and representations, whether oral or written, including the building techniques, colors, materials, elevations, and overall 4901-6038-5421 v2 14
appearance of the Project, as presented at the November 18, 2025 Planning Commission hearing and as presented in the Project plans shall be the same as required for the issuance of a building permit, except as modified by these conditions of approval. Minor modifications or revisions to the Project shall be subject to review and approval by the Director. Modifications deemed not minor by the Director may require review and approval as an amendment to the approved Environmental and Design Review Permit (PLAN25-013, ED25-027).
11. Regulation Compliance. Approved use and/or construction is subject to, and shall comply with, all applicable City Ordinances and laws and regulations of other governmental agencies.
Compliance with the Zoning Ordinance does not relieve an applicant from requirements to comply with other federal, state, and City regulations that also apply to the property. Prior to any construction, tenant improvement or installation of signage, the applicant shall identify and secure all applicable permits from all federal, state, and City departments.
12. Legal and Equitable Property Interests. Prior to the issuance of the First Building Permit, Applicant shall demonstrate to the satisfaction of the City that it possesses all necessary legal and equitable property interests required to develop the Project as approved. Applicants represent and warrants that there are no covenants, easements, restrictions, or other title encumbrances that would preclude development and construction of the Project. In the event that any such encumbrances exist or arise, Applicant shall bear all risk and responsibility for any delay, inability, or failure to develop the property in accordance with the Project approvals, and the City shall have no obligation to resolve or accommodate any private title disputes or limitations affecting the property.
13. Construction Hours (Ongoing throughout demolition, grading, and/or construction). Consistent with the City of San Rafael Municipal Code Section 8.13.050.A, construction hours on private property shall be limited to 7:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. Monday through Friday and 9:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. on Saturdays. Construction shall not be permitted on Sundays or City- observed holidays.
Construction activities shall include delivery of materials, hauling materials off-site; startup of construction equipment engines, arrival of construction workers, playing of radios and other noises caused by equipment and/or construction workers arriving at, or working on, the site.
14. Construction Noise and Vibration Management- Public Notice Required. At least two weeks prior to initiating any construction activities at the site, the Applicant shall provide notice to businesses and residents within 500 feet of the Project site. This notice shall at a minimum provide the following: (1) project description, (2) description of construction activities, (3) daily construction schedule (i.e., time of day) and expected duration (number of months), (4) the name and phone number of the “noise disturbance coordinator” who will be responsible for responding to any local complaints about construction noise, and (5) that construction work is about to commence. The noise disturbance coordinator shall be responsible for determining the cause of all construction-related complaints (e.g., starting too early, bad muffler, worker parking, etc.) and institute reasonable measures to correct the problem. A copy of such notice and methodology for distributing the notice shall be provided in advance to the Planning Manager for review and approval.
15. Construction Noise (Ongoing throughout demolition, grading, and/or construction). During construction, the project shall incorporate the following best management practices:
a. All equipment driven by internal combustion engines shall be equipped with mufflers, which are in good condition and appropriate for the equipment. b. The construction contractor shall utilize “quiet” models of air compressors and other stationary noise sources where technology exists.
c. At all times during Project grading and construction, stationary noise‐generating equipment shall be located as far as practicable from sensitive receptors and placed 4901-6038-5421 v2 15
so that emitted noise is directed away from residences. d. Unnecessary idling of internal combustion engines shall be prohibited. e. Construction staging areas shall be established at locations that will create the greatest distance between the construction related noise sources and noise‐sensitive receptors nearest the Project site during all Project construction. f. The required construction related noise mitigation plan shall also specify that haul truck deliveries are subject to the same hours specified for construction equipment. g. Neighbors located adjacent to the construction site shall be notified of the construction schedule in writing.
h. The construction contractor shall designate a “noise disturbance coordinator” who will be responsible for responding to any local complaints about construction noise. The disturbance coordinator would determine the cause of the noise complaint (e.g., starting too early, bad muffler, etc.) and institute reasonable measures as warranted to correct the problem. A telephone number for the disturbance coordinator shall be conspicuously posted at the construction site.
16. Construction Vibration (Ongoing throughout demolition, grading, and/or construction). During construction, the Project shall incorporate the following best management practices:
a. Avoid the use of large earthmoving equipment (greater than 100 hp) within 15 feet of residential buildings and within 12 feet of commercial buildings, as this is the distance where these buildings are susceptible to damage from vibration from this equipment. b. Schedule construction activities with the highest potential to produce vibration to hours with the least potential to affect nearby institutional, educational, and office uses that the Federal Transit Administration identifies as sensitive to daytime vibration (FTA 2006).
c. Select quiet construction equipment, particularly air compressors, whenever possible.
Fit motorized equipment with proper mufflers in good working order. d. construction contractor shall designate a “noise disturbance coordinator” who will be responsible for responding to any local complaints about construction vibration. The disturbance coordinator shall determine the cause of any vibration complaint (e.g., starting too early, bad muffler, etc.) and shall require that reasonable measures be implemented to correct the problem. A telephone number for the disturbance coordinator shall be posted at the construction site.
17. Bay Area Air District Basic Best Management Practices. Consistent with General Plan Policy C2.4 (Particulate Matter Pollution Reduction), Program C-2.4A (Particulate Matter Exposure), and the Bay Area Air District Guidelines, during any construction period ground disturbance, the applicant shall ensure that the following measures to control dust and exhaust are implemented. a. All exposed surfaces (e.g., parking areas, staging areas, soil piles, graded areas, and unpaved access roads) shall be watered two times per day. b. All haul trucks transporting soil, sand, or other loose material off-site shall be covered. c. All visible mud or dirt track-out onto adjacent public roads shall be removed using wet power vacuum street sweepers at least once per day. The use of dry power sweeping is prohibited.
d. All vehicle speeds on unpaved roads shall be limited to 15 miles per hour (mph). 4901-6038-5421 v2 16
e. All roadways, driveways, and sidewalks to be paved shall be completed as soon as possible. Building pads shall be laid as soon as possible after grading unless seeding or soil binders are used.
f. All excavation, grading, and/or demolition activities shall be suspended when average wind speeds exceed 20 mph.
g. All trucks and equipment, including their tires, shall be washed off prior to leaving the site. h. Unpaved roads providing access to sites located 100 feet or further from a paved road shall be treated with a 6- to 12-inch layer of compacted layer of wood chips, mulch, or gravel.
i. Publicly visible signs shall be posted with the telephone number and name of the person to contact at the lead agency regarding dust complaints. This person shall respond and take corrective action within 48 hours. The Air District’s General Air Pollution Complaints number shall also be visible to ensure compliance with applicable regulations.
18. Health Risk Assessment. Consistent with General Plan Policy C-2.2 (Land Use Compatibility and Building Standards), Program C-2.2A (Protection of Sensitive Receptors), a construction health risk assessment shall be prepared in accordance with the policies and procedures of the Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA) and the Bay Area Air District’s CEQA Guidelines. A construction health risk assessment shall not be required if the following measures, which are capable of reducing potential cancer and non-cancer risks to a level below ten in one million or a hazard index of 1.0, are incorporated:
a. Verified Diesel Emission Control Strategies. All off-road construction equipment greater than 50 horsepower shall be equipped with Tier 2 or higher engines and the most effective Verified Diesel Emission Control Strategies (VDECS) available for the engine type (Tier 4 engines automatically meet this requirement) as certified by the California Air Resources Board (CARB). The equipment shall be properly maintained and tuned in accordance with manufacturer specifications. b. Construction Emissions Minimization Plan. A Construction Emissions Minimization Plan (Emissions Plan) shall be prepared that includes the following:
i. An equipment inventory summarizing the type of off-road equipment required for each phase of construction, including the equipment manufacturer, equipment identification number, engine model year, engine certification (tier rating), horsepower, and engine serial number. For all VDECS, the equipment inventory shall also include the technology type, serial number, make, model, manufacturer, CARB verification number level, and installation date. ii. A Certification Statement that the Contractor agrees to comply fully with the Emissions Plan and acknowledges that a significant violation of the Emissions Plan shall constitute a material breach of contract. The Emissions Plan shall be submitted to the City for review and approval prior to the issuance of building permits.
19. Encroachment Permit (Ongoing throughout demolition, grading, and/or construction). Any construction work, including on-street traffic control, is subject to review and approval through the Department of Public Works Encroachment Permit process. Truck routes shall be submitted for review and approval through Department of Public Work’s Transportation Permit process and shall comply with City of San Rafael Municipal Code Chapter 5.52.
20. Archaeological Resources (Ongoing throughout demolition, grading, and/or construction). In the event that any archaeological features, including but not limited concentrations of artifacts 4901-6038-5421 v2 17
or culturally modified soil deposits including trash pits older than fifty years of age, are discovered at any time during grading; scraping, or excavation within the property, all work shall be halted in the vicinity of the find, the Planning Division shall be notified, the Federated Indians of Graton Rancheria (FIGR) shall be immediately notified and a qualified archaeologist retained at Developer’s sole cost and expense to consult with the City, FIGR, and the Developer shall be retained to advise on best practices for assessing the significance of the find, developing and implementing a mitigation plan if avoidance is not feasible. If warranted by the concentration of artifacts or soils deposits, an archaeologist shall monitor further work in the discovery area.
21. Human Remains (Ongoing throughout demolition, grading, and/or construction). In accordance with Public Resource Code (“PRC”) Section 5097.98 and Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5, if human remains are encountered within the Project site, all work must stop within 100-feet of the discovery area, the area shall be secured to prevent further disturbance, and the Marin County Coroner shall be notified. The coroner will determine if the remains are precontact period Native American remains or of modern origin and if any further investigation by the coroner is warranted. If the remains are suspected to be those of a precontact period Native American, the coroner shall contact the Native American Heritage Commission (“NAHC”) within 24-hours. The NAHC will immediately notify the person it believes to be the most likely descendant (“MLD”) of the remains. The MLD has 48-hours to make recommendations to the landowner for the treatment or disposition of the human remains. If the MLD does not make recommendations within 48-hours, the landowner is required by law to rebury the remains within an area of property that will not be subject to future disturbances.
A Secretary of the Interior-qualified archaeologist shall also be retained to evaluate the historical significance of the discovery, the potential for additional remains to be present, and provide further recommendations for treatment of the resource in coordination with the MLD.
22. Construction Management Plan. The applicant shall submit a Construction Management Plan (CMP) for review and approval by the Director of Community and Economic Development Department and Director of Public Works prior to issuance of building or grading permit. The construction management plan shall address at a minimum, the following:
a. Acknowledgement that all materials and equipment shall be staged on-site, unless otherwise approved in writing by the Chief Building Official. b. Contact information (phone number and email) for contractor, property owner project liaison shall be posted on site in an all weather sign that is visible to the public right of way.
c. Provisions for installation of an all-weather sign at all entrances to the construction site to inform all contractors and subcontractors of the requirements of the City’s Noise Ordinance in accordance with SRMC 8.13.050.
d. Traffic Control Plan (“TCP”) addressing on-site and off-site construction traffic. The TCP shall be stamped and signed by a registered engineer prior to submittal and shall be consistent with any other requirements of the construction phase. A current copy of the TCP shall be available at all times at the construction site for review by City Staff. The TCP shall include:
i. Any alterations, closures, or blockages to sidewalks, pedestrian paths or vehicle travel lanes (including bicycle lanes);
ii. Storage of building materials, equipment, dumpsters, and/or debris anywhere in the public Right of Way;
iii. Hauling routes for trucks used during construction of Project. 4901-6038-5421 v2 18
e. Designate location of construction worker parking on-site or in another off-street location provided by the applicant. Construction workers may not park on-street in the downtown area or adjacent residential neighborhoods. f. A screened security fence approved by the Director of Community and Economic Development Department shall be placed and maintained around the perimeter of the Project and removed immediately following construction work. g. Proposed construction phasing, schedule of work, and approximate timeline of Project.
h. In the event that the CMP is conflicting with any conditions imposed by the grading permit for the Project, the more restrictive language or conditions shall prevail. The applicant shall be responsible for addressing any unanticipated construction impacts to the neighborhood and surrounding residents to the reasonable satisfaction of the Director of Community and Economic Development Department. i. Mass grading shall occur between April 15 through October 15, unless otherwise approved in writing by the Department of Public Works.
j. Acknowledgement that the applicant shall be required to repair any roadway damage created by the additional construction truck traffic.
k. Acknowledgement that that the location of construction trailers shall be on-site, unless otherwise approved by the Chief Building Official.
l. Location of construction staging and material storage related to the Project. m. Environmental and safety measures including:
i. Construction safety fences around the construction area. ii. Dust control and air pollution control measures.
iii. Erosion and sedimentation control measures.
iv. Tree protection fencing.
v. Construction vehicle parking
23. Pre-Construction Nesting Bird Surveys. In accordance with General Plan Policy C-1.13 (Special Status Species), Program C-1.13E (Avoidance of Nesting Birds), and State and federal regulations, if construction, grading, or other project- related construction activities are scheduled during the nesting season, February 1 to September 1, a focused survey for active nests shall be conducted by a qualified biologist within 7 days prior to the beginning of project related activities. If an active nest is found, the qualified biologist shall delineate a no-workzone buffer distance around the nest that is site and species specific using high visibility fencing or flagging. The buffer distance shall be specified to protect the bird’s normal behavior and prevent nesting failure or abandonment. No work shall occur within the no-work zone until the nest is no longer active as determined by a qualified biologist. If a lapse in project- related work of 7 days or longer occurs, another focused survey shall occur before project work is reinitiated.
24. Pre-Construction Roosting Bat Habitat Assessment and Surveys. In accordance with General Plan Policy C-1.12 (Native or Sensitive Habitats), Program C-1.12A (Surveys for Sensitive Natural Communities and Special Status Species), prior to any building demolition or tree removal, a qualified biologist shall conduct a habitat assessment for pallid bats. A qualified bat biologist shall have at least 2 years of experience conducting bat surveys that resulted in detections for relevant species, such as pallid bat, with verified project names, dates, and references, and experience with relevant equipment used to conduct bat surveys. The habitat 4901-6038-5421 v2 19
assessment shall be conducted no more than 15 days prior to tree removal or building demolition and shall include a visual inspection of potential roosting features ( e.g., cavities, crevices in wood and bark, exfoliating bark, suitable canopy for foliage roosting species, attics, eaves). If suitable habitat trees or buildings are found, or bats are observed, the following shall also be required.
a. Roosting Bat Building Exclusion Plan. If the qualified biologist identifies buildings scheduled for demolition as potential bat habitat, then building demolition shall not occur until either ( 1) a qualified biologist conducts night emergence surveys or completes visual examination of roost features that establishes absence of roosting bats, or ( 2) an appropriate bat eviction and exclusion plan has been approved by the City of San Rafael and implemented. The City of San Rafael shall seek the California Department of Fish and Wildlife’ s input on the exclusion plan. The plan shall: ( a) recognize maternity and winter roosting season as vulnerable seasons for bats and require exclusion outside of these times, generally between March 1 and April 15 or September 1 and October 15; (b) identify suitable areas for excluded bats to disperse or require installation of appropriate dispersal habitat, such as artificial bat houses, prior to project activities and include an associated management and monitoring plan with implementation and funding; and (c) include a requirement that exclusion materials shall be re-evaluated for effectiveness by the qualified biologist up to 2 weeks prior to building demolition. b. Roosting Bat Tree Protections. If the qualified biologist identifies potential bat habitat trees, then tree trimming and tree removal shall not proceed unless the following occurs: (1) a qualified biologist conducts night emergence surveys or completes visual examination of roost features that establish absence of roosting bats, or (2) tree trimming and tree removal occur only during seasonal periods of bat activity, from approximately March 1 through April 15 and September 1 through October 15, and tree removal occurs using the two-step removal process. Two-step tree removal shall be conducted over two consecutive days. The first day (in the afternoon), under the direct supervision and instruction by a qualified biologist with experience conducting two-step tree removal, limbs and branches shall be removed by a tree cutter using chainsaws only; limbs with cavities, crevices or deep bark fissures shall be avoided. The second day the entire tree shall be removed.
25. Pre-Construction Meeting. Prior to issuance of the first site development permit for each construction area (e.g., on-site parcel(s) or building site(s), or off-site improvement construction area), a pre-construction meeting shall be held to review the CMP and conditions of approval with representatives from the Applicant team and the City. The general contractor or Applicant shall ensure that all subcontractors involved in subsequent phases of construction are aware of the conditions of approval.
26. Applicant to Hold City of San Rafael Harmless. Applicant or permittee shall defend, indemnify, and hold harmless the City of San Rafael or its elected and appointed officials, agents, officers, and employees from any claim, action, or proceeding brought by a third party against the City of San Rafael or its elected and appointed officials, agents, officers, or employees to attack, set aside, void, or annul an approval of the Planning Commission, the City Council, the Director, or any other department, committee, or agency of the City concerning any processing, approval, denial or other City action related to the Project.
27. Conditions of Approval Validity. If any term, provision, or portion of these conditions or the application of these conditions to a particular situation is held by a court to be invalid, void or unenforceable, the remaining provisions of these conditions, or their application to other actions related to the Project, shall continue in full force and effect unless amended or modified by the City.
4901-6038-5421 v2 20
ENVIRONMENTAL AND DESIGN REVIEW CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL (ED25-027) Planning Division
28. Project Approval. This Environmental and Design Review Permit (ED25-027) approves the 900 A Street Project, inclusive of demolition of the existing 4,400 square foot commercial building and associated site improvements in a single phase; construction of 190,147 square feet of gross floor area, inclusive of 138,402 square feet of residential area (including residential amenities and 131 units comprised of 77 one-bedroom and 54 two-bedroom units, of which, 11 are deed restricted below market rate units affordable to low-income households); 4,000 square feet of commercial area; and 47,745 square feet of garage, mechanical, electric, and plumbing area in a single phase. Plans submitted for building permit shall be in substantial conformance to the Plans received on October 8, 2025 with regard to building techniques, materials, elevations, and overall project appearance except as modified by these conditions of approval. Minor modifications or revisions to the Project shall be subject to review and approval by the Community and Economic Development Department, Planning Division.
29. Modifications. Modifications to the approved Project deemed greater than minor in nature by the Community and Economic Development Director shall require review and approval by the Planning Commission.
30. Permit Validity. This Permit shall become effective following the appeal period specified in SRMC Ch. 14.28 (see SRMC 14.25.130) on November 28, 2025, or on the date of final determination of any appeal (whichever is later.) This Permit shall be valid for a period of 2 years from the effective date and shall become null and void on that date unless (1) a building permit for vertical construction has been issued and construction diligently pursued, a certificate of occupancy has been issued, or the permit is renewed or extended pursuant to SRMC Section 14.25.150.
31. Site Address. Prior to issuance of first building permit, if Applicant wishes for Project to be addressed “900 A Street,” Applicant shall take all steps necessary and required to readdress the Project parcel from 1030 3rd St. to 900 A Street.
32. Exterior Lighting. Consistent with SRMC Section 14.16.227(B), all exterior lighting shall be appropriately designed and/or shielded to conceal light sources from view off-site and avoid spillover onto adjacent properties.
33. Lighting Levels. Consistent with SRMC Section 14.16.227(C), lighting shall be a minimum intensity wattage of 0.5-foot candle or as otherwise necessary for public safety and a maximum intensity of 1 foot-candle as measured at the property line.
34. Maximum Wattage. Consistent with SRMC Section 14.16.227(F), plans submitted for electrical permits shall specify the maximum wattage of all Project light fixtures.
35. Lighting Inspection. Consistent with SRMC Section 14.16.227(G), the Project shall be subject to a 90-day post installation lighting inspection to evaluate the need for adjustment and assure compliance with adopted standards.
36. Mechanical Equipment. Plans shall demonstrate continued compliance with mechanical equipment screening regulations set forth in Division 3.1, Section 3.1.020 of the Downtown Form Based Code. As provided therein, roof-mounted solar equipment is exempt from the screening requirements. All other mechanical equipment shall be screened with a building parapet that is as tall or taller than the highest point on any new mechanical equipment located on the roof of the building.
4901-6038-5421 v2 21
37. Noise Standards. Consistent with SRMC Section 14.16.260, the following noise control measures as outlined in the Noise and Vibration Assessment prepared by Illingworth & Rodkin, dated April 4, 2025 shall be incorporated into the final design of the Project. a. All 2nd to 8th floor apartments with facades adjacent to 3rd Street and all 2nd to 6th floor apartments with facades adjacent to A Street shall be equipped with a mechanical ventilation system to allow residents to keep their windows closed for noise control.
The mechanical ventilation systems in these apartments should be designed to supply adequate fresh air to the units with closed windows and may include acoustically rated straight air transfer duct such as the Fresh 80, 90 or 100-dB units by Fresh Ventilation (or equal) or a standard central air conditioning and/or a central heating system with adequate fresh air supply, which is equipped with a ‘summer switch’ to allow the fan to circulate air without cooling or heating operation, or other systems satisfactory to the local building official.
b. The exterior wall assemblies & window/door STC ratings of all 2nd to 8th floor apartments with facades adjacent to 3rd Street and all 2nd to 6th floor apartments with facades adjacent to A Street shall be designed to maintain interior noise levels at or below 45 dBA Ldn with closed exterior doors and windows and the exterior wall assemblies & window/doors.
c. Based on typical residential construction, it is expected that the windows and doors in 2nd to 8th floor apartments with a view of 3rd Street and 2nd to 6th floor apartments with a view of A Street will require STC ratings of between 26 and 30, however the specific determination of sound isolation ratings of the exterior wall assemblies and window/door assemblies shall be determined during the Project design.
38. Use of City Sidewalks and Rights-of-way. This approval does not authorize any specific use of the 4,000 square foot commercial space. Any future use proposing use of city sidewalks and rights-of-way shall comply with the permit requirements of SRMC Section 14.16.277 and the performance standards contained in SRMC Section 14.17.110.
39. Solar Installation. As a newly constructed high-rise multifamily buildings (buildings that have four or more habitable stories) the project shall install solar photovoltaic (“PV”) systems, Unless otherwise exempt from the requirements.
40. Vision Triangle. Consistent with the recommendations of the Local Traffic Analysis, prepared by Advanced Mobility Group, July 2025 plans submitted for building permits shall label all areas falling within 15 feet of the curb return of all intersections and driveways (Vision Triangle). All landscaping, signage, and other project improvements located within the Vision Triangle shall be kept under 3 feet in height, and trees and hanging branches shall be trimmed to a minimum height of 7 feet.
41. Landscape Maintenance. All landscaping shall be maintained in good condition and any dead or dying plants, bushes, trees, or groundcover plantings shall be replaced with new healthy stock of a size appropriate and compatible with the remainder of the growth at the time of replacement.
42. Landscape and Irrigation Plan Approval. Prior to the issuance of occupancy, a licensed landscape architect shall submit a letter to the Community and Economic Development Director certifying that the landscape plan is in compliance with Water Efficient Landscape requirements and the Water Efficient Landscape requirements of San Rafael Municipal Code Section 14.16.370 and MMWD Ordinance No. 414 (including amendments), as applicable.
43. Tree Replacement Plan. Consistent with Program C-1.17B: Tree Management Plan of the General Plan, the applicant shall prepare a tree replacement plan to retain and/or replace all trees removed during construction and replanting. The Plan shall be prepared by a licensed 4901-6038-5421 v2 22
arborist using published standards and practices for protecting and monitoring tree health during and after construction. The plan shall be subject to review and approval by the Community and Economic Development Director. The plan shall identify:
a. Trees proposed for removal, including species and size b. Proposed replacement trees, including species and size and planting measures
44. Tree Replacement. Trees approved for removal shall be replaced as shown on Sheet L1 and L2 of the approved Plans (24, 36-inch box size trees) or as otherwise recommended in the tree replacement plan. Replacement trees shall be planted under the supervision of a certified arborist and all planting measures recommended by the tree replacement plan shall be implemented. Prior to occupancy, the applicant shall submit verification from the certified arborist that trees have been replaced according to the specifications required by the tree replacement plan.
45. Affordable Housing – Number and Affordability Level. Consistent with the approved Plans and the provisions of Government Code Section 65915, the Project shall provide eleven (11) residential units as affordable to low-income households which shall mean those earning no more than 80% of the Area Median Income.
46. Affordable Housing – Timing of Construction. Consistent with the City of San Rafael Guidelines for the Administration of the Affordable Housing Trust Fund, all affordable housing units shall be constructed prior to or concurrent with the construction of market rate housing units and the City shall not issue a final certificate of occupancy for the Project, or any certificate of occupancy for any of the market rate units, until the last certificate of occupancy for the affordable housing units has been issued
47. Affordable Housing – Agreement. Prior to issuance of the first building permit for the Project, the Below Market Rate (“BMR”) agreement (attached to these Conditions of Approval as Exhibit 4 and incorporated herein) for the eleven (11) affordable units shall be approved by the Community and Economic Development Director, executed, and recorded on title in the records of the County of Marin. Prior to issuance of the first building permit, Applicant shall provide to City proof of such recordation.
48. Affordable Housing Agreement – Maximum Rents. As set forth in the Affordable Housing Agreement (attached hereto as Exhibit 4), for each Low Income Unit, the maximum monthly rent shall be 1/12th of 30 percent of sixty (60) percent of the Area Median Income for Marin County, California, adjusted for family size appropriate for the unit and as otherwise adjusted and published from time to time by HCD in Section 6932 of Title 25 of the California Code of Regulations or successor provision. Monthly rent means the total of monthly payments actually made by the household for (a) use and occupancy of each BMR Unit and land and facilities associated therewith, (b) any separately charged fees or service charges assessed by Owner which are required of all tenants, other than security deposits, (c) a reasonable allowance for an adequate level of service of utilities not included in (a) or (b) above, and which are not paid directly by Owner, including garbage collection, sewer, water, electricity, gas and other heating, cooking and refrigeration fuels, but not including telephone or internet service, which reasonable allowance for utilities is set forth in the County of Marin’s Utility Allowance Schedule for detached homes, apartments, condominiums and duplexes, and (d) possessory interest, taxes or other fees or charges assessed for use of the land and facilities associated therewith by a public or private entity other than Owner.
49. Signs. No signage is approved as part of the Project. Future signage shall comply with the requirements of SRMC Chapter 14.19 (Signs).
50. Unbundled Parking. Consistent with Division 3.1 of the Downtown Form Based Code, all offstreet parking spaces accessory to the residential use shall be leased or sold separately from 4901-6038-5421 v2 23
the rental or purchase fees for dwellings for the life of the dwellings. It is the Applicants' responsibility to provide renters of on-site inclusionary affordable units with an equal opportunity to rent or buy a parking space on the same terms and conditions as offered to renters or buyers of other dwellings.
51. Outstanding Fees. No building permit or other post-entitlement permit shall be issued related to the Project until Applicant has paid all outstanding permit processing and regulatory fees related to the Project pursuant to that indemnification and reimbursement agreement entered into by the Applicant on July 15, 2025.
52. Development Impact Fees. Prior to Issuance of the first building permit for the Project, the applicant shall pay all applicable development impact fees required for this Project, including those fees mentioned herein and other fees required by ordinance.
53. City of San Rafael Department Compliance. Prior to first building permit issuance, the Applicant shall comply with all pre-building permit issuance requirements of the Department of Public Works, Community and Economic Development Department, Building Division and Planning Division, and Fire Department that are directly applicable to the Project.
54. Outside Agency Compliance. Prior to first building permit issuance, the Applicant shall comply with all San Rafael Sanitation District and Marin Municipal Water District utility company regulations that are directly applicable to the Project.
55. Project Progress and Completion. The Applicant shall diligently pursue the project’s construction through to completion, and, if at any point after building permits have been issued, the Applicant abandons construction for more than one hundred and twenty (120) consecutive days or the building permits expire, the Applicant shall demolish the uncompleted portions of the Project and restore the site to rough grade condition and shall take reasonable measures to protect public health and safety, protect the building structure from the elements, screen unsightly elements from view (such as through installation of fencing, painting or attractive screens or coverings), and maintain temporary landscaping, to the satisfaction of the Community and Economic Development Director.
56. Construction Site Maintenance. If the Applicant leaves any work of construction in an unfinished state for more than seven (7) consecutive days, the Applicant shall keep the construction site clean and properly secured using best management practices and to the satisfaction of the Chief Building Official.
Building Division
57. Building Code. In addition to any and all conditions specified herein, the design and construction of the Project as well as site alterations shall comply with the latest adopted Building Codes in effect at time of building permit submission.
58. Building Plans. A building permit is required for the proposed work. Applications shall be accompanied by a complete set of construction drawings to include:
a. Architectural plans
b. Structural plans
c. Electrical plans
d. Plumbing plans
e. Mechanical plans
f. Site/civil plans (clearly identifying grade plane and height of the building) g. Structural Calculations
h. Truss Calculations
i. Soils reports
4901-6038-5421 v2 24
j. Green Building documentation
k. Title-24 energy documentation
59. Occupancy Details on Plans. The occupancy classification, construction type and square footage of each building shall be specified on the plans. In mixed occupancies, each portion of the building shall be individually classified.
60. Occupancy Calculations. The occupancy classification, construction type and square footage of each building shall be specified on the plans in addition to justification calculations for the allowable area of each building. Site/civil plans prepared by a California licensed surveyor or engineer clearly showing topography, identifying grade plane and height of the building.
61. Mixed Occupancy Type. This building contains several different occupancy types. Individual occupancies are categorized with different levels of hazard and may need to be separated from other occupancy types for safety reasons. Under mixed-occupancy conditions the project architect has available several design methodologies (accessory occupancies, nonseparated occupancies, and separated occupancies) to address the mixed-occupancy concerns.
62. Building Height. Building height and story must comply with CBC Section 504. On the plan justify the proposed building area and height.
63. Building Area. Building areas are limited by CBC Table 506.2. On plan justify the proposed building area.
64. Building Area. The maximum area of unprotected and protected openings permitted in the exterior wall in any story of a building shall not exceed the percentages specified in CBC Table 705.8 “Maximum Area of Exterior Wall Openings Based on Fire Separation Distance and Degree of Opening Protection.” To calculate the maximum area of exterior wall openings you must provide the building setback distance from the property lines and then justify the percentage of proposed wall openings and include whether the opening is unprotected or protected.
65. Building Area. Buildings located 4 or more stories above grade plane, one stairwell must extend to the roof, unless the roof slope exceeds an angle of 4 vertical to 12 horizontal CBC 1011.12.
66. Building Addressing. Each building must have address identification placed in a position that is plainly legible and visible from the street or road fronting the property. Numbers painted on the curb do not satisfy this requirement. In new construction and substantial remodels, the address must be internally or externally illuminated and remain illuminated at all hours of darkness. Numbers must be a minimum 4 inches in height with ½ inch stroke for residential occupancies and a minimum 6 inches in height with ½ inch stroke for commercial applications.
The address must be contrasting in color to their background SMC 12.12.20.
67. Demolition Permit. Any demolition of existing structures will require a permit. Submittal shall include three (3) copies of the site plan, asbestos certification and PG&E disconnect notices.
Also, application must be made to the Bay Area Air Quality Management District prior to obtaining the permit and beginning work.
68. School Fees. School fees will be required for the project. Calculations are done by the San Rafael City Schools, and those fees are paid directly to them prior to issuance of the building permit.
69. Soils Report. Regarding any grading or site remediation, soils export, import and placement; provide a detailed soils report prepared by a qualified engineer to address these procedures.
The report should address the import and placement and compaction of soils at future building pad locations and should be based on an assumed foundation design. This information should be provided to Building Division and Department of Public Works for review and comments 4901-6038-5421 v2 25
prior to any such activities taking place. A grading permit may be required for the abovementioned work.
70. Geotechnical and Civil Pad Certification. Prior to building permit issuance for the construction of each building, geotechnical and civil pad certifications are to be submitted.
71. Ventilation Area. Every space intended for human occupancy shall be provided with natural light by means of exterior glazed openings in accordance with the applicable CBC or shall be provided with artificial light in accordance to acceptable criteria in the CBC.
72. Natural Lighting. Natural light, the minimum net glazed area shall not be less than 8 percent of the floor area of the room served CBC 1205.2 or shall provide artificial light in accordance with CBC 1205.3.
73. Signage. All site signage as well as wall signs require a separate permit and application (excluding address numbering).
74. Monument Sign Address Numbers. Monument sign(s) located at the driveway entrance(s) shall have address numbers posted prominently on the monument sign.
75. Parking Garage. In the parking garage, mechanical ventilation will be required capable of exhausting a minimum of .75 cubic feet per minute per square foot of gross floor area CMC Table 4-4. 21. In the parking structure, in areas where motor vehicles are stored, floor surfaces shall be of noncombustible, nonabsorbent materials. Floors shall drain to an approved oil separator or trap discharging to sewers in accordance with the Plumbing Code and SWIPP.
76. Sanitary Facilities. Each building shall be provided with sanitary facilities per CPC Sec 412 and Table 4-1 (including provisions for persons with disabilities). Separate facilities shall be required for each gender.
77. Elevator Car. Minimum elevator car size (interior dimension) 60” wide by 30” deep with an entrance opening of at least 60” or a car size of 42” wide by 48” deep with an entrance opening of 36” or a car size of 60” wide by 36” deep with an entrance opening of at least 36”.
78. Elevators. All buildings with one or more elevators shall be provided with not less than one medical emergency service elevator. The medical emergency service elevator shall accommodate the loading and transport of an ambulance gurney or stretcher. The elevator car size shall have a minimum clear distance between walls and door excluding return panels not less than 80 inches by 54 inches and a minimum distance from wall to return panel not less than 51 inches with a 42-inch side slide door.
79. Exits. A minimum of two exits, with proper separation, are required from the third floor of each unit. The exits must located a distance apart equal to not less than one half of the length of the maximum overall diagonal dimension of the area served.
80. Accessibility. The proposed facility shall be designed to provide access to the physically disabled. For existing buildings and facilities when alterations, structural repairs or additions are made, accessibility improvements for persons with disabilities shall be required unless CASP report states compliant. Improvements shall be made, but are not limited to, the following accessible features:
a. Path of travel from public transportation point of arrival b. Routes of travel between buildings
c. Parking
d. Ramps
e. Primary entrances
f. Sanitary facilities (restrooms)
g. Drinking fountains & Public telephones (when provided) 4901-6038-5421 v2 26
h. Accessible features per specific occupancy requirements i. Accessible special features, i.e., ATM's point of sale machines, etc.
81. Accessibility Requirements. The site development of items such as common sidewalks, parking areas, stairs, ramps, common facilities, etc. are subject to compliance with the accessibility. Pedestrian access provisions should provide a minimum 48" wide unobstructed paved surface to and along all accessible routes. Items such as signs, meter pedestals, light standards, trash receptacles, etc., shall not encroach on this 4' minimum width. Also, note that sidewalk slopes and side slopes shall not exceed published minimums. The civil, grading and landscape plans shall address these requirements to the extent possible.
82. Parking Garage Vertical Clearance. The parking garage ceiling height shall have a minimum vertical clearance of 8’ 2” where required for accessible parking.
83. Multistory Access. Multistory apartment or condominium on the ground floor in buildings with no elevator at least 10 percent but no less than one of the multistory dwellings in apartment buildings with three or more and condos with four or more dwellings shall comply with the following:
a. The primary entry to the dwelling unit shall be on an accessible route unless exempted by site impracticality tests in CBC Section 1150A.
b. At least one powder room or bathroom shall be located on the primary entry level, served by an accessible route.
c. All rooms or spaces located on the primary entry level shall be served by an accessible route. Rooms and spaces located on the primary entry level and subject to this chapter may include but are not limited to kitchens, powder rooms, bathrooms, living rooms, bedrooms or hallways.
84. Multifamily Accessible Parking. Multifamily dwelling and apartment accessible parking spaces shall be provided at a minimum rate of 2 percent of the covered multifamily dwelling units. At least one space of each type of parking facility shall be made accessible even if the total number exceeds 2 percent.
85. Unassigned Accessible Parking. When parking is provided for multifamily dwellings and is not assigned to a resident or a group of residents, at least 5 percent of the parking spaces shall be accessible and provide access to grade level entrances of multifamily dwellings and facilities (e.g. swimming pools, club houses, recreation areas and laundry rooms) that serve the dwellings. Accessible parking spaces shall be located on the shortest accessible route to an accessible building, or dwelling unit entrance.
86. Accessible Parking. Public accommodation disabled parking spaces must be provided according the following table and must be uniformly distributed throughout the site:
4901-6038-5421 v2 27
87. Accessible Van Parking. At least one disabled parking space must be van accessible; 9 feet wide parking space and 8 feet wide off- load area. Additionally, one in every eight required handicap spaces must be van accessible. At least one disabled parking space must be van accessible; 9 feet wide parking space and 8 feet wide off- load area. Additionally, one in every eight required handicap spaces must be van accessible.
Fire Department
88. Fire Code. The design and construction of all site alterations shall comply with the 2022 California Fire Code, current NFPA Standards, and all applicable City of San Rafael Ordinances and Amendments.
89. Deferred Submittals. Separate deferred Fire Prevention Bureau permits will be required for the following:
a. Fire sprinkler system
b. Class I fire standpipe system.
c. Fire underground main.
d. Fire alarm system.
e. Emergency Responder Communications Coverage System (“ERCCS”). f. Vegetation Management Plan (“VMP”).
90. Fire Apparatus Access Roadway. The fire apparatus access roadway must conform to all provisions in CFC Section 503 and Appendix D.
91. Fire Apparatus Plan. A fire apparatus access plan shall be prepared for this Project. Fire apparatus plan shall show the location the following:
a. Designated fire apparatus access roads.
b. Red curbs and no parking fire lane signs.
c. Fire hydrants.
d. Fire Department Connection (“FDC”).
e. Double detector check valve.
f. Street address sign.
g. Recessed Knox Box
h. Fire Alarm annunciator panel.
4901-6038-5421 v2 28
i. NFPA 704 placards.
j. Provide a note on the plan, as follows: The designated fire apparatus access roads and fire hydrants shall be installed and approved by the Fire Prevention Bureau prior construction of the building.
92. Knox Box. A Knox Box is required at the primary point of first response to the building. A recessed mounted Knox Box is required for new buildings. the Knox Box shall be clearly visible upon approach to the main entrance from the fire lane. Note the Knox Box must be installed from 72” to 78” above finish grade; show the location on the plans. https://www.knoxbox.com/commercial-knoxboxes/
93. Knox Gate Switch. A Knox key switch is required for driveway or access road automatic gates. https://www.knoxbox.com/gate-keys-and-padlocks/
94. Existing Hydrant Upgrades. When additions or alterations are made, the nearest existing fire hydrant shall be upgraded. Hydrant: Clow 960.
95. Distance to Fire Apparatus Access Road. When a building is fully sprinklered all portions of the exterior building perimeter must be located within 250 feet of an approved fire apparatus access road.
a. The minimum width of the fire apparatus access road is 20 feet. b. The minimum inside turning radius for a fire apparatus access road is 28 feet. c. The fire apparatus access road serving this building is more than 150 feet in length; provide an approved turn-around. Contact the Fire Prevention Bureau for specific details.
96. Fire Apparatus Access Roadway. An aerial fire apparatus access roadway is required parallel to one entire side of the building.
a. The Aerial apparatus access roadway shall be located within a minimum 15 feet and a maximum of 30 feet from the building.
b. The minimum unobstructed width for an aerial fire apparatus access road is 26 feet. c. Overhead utility and power lines shall not be located within the aerial fire apparatus access roadway, or between the roadway and the building.
97. Fire Lanes. Fire lanes must be designated; painted red with contrasting white lettering stating, “No Parking Fire Lane” A sign shall be posted in accordance with the CFC Section 503.3 and to the satisfaction and approval of the San Rafael Parking Services Division.
98. Hazardous Materials Placards. Hazardous Materials Placards shall be installed in accordance with NFPA 704.
99. Address Numbers. Provide address numbers plainly visible from the street or road fronting the property. Numbers painted on the curb do not qualify as meeting this requirement.
Numbers shall contrast with the background and shall be Arabic numbers or letters. Numbers shall be internally or externally illuminated in all new construction or substantial remodels.
Number sizes are as follows – 6” tall with ½” stroke. Larger sizes might be required by the fire code official or in multiple locations for buildings served by two or more roads. 100. Fire Suppression Water Supply. Contact the Marin Municipal Water District to plan for the water supply serving the fire protection systems.
101. Knox Key Access. During construction, the contractor shall provide:
a. Knox key access to Project site.
b. 24-hour emergency contact information conspicuously posted on job-site. c. Ensure that the site is kept clear of any combustible debris or waste; removed daily. 4901-6038-5421 v2 29
d. Mount fire extinguishers of a 2A10BC rating every 75 feet of travel distance and on each floor.
102. Fire Construction Plan. The contractor will submit a Fire Construction Plan to the Fire Prevention Bureau. Plan requirements will be furnished at the time of the building permit application.
Department of Public Works
Public Right-of-Way
103. Encroachment Permits Required. A minor temporary encroachment permit is required from the Department of Public Works prior to conducting any work within or any time the Public Right-of-Way (“ROW”) is restricted. This includes placing debris boxes in the street.
Encroachment permits can be applied for online on the city of San Rafael website:
https://www.cityofsanrafael.org/encroachment-permits/
104. All backflow preventers, fire department connections, and other above ground utility structures shall be placed on private property and shall not be allowed to protrude into the public-right-of-way.
105. Exterior Doors. Exterior doors shall not be permitted to swing into or Project into the public right-of-way.
106. Frontage Improvements. Prior to issuance of building permit, the applicant shall submit a separate set of drawings detailing the frontage improvements in the public right-of-way adjacent to the proposed development for Department of Public Works review and approval as part of the application for an encroachment permit (e.g., sidewalks, pavement restoration, driveway approach, lighting). Frontage improvements shall be designed in accordance with City of San Rafael design standards, meet accessibility requirements per the California Building Code and Public Right-of-Way Accessibility Guidelines (“PROWAG”), and reference Marin County Uniform Construction Standards (“UCS”) where applicable. At a minimum, frontage improvements shall include the following:
a. New sidewalk, curb, and gutter along Project frontage to conform to existing curb ramp at the corner of 3rd Street and A Street
b. Pavement restoration (minimum 2”-thick grind and overlay) will be required along the property frontage. The limits of pavement restoration will be to the centerline of A street or as required during the encroachment permit application, whichever is more stringent. 3rd street is in moratorium, full width resurfacing with a 4” grind, 2” leveling course, replacement of existing paving mat, and 2” overlay shall be required along property frontage.
Any modification in the frontage improvements shall be determined by the Department of Public Works at the time of issuance of a building permit, or as approved based on field observations during construction.
Stormwater
107. MCSTOPP Requirements. This Project includes more than 5,000 square feet of total impervious area replacement and creation and therefore is considered a regulated project according to BASMAA standards. The following documents are required to be provided in accordance with BASMAA and Marin County Stormwater Pollution Prevention Program (“MCSTOPPP”) requirements:
c. Stormwater Control Plan – A written document and exhibit to accompany the plan set used primarily for municipal review to verify compliance with stormwater treatment 4901-6038-5421 v2 30
requirements. (Needed to obtain planning/building/grading permit.) d. Stormwater Facilities Operations and Maintenance (“O&M”) Plan – A written document and exhibit outlining facilities on-site and maintenance activities and responsibilities for property owners. (Needed to obtain building/grading permit) e. Stormwater Facilities Operations and Maintenance Agreement – A formal agreement between the property owner and the city that shall be recorded with the property deed prior to occupancy. (Provide prior to occupancy)
In accordance with Section E.12.e of the NPDES MS4 permit Non-LID Facilities need to show equivalent effectiveness to bioretention areas in the following areas:
a. Equal or greater amount of runoff infiltrated or evapotranspired. b. Equal or lower pollutant concentrations in runoff that is discharged after biotreatment c. Equal or greater protection against shock loadings and spills d. Equal or greater accessibility and ease of inspection and maintenance Grading and Earthwork
108. Erosion and Sediment Control Plan. Prior to issuance of building permit or grading permit, the applicant shall provide an erosion and sediment control plan for review and approval by the City.
109. Geotechnical Plan Review. Prior to issuance of building permit, the applicant shall provide a plan review letter from the geotechnical engineer of record confirming that the project drawings are in conformance with their recommendations. 110. Grading Permit Required. Prior to start of construction, a grading permit shall be required from the Department of Public Works. Applications can be found on the City’s website: https://www.cityofsanrafael.org/grading-permits/.
Traffic
111. Loading Zone and Trash Pick Up Area Plan. The applicant shall submit a plan for the proposed loading zones and trash pickup area on A Street as part of the application for an encroachment permit for review by the Department of Public Works and the City Traffic Engineer. The plan shall indicate the proposed colored curb designations, proposed signage, type of loading, and time restrictions for the loading/pickup zones. Proposed loading zones shall comply with all applicable requirements of the California Building Code and PROWAG. 112. Prior to building permit issuance provide the underground driveway profile showing slopes The driveway shall have a maximum slope of 10% or less for at least 15 feet from the back of sidewalk to the underground parking.
113. If there is any gate proposed for underground parking, it shall be set back at least twenty feet from the back of sidewalk.
114. Construction Vehicle Impact Fee. A construction vehicle impact fee (Street Maintenance Fee) shall be required at the time of building permit issuance, which is calculated at 1% of the valuation, with the first $10,000 of valuation exempt.
Marin Municipal Water District
The following conditions have been provided by the Marin Municipal Water District (MMWD) and are subject to change by MMWD without notification from the City. The City is not the governing agency over connection, capacity and other compliance matters with respect to these utilities. 115. Water Service. The Project is eligible for water service upon request and fulfillment of 4901-6038-5421 v2 31
the following:
a. Complete a High Pressure Water Service Application.
b. Submit a copy of the building permit.
c. Pay appropriate fees and charges.
d. Complete the structure's foundation within 120 days of the date of application. e. Comply with the District's rules and regulations in effect at the time service is requested, including the installation of a meter per structure per use. f. Comply with all indoor and outdoor requirements of District Code Title 13 – Water Conservation. This may include verification of specific indoor fixture efficiency compliance. g. If you are pursuing a landscaping project subject to review by your local planning department and /or subject to a city permit, please contact the district water conservation department at 415-945-1497 or email to [email protected]. More information about district water conservation requirements can be found online at www.marinwater.org h. Comply with the backflow prevention requirements, if upon the District’s review backflow protection is warranted, including installation, testing and maintenance. Questions regarding backflow requirements should be directed to the Backflow Prevention Program Coordinator at (415) 945-1558.
i. Comply with California Water Code – Division I, Chapter 8, Article 5, Section 537; which requires individual metering of multiple living units within newly constructed structures.
San Rafael Sanitation District
The following conditions have been provided by the San Rafael Sanitation District and are subject to change by the Sanitation District without notification from the City. The City is not the governing agency over connection, capacity and other compliance matters with respect to these utilities. 116. Sewer Connection Fee – Fixture Count. Prior to issuance of the Building Permit, sewer connection fees based on the drainage fixture units (“DFU”) count shall be paid, pursuant to District Ordinance No. 56. Plans should provide all fixtures in the existing building to be demolished to receive DFU credits.
117. The Project is eligible for wastewater service and may be serviced either by the 12- inch sewer main in A Street or the 16-inch main in Third Street, provided that the following conditions are met:
a. Sewer plans outside of the building foundation shall be designed by a registered Civil Engineer and submitted to the City for the District’s review and approval. b. Upon approval of the plans, the property owner will be required to pay a sewer connection fee.
c. The District is currently conducting a flow and capacity study for the downtown area to evaluate the potential impacts of the proposed development on the existing capacity of the sewer facilities downstream. The District will provide an update to the developer once the final report is completed and will work with the developer to determine an appropriate resolution to address capacity issues, if needed. 4901-6038-5421 v2 32
Marin Sanitary Service
The following conditions have been provided by Marin Sanitary Service are subject to change by Marin Sanitary without notification from the City. The City is not the governing agency over connection, capacity and other compliance matters with respect to these utilities. 118. All refuse, recycling, compost and other containers shall be placed at the curb in the staging area by 6:00 a.m., the day of collection
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 the City of San Rafael, held on Tuesday, the 17th day of February 2026, by the following vote, to wit:
AYES: Councilmembers:
NOES: Councilmembers:
ABSENT: Councilmembers:
____________________
Lindsay Lara, City Clerk
Exhibit 1 - General Plan Consistency Analysis
Exhibit 2 - Downtown Precise Plan Consistency Analysis
Exhibit 3 - Zoning Consistency Analysis
Exhibit 4 – Affordable Housing Agreement
ATTACHMENT 2, EXHIBIT 1
ANALYSIS OF PROJECT CONSISTENCY WITH SAN RAFAEL GENERAL PLAN 2040 1-1
LAND USE ELEMENT
Policy LU-1.3: Land Use and Climate Change
Focus future housing and commercial development in areas where alternatives to driving are most viable and shorter trip lengths are possible, especially around transit stations, near services, and on sites with frequent bus service. This can reduce the greenhouse gas emissions associated with motor vehicle trips and support the City’s climate action goals.
Consistent
The Project proposes 131 residential units approximately 0.3 mile from the Downtown SMART station, which supports housing that has access to viable transportation alternatives. Additionally, the Project proposes bicycle parking on the streetscape and within the garage space, which can support alternative modes of transportation. As such, the Project is consistent with General Plan Policy LU-1.3.
Policy LU-1.8: Density of Residential Development
Use the density ranges in the Land Use Element to determine the number of housing units allowed on properties within the Planning Area.
Consistent
The Project site is designated Downtown Mixed Use in the General Plan, which does not establish a residential density limit and includes the highest development intensities in the city, containing a mix of housing, office, retail, service, and public land uses. The Project proposes a residential density of approximately 198 dwelling units per acre. Thus, the Project’s density complies with the Downtown Mixed Use General Plan designation and intent. As such, the Project is consistent with General Plan Policy LU-1.8.
Policy LU-2.2: Mixed Use Development
Encourage mixed-use development (combining housing and commercial uses) in Downtown San Rafael and on commercially designated properties elsewhere in the city. Mixed-use development should enhance its surroundings and be compatible with adjacent properties.
Consistent
The Project includes approximately 4,000 square feet of commercial space on the ground floor of the proposed mixed-use building. Although there is no specific tenant identified for the commercial space, the T5NO 50/70 zoning district permits and conditionally permits a variety of uses that would enhance the project site and are compatible with adjacent properties. The Project’s integration of a commercial space of this size further enhances its surroundings and is compatible with adjacent properties as it provides opportunities for new, neighborhood-serving uses that would provide goods and services within walking and biking distance of existing and proposed residences. As such, the Project is consistent with General Plan Policy LU-2.2 and LU-2.3.
Policy LU-2.3: Neighborhood-Serving Commercial Uses
Encourage the retention and improvement of neighborhood-serving retail stores and services. In the event such spaces become vacant, consider other activities that reinforce their role as neighborhood centers.
Neighborhood-serving commercial areas should reinforce the City’s goal of reducing greenhouse gas emissions and traffic congestion by providing walkable, bikeable services and shopping close to residents.
NEIGHBORHOODS ELEMENT
Policy NH-1.1: A Thriving Downtown
Sustain and improve Downtown San Rafael as a safe, attractive, convenient, well-maintained place to visit, shop, recreate, work, and live.
Program NH-1.1A: Downtown Precise Plan and Form Based Code.
Implement the Downtown Precise Plan and Form Based Code to Consistent
The Project implements the Downtown Precise Plan and Form-Based Code by providing a mixed-use development within the City’s Downtown.
The Project involves new development that would strengthen the Downtown and increase attraction to the area as it provides residential ATTACHMENT 2, EXHIBIT 1
ANALYSIS OF PROJECT CONSISTENCY WITH SAN RAFAEL GENERAL PLAN 2040 1-2
strengthen the identity of Downtown districts and guide new development and investment.
units and commercial space, bringing increased activity that encourages maintaining and improving the area as a safe, attractive, convenient, and well-maintained place to visit, shop, recreate, work, and live. As such, the Project is consistent with General Plan Policy NH-1.1.
Policy NH-1.3: Downtown Housing
Support Downtown’s continued growth as a mixed-use neighborhood and quality residential environment. New housing should include a mix of affordable and market-rate units, including expanded resources for unsheltered persons and extremely low-income households. Housing should take advantage of Downtown’s amenities and views and contribute to its character as a dynamic neighborhood.
Consistent
The Project includes the development of 131 residential units, including a mix of affordable and market-rate units, as well as a 4,000 square foot commercial space. As such, the Project supports the continued growth of the Downtown as a mixed-use neighborhood and quality residential environment and is consistent with General Plan Policy NH-1.3.
Policy NH-1.6: Public Realm
Improve the quality and usefulness of public space Downtown, including streets, sidewalks, alleys, plazas, parks, and other civic spaces. Public investments in these spaces should be directed in a way that supports Downtown development. Downtown public space should be safe, comfortable, and well-maintained.
Consistent
The Project consists of a variety of public improvements including new, bicycle racks on the sidewalk along A Street and 3rd Street that will serve the public and promote alternative travel modes to the site. Additionally, the Project includes new benches and tree planting along A Street and 3rd Street, which supports public gathering and a safe, comfortable, and well-maintained space. As such, the Project is consistent with General Plan Policy NH-1.6.
Policy NH-1.7: Context-Sensitive Design
Ensure that new construction and redevelopment is sensitive to Downtown’s existing context, with thoughtful transitions to established neighborhoods and retention of important historic buildings and building elements. As Downtown grows, it should retain its sense of history and authenticity
Consistent
The Project’s overall design is sensitive to the Downtown’s existing context as it provides a well-designed mixed-use building that maintains a pedestrian scale through a well-defined podium base, large storefront windows, and multiple entrances, thereby directly engaging the street and creating an active, pedestrian-scale frontage. Additionally, although the Project requests waivers from the required stepbacks, a smaller stepback is incorporated between levels 4 and 5 which effectively reduces the building's overall height and bulk, resulting in a pedestrian experience that is primarily defined by the more intimate scale of the building’s foundational levels. Furthermore, the Project is an infill development that supports the urban environment of the site by providing high density housing and commercial space. As such, the Project is consistent with General Plan Policy NH-1.7.
Policy NH-1.10: Downtown Circulation
Provide a safe, well-connected transportation network that efficiently serves all modes of travel. This network should promote safety for all travelers and create a street network that is safer and more comfortable Consistent
The Project provides bicycle parking along the streetscape and within the proposed garage. Additionally, the Project is supporting housing within walking and biking distance to transit, goods, and services. As a result, ATTACHMENT 2, EXHIBIT 1
ANALYSIS OF PROJECT CONSISTENCY WITH SAN RAFAEL GENERAL PLAN 2040 1-3
for pedestrians. the Project supports the use of different modes of transportation and is therefore consistent with General Plan Policy NH-1.10.
Policy NH-1.11: Parking
Pursue creative solutions to meeting Downtown parking needs without losing the sense of the area as a pedestrian-oriented district. These solutions should include better management of the existing parking supply, additional private parking (including spaces available for public use) in high-demand areas such as the transit center vicinity, more efficiently designed parking structures, and improved signage and visibility of public parking facilities.
Consistent
The Project provides vehicular parking in the garage space located on the basement and ground level, thereby screening parking from the street view. Additionally, the Project limits vehicular access to a driveway on A Street, which supports movement of pedestrians along the building frontages. The Project efficiently places the proposed parking within the basement and ground floor, reducing areas of the site used solely for the purpose of parking. As such, the Project is consistent with General Plan Policy NH-1.11.
COMMUNITY DESIGN AND PRESERVATION ELEMENT
Policy CDP-2.2: Downtown Urban Design. Enhance the design qualities that make Downtown San Rafael a unique and special place, including its traditional street grid, street trees, walkable scale, historic building stock, and varied architecture.
Consistent
The Project will maintain the existing street grid pattern, will plant additional street trees along both Project frontages, and will create a walkable scale by incorporating a ground floor commercial space and large windows that promote transparency and contribute to an engaging streetscape. As such, the Project is consistent with General Plan Policy CDP-2.2.
Policy CDP-3.5: Street Trees
Encourage the planting and maintenance of street trees to reduce urban heat island effects, sequester carbon, improve air quality, absorb runoff and wind, define neighborhoods, and improve the appearance and character of city streets.
Consistent
The Project includes the removal of 18 trees, including 8 street trees. The Project will increase the number of street trees as it includes the planting of 6 red maple trees along A Street and 6 Brisbane box trees along 3rd Street. Additionally, the Project includes 12 trees within the podium courtyard, which further contributes to reducing urban heat island effects by providing additional shaded areas and enhances the appearance and character of the area by incorporating landscaping that softens the appearance of the building when viewed from city streets. As such, the Project is consistent with General Plan Policy CDP-3.5.
Policy CDP-4.6: Open Space in Multi-Family Housing. Require private outdoor areas such as decks and patios, as well as common open space areas, in new multi-family development and mixed use housing. Common open space may include recreation facilities, gathering places, and site amenities such as picnic and play areas.
Consistent
The Project includes common open space areas for residents including a podium courtyard that contains lounge furniture and recreational amenities on the 2nd floor, a roof deck with lounge furniture, and an indoor amenity space on the 8th floor. Additionally, private balconies are provided for some of the residential units. As such, the Project is consistent with General Plan Policy CDP-4.6.
ATTACHMENT 2, EXHIBIT 1
ANALYSIS OF PROJECT CONSISTENCY WITH SAN RAFAEL GENERAL PLAN 2040 1-4
Policy CDP-4.9: Parking and Driveways. Encourage parking and circulation design that supports pedestrian movement and ensures the safety of all travelers, including locating parking to the side or rear of buildings, limiting driveway cuts and widths, and minimizing large expanses of pavement. Parking should be screened from the street by landscaping and should provide easy access to building entrances.
Consistent
The Project provides vehicular parking in the garage space located on the basement and ground level, thereby screening parking from the street view. Additionally, the Project limits vehicular access to a driveway on A Street, which supports movement of pedestrians along the building frontages by limiting interactions between vehicles and pedestrians. As such, the Project is consistent with General Plan Policy CDP-4.9.
Policy CDP-4.11: Lighting Encourage lighting for safety and security while preventing excessive light spillover and glare. Lighting should complement building and landscape design.
Consistent
The Project proposes various lighting types including downward cast wall sconces which will be provided at building entrances and along the perimeter of the building walls, which will support safety and security.
Additionally, the downward cast lighting will support the prevention of excessive light spillover and glare. As such, the Project is consistent with General Plan Policy CDP-4.11.
CONSERVATION AND CLIMATE CHANGE ELEMENT
Policy C-2.1: State and Federal Air Quality Standards. Continue to comply with state and federal air quality standards.
Consistent
A Project-specific Air Quality Assessment was prepared by Illingworth & Rodkin on July 9, 2025. As discussed in the assessment, construction and operation of the Project would not result in the cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the Project region is non-attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard. Additionally, as discussed in the CEQA Categorical Exemption Review Memorandum prepared for the Project, the Project meets the operational screening level size as provided in the Bay Area Air District’s 2022 CEQA Guidelines and would not exceed state and federal air quality standards. Furthermore, the Project is conditioned to incorporate best management practices during construction to control for fugitive dust, and is also conditioned to either prepare a construction health risk assessment, or incorporate enhanced best management practices during construction, including verified diesel emission control strategies and implementation of a construction minimization plan, which are capable of reducing potential cancer and non-cancer risks to a level below ten in one million or a hazard index of 1.0. As such, the Project is consistent with General Plan Policies C-2.1, C-2.2, and C-2.4.
Policy C-2.2: Land Use Compatibility and Building Standards.
Consider air quality conditions and the potential for adverse health impacts when making land use and development decisions. Buffering, landscaping, setback standards, filters, insulation and sealing, home HVAC measures, and similar measures should be used to minimize future health hazards.
Program C-2.2A: Protection of Sensitive Receptors. Use the development review process to require an evaluation of air quality impacts and the inclusion of measures to mitigate the exposure of sensitive receptors to both construction-related and long-term operational impacts. As prescribed by the EIR for General Plan 2040 and the Downtown Precise Plan, the following protocols shall be followed:
a) Projects that exceed BAAQMD screening criteria shall be required to evaluate project-specific construction emissions and operational emissions in conformance with California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines and BAAQMD methodologies. If projected pollutant levels for either construction or operations exceed BAAQMD thresholds, project applicants shall be required to mitigate the impacts to an acceptable level.
ATTACHMENT 2, EXHIBIT 1
ANALYSIS OF PROJECT CONSISTENCY WITH SAN RAFAEL GENERAL PLAN 2040 1-5
b) As recommended by the California Air Resources Board, projects that would result in construction activities within 1,000 feet of residential and other land uses that are sensitive to toxic air contaminants (e.g., hospitals, nursing homes, day care centers, etc.), as measured from the property line of the project, shall be required to prepare a construction health risk assessment in accordance with the policies and procedures of the Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA) and the BAAQMD CEQA Guidelines. These Guidelines identify mitigation measures capable of reducing potential cancer and non-cancer risks to a level below ten in one million or a hazard index of 1.0.
Policy C-2.4: Particulate Matter Pollution Reduction
Promote the reduction of particulate matter from roads, parking lots, construction sites, agricultural lands, wildfires, and other sources.
Program C-2.4A: Particulate Matter Exposure. Through development review, require that Best Available Control Technology (BACT) measures (such as setbacks, landscaping, paving, soil and dust management, and parking lot street sweeping) are used to protect sensitive receptors from particulate matter. This should include control of construction-related dust and truck emissions as well as long-term impacts associated with project operations. Where appropriate, health risk assessments may be required to evaluate risks and determine appropriate mitigation measures.
Policy C-3.1: Water Quality Standards
Continue to comply with local, state and federal water quality standards.
Consistent
A Stormwater Control Plan was prepared for the project by Luk and Associates on June 24, 2025. The plan outlines methods for managing the site’s stormwater runoff consistent with the Bay Area Stormwater Management Agencies Association’s requirements. As outlined in the plan, the runoff from the roof of the building will be conveyed to bioretention planters in the podium courtyard, where it will be treated and conveyed to the City’s storm drain system. The bio-retention planters will clean the runoff and reduce contamination, which improves the water quality. Untreated water from the podium deck and other roof surfaces will be conveyed to a Media Filter at the ground level which will remove contaminants prior to the water entering the City’s storm drain system. As conditioned, the project is required to submit plans for erosion and sediment control, stormwater control, and stormwater facility operations and maintenance. As a standard condition of approval, the project is required to comply with the City of San Rafael and the Marin County Stormwater Pollution Prevention Program regulations. As such, the project is consistent with General Plan Policy C-3.1, Policy C-3.2, and Policy C-3.2: Reduce Pollution from Urban Runoff
Require Best Management Practices (BMPs) to reduce pollutants discharged to storm drains and waterways. Typical BMPs include reducing impervious surface coverage, requiring site plans that minimize grading and disturbance of creeks and natural drainage patterns, and using vegetation and bioswales to absorb and filter runoff.
Policy C-3.3: Low Impact Development. Encourage construction and design methods that retain stormwater on-site and reduce runoff to storm drains and creeks.
Program C-3.3A: Development Review. Provide guidance to developers, contractors and builders on the use of rain gardens, bioswales and bioretention facilities, permeable pavers, grass parking lots, and other measures to absorb stormwater and reduce runoff rates and volumes.
ATTACHMENT 2, EXHIBIT 1
ANALYSIS OF PROJECT CONSISTENCY WITH SAN RAFAEL GENERAL PLAN 2040 1-6
Policy C-3.3.
Policy C-3.9: Water-Efficient Landscaping. Encourage—and where appropriate require—the use of vegetation and water-efficient landscaping that is naturalized to the San Francisco Bay region and compatible with water conservation, fire prevention and climate resilience goals.
Consistent
The project proposes a total of 2,963 square feet of landscape areas including 926 square feet at the street level, 2,017 square feet at the 2nd level podium courtyard, and 20 square feet at the rooftop. Additionally, the project proposes a total of 24 trees including 6 trees along A Street, 6 along 3rd Street, and 12 on the podium level. Proposed plant species are primarily low to moderate water usage. Furthermore, as a standard condition of approval, the landscape plan is subject to approval from Marin Municipal Water District. As such, the project is consistent with General Plan Policy C-3.9.
PARKS, RECREATION, AND OPEN SPACE ELEMENT
Policy PROS-1.13: Recreational Facilities in Development Projects Encourage, and where appropriate require, the construction of on-site recreational facilities in multi-family, mixed use, and office projects to supplement the facilities available in City parks.
Program PROS-1.13A: Onsite Recreation Facilities. Continue to implement zoning regulations that require appropriate recreational facilities for residents in new development.
Program PROS-1.13B: Rooftop Open Space. Encourage the development of rooftop open space in higher density residential, mixed use, and commercial projects. Such spaces should be designed to minimize the potential for noise, privacy, and light impacts on nearby properties.
Consistent
The project includes common open space area for residents including a podium courtyard with lounge furniture and recreational amenities on the 2nd floor, a roof deck with lounge furniture, and an indoor amenity space on the 8th floor. As such, the project is consistent with General Plan Policy PROS-1.13.
SAFETY AND RESILIENCE ELEMENT
Policy S-2.1: Seismic Safety of New Buildings
Design and construct all new buildings to resist stresses produced by earthquakes. The minimum level of seismic design shall be in accordance with the most recently adopted building code as required by State law.
Program S-2.1A: Seismic Design. Adopt and enforce State building codes which ensure that new or altered structures meet the minimum seismic standards set by State law. State codes may be amended as needed to reflect local conditions.
Program S-2.1B: Geotechnical Review. Continue to require soil and geologic hazard studies and peer review for proposed development as Consistent
A Geotechnical Feasibility Study dated February 17, 2025, was provided with the project application and determined that construction of the project is feasible. The study also includes recommendations for seismic design of the proposed structures to be in conformance with the provisions of the most recent edition of the California Building Code.
Furthermore, as a standard condition of approval, the project is required to provide a plan review letter from the geotechnical engineer of record confirming that the project drawings are in conformance with their recommendations. As such, the project is consistent with General Plan Policy S-2.1.
ATTACHMENT 2, EXHIBIT 1
ANALYSIS OF PROJECT CONSISTENCY WITH SAN RAFAEL GENERAL PLAN 2040 1-7
set forth in the City’s Geotechnical Review Matrix (See Appendix F and text box at right). These studies should determine the extent of geotechnical hazards, optimum design for structures and the suitability and feasibility of proposed development for its location, the need for special structural requirements, and measures to mitigate any identified hazards. Periodically review and update the Geotechnical Review Matrix to ensure that it supports and implements the Local Hazard Mitigation Plan by identifying potentially hazardous areas. Consider removing the procedures from the General Plan and instead adopting them as part of the Zoning Ordinance or through a separate resolution.
NOISE ELEMENT
Policy N-1.1: Land Use Compatibility Standards for Noise. Protect people from excessive noise by applying noise standards in land use decisions. The Land Use Compatibility standards in Table 9-2 are adopted by reference as part of this General Plan and shall be applied in the determination of appropriate land uses in different ambient noise environments.
Program N-1.1A: Residential Noise Standards. Maintain a maximum noise standard of 70 Ldn DB for backyards, decks, and common/usable outdoor spaces in residential and mixed use areas. As required by Title 24 insulation requirements, interior noise levels shall not exceed 45 Ldn in all habitable rooms in residential units.
Consistent
A Noise and Vibration Assessment was prepared by Illingworth & Rodkin, dated April 4, 2025, and was submitted with the project application. The assessment includes recommended design measures to incorporate into the project design to ensure the residential use is compatible with the existing noise environment. Furthermore, as detailed in the analysis and the CEQA Categorical Exemption Review Memorandum, construction and operation of the project will maintain an acceptable noise environment in San Rafael. As such, the project is consistent with General Plan Policy N1.1 and Policy N-1.2.
Policy N-1.2: Maintaining Acceptable Noise Levels. Use the following performance standards to maintain an acceptable noise environment in San Rafael:
a. New development shall not increase noise levels by more than 3 dB Ldn in a residential area, or by more than 5 dB Ldn in a nonresidential area. b. New development shall not cause noise levels to increase above the “normally acceptable” levels shown in Table 9-2.
c. For larger projects, the noise levels in (a) and (b) should include any noise that would be generated by additional traffic associated with the new development.
d. Projects that exceed the thresholds above may be permitted if an acoustical study determines that there are mitigating circumstances (such as higher existing noise levels) and nearby uses will not be ATTACHMENT 2, EXHIBIT 1
ANALYSIS OF PROJECT CONSISTENCY WITH SAN RAFAEL GENERAL PLAN 2040 1-8
adversely affected.
Program N-1.2A: Acoustical Study Requirements. Require acoustical studies for new single family residential projects within the projected 60 dB Ldn noise contour and for multi-family or mixed use projects within the projected 65 dB Ldn contour (see Figure 9-2). The studies should include projected noise from additional traffic, noise associated with the project itself, and cumulative noise resulting from other approved projects.
Mitigation measures should be identified to ensure that noise levels remain at acceptable levels.
Policy N-1.11: Vibration
Ensure that the potential for vibration is addressed when transportation, construction, and non-residential projects are proposed, and that measures are taken to mitigate potential impacts.
Consistent
A Noise and Vibration Assessment was prepared by Illingworth & Rodkin, dated April 4, 2025, and submitted with the project application. As detailed in the CEQA Categorical Exemption Review Memorandum construction of the project will not exceed established thresholds. As such, the project is consistent with General Plan Policy N-1.11.
MOBILITY ELEMENT
Policy M-2.5: Traffic Level of Service
Maintain traffic Level of Service (LOS) standards that ensure an efficient roadway network and provide a consistent basis for evaluating the transportation effects of proposed development projects on local roadways. These standards shall generally be based on the performance of signalized intersections during the AM and PM peak hours. Arterial LOS standards may be used in lieu of (or in addition to) intersection LOS standards in cases where intersection spacing and road design characteristics make arterial LOS a more reliable and effective tool for predicting future impacts.
Consistent
A Local Traffic Analysis was prepared by Advanced Mobility Group, dated April 2025, for the proposed project. The analysis concludes that project generated traffic will result in a slight increase in delays at the study intersections under the existing plus project scenario. However, all five intersections will continue to operate at Level of Service (LOS) C or better. As such, the project is consistent with General Plan Policy M-2.5.
Policy M-2.6: Traffic Mitigation Fees. Collect impact fees for new development based on the expected number of trips a project will generate. Fees should be used to implement transportation improvements as directed by City Council resolution.
Consistent
As a standard condition of approval, the project is subject to payment of a traffic mitigation fee for net new AM trips and PM trips. As such, the project is consistent with General Plan Policy M-2.6.
Policy M-3.1: VMT Reduction
Achieve State-mandated reductions in Vehicle Miles Traveled by requiring development and transportation projects to meet specific VMT metrics and implement VMT reduction measures.
Consistent
A Local Traffic Analysis was prepared for the project by Advanced Mobility Group and determined that the project meets the criteria to be screened out from the need for a quantitative vehicle miles travelled (VMT) analysis consistent with the City of San Rafael Transportation Analysis Guidelines.
The determination was based on the project being located within ½ mile of a major transit stop and in a low VMT-generating area. As such, the project is consistent with General Plan Policy M-3.1.
ATTACHMENT 2, EXHIBIT 1
ANALYSIS OF PROJECT CONSISTENCY WITH SAN RAFAEL GENERAL PLAN 2040 1-9
Policy M-7.8: Parking for Alternative Modes of Transportation Designate parking spaces to incentivize and encourage carpooling, electric vehicles, and other more sustainable modes of travel.
Consistent
The project proposes electric vehicle (EV) parking spaces on the basement and ground level. Additionally, the project proposes bicycle parking within the basement and ground level garage space and along the streetscape, thereby supporting the use of bicycling among the residents and the community. As such, the project is consistent with General Plan Policy M-7.8.
COMMUNITY SERVICES AND INFRASTRUCTURE ELEMENT
Policy CSI-4.2: Adequacy of City Infrastructure and Services As part of the development review process, require applicants to demonstrate that their projects can be adequately served by the City’s infrastructure. All new infrastructure shall be planned and designed to meet the engineering and safety standards of the City as well as various local service and utility providers.
Consistent
The project is within the development potential anticipated by the San Rafael 2040 General Plan and Downtown Precise Plan and as a result can be served by all regional and local services. Additionally, the project will connect to the existing utilities located along A street and 3rd Street including existing sanitary sewer, storm drain, water, and electrical utilities.
The project has received will-serve letters from Marin Municipal Water District and San Rafael Sanitation District. As such, the project is consistent with General Plan Policy CSI-4.2.
Policy CSI-4.8: Potable Water Supply and Delivery
Work with Marin Municipal Water District (MMWD) to meet projected water demand, encourage water conservation, and ensure the reliability and safety of the water supply and distribution system.
Consistent
A Marin Municipal Water District memorandum dated February 19, 2025, confirms that the proposed project will not impair the District’s ability to continue service to the subject property, subject to conditions of approval.
As such, the project is consistent with General Plan Policy CSI-4.8.
Policy CSI-4.9: Wastewater Facilities
Ensure that wastewater collection, treatment and disposal infrastructure is regularly maintained and meets projected needs. Improvements should be programmed to meet state and federal standards, respond to sea level rise and seismic hazards, repair and replace aging or leaking pipes, and protect environmental quality.
Consistent
The San Rafael Sanitation District provided a will-serve letter for the proposed project dated August 29, 2025. The letter confirms that the District has the ability to serve the project, subject to conditions of approval. As such, the project is consistent with General Plan Policy CSI4.9.
HOUSING ELEMENT
Table 4.5 Downtown Mixed Use Sites With Capacity for 30 Units or More Consistent The project is consistent with the Housing Element, which identifies a site-specific realistic capacity of 54 units. The project proposes 131 units and is therefore within the capacity anticipated and is therefore consistent with the adopted Housing Element.
ATTACHMENT 2, EXHIBIT 1
ANALYSIS OF PROJECT CONSISTENCY WITH SAN RAFAEL GENERAL PLAN 2040 1-10
Policy H-3.5: Housing and Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Design and locate new housing in a way that supports the city’s greenhouse gas reduction goals. This includes building new housing near transit and in locations where it is easier to walk to shopping, restaurants, services, work, school, and other destinations. It also includes reducing the use of non-renewable fossil fuels through electrification, decreased natural gas use, energy efficiency, and tree planting.
Consistent
The project proposes a high-density residential project near transit and within an urban environment that fosters access to goods and services.
As such, the project reduces dependency on single-occupancy vehicles.
Additionally, the project provides bicycle parking within the garage space and along the streetscape, which supports the use of bicycles among residents and the overall community, thereby reducing reliance on singleoccupancy vehicles and increasing use of alternative transportation methods. As such, the project is consistent with General Plan Policy H3.5.
ATTACHMENT 1, EXHIBIT 2
ANALYSIS OF PROJECT CONSISTENCY WITH DOWNTOWN PRECISE PLAN 2-1
Table 1: T5 Neighborhood Development Standards (Downtown Precise Plan Section 2.3.050) Standard Required Proposed Notes
BUILDING PLACEMENT
Setbacks
Front 0 ft. min. 15 ft. max. 4 ft. Complies
Front Façade Length 70% min. 81%1 Complies
Side Street 0 ft. min. 15 ft. max. 4 ft. Complies
Side Street Façade Length 60% min. 92%2 Complies
Side 0 ft. min. 0-10 ft. Complies
Rear 0 ft. min. 0-10 ft. Complies
Civic Space 200 s.f. min. 0 s.f. SDBL Waiver
BUILDING FORM AND MAXIMUM ENVELOPE
Height
Overall Building Height 70 ft. 83.5 ft. SDBL Waiver
Highest Top Plate/Highest Eave 65 ft. 82.5 ft.
Stepback
Front 10 ft. at 45 ft. 4 ft. SDBL Waiver
Side Street 10 ft. at 45 ft. 4 ft. SDBL Waiver
Rear 10 ft. at 45 ft. 6 ft 11 in. SDBL Waiver
Ground Floor Standards
Finish Level - Residential3 12” min. 0” Complies (see footnote) Finish Level - Non-Residential Flush with sidewalk 0” Complies Ceiling 10 ft. min. 13 ft. Complies
Depth – Front 30 ft. min. Commercial Space: 66’ 5” Complies Depth – Other 12 ft. min. Commercial Space: 60’
Leasing Office: 30’ 6”
Lobby: 41’ 3”
Complies
1 Total 3rd St façade zone = 1,794 inches. Total 3rd St. building façade length = 1,461.25 inches. 1,461.25/1,794 x 100% = 81.45%. 2 Total A St. façade zone = 2,365 inches. Total A St. building façade length = 2,173.75 inches. 2,173.75/2,365 x 100% = 91.91% 3 Common entries may be set at grade in compliance with local and federal accessibility standards.
ATTACHMENT 1, EXHIBIT 2
ANALYSIS OF PROJECT CONSISTENCY WITH DOWNTOWN PRECISE PLAN 2-2
Table 1: T5 Neighborhood Development Standards (Downtown Precise Plan Section 2.3.050) Standard Required Proposed Notes
Automobile Parking Not Required 107 The Project site is within ½ mile of transit, and pursuant to Government
Code Section 65863.2(a), no
automobile parking minimums
apply.
Bicycle Parking 1 space per one-bedroom unit (77)
2 spaces per two-bedroom unit (108)
109 (93 covered4, 16
uncovered)
SDBL Waiver
4 93 covered spaces do not comply with design criteria contained in SRMC Section 14.18.090(E) and therefore do not count toward the total amount of bicycle parking.
ATTACHMENT 1, EXHIBIT 2
ANALYSIS OF PROJECT CONSISTENCY WITH DOWNTOWN PRECISE PLAN 2-3
Table 2: Site Standards (Downtown Precision Plan Division 3.1) Review Criteria Proposed
3.1.020. Mechanical Equipment Screening.
Building parapets or other architectural
elements in the building’s architecture style
shall screen roof-mounted equipment.
The project incorporated a parapet to screen mechanical equipment and as such meets the screening requirements set forth in Section 3.1.020 of the form based code.
3.1.030. Landscaping. The Design Standards
subsection requires shrubs to be one-gallon
size or larger and trees to be 15-gallon size or
larger, and requires species to meet the
minimum standards set forth in MMWD Water
Conservation Ordinance 414.
As proposed and conditioned, the project includes shrubs and trees that meet the minimum size requirements. Additionally, as conditioned, the project is required to comply with MMWD Water Conservation Ordinance 414 and as such meets the landscaping requirements set forth in Section 3.1.030 of the form based code.
ATTACHMENT 1, EXHIBIT 2
ANALYSIS OF PROJECT CONSISTENCY WITH DOWNTOWN PRECISE PLAN 2-4
Table 3: Massing and Façade Articulation (Downtown Precision Plan Division 3.2) Review Criteria Proposed
3.2.030. Tripartite Façade Articulation. New
facades and façade modifications along a
street or civic space shall be designed to
visually express a base, middle, and top.
The design complies with this requirement. As proposed, the ground floor/base contains the lobby, restaurant, and garage entrance, the middle contains levels 2 and 3 with residential units, and the top contains residential units on levels 4-8 (See Sheet A3.2 to A3.5 of Plans).
As such, the project meets the tripartite façade articulation requirements set forth in Section
3.2.030 of the form based code.
3.2.040. Massing and Composition. Building
facades shall be arranged in an orderly
composition of window bays/openings based
on prevalent patterns of 5, 7 or 9 bays.
The project utilizes various architectural elements that make the building appear as multiple buildings. The architecture expresses orderly symmetrical composition. This is achieved through the use of physical recesses, projections, symmetrical window configuration, and support columns to create bays. No building element measures greater than 175 feet in length. As such, the Project meets the massing and composition requirements set forth in Section 3.2.040 of the form based code.
3.2.050. Corner Elements. New facades and
facade modifications shall be designed to
include a corner element to give visual
importance to the corner and enhance the
public realm.
The Project includes a 4,000 square foot commercial space that serves as a corner element, giving visual importance to the corner and enhancing the public realm. As such, the Project meets the corner elements requirements set forth in Section 3.2.050 of the form based code.
ATTACHMENT 1, EXHIBIT 2
ANALYSIS OF PROJECT CONSISTENCY WITH DOWNTOWN PRECISE PLAN 2-5
Table 4: Frontage Standards (Downtown Precise Plan Division 3.3), Section 3.3.090 (Shopfront) Standard Required Proposed Notes
SIZE
Distance between glazing 3’ max 4’ 6”
Ground floor glazing 75% min.
Depth of recessed entries 5’ max 4’ 6” Complies
Shopfront base 12” min; 30’ max 0”
AWNING
Depth 5’ min. 5’ Complies
Setback from curb 2’ min. 11’ (A St)
19’ (3rd St)
Complies
Height clear 8’ min. 11’ 6” Complies
Attachment 1, EXHIBIT 3
ANALYSIS OF PROJECT CONSISTENCY WITH TITLE 14 – ZONING
3-1
CHAPTER 14.16 - SITE AND USE REGULATIONS
14.16.025 Refuse Enclosure Requirement. Section 14.16.025 of the SRMC requires that refuse areas be screened from view and that the area be designed to meet the minimum recommended dimensional standards of the local refuse collection agency. The Planning Division referred the project to Marin Sanitary Service who confirmed that the staging area shown on A Street is satisfactory for refuse collection.
Additionally, Marin Sanitary Service staff noted that the room inside the garage area labeled trash appears to be of sufficient size to accommodate all necessary containers. Consistent with Marin Sanitary Service requirements, Attachment 1 includes a condition of approval requiring that all refuse containers be placed at the curb in the staging area by 6:00 am the day of collection. As proposed and conditioned, the project meets the requirements of SRMC Section 14.16.025.
14.16.030. Affordable Housing
Requirements.
Affordable housing requirements are contained in SRMC Section 14.16.030 (Affordable housing requirement) and governed by Ordinance 1990 and associated Resolutions 14890 and 14891 that amended the affordable housing obligation for residential projects. Residential development projects greater than fifteen (15) units are required to meet a primary and secondary requirement as follows:
• Primary Requirement. The Project is required to provide five percent (5%) of the proposed units as deed restricted BMR units (excluding density bonus units) affordable to and occupied by a low-income households.
• Secondary Requirement. This requirement can be satisfied by providing an additional five percent (5%) low income units (excluding density bonus units).
The base project provides 110 units, of with 11 (10%) will be deed restricted to be available and rented to low income households. Since 10% of the units in the base project will be affordable to low-income households, the Project meets the primary and secondary requirements. Additionally, the project qualifies for benefits under the State Density Bonus Law, including a 20% density bonus, one incentive or concession, and unlimited waivers from development standards.
14.16.170 Geotechnical Review. The applicant has provided a Geotechnical Feasibility Report, prepared by Miller Pacific Engineering Group, dated February 17, 2025. The report has been reviewed by the Department of Public Works and recommendations will be incorporated during the building permit process. Therefore, the project meets the requirements of Section 14.16.170.
14.16.227 Light and Glare. Section 14.16.227 of the SRMC requires that colors, materials and lighting are designed to avoid creating undue off-site light and glare impacts. As proposed, the Project includes neutral- Attachment 1, EXHIBIT 3
ANALYSIS OF PROJECT CONSISTENCY WITH TITLE 14 – ZONING
3-2
colored finishes and down cast light fixtures that are designed and/or shielded to conceal light sources from view off-site and avoid spillover onto adjacent properties. Additionally, as conditioned, all new lighting shall be subject to a 90-day post installation inspection to allow for adjustment and assure compliance with this section. Therefore, as proposed and conditioned, the Project complies with SRMC Section 14.16.227.
14.16.243 Mechanical Equipment
Screening.
SRMC Section 14.16.243 requires that mechanical equipment placed on the rooftop of a building be adequately screened from public view. The Precise Plan also contains mechanical equipment screening requirements and standards applicable to properties within the downtown mixed use (DMU) district. The Project includes mechanical equipment located on the rooftop that is screened from public view by parapet walls and therefore the Project complies with Section 14.16.243 of the SRMC.
14.16.260 Noise Standards. Section 14.16.260 of the SRMC require compliance with general noise standards, construction standards, and noise standards contained in the General Plan. In general, noise at residential properties may not exceed 60 dBA (Intermittent) and 50 dBA (Constant) during daytime and 50 dBA (Intermittent) and 40 dBA (Constant) at night time. Construction is limited to between the hours of seven a.m. (7:00 a.m.) and six p.m. (6:00 p.m.), Monday through Friday, and nine a.m. (9:00 a.m.) and six p.m. (6:00 p.m.) on Saturdays, provided that the noise level at any point outside of the property plane of the Project shall not exceed ninety (90) dBA. No construction is allowed on Sundays and holidays. The City’s standard conditions of approval require compliance with the noise ordinance and compliance will be verified through the building permit process. Additional conditions of approval relating to noise include a public notice and compliant process and designated liaison that would be responsible for determining the cause of all construction-related complaints (e.g., starting too early, bad muffler, worker parking, etc.) and institute reasonable measures to correct the problem. The Project site is located in a “conditionally acceptable” noise exposure area per General Plan 2040, Table 9-
2. Noise was evaluated in the CEQA Categorical Exemption Review Memorandum (Attachment 2) and supported by the Noise and Vibration Assessment Report prepared for the Project by Illingworth & Rodkin, Inc. (dated April 4, 2025). As stated above, conditions of Project approval will ensure that the Project complies with noise standards during both construction and operation of the Project and therefore the Project complies with Chapter 8.13 and Section 14.16.260 of the SRMC.
14.16.277 Use of City Sidewalks and
Rights-of-Way for Outdoor Eating Areas.
Section 14.16.277 of the SRMC requires prior approval for use of city sidewalks for outdoor eating areas. Conceptual imagery shown in the project plans show outdoor dining areas, however, this is for illustrative purposes only as there is currently no specific use or tenant identified for the 4,000 square foot ground floor commercial area. As conditioned, any future use proposing use of city sidewalks and rights-of-way for outdoor eating will be required to Attachment 1, EXHIBIT 3
ANALYSIS OF PROJECT CONSISTENCY WITH TITLE 14 – ZONING
3-3
comply with the permit requirements of SRMC Section 14.16.277. Therefore, as conditioned the Project complies with Section 14.16.277 of the SRMC.
14.16.370 Water-efficient landscape. Section 14.16.370 of the SRMC requires certain new construction and rehabilitation projects that include landscape and irrigation improvements to comply with water-efficient landscape requirements and to monitor water usage for irrigation, as mandated under California Government Code Section 65595(c). For the purpose of administering this state mandate, the City of San Rafael has adopted by reference, the Marin Municipal Water District (MMWD) Ordinance (Water Conservation) and designates MMWD to implement, enforce, and monitor the requirements of this ordinance. As conditioned, the applicant will be required to certify that the landscape plan complies with applicable regulations of the City of San Rafael and MMWD.
As such, the Project as conditioned complies with Section 14.16.370 of the SRMC.
Chapter 14.18 – Parking Standards
14.18. 090 Bicycle Parking. Section 14.18.090(E) of the SRMC specifies design criteria for short- and long-term bicycle parking facilities. Section 14.18.090(E)(4) requires at least ten inches clearance (10″) to walls or other obstructions. As proposed, bicycle racks are abutting the wall, which does not meet the 10” clearance requirement. Section 14.18.090(E)(5) requires an aisle or other space to be provided for bicycles to enter and leave the facility. The aisle is required to be at least five feet (5′) wide to the front or rear of a standard six-foot (6′) bicycle parked in a facility. As currently proposed, aisles would be obstructed by parked cars and other bicycles. Section
14.18.090(E)(6) requires that bicycle and auto parking areas be separated by a physical barrier or sufficient distance to protect parked bicycles from damage by cars. As currently proposed, there is no physical or spatial separation between cars and bicycles. Although the Project does not comply with the design requirements specified above, the applicant has requested a waiver from the design requirements. Therefore, through use of waivers permitted under State Density Bonus Law, the Project complies with Section 14.18.090(E) of the SRMC.
CHAPTER 14.25 – ENVIRONMENTAL AND DESIGN REVIEW PERMITS
14.25.090 - Findings
A. The Project design is in accord with the
general plan, the objectives of the zoning
ordinance and the purposes of this
chapter.
The site is designated as Downtown Mixed Use on the General Plan 2040 Land Use Map, which provides the highest development intensities in San Rafael and allows for a mix of housing, office, retail, service, and public land uses. The Project design is consistent with the Downtown Mixed Use land use designation as it provides 4,000 square feet of commercial space on the ground floor and utilizes state density bonus to maximize the residential density, thereby achieving a development intensity that supports continued growth Downtown to create a mixed-use neighborhood and quality residential environment
Attachment 1, EXHIBIT 3
ANALYSIS OF PROJECT CONSISTENCY WITH TITLE 14 – ZONING
3-4
The Project site is identified in Appendix B of the San Rafael Housing Element as a housing inventory site, with the potential to accommodate up to 165 future residential units. The Project offers 131 units, including 11 units that will be deed-restricted affordable units. The Project design is consistent with Housing Element of the General Plan, in that it proposes small to mid-sized one- and two-bedroom units to maximize housing opportunities downtown.
The Project is consistent with several General Plan goals, policies and programs, including those contained in the Land Use; Neighborhoods; Community Design and Preservation; Conservation and Climate Change; Parks, Recreation, and Open Space; Safety and Resilience; Noise; Mobility; Community Services and Infrastructure; and Housing Elements, as detailed in the General Plan Consistency Table, Attachment 1, Exhibit 1.
Section C of City Council Resolution 14890 requires that affordable housing units be of a similar mix and type to that of the residential development project as a whole, including compatibility of amenities provided. As proposed, the Project does not comply with this requirement. As proposed, of the 120 market-rate units, 36 (30%) do not have private open space amenities (balconies). Of the 11 below market rate units, 11 (100%) do not have private open space amenities (balconies). Consistent with State Density Bonus Law, the Project is entitled to one concession and is utilizing the one concession to waive out of this requirement. As detailed in the October 2, 2025 State Density Bonus Law Concession Request, the applicant has confirmed that the construction of BMR units without balconies will result in identifiable and actual cost savings for the Project. As such, the Planning Commission hereby approves the requested concession.
B. The Project design is consistent with all
applicable site, architecture and
landscaping design criteria and guidelines
for the district in which the site is located.
The Project, as proposed and conditioned, is consistent with applicable regulations contained in Title 14 (Zoning) of the San Rafael Municipal Code (“SRMC”), as detailed herein and is consistent with applicable regulations contained in Chapter 9 (Downtown Form Based Code) of the Downtown San Rafael Precise Plan, as detailed in the DTFBC Consistency Table, Attachment 1, Exhibit 2.
As detailed herein and in the above-referenced exhibits, the Project utilizes provisions contained in Government Code Section 65915(e) to achieve the overall proposed density by requesting waivers or reduction of development standards. As demonstrated below, the requested waivers or reduction of development standards are necessary to physically accommodate the Project. • Overall Building Height: The “base project” is built to 45’, which is below the 50’ overall building height limit established for the T5N 50/70 zoning district. A waiver of this development standard is required to accommodate the density bonus units, resulting in an overall building height of 83.5’. Without the waiver, the density bonus units could not be physically accommodated, and the Project could not be constructed at the allowable density. As such, the waiver of this development standard is permissible under State Density Bonus Law.
Attachment 1, EXHIBIT 3
ANALYSIS OF PROJECT CONSISTENCY WITH TITLE 14 – ZONING
3-5
• Top Plate Height: The “base project” is built to the 45’ top plate height limit established for the T5N 50/70 zoning district. A waiver of this development standard is required to accommodate the density bonus units, resulting in a top plate height of 82.6’. Without the waiver, the density bonus units could not be physically accommodated, and the Project could not be constructed at the allowable density. As such, the waiver of this development standard is permissible under State Density Bonus Law.
• Stepbacks: The T5N 50/70 zoning district requires a 10-foot front, side, and rear stepbacks for buildings above 45 feet in height. Stepbacks limit the amount of buildable floor area and would therefore limit the amount of space that could otherwise be utilized for residential units. Without the waiver, density bonus units could not be physically accommodated, and the Project could not be constructed at the allowable density. As such, the waiver from this development standard is permissible under State Density Bonus Law.
• Civic Space: The T5N 50/70 zoning district requires projects on sites that are between 15,000 and 30,000 square feet to provide a minimum of 200 square feet of civic space.
Providing civic space would physically displace areas where dwelling units are proposed and the Project would not be able to be constructed at the allowable density. As such, the waiver from this development standard is permissible under State Density Bonus Law. • Bicycle Parking: Section 2.3.050(H) of the Precise Plan requires a minimum of 1 bicycle parking space for each one-bedroom unit and a minimum of 2 bicycle parking spaces for each two-bedroom unit proposed. The Project is required to provide a total of 185 bicycle parking spaces. In addition, Section 14.18.090(E) of the San Rafael Municipal Code requires bicycle parking facilities to be designed to include at least ten inches clearance (10″) to walls or other obstructions (14.18.090(E)(4)), provide an aisle or other space to be provided for bicycles to enter and leave the facility (14.18.090(E)(5)), and that bicycle and auto parking areas be separated by a physical barrier or sufficient distance to protect parked bicycles from damage by cars (14.18.090(E)(6)). As proposed, the Project includes provides 109 spaces (93 covered, 16 uncovered) which does not meet the minimum 185 spaces required. Additionally, the 93 covered spaces do not comply with the design requirements and are therefore not formally counted towards the bicycle parking spaces. Bicycle parking would occupy floor area that is otherwise allocated to dwelling units. As proposed, the basement and ground floor of the Project are fully built out. Compliance with the minimum bicycle parking and bicycle facility design requirements would physically displace areas where dwelling units are proposed and the Project would not be able to be constructed at the allowable density. As such, the waiver from this development standard is permissible under State Density Bonus Law.
As detailed above, the strict enforcement of these development standards would preclude the Project from achieving the proposed density by requiring removal of proposed units to comply with Attachment 1, EXHIBIT 3
ANALYSIS OF PROJECT CONSISTENCY WITH TITLE 14 – ZONING
3-6
the development standards. As such, the Planning Commission hereby approves the requested waivers.
C. The Project design minimizes adverse
environmental impacts:
As an infill development located in the City’s downtown the Project minimizes adverse environmental impacts through a compact footprint; location near high quality transit, including the Sonoma Marin Area Rail Transit (“SMART”) Downtown San Rafael Station and the Golden Gate Transit Center; and location near goods and services. The compact footprint limits the Project’s physical area of impact and the location near transit, goods, and services, provides opportunities for occupants to utilize alternative modes of transportation (e.g. walking, biking, transit) which reduces greenhouse gas emissions associated with driving.
The Project is required to comply with CalGreen standards which are confirmed through the building permit review process. Water service is currently provided at the site by Marin Municipal Water District (MMWD). MMWD confirmed that the Project will not impair the District's ability to continue service to this property, though purchase of additional water entitlement will be required. Wastewater service will be provided by the San Rafael Sanitation District (“SRSD”). SRSD provided a Will Serve Letter to the Applicant on August 29, 2025, confirming that the Project can be served by existing sewer infrastructure, provided that certain conditions are met.
D. The Project design will not be detrimental
to the public health, safety or welfare, nor
materially injurious to properties or
improvements in the vicinity.
The Project has been reviewed by the Building Division, San Rafael Fire Department, Police Department, Department of Public Works, Marin Sanitation District, Marin Municipal Water District, and San Rafael Sanitation District. The Project will be built in accordance with the applicable California Building Code and conditions of approval have been incorporated to ensure the Project will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare, nor materially injurious to properties or improvements in the Project vicinity.
4921-7608-6906 v1
This document is recorded for the
benefit of the City of San Rafael
and is entitled to be recorded free
of charge in accordance with
Sections 6103 and 27383 of the
Government Code.
RECORDING REQUESTED
BY AND WHEN RECORDED
MAIL TO:
City of San Rafael
1400 Fifth Avenue
San Rafael, California 94901
Attention: City Clerk
BELOW MARKET RATE HOUSING AGREEMENT AND DECLARATION OF
RESTRICTIVE COVENANTS
(900 A Street)
THIS BELOW MARKET RATE HOUSING AGREEMENT AND DECLARATION OF RESTRICTIVE COVENANTS (“Agreement”) is entered into as of __________, 2025 by and between the City of San Rafael, a California municipal corporation (“City”), and 900 A Street, LLC, a California limited liability company (“Owner”). City and Owner may be referred to individually as a “Party” or collectively as the “Parties” in this Agreement.
RECITALS
A. Owner is the owner of that certain real property located at 1030 Third Street (APN 011-263-21), in the City of San Rafael, California (“Property”), as more particularly described in Exhibit A attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference. Owner refers to the project as “900 A Street” and may choose to readdress the Project parcel from 1030 Third Street to 900 A Street prior to issuance of first building permit.
B. Owner has applied to develop a mixed-use infill development (the “Project”) on the Property. The Property is comprised of one lot, totaling approximately 28,667 square feet. The Project includes 131 residential dwelling units and 4,000 square feet of ground-floor commercial space.
C. Owner will utilize the State Density Bonus Law (Gov. Code §§ 65915- 65918) as part of its development plans. As part of such plans, eleven (11) of the units within the Project (the “BMR Units”) shall be restricted for occupancy by Low-Income 4921-7608-6906 v1
households earning specified levels of income, at rents affordable to such households. The allocation of BMR Units across unit sizes in the Project and the length of the affordability restriction for such units are more particularly described in Exhibit B, attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference.
D. On November 18, 2025, after a duly noticed public hearing, the Planning Commission adopted Resolution No. 25-09 approving an Environmental and Design Review Permit (PLAN25-013 and ED25-027) and determining that the project is categorically exempt from CEQA pursuant to Section 15332 (Infill Development) of the State CEQA Guidelines (collectively, the “Project Approvals”) to allow the construction of the Project. The Project Approvals included a condition of approval for the Design Review Permit (condition #32) stating that the entitlements would expire two years after the effective date unless a building permit for vertical construction has been issued and construction diligently pursued, a certificate of occupancy has been issued, or the permit is renewed or extended pursuant to SRMC Section
14.25.150.
E. In accordance with San Rafael Municipal Code Chapter 14.16 (“BMR Ordinance”), the City of San Rafael Guidelines for Administration of the Affordable Housing Requirement Program (Resolution No. 14890, or “Guidelines”), and condition of approval #49, Owner is required to execute and record an approved BMR Housing Agreement as a condition precedent to approval of the issuance of a building permit for the Project. This Agreement is intended to satisfy that requirement.
F. Owner agrees to observe all the terms and conditions set forth below for purposes of development and operation of the BMR Units. This Agreement will ensure the Project’s continuing affordability.
NOW, THEREFORE, the Parties hereto agree as follows. The recitals are incorporated into this Agreement by this reference.
1. CONSTRUCTION OF THE IMPROVEMENTS
1.1 Construction of the Project. Owner agrees to construct the Project in accordance with all applicable provisions of the San Rafael Municipal Code and all other applicable state and local building codes, development standards, ordinances and zoning ordinances, and all entitlements and permits issued for the Project.
1.2 City and Other Governmental Permits. Before commencement of the Project, Owner shall secure or cause its contractor to secure any and all permits which may be required by the City or any other governmental agency affected by such construction, including without limitation building permits. Owner shall pay all necessary fees and timely submit to the City final drawings with final corrections to obtain such permits; City staff will, without incurring liability or expense therefore, process applications in the ordinary course of business for the issuance of building permits and certificates of occupancy for construction that meets the requirements of the San Rafael Municipal Code, and all other applicable laws and regulations.
1.3 Compliance with Laws. Owner shall carry out the design, construction and 4921-7608-6906 v1
operation of the Project in conformity with all applicable laws, including all applicable state labor standards, all applicable City zoning and development standards, building, plumbing, mechanical and electrical codes, and all other applicable provisions of the San Rafael Municipal Code, and all applicable disabled and handicapped access requirements, including without limitation the Americans With Disabilities Act, 42 U.S.C. Section 12101, et seq., Government Code Section 4450, etseq., Government Code Section 11135, et seq., and the Unruh Civil Rights Act, Civil Code Section 51, et seq.
2. DEFINITIONS
The following terms shall have the meanings set forth in this Section wherever used in this Agreement.
“Actual Household Size” means the actual number of persons in the applicable household.
“Adjusted for Family Size Appropriate for the Unit” shall be determined consistent with Section 50052.5(h) of the California Health and Safety Code, subject to the application of federal rules and regulations applicable to Project financing sources, including Section 42(g)(2) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended and applicable federal and CTCAC regulations.
“Affordable Rent” means the following less a utility allowance and other fees and charges required to be paid by tenants of the Project on a non-optional basis: for the LowIncome Units, a monthly rent that does not exceed one-twelfth (1/12) of thirty percent (30%) of Sixty Percent (60%) of Area Median Income, Adjusted for Family Size Appropriate for the Unit. “Area Median Income” or “AMI” means the median income for Marin County, California, adjusted for Actual Household Size, as determined by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (“HUD”) pursuant to Section 8 of the United States Housing Act of 1937.
“CTCAC” means the California Tax Credit Allocation Committee. “Low-Income Units” is defined in Section 3.
“Median Income Household” means a household whose Household Income does not exceed the Area Median Income applicable to Marin County, adjusted for household size, as published annually by the California Department of Housing and Community Development; generally a household with a Household Income between eighty percent (80%) and one hundred percent (100%) of Area Median Income, adjusted for actual household size. “Official Records” means the Official Records of the Marin County Recorder. “Project” is defined in Recital B.
“Property” is defined in Recital A.
4921-7608-6906 v1
“Term” is defined in Section 3.
3. TERMS OF DEED RESTRICTION
3.1 Affordability and Occupancy Restrictions. The following affordability and occupancy restrictions shall apply in perpetuity: (i) not less than 11 residential units in the Project (the “Low-Income Units”) shall be restricted for occupancy at Affordable Rents by households whose gross household income at initial occupancy is no greater than eighty percent (80%) of Area Median Income adjusted for Actual Household Size.
The duration of this requirement shall be known as the “Affordability Period.”
3.2 Non-Discrimination Covenants. Owner covenants by and for itself, itssuccessors and assigns, and all persons claiming under or through them that there shall be no discrimination against or segregation of any person or group of persons on account of race, color, religion, sex, gender, gender identity, gender expression, sexual orientation, marital status, national origin, ancestry, familial status, source of income, disability, veteran or military status, or genetic information or other class protected by applicable laws in the sale, lease, sublease, transfer, use, occupancy, tenure, or enjoyment of the Property, nor shall Owner establish or permit any such practice or practices of discrimination or segregation with reference to the selection, location, number, use or occupancy of tenants, lessees, subtenants, sublessees, or vendees in the Property.
Owner shall include such provision in all deeds, leases, contracts and other instruments executed by Owner, and shall enforce the same diligently and in good faith. a. In deeds, the following language shall appear:
(1) Grantee herein covenants by and for itself, its successors and assigns, and all persons claiming under or through it, that there shall be no discrimination against or segregation of a person or of a group of persons on account of any basis listed in subdivision (a) or (d) of Section 12955 of the Government Code, as those bases are defined in Sections 12926, 12926.1, subdivision (m) and paragraph (1) of subdivision (p) of Section 12955, and Section 12955.2 of the Government Code, in the sale, lease, sublease, transfer, use, occupancy, tenure or enjoyment of the property herein conveyed nor shall the grantee or any person claiming under or through the grantee establish or permit any such practice or practices of discrimination or segregation with reference to the selection, location, number, use or occupancy of tenants, lessees, subtenants, sublessees or vendees in the property herein conveyed. The foregoing covenant shall run with the land.
(2) Notwithstanding paragraph (1), with respect to familial status, paragraph (1) shall not be construed to apply to housing for older persons, as defined in Section 12955.9 of the Government Code. With respect to familialstatus, nothing in paragraph (1)shall be construed to affect Sections 51.2, 51.3, 51.4, 51.10, 51.11 and 799.5 of the Civil Code, relating to housing for senior citizens. Subdivision (d) of Section 51 and Section 1360 of the Civil Code and subdivisions (n), (o), and (p) of Section 12955 of the Government Code shall apply to paragraph (1).
b. In leases, the following language shall appear:
4921-7608-6906 v1
(1) The lessee herein covenants by and for the lessee and lessee’s heirs, personal representatives and assigns, and all persons claiming under the lessee or through the lessee, that this lease is made subject to the condition that there shall be no discrimination against orsegregation of any person or of a group of persons on account of race, color, creed, religion, sex, sexual orientation, marital status, national origin, ancestry or disability in the leasing, subleasing, transferring, use, occupancy, tenure or enjoyment of the property herein leased nor shall the lessee or any person claiming under or through the lessee establish or permit any such practice or practices of discrimination of segregation with reference to the selection, location, number, use or occupancy of tenants, lessees, sublessees, subtenants, or vendees in the property herein leased. (2) Notwithstanding paragraph (1), with respect to familial status, paragraph (1) shall not be construed to apply to housing for older persons, as defined in Section 12955.9 of the Government Code. With respect to familialstatus, nothing in paragraph (1)shall be construed to affect Sections 51.2, 51.3, 51.4, 51.10, 51.11 and 799.5 of the Civil Code, relating to housing for senior citizens. Subdivision (d) of Section 51 and Section 1360 of the Civil Code and subdivisions (n), (o), and (p) of Section 12955 of the Government Code shall apply to paragraph (1).
c. In contracts pertaining to management of the Project, the following language, or substantially similar language prohibiting discrimination and segregation shall appear:
(1) There shall be no discrimination against or segregation of any person or group of persons on account of any basis listed in subdivision (a) or (d) of Section 12955 of the Government Code, as those bases are defined in Sections 12926, 12926.1, subdivision (m) and paragraph (1) of subdivision (p) of Section 12955, and Section 12955.2 of the Government Code, in the sale, lease, sublease, transfer, use, occupancy, tenure or enjoyment of the property nor shall the transferee or any person claiming under or through the transferee establish or permit any such practice or practices of discrimination or segregation with reference to selection, location, number, use or occupancy of tenants, lessee, subtenants, sublessees or vendees of the land. (2) Notwithstanding paragraph (1), with respect to familial status, paragraph (1) shall not be construed to apply to housing for older persons, as defined in Section 12955.9 of the Government Code. With respect to familialstatus, nothing in paragraph (1)shall be construed to affect Sections 51.2, 51.3, 51.4, 51.10, 51.11 and 799.5 of the Civil Code, relating to housing for senior citizens. Subdivision (d) of Section 51 and Section 1360 of the Civil Code and subdivisions (n), (o), and (p) of Section 12955 of the Government Code shall apply to paragraph (1).
3.3 Recordation. This Agreement shall be recorded in the Official Records of the County of Marin and shall run with the land.
3.4 No Subordination. Developer hereby represents, warrants and covenants that with the exception of easements of record, absent the consent of the City, this Agreement shall not be subordinated in priority to any lien (other than those pertaining to taxes or assessments), encumbrance, or other interest in the Property or the Project. If at the time this Agreement is recorded, any interest, lien, or encumbrance has been recorded against the Property or the Project 4921-7608-6906 v1
in position superior to this Agreement, upon the request of City, Developer hereby covenants and agrees to promptly undertake all action necessary to clear such matter from title or to subordinate such interest to this Agreement consistent with the intent of and in accordance with this Section
3.4, and to provide such evidence thereof as Commission may reasonably request.
4. OPERATION OF THE BMR UNITS
4.1 Maintenance. Owner shall comply with every condition of the Project Approvals applicable to the Project and shall, at all times, maintain the Project and the Property in good repair and working order, reasonable wear and tear excepted, and in a safe and sanitary condition, and from time to time shall make all necessary and proper repairs, renewals, and replacements to keep the Project and the Property in a good, clean, safe, and sanitary condition.
4.2 Monitoring and Recordkeeping. Throughout the Affordability Period, Owner shall comply with all applicable recordkeeping and monitoring requirements set forth in the Guidelines. City or its designee shall have the right to inspect the books and records of Owner and its rental agent or bookkeeper with respect to the BMR Units upon reasonable notice during normal business hours. Representatives of the City or its designee shall be entitled to enter the Property, upon at least 48-hour prior written notice, which can be provided via email, to monitor compliance with this Agreement, to inspect the records of the Project with respect to the BMR Units, and to conduct, or cause to be conducted, an independent audit orinspection ofsuch records. Owner agrees to cooperate with the City or its designee in making the Property available for such inspection or audit. Owner agrees to maintain records in businesslike manner, and to maintain such records for the Affordability Period.
4.3 BMR Units. Owner agrees to make available, restrict occupancy to, and lease, once constructed, not less than 11 BMR Units to Qualifying Households, as hereinafter defined, at an affordable rent, pursuant to the terms set forth below. This Section shall not be interpreted to require the construction of more than 11 BMR Units. The size of the BMR units, measured in square feet and in number of bedrooms, shall be proportionally comparable to the composition of the market rate units in the Project. All eleven (11) BMR Units shall be distributed approximately evenly throughout the floors of the new building. The specific location of the BMR Units may “float,” though they shall not be “bunched” together. The BMR units shall be comparable in finishes to the market rate units. The BMR Units shall be further distinguished and available to Qualifying Households in accordance with the following:
a. “Low Income Unit”: means a unit available to a Low Income Household, as hereinafter defined. Eleven (11) BMR Units shall be Low Income Units.
4.4 Qualifying Households. For purposes of this Agreement, “Qualifying Households” shall mean those households with incomes as follows:
a. “Low Income Household”: means a household with an income of not more than eighty percent (80%) of the Area Median Income for Marin County, California, adjusted for Actual Household Size and as otherwise adjusted and published from time to time by the State of California Department of Housing and Community Development (“HCD”) in Section 6932 of Title 25 of the California Code of Regulations or successor provision. 4921-7608-6906 v1
b. Increased Income of Tenants.
(1) Increase from Low Income to at or below Median Income. If upon annual recertification of a Tenant’s Household Income, the Developer determines that a former Low Income Household’s Income has increased and exceeds the qualifying income for a Low Income Household, but does not exceed the qualifying limit for a Median Income Household, then, upon expiration of the Tenant’s lease and after sixty (60) days’ written notice to the Tenant, the Tenant’s monthly Rent may be increased to one-twelfth (1/12) of 30% of the Tenant’s actual household income but not to exceed the Rent for a comparable market rate unit in the Project.
(2) Increase from Low Income or Median Income to Above Area Median Income. If upon annual recertification of a Tenant’s Household Income, the Developer determines that a Tenant’s Household Income has increased and exceeds the qualifying income for a Median Income Household, then the Tenant may be given written notice that the Tenant’s Rent shall be increased sixty (60) days after the date in the notice to an amount determined by the Developer but not to exceed Rent for a comparable market rate unit in the Project. A “comparable market rate unit” shall mean a unit of same bedroom count and similar size. The Developer shall be entitled to increase such Tenant’s rent after the Developer has rented the next available unit that is comparable in terms of size, features and number of bedrooms on a one-for-one basis to an Eligible Household at the same income level as the unit that is no longer a BMR Unit, or take other actions as may be necessary to ensure that the BMR Units are rented to Qualifying Households in the quantities specified in Section 4.3 of this Agreement. Owner shall notify City annually in writing if Owner substitutes a different unit for any of the BMR Units pursuant to this paragraph.
4.5 Income Verification and Annual Report. Owner shall verify that each household leasing a BMR Unit meets the income and eligibility restrictions for the BMR Unit by taking the following steps as a part of the verification process: (a) obtain a minimum of the three (3) most current pay stubs for all adults age eighteen (18) or older; (b) obtain an income tax return for the most recent tax year; (c) conduct a credit agency or similar search; (d) obtain the three (3) most currentsavings and checking account bank statements; (e) obtain an income verification form from the applicant’s current employer; (f) obtain an income verification form from the Social Security Administration and/or the California Department of Social Services if the applicant receives assistance from either of such agencies; or (g) if the applicant is unemployed and has no such tax return, obtain another form of independent verification. On or before July 1 of each year, commencing with the calendar year that the first residential unit in the Project is rented to a tenant, and annually thereafter, Owner shall obtain from each household occupying a BMR Unit and submit to the City an income computation and certification form, completed by a tenant of such unit, which shall certify that the income of each Qualifying Household is truthfully set forth in the 4921-7608-6906 v1
income certification form, in the form proposed by the Owner and approved by the City Manager (“Annual Report”). Copies of tenant income certifications shall be available to the City upon request. The Annual Report shall, at a minimum, include the following information for each BMR Unit: unit number, number of bedrooms, current rent and other charges, dates of any vacancies during the reporting period, number of people residing in the unit, total household Gross Income, and lease commencement and termination dates. The Report shall also provide a statement of the owner’s management policies, communications with the tenants and maintenance of the BMR Unit, including a statement of planned repairs to be made and the dates for the repairs.
4.6 Affordable Rent. The maximum Monthly Rent for each BMR Unit shall be as follows:
a. For each Low Income Unit, 1/12th of 30 percent of sixty (60) percent of the Area Median Income for Marin County, California, adjusted for Family Size Appropriate for the Unit and as otherwise adjusted and published from time to time by HCD in Section 6932 of Title 25 of the California Code of Regulations or successor provision.
The Monthly Rent for each BMR Unit and paid by the occupying household shall be based on an assumed average occupancy per unit using the number of bedrooms in the unit plus one (1) (therefore, 1 person for a studio unit, 2 persons for a one-bedroom unit, 3 persons for a twobedroom unit and 4 persons for a three-bedroom unit).
For purposes of this Agreement, “Monthly Rent” means the total of monthly payments actually made by the household for (a) use and occupancy of each BMR Unit and land and facilities associated therewith, (b) any separately charged fees or service charges assessed by Owner which are required of all tenants, other than security deposits, (c) a reasonable allowance for an adequate level of service of utilities not included in (a) or (b) above, and which are not paid directly by Owner, including garbage collection, sewer, water, electricity, gas and other heating, cooking and refrigeration fuels, but not including telephone or internet service, which reasonable allowance for utilities is set forth in the County of Marin’s Utility Allowance Schedule for detached homes, apartments, condominiums and duplexes, and (d) possessory interest, taxes or other fees or charges assessed for use of the land and facilities associated therewith by a public or private entity other than Owner.
4.7 Agreement to Limitation on Rents. As described in Recital D above, Owner is developing the project pursuant to the State Density Bonus Law, which is a form of assistance authorized by Chapter 3 (commencing with Section 65915) of Division 1 of Title 7 of the Government Code.
Sections 1954.52(b) and 1954.53(a)(2) of the Costa-Hawkins Act provide that, where a developer has received such assistance, certain provisions of the Costa-Hawkins Act do not apply if a developer has so agreed by contract. Owner hereby agrees to limit Monthly Rent as provided in this Agreement in consideration of Owner’s receipt of the assistance and further agrees that any limitations on Monthly Rents imposed on the BMR Units are in conformance with the CostaHawkins Act. Owner further warrants and covenants that the terms of this Agreement are fully enforceable.
4.8 Lease Requirements. No later than 180 days prior to the initial lease up of the BMR Units, Owner shall submit a standard lease form to the City for approval by the Director or 4921-7608-6906 v1
their designee. The City shall reasonably approve such lease form upon finding that such lease form is consistent with this Agreement and contains all of the provisions required pursuant to the Guidelines. Owner shall enter into a written lease, in the form approved by the City, with each new tenant of a BMR Unit prior to a tenant or tenant household’s occupancy of a BMR Unit. Each lease shall be for an initial term of not less than one year which may be renewed pursuant to applicable local and State laws, and shall not contain any provisions that are prohibited pursuant to the Guidelines, local, state and Federal laws.
4.9 No Condominium Conversion; Occupancy as Principal Residence; No ShortTerm Rentals. Neither Developer nor any successor in interest shall be permitted to convert the residential units in the Project to condominium or cooperative ownership or sell condominium or cooperative rights to the residential units in the Project during the term of this Agreement. All residential units in the Project must be occupied as the principal residence of the tenant. The rental agreement or lease must provide that the tenant acknowledges and agrees that the dwelling unit must be occupied as the household’s principal residence, and that the unit may not be subleased or made available as a short-term rental.
4.10 Monitoring Fee. Following completion of construction of the Project, as evidenced by City’s issuance of a final certificate of occupancy or equivalent, Developer shall be obligated to pay to City or its designee an annual fee (the “Affordable Housing Monitoring Fee”) in the initial amount of consultant cost per Restricted Unit plus 10% or such greater amount as set forth in the City’s published fee schedule. The Affordable Housing Monitoring Fee is payable annually on the same date that the Annual Report is submitted to the City pursuant to Section 4.5.
City shall have the right to file a lien against the Project if the Affordable Housing Monitoring Fee is not paid when due and remains unpaid thirty (30) days following the date that City provides written notice of the delinquency.
5. DEFAULT AND REMEDIES
5.1 Events of Default. The following shall constitute an “Event of Default” by Owner under this Agreement: there shall be a material breach of any condition, covenant, warranty, promise or representation contained in this Agreement and such breach shall continue for a period of thirty (30) days after written notice thereof to the Owner without the Owner curing such breach, or if such breach cannot reasonably be cured within such 30 day period, commencing the cure of such breach within such 30 day period and thereafter diligently proceeding to cure such breach; provided, however, that if a different period or notice requirement is specified for any particular breach under any other paragraph of Section 5 of this Agreement, the specific provision shall control.
5.2 Remedies. The occurrence of any Event of Default under Section 5.1 shall give the City the right to proceed with an action in equity to require the Owner to specifically perform its obligations and covenants under this Agreement or to enjoin acts or things which may be unlawful or in violation of the provisions of this Agreement, and the right to terminate this Agreement.
5.3 Force Majeure. Subject to the party’s compliance with the notice requirements as set forth below, performance by either party hereunder shall not be deemed to be in default, and all performance and other dates specified in this Agreement shall be extended, where delays or 4921-7608-6906 v1
defaults are due to causes beyond the control and without the fault of the party claiming an extension of time to perform, which may include, without limitation, the following: war, insurrection, strikes, lockouts, riots, floods, earthquakes, fires, assaults, acts of God, acts of the public enemy, epidemics, quarantine restrictions, freight embargoes, lack of transportation, governmental restrictions or priority, litigation, unusually severe weather, inability to secure necessary labor, materials or tools, acts or omissions of the other party, or acts or failures to act of any public or governmental entity (except that the City’s acts or failure to act shall not excuse performance of the City hereunder). An extension of the time for any such cause shall be for the period of the enforced delay and shall commence to run from the time of the commencement of the cause, if notice by the party claiming such extension is sent to the other party within 30 days of the commencement of the cause.
5.4 Attorneys’ Fees. In addition to any other remedies provided hereunder or available pursuant to law, if either party brings an action or proceeding to enforce, protect or establish any right or remedy hereunder, the prevailing party shall be entitled to recover from the other party its costs of suit and reasonable attorneys’ fees. This Section shall be interpreted in accordance with California Civil Code Section 1717 and judicial decisions interpreting that statute.
5.5 Remedies Cumulative. No right, power, or remedy given by the terms of this Agreement is intended to be exclusive of any other right, power, or remedy; and each and every such right, power, or remedy shall be cumulative and in addition to every other right, power, or remedy given by the terms of any such instrument, or by any statute or otherwise.
5.6 Waiver of Terms and Conditions. The City may, in its sole discretion, waive in writing any of the terms and conditions of this Agreement. Waivers of any covenant, term, or condition contained herein shall not be construed as a waiver of any subsequent breach of the same covenant, term, or condition.
5.7 Non-Liability of City Officials and Employees. No member, official, employee or agent of the City shall be personally liable to Owner or any occupant of any BMR Unit, or any successor in interest, in the event of any default or breach by the City or for any amount which may become due to the Owner or its successors, or on any obligations under the terms of this Agreement.
5.8 Cure Rights. Notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained herein, City hereby agrees that any cure of any default made or tendered by (i) Owner’s limited partner, or (ii) Owner’s senior mortgage lender, shall be deemed to be a cure by Owner and shall be accepted or rejected on the same basis as if made or tendered by Owner.
6. GENERAL PROVISIONS
6.1 Guidelines.This Agreement incorporates by reference the Guidelines as of the date of this Agreement and any applicable successor sections as the Guidelines may be amended from time to time. In the event of any conflict or ambiguity between this Agreement, the requirements of state and federal fair housing laws and the Guidelines, the terms and conditions of this Agreement and the requirements of state and federal fair housing laws shall control. 4921-7608-6906 v1
6.2 Time. Time is of the essence in this Agreement.
6.3 Notices. Unless otherwise indicated in this Agreement, any notice requirement set forth herein shall be deemed to be satisfied three days after mailing of the notice first-class United States certified mail, postage prepaid, or at the time of personal delivery, addressed to the appropriate party as follows:
Owner: 900 A Street, LLC
1101 5th Ave, Ste: 300
San Rafael, CA 94901
Attention: Tom Monahan
Email: [email protected]
City : City of San Rafael
1400 Fifth Avenue, Rm 203
San Rafael, California 94901
Attention: City Manager
With a Copy to: City of San Rafael
1400 Fifth Avenue, Rm 202
San Rafael, California 94901
Attention: City Attorney
Such addresses may be changed by notice to the other party given in the same manner as provided above.
6.4 Successors and Assigns. This Agreement constitutes a covenant and legal restriction on the Property and shall run with the land, provided the Project remains on the Property, and all of the terms, covenants and conditions of this Agreement shall be binding upon Owner and the permitted successors and assigns of Owner.
6.5 Intended Beneficiaries. The City is the intended beneficiary of this Agreement and shall have the sole and exclusive power to enforce this Agreement. It is intended that the City may enforce this Agreement in order to satisfy its obligations to improve, increase and preserve affordable housing within the City, as required by the Guidelines, and to provide that a certain percentage of new housing is made available at affordable housing cost to persons and families of very low, low and moderate incomes as required by the Guidelines. No other person or persons, other than the City and Owner and their assigns and successors, shall have any right of action hereon.
6.6 Partial Invalidity. If any provision of this Agreement shall be declared invalid, illegal, or unenforceable, the validity, legality, and enforceability of the remaining provisions hereof shall not in any way be affected or impaired.
6.7 Governing Law. This Agreement and other instruments given pursuant hereto shall be construed in accordance with and be governed by the laws of the State of California. Any references herein to particular statutes or regulations shall be deemed to refer to successor statutes 4921-7608-6906 v1
or regulations, or amendments thereto. The venue for any action shall be the County of Marin.
6.8 Amendment. This Agreement may not be changed orally, but only by agreement in writing signed by Owner and the City.
6.9 Approvals. Where an approval or submission is required under this Agreement, such approval or submission shall be valid for purposes of this Agreement only if made in writing.
Where this Agreement requires an approval or consent of the City, such approval shall not be unreasonably withheld and may be given on behalf of the City by the City Manager or his or her designee. The City Manager or the City’s Manager’s designee is hereby authorized to take such actions as may be necessary or appropriate to implement this Agreement, including without limitation the execution of such documents or agreements as may be contemplated by this Agreement, and amendments which do not substantially change the uses or restrictions hereunder, or substantially add to the costs of the City hereunder.
6.10 Indemnification. To the greatest extent permitted by law, Owner shall indemnify, defend (with counsel reasonably approved by City) and hold the City, its heirs, successors and assigns (the “Indemnitees”) harmless from and against any and all demands, losses, claims, costs and expenses, and any other liability whatsoever, including without limitation, reasonable accountants’ and attorneys’ fees, charges and expense (collectively, “Claims”) arising directly or indirectly, in whole or in part, as a result of or in connection with Owner’s construction, management, or operation of the Property and the Project or any failure to perform any obligation as and when required by this Agreement. Owner’s indemnification obligations under this Section
6.10 shall not extend to Claims to the extent resulting from the gross negligence or willful misconduct of Indemnitees. The provisions of this Section 6.10 shall survive the expiration or earlier termination of this Agreement, but only as to claims arising from events occurring during the Affordability Period.
6.11 Insurance Coverage. Throughout the Affordability Period, Owner shall comply with the insurance requirements set forth in Exhibit C, attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference, and shall, at Owner’s expense, maintain in full force and effect insurance coverage as specified in Exhibit C.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have executed this Agreement as of the date and year set forth above.
SIGNATURES ON FOLLOWING PAGE(S).
4921-7608-6906 v1
OWNER:
900 A Street, LLC, a California
limited liability company
By:
Tom Monahan, President
CITY:
CITY OF SAN RAFAEL, a California municipal
corporation
By:
Cristine Alilovich, City Manager
ATTEST:
By:
Lindsay Lara, City Clerk
List of Exhibits:
Exhibit A: Property Description
Exhibit B: Allocation of the BMR Units
Exhibit C: Insurance Requirements
4921-7608-6906 v1
Exhibit A
Property Description
4921-7608-6906 v1
Exhibit B
Allocation of BMR Units in the Project
Unit Type Assumed
Household Size*
Household Income Monthly Rent Number
of BMR
Units
OneBedroom2 persons Low Income (80%
AMI or less)
1/12 of 30% of 60% AMI
for a 2-person household
6 TwoBedroom3 persons Low Income (80%
AMI or less)
1/12 of 30% of 60% AMI
for a 3-person household
5 TOTAL 11
*Actual household size can exceed assumed household size, but the rental calculation will not change.
4921-7608-6906 v1
Exhibit C
Insurance Requirements
Prior to initiating work on the Project and continuing throughout the Affordability Period, Owner shall obtain and maintain the following policies of insurance and shall comply with all provisions set forth in this Exhibit.
1. General Requirements. Owner shall procure and maintain the following insurance providing coverage against claims for injuries to persons or damages to property that may arise from or in connection with the Project, construction, management, or operation of the Property by the Owner or the Owner’s agents, representatives, employees and contractors, or subcontractors, including the following:
(a) Commercial General Liability: The Owner and all contractors working on behalf of Owner on the Property shall maintain a commercial general liability policy in an occurrence policy for protection against all claims arising from injury to person or persons not in the employ of the Owner and against all claims resulting from damage to any property due to any act or omission of the Owner, its agents, or employees in the conduct or operation of the work or the execution of this Agreement. Such insurance shall include products and completed operations liability, blanket contractual liability, personal injury liability, and broad form property damage coverage. Coverage shall be at least as broad as Insurance Services Office Commercial General Liability coverage.
(b) Commercial Automobile Liability: The Owner and all contractors working on behalf of Owner on the Property shall maintain insurance for protection against all claims arising from the use of vehicles, owned, hired, non-owned, or any other vehicle in connection with the Project, construction, operation or management of the Property. Such insurance shall cover the use of automobiles and trucks on and off the site of the Property. Coverage shall be at least as broad as Insurance Services Office covering Commercial Automobile Liability, any auto, owned, non-owned and hired auto.
(c) Workers' Compensation Insurance: The Owner (and the general partners thereof) shall furnish or cause to be furnished to City evidence satisfactory to City that Owner (and the general partners thereof), and any contractor with whom Owner has contracted for the performance of work on the Property or otherwise pursuant to this Agreement, shall maintain Workers' Compensation Insurance asrequired by the State of California and Employer’s Liability Insurance. (d) Builder’s Risk: Upon commencement of any construction work on the Property, Owner and all contractors working on behalf of Owner shall maintain a policy of builder's all-risk insurance in an amount not less than the full insurable cost of the Project on a replacement cost basis naming City as loss payee as its interests may appear.
Professional Liability/Errors and Omissions: Owner shall require any architects, engineers, and general contractors working on the Property to maintain Professional Liability/Errors and Omissions insurance with limits not less than Two Million Dollars ($2,000,000) each claim. Certificates evidencing this coverage must reference both the Owner and the Indemnitees. If the professional liability/errors and omissions insurance is written on a claims 4921-7608-6906 v1
made form: (i) the retroactive date must be shown and must be before the Effective Date, (ii) insurance must be maintained and evidence of insurance must be provided for at least three (3) years after completion of Project construction, and (iii) if coverage is cancelled or non-renewed and not replaced with another claims made policy form with a retroactive date prior to the Effective Date, Owner must purchase, or require the provision of, extended period coverage for a minimum of three (3) years after completion of construction.
(e) Property: Owner shall maintain property insurance covering all risks of loss, including earthquake and flood (if required) for 100% of the replacement value of the Project with deductible, if any, in an amount acceptable to City, naming City as loss payee as its interests may appear.
2. Minimum Limits; Adjustments. Insurance shall be maintained with limits no less than the following:
(a) Commercial General Liability and Property Damage: $2,000,000 per occurrence and $5,000,000 annual aggregate for bodily injury, personal injury and property damage; provided however, with City’s advance written approval, subcontractors may maintain liability coverage with limits not less than $1,000,000 per occurrence, $2,000,000 annual aggregate. (b) Products and Completed Operations: $3,000,000 per occurrence/aggregate. (c) Commercial Automobile Liability: $2,000,000 combined single limit. (d) Employer’s Liability:
Bodily Injury by Accident - $1,000,000 each accident.
Bodily Injury by Disease - $1,000,000 policy limit.
Bodily Injury by Disease - $1,000,000 each employee.
(e) Professional Liability/Errors and Omissions: $2,000,000 per occurrence or claim.
If the policy provides coverage on a claims-made basis, the retroactive date must be shown and must be before the date of the Agreement or the beginning of the contract work.
Coverage limits, and if necessary, the terms and conditions of insurance, shall be reasonably adjusted from time to time (not less than every five (5) years after the Effective Date nor more than once in every three (3) year period) to address changes in circumstance, including, but not limited to, changes in inflation and the litigation climate in California. City shall give written notice to Owner of any such adjustments, and Owner shall provide City with amended or new insurance certificates or endorsements evidencing compliance with such adjustments within thirty (30) days following receipt of such notice.
3. Deductibles and Self-Insured Retention. Any deductibles or self-insured retention must be declared to, and approved by, the City. Payment of all deductibles and self-insured retentions will be the responsibility of Owner. If the City determines that such deductibles or retentions are unreasonably high, either the insurer shall reduce or eliminate such deductibles or self-insurance 4921-7608-6906 v1
retentions as respects the Indemnitees or Owner shall procure a bond guaranteeing payment of losses and related investigations, claims administration and defense.
4. Additional Requirements. The required general liability and automobile policies shall contain, or be endorsed to contain, the following provisions:
(a) The Indemnitees are to be covered as Additional Insureds as respects: liability arising out of activities performed by or on behalf of the Owner; products and completed operations of the Owner; premises owned, occupied or used by the Owner; or automobiles owned, leased, hired or borrowed by the Owner. The coverage shall contain no special limitations on the scope of protection afforded to the Indemnitees. Additional insured endorsements for the general liability coverage shall use Insurance Services Office (ISO) Form No. CG 20 09 11 85 or CG 20 10 11 85, or equivalent, including (if used together) CG 2010 10 01 and CG 2037 10 01; but shall not use the following forms: CG 20 10 10 93 or 03 94.
(b) All insurance shall be primary insurance as respects the Indemnitees. Any insurance or self-insurance maintained by the Indemnitees shall be excess of the Owner’s/contractor’s insurance and shall not contribute with it. (c) Any failure to comply with reporting or other provisions of the policies including breaches of warranties shall not affect coverage provided to the Indemnitees. (d) The Owner’s insurance shall apply separately to each insured against whom claim is made or suit is brought except, with respect to the limits of the insurer’s liability. (e) Each insurance policy required by this clause shall be endorsed to state that coverage shall not be suspended, voided, canceled by either party, reduced in coverage or in limits except after thirty (30) days’ prior written notice by certified mail, return receipt requested, has been given to the City.
(f) If any insurance policy or coverage required hereunder is canceled or reduced, Owner shall, within five (5) days after receipt of notice of such cancellation or reduction in coverage, but in no event later than the effective date of cancellation or reduction, file with City a certificate showing that the required insurance has been reinstated or provided through another insurance company or companies. Upon failure to so file such certificate, City may, without further notice and at its option, procure such insurance coverage at Owner’s expense, and Owner shall promptly reimburse City for such expense upon receipt of billing from City. (g) Owner agrees to waive subrogation rights for commercial general liability, automobile liability and worker’s compensation against Indemnitees regardless of the applicability of any insurance proceeds, and to require all contractors, subcontractors or others involved in any way with any construction on the Property to do likewise. Each insurance policy shall contain a waiver of subrogation for the benefit of City. If any required insurance is provided under a form of coverage that includes an annual aggregate limit or provides that claims investigation or legal defense costs are included in such annual aggregate limit, such annual aggregate limit shall be three times the applicable occurrence limits specified above. (h) It shall be a requirement under this Agreement that any available insurance 4921-7608-6906 v1
proceeds broader than or in excess of the specified minimum insurance coverage requirement and/or limits shall be available to the additional insured. Furthermore, the requirement for coverage and limits shall be (1) the minimum coverage and limits specified in this Agreement, or (2) the broader coverage and maximum limits of coverage of any insurance policy or proceeds available to the named insured; whichever is greater. For all liability insurance required by this Agreement, Owner (and Owner’s contractors, as applicable) shall obtain endorsements that name the Indemnitees as additional insured in the full amount of all applicable policies, notwithstanding any lesser minimum limits specified in this Agreement. This Agreement requires Owner (and Owner’s contractors, as applicable) to obtain and provide for the benefit of the Indemnitees, additional insured coverage in the same amount of insurance carried by Owner (or Owner’s contractors, as applicable), but in no event less than the minimum amounts specified in this Agreement. In the event that Owner (or Owner’s contractors as applicable) obtains insurance policies that provide liability coverage in excess of the amounts specified in this Agreement, the actual limits provided by such policies shall be deemed to be the amounts required under this Agreement. Without limiting the foregoing, the limits of liability coverage specified in this Agreement are not intended, nor shall they operate, to limit City’s ability to recover amounts in excess of the minimum amounts specified in this Agreement. (i) The limits of insurance required in this Agreement may be satisfied by a combination of primary and umbrella or excess insurance. Any umbrella or excess insurance shall contain or be endorsed to contain a provision that such coverage shall also apply on a primary and non-contributory basis for the benefit of the City before the City’s own insurance or self-insurance shall be called upon to protect it as a named insured.
5. Acceptability of Insurers. Companies writing the insurance required hereunder shall be licensed to do business in the State of California. Insurance is to be placed with insurers with a current A.M. Best’s rating of no less than A: VII.
6. Verification of Coverage. Prior to the Effective Date of this Agreement, Owner shall furnish City with certificates of insurance in form acceptable to City evidencing the insurance coverage required under paragraphs (a), (b), (c), and (e) of Section 1 above, duly executed endorsements evidencing the Indemnitees’ status as additional insured, and all other endorsements and coverage required hereunder pertaining to such coverage. Prior to commencement of any construction work on the Property, Owner shall furnish City with certificates of insurance in form acceptable to City evidencing the insurance coverage required under paragraphs (d) and (g) of Section 1 above. Prior to City’s issuance of a final certificate of occupancy or equivalent for the Project, Owner shall furnish City with certificates of insurance in form acceptable to City evidencing the insurance coverage required under paragraph (f) of Section 1 above. Owner shall furnish the City with original endorsements effecting coverage required by this clause. The endorsements are to be signed by a person authorized by that insurer to bind coverage on its behalf.
7. Insurance Certificates and Endorsements. Owner shall submit to the City all of the necessary insurance documents, including the applicable amendatory endorsements (or copies of the applicable policy language effecting coverage required by this clause) and a copy of the Declarations and Endorsement Page of required Owner policies listing all required policy endorsements to the City. Insurance Certificates and Endorsements are to be received and approved by the City within the time periods specified in Section 6 above. Should Owner cease to 4921-7608-6906 v1
have insurance as required at any time, all work by Owner pursuant to this Agreement shall cease until insurance acceptable to the City is provided. Upon City’s request, Owner shall, within thirty (30) days of the request, provide or arrange for the insurer to provide to City, complete certified copies of all insurance policies required under this Agreement. City’s failure to make such request shall not constitute a waiver of the right to require delivery of the policies in the future.
Attachment 2
Project Plans, Approved by
Planning Commission, November
18, 2025
https://storage.googleapis.com/pro
udcity/sanrafaelca/2025/11/e5d7d5
dd-900-a-street-applicationmaterial.pdf
Attachment 3
Planning Commission Staff Report
- November 18, 2025
https://storage.googleapis.com/pro
udcity/sanrafaelca/2025/11/d55b48
b9-pc-staff-report-900-a-street.pdf
Attachment 4
CEQA Memorandum and Report,
Adopted by Planning Commission,
November 18, 2025
https://storage.googleapis.com/pro
udcity/sanrafaelca/2025/11/dfbfdd2
c-attachment-2-900-a-st.pdf
492.1 06419947.000
November 25, 2025
VIA E-MAIL, CERTIFIED U.S. MAIL, & HAND DELIVERY
[email protected]
[email protected]
City Clerk, Lindsay Lara
City of San Rafael
1400 Fifth Avenue, Room 209
San Rafael, CA 94901
Re: Formal Appeal of Planning Commission Decision – 1030 3rd Street (November 18, 2025)
Dear City Clerk:
On behalf of the Owners of the property located at 1030 3rd Street, San Rafael (the “Property”), this letter serves as formal notice of appeal from the decision and actions taken by the San Rafael Planning Commission on November 18, 2025, including but not limited to the Conditions of Approval issued for the Property.
This appeal is timely submitted pursuant to the applicable provisions of the San Rafael Municipal Code.
The basis of this appeal includes, without limitation, the Owners’ objections to the Conditions of Approval, particularly Conditions 20 and 21, and the procedural and substantive concerns described in the Owners’ prior correspondence to the City dated November 13, 2025. A copy of that letter is attached for the City’s reference and incorporated herein as the grounds for appeal.
Please be advised that the required appeal fee payment is enclosed with the hard-copy version of this letter, which is being delivered to the City offices concurrently with this email submission.
We respectfully request that the City provide:
1. Confirmation of receipt of this appeal;
2. Information regarding the expected timeline for processing the appeal, including the anticipated hearing date and any additional procedural steps; and
3. Notice of any supplemental information or documentation the City may require from the Owners to proceed.
492.1 06419947.000
November 25, 2025