Subject: Concerns about e-bike fire safety and the 78% cut in bike parking Dear Mayor and Councilmembers,
I'm speaking tonight because I'm worried about a specific safety issue regarding bicycles at the proposed 700 Irwin development.
The city requires 271 bike spaces, but is allowing a reduction down to just 60, with the developer claiming there isn't enough room for both the parking and the apartments.
Cutting the parking spots doesn't mean people will stop owning bikes. In a downtown high-rise, we want people to use bikes and e-bikes. Since there won't be enough room in the designated parking area, those bikes are going to end up inside the apartments, on the balconies, and in the hallways.
This is a major safety concern. We all know that e-bike batteries can be a fire hazard. We even had a fire right here in San Rafael just last week caused by a lithium battery charger.
I'm not saying this building is breaking fire codes. What I am saying is common sense. If you take away 211 bike spots in a 17-story building, those bikes are going into the living spaces.
Before you approved such a massive cut, did anyone study how this would increase the fire risk of having the potential for dozens of batteries charging inside the apartments?
If there is a study or a report on this, where can we see it? If no one investigated this, then why was such a big waiver granted without checking the consequences? We deserve to see the homework that proves it's safe.
We shouldn't be cutting corners on safety, especially when it comes to fire risks in a high-rise building.
Respectfully,
Marianne Mannested
Affordable Housing - For whom?
The phrase "affordable housing" is used as if it is a universal solution — for the workforce, service workers, seniors, the disabled, and even the homeless. One term is used, and the public assumes one solution. In reality, it does not effectively serve any of these groups.
Most so-called "affordable" or "low income" housing being built downtown is priced for a narrow band of higher-earning households, while the people who work in local shops, restaurants, hotels, and service jobs remain priced out.
At the other end of the spectrum, the very low-income and homeless are only housed when deep federal subsidies are involved — something most new projects do not provide.
San Rafael Rent Reality: What Units Cost & What It Takes to Qualify Using the widely accepted rule that rent should not exceed 30% of gross income, here is what typical San Rafael rents mean in terms of household income:
Apartment Type Typical Monthly Rent Income Needed to Afford Studio $2,100-$2,300 $84,000-$92,000/year
1 Bedroom $2,500-$2,800 $100,000-$112,000/year
2 Bedroom $3,300-$3,700 $132,000-$148,000/year
These are not luxury rents. These are now normal downtown San Rafael rents.
Most single workers cannot qualify.
Many teachers, health workers, and city employees cannot qualify alone.
Only dual-income households easily qualify.
The homeless and poor are completely excluded.
Why Service Workers Still Can't Live Here
Many local retail and service workers in 94901 earn around $20/hour. $20/hr × full-time = about $41,600/year. Half needed for a studio.
Section 8: The Only System That Truly Helps the Low-Income earner Section 8 is funded by the federal government through HUD and administered locally by the Marin Housing Authority using allocated federal dollars.
Qualified low-income households receive a housing voucher based on their verified income, and they must then find their own rental housing on the open market.
The tenant pays a small portion of their income toward rent, and the Housing Authority pays the remainder directly to the landlord each month. The landlord must agree to accept Section 8, pass inspections, and meet Michael Williamsen Real Estate Broker 00839110
Berkshire Hathaway Real Estate, 851 Irwin St, San Rafael CA 94901 rent-reasonableness standards, but they still receive full fair-market rent, with a large portion guaranteed by the government.
Section 8 works for:
Disabled individuals
Elderly poor
Formerly homeless
Extremely low-income residents
Without vouchers, they would be entirely priced out of San Rafael. Marin Housing offers approximately 2,100 vouchers a year.
Most new "affordable" are Deed-Restricted Affordable Housing Deed-restricted housing is housing where a legal agreement recorded on the property deed caps how much rent can be charged and who qualifies to live there, based on income limits tied to Area Median Income (AMI).
Marin's median income is approximately $130,000. These deed restrictions are what actually enforce affordability over time.
The restrictions typically last 30-55 years or longer and require tenants to meet income eligibility and annual re-certification. Rents can increase, but only within strict limits—usually once per year, only if AMI limits rise, and only up to the program's maximum allowable rent. Deed restrictions control affordability, but they do not provide a monthly subsidy, so tenants must still earn enough income to afford the capped rent.
AMI Level AMI Tier Discount vs 100% AMI 1-Bedroom Rent (Monthiy) Income Needed 50% AMI Very Low ~42% discount $1,753 $70,100
60% AMI Low Income ~34% discount $2,124 $84,960
65% AMI Low Income ~30% discount $2,309 $92,360
70% AMI Low Income ~25% discount $2,495 $99,800
75% AMI Low Income ~20% discount $2,680 $107,200
80% AMI Low Income ~15% discount $2,866 $114,640
90% AMI Moderate ~8% discount $3,238 $129,520
100% AMI Moderate 0% (baseline) $3,591 $143,640
Low-Income Housing Tax Credits
Most deed-restricted housing is made financially possible through (LIHTC). LIHTC is a financing tool that allows developers to sell federal tax credits to private investors, generating equity that helps pay for construction. In simple terms, deed restrictions define and enforce affordability, while LIHTC is the most common way those deed-restricted projects are funded.
Michael Williamsen Real Estate Broker 00839110
Berkshire Hathaway Real Estate, 851 Irwin St, San Rafael CA 94901 Retail or service providers, even at the lowest level of Affordable Housing, cannot afford the rent. And barely, with two income earners. So, when a building advertises an "affordable" or "Low Income" 1-bedroom at $2,700, it is technically correct-
but it could still require an income near $110,000 per year.
Why Developers Build "Affordable" Units — and What They Get? They do it because they receive massive benefits in return. Designating a few (10-15% of the units) "affordable" units often unlocks the profitability of entire projects.
More units allowed than zoning normally permits
Permission to build taller buildings
Reduced or eliminated parking requirements
Fee waivers and reductions
Access to tax credits
Faster approvals
Affordable Housing? The only thing it does is make construction more affordable.
PARKING??? Where do the cars go?
Most downtown projects include less than one parking space per unit. Most California households need two wage earners to afford rent.
• Two jobs = Two schedules = Two cars.
With 1,000 units in planning now = 2,000 cars. Paper planning shows reduced parking demand, some less than one parking space per unit. Real life demands otherwise.
Michael Williamsen Real Estate Broker 00839110
Berkshire Hathaway Real Estate, 851 Irwin St, San Rafael CA 94901 Mayor and Council Members, good evening.
I'd like to speak about the parking issue at 700 Irwin, because I think it reveals an internal contradiction.
The project reduces required bicycle parking from 271 spaces to 60 thats a 78 percent reduction. On the grounds that complying with the bicycle requirement would make the project unworkable.
At the same time, the project is providing more vehicle parking than the Downtown Precise Plan requires.
So, on the one hand, the applicant argues that required bicycle parking physically prevents the building from being constructed and on the other hand, the project is over allocating square footage to vehicle parking, including a fully mechanized system.
That raises a simple question:
If space exists to provide that amount of car parking, how was it determined that the required bicycle parking would make the project impossible? This is not about preferring bikes over cars, ilt's about consistency.
If the City's own plans support transit-oriented development near downtown and the SMART station, and if state law allows density bonuses because of proximity to transit, then reducing bicycle capacity while prioritizing car storage deserves a clear explanation in the record.
The public should be able to see why one form of parking was treated as essential, and the other as not possible.
Thank you.
'Nague M. Rough