f19eb070-3.c-appeals-of-planning-commission-approval-for-mixed-use-development-at-700-irwin-street — San Rafael City Council, February 17, 2026 (part 1 of 2)

____________________________________________________________________________________

FOR CITY CLERK ONLY
Council Meeting:

Disposition:

Agenda Item No: 3.c
Meeting Date: February 17, 2026

SAN RAFAEL CITY COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT
Department: Community and Economic Development
Prepared by: Christina Ratcliffe, AICP
Planning Consultant
Micah Hinkle, Community and
Economic Development Director
City Manager Approval: ___________
TOPIC: APPEALS OF PLANNING COMMISSION APPROVAL FOR MIXED-USE DEVELOPMENT AT 700 IRWIN STREET
SUBJECT: RESOLUTIONS OF THE CITY COUNCIL DENYING THE THREE APPEALS OF AND

UPHOLDING THE PLANNING COMMISSION DETERMINATION APPROVING AN ENVIRONMENTAL AND DESIGN REVIEW PERMIT (ED25-031) AND ASSOCIATED

CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL AND A BELOW MARKET RATE (BMR) AGREEMENT

TO ALLOW FOR THE DEMOLITION OF AN EXISTING VACANT OFFICE BUILDING AND DEVELOPMENT OF A NEW MIXED-USE BUILDING WITH 200 RESIDENTIAL UNITS AND COMMERCIAL SPACE LOCATED AT 700 IRWIN STREET (APN 014-132- 18) AND DETERMINING THE PROJECT IS STATUTORILY EXEMPT FROM CEQA REVIEW PURSUANT TO PUBLIC RESOURCES CODE SECTION 21080.66 RECOMMENDATION:

Staff recommends the City Council hold a public hearing on the appeals of the Planning Commission determination on January 13, 2026, of (1) Steven Bryant, (2) Paul Kasbar and Ken Dickinson, and (3) Alezz Laielen. Staff recommends that, following the public hearing, the City Council adopt a:

1. Resolution denying the appeal filed by Steven Bryant of the Planning Commission’s approval of an Environmental and Design Review Permit (ED25-031) to allow for development of a new mixed use building with 200 residential units and commercial space located at 700 Irwin Street (APN 014-132-18) and determination that the project is statutorily exempt from CEQA Review pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21090.66.

2. Resolution denying the appeal filed by Paul Kasbar and Ken Dickinson of the Planning Commission’s approval of an Environmental and Design Review Permit (ED25-031) to allow for development of a new mixed use building with 200 residential units and commercial space located at 700 Irwin Street (APN 014-132-18) and determination that the project is statutorily exempt from California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Review pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21090.66.

3. Resolution denying the appeal filed by Alezz Laielen of the Planning Commission’s approval of an Environmental and Design Review Permit (ED25-031) to allow for development of a new mixed use building with 200 residential units and commercial space located at 700 Irwin Street (APN SAN RAFAEL CITY COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT / Page: 2
014-132-18) and determination that the project is statutorily exempt from CEQA Review pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21090.66.

4. Resolution Upholding the Planning Commission approval of and approving an Environmental and Design Review Permit (ED25-031), associated Conditions of Approval and a Below Market Rate (BMR) Housing Agreement, to allow for development of a new mixed use building with 200 residential units and commercial space located at 700 Irwin Street (APN 014-132-18) and determination that the project is statutorily exempt from CEQA Review pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21090.66.

BACKGROUND:

On January 13, 2026, the San Rafael Planning Commission approved the issuance of an Environmental and Design Review Permit to construct 200 residential units at 700 Irwin Street. 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. The Planning Commission’s approval was subject to CED staff’s proposed conditions of approval, which were memorialized in a Resolution of Approval. The complete record from the Planning Commission hearing including the staff report, resolution, conditions of approval, BMR agreement, Consistency Analysis, AB 130 CEQA checklist, Applicant’s submittal package, including plan set, project description, Geotechnical Report and Local Transportation Analysis, and all written public comments are linked here as Attachment 5 and provide a more thorough background and analysis of the project, all of which remains applicable to the subject public hearing.

After the January 13, 2026 Planning Commission meeting, the City of San Rafael received three timely appeals of the Planning Commission’s January 13, 2026, decision adopting Resolution number 26-01, approving an Environmental and Design Review Permit (ED25-031), associated Conditions of Approval and a Below Market Rate (BMR) Housing Agreement, to allow for development of a new mixed use building with 200 residential units and commercial space located at 700 Irwin Street (APN 014-132-18) and determination that the project is statutorily exempt from CEQA Review pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21090.66.

Each of these three appeals is discussed in the Analysis section below, in the order in which they were received, and are attached hereto as Attachment 6.

Staff notes that the application for the Project is subject to SB 330, the State Density Bonus Law (SDBL), the CEQA exemption for infill development specified in AB 130, and the Housing Accountability Act (HAA), among other state housing laws.

1. Pursuant to the Housing Accountability Act, the City may not deny a housing development project or reduce its density if the project is consistent with State law and applicable City objective development standards, unless the City can make certain enumerated findings. Specifically, the City may disapprove a housing development project or reduce its density if the City finds that (a) the housing development project would have a specific, adverse impact upon the public health or safety unless the project is disapproved or approved upon the condition that the project be developed at a lower density. 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, and (b) There is no feasible method to satisfactorily mitigate or avoid these adverse impact identified other than the disapproval of the housing development project or the approval of the project upon the condition that it be developed at a lower density. (Gov. Code § 65589.5(j)) Failure of a public entity to comply with the Housing Accountability Act could lead a Court to order approval of a housing development project, the public entity paying the petitioner’s attorney’s fees, and fines of up to $10,000 per unit. (Gov. Code §§ 65589.5(k)(1)(A)(ii)- SAN RAFAEL CITY COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT / Page: 3
(B); 65914.2(b)(1)). If a court determines that the public entity has acted in bad faith in violating the Housing Accountability Act, the court can multiply this fine by 5. (Gov. Code § 65589.5(l))

The Project complies with all applicable, objective general plan and zoning standards and criteria, as modified by a density bonus, concessions, and waivers pursuant to SDBL. The City has not identified any significant, quantifiable, direct, and unavoidable impacts on public health and safety, based on objective, written standards, that would result from the development of the Project.

Under the new CEQA exemption created by AB 130, infill housing development projects that satisfy specified criteria are exempt from CEQA. Staff has determined that the proposed Project meets all the qualifications for AB 130, such that the Project is statutorily exempt from CEQA.

The City conducted the tribal consultation required under the new CEQA exemption (see PRC § 21080.66(b)) with the Federated Indians of Graton Rancheria.

Per the new project processing deadlines created by AB 130, the City must approve or disapprove the Project within 30 days from the later of (1) the conclusion of tribal consultation and (2) the date on which the Project was deemed consistent with applicable objective standards. (Gov. Code § 65950) Tribal consultation concluded on November 25, 2025, and the Project was deemed consistent with all applicable objective standards on December 19, 2025. The Planning Commission approved the project on January 13, 2026, and has met the AB130 processing timing standards. All deadlines for the Project have been met in a timely manner.

ANALYSIS:

The following analyses discuss the major points in each of the three appeals and respond to each of these points. The findings and conclusions regarding the appeals are set forth in the Draft Denial Resolutions - Attachments 1, 2, and 3, attached hereto.

Appeal filed by Steven Bryant, January 15, 2026
The grounds upon which the Appellant has appealed the Planning Commission’s actions are not a basis to reverse the Planning Commission's actions and deny the project, for the following reasons:

A. The approved concessions are not contrary to state or federal law.

The Appeal states that approval of a concession pursuant to SDBL (Government Code § 65915 et seq.) is not required where the concession is contrary to state or federal law. The SDBL defines “concessions” or “incentives” as: (1) a reduction in site development standards such as a reduction in setbacks or square footage requirements, that result in actual, identifiable cost reductions for affordable housing; (2) approval of mixed-use zoning; and (3) other regulatory incentives that result in actual, identifiable cost reductions for affordable housing. (Gov. Code § 65915(k))
The applicant requested the following concessions:

1. A concession from the “size” requirement of Section C(1) of Resolution 14890. Affordable housing units shall be comparable in size to the market-rate units within the residential development project, as measured by net habitable square footage. “Comparable size” means having habitable square footage proportionate to the range of unit sizes provided for market-rate units in the project. (Section C(1) of Resolution 14890; SRMC Ch. 14.16.030). Affordable units in the Project are, on average, slightly smaller than market-rate units, measured in net habitable square footage.

Applicants request a concession to allow for noncompliance with this standard.

2. A concession from the “type” requirement of Section C(1) of Resolution 14890. Affordable housing units shall possess a distribution of bedroom counts proportionate to that of the market-rate units SAN RAFAEL CITY COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT / Page: 4
within the residential development project. (Section C(1) of Resolution 14890; SRMC Ch.

14.16.030). Compliance with this standard requires 1-to-1 proportionality for bedroom counts between affordable units and market-rate units. The percentage breakdown of studios, 1- bedroom, 2-bedroom, and 3-bedroom market-rate units in the Project is different than the percentage breakdown for affordable units. Applicants request a concession to allow for noncompliance with this standard.

3. A concession from the “amenities” requirement of Section C(2) of Resolution 14890. The exterior and interior design of the affordable housing units shall be of the same design, materials, amenities, quality of finish, and appearance as the other developed units. (Section C(2) of Resolution 14890; SRMC Ch. 14.16.030). A much smaller proportion of affordable units in the Project have balconies than the proportion of market-rate units that contain balconies. Applicants request a concession to allow for noncompliance with this standard.

The SDBL, specifically, Government Code Section 65915(d)(1), requires that a city “grant the concession or incentive requested by the applicant” unless certain findings can be made. The SDBL does not require that a city make any particular findings in order to approve a requested concession. Rather, the SDBL requires a city to make one of three findings if the city denies a requested concession. Such reasons upon which a city may base its denial of a concession include:

1. The concession or incentive does not result in identifiable and actual cost reductions [. . .] to provide for affordable housing costs.

2. The concession or incentive would have a “specific, adverse impact upon public health and safety impact without rendering the development unaffordable to low-income and moderate-income households.” As explained above, 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.”

3. The concession or incentive would be contrary to state or federal law.

The SDBL further directs that a city “shall bear the burden of proof for the denial of a requested concession.” (Gov. Code § 65915(d)(4)) The City has not found that any of the SDBL’s enumerated reasons upon which denial of a concession may be based are met here. Specifically:

1. An applicant is not required to show, and a city is not required to affirmatively find, that concessions would actually result in cost reductions. The City has no evidence to support a finding that the requested concessions would not result in actual cost reductions for the Project.

2. The City has evaluated whether the City has adopted any written public health or safety standards, which standards establish that waiver of the above-referenced development standards would create significant, quantifiable, direct, and unavoidable impacts. The City has concluded that no such standards exist. Further, Appellant has pointed to no such standards in their Appeal.

3. The requested concessions are not contrary to state or federal law.

For these reasons, this is not a basis to grant the Appeal.

B. The Appeal does not establish that the Project violates fair housing laws.

The Appeal states that the Project creates a segregated living pattern by clustering the required affordable housing units on “specific, contiguous floors of the building, while market rate units are located on different floors.” The Appeal does not specifically identify local, state, or federal laws with which this Project feature is inconsistent.

The Project proposes to cluster all required affordable housing units on floors 5-11 (no affordable housing units are proposed to be located on floors 12-17). The City’s affordable housing development standards SAN RAFAEL CITY COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT / Page: 5
require that affordable housing units required pursuant to the City’s inclusionary housing requirements be dispersed throughout a housing development project. The regulations allow for “[u]nits [to] be clustered within the residential project when the city determines that such clustering furthers affordable housing opportunities.” (See San Rafael City Council Resolution 14890, section C(1).) The Appeal also states that the use of a concession to allow a disproportionate number of affordable housing units to contain balconies as compared to market-rate units containing balconies is contrary to fair housing laws. The Appeal does not specifically identify local, state, or federal laws with which this Project feature is inconsistent.

The proposed project proposes that 36.5% (e.g., 62 of 170) of the market rate units contain exterior balconies, and only 23.3% (e.g., 7 of 30) of the affordable housing units contain exterior balconies.

The City’s affordable housing regulations require the exterior and interior design of affordable housing units required pursuant to the City’s inclusionary housing regulations to be of the same design, materials, amenities, quality of finish, and appearance as the market rate units. (See Resolution 14890, section C(2).)
The Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) has advised that a project may utilize an SDBL concession to modify local inclusionary zoning requirements, even where those standards are meant to create greater access and equity between affordable and market-rate units. Specifically, HCD has advised: “[A] concession can be used to modify certain provisions of an inclusionary ordinance. In addition to requiring that a minimum percentage of units in a project are provided as deed-restricted affordable units, inclusionary ordinances sometimes contain other requirements and development standards, such as dispersal requirements, design comparability requirements, mandated proportions of affordability, or (as seen in the subject project) a requirement that a proportion of the affordable units be provided for-sale. An SDBL concession can be used to modify a development standard or zoning code requirement if doing so would result in a construction or operational cost reduction in providing affordable housing (i.e., improve the economic feasibility of the project).” Sonoma County Sonoma Development Center Letter of TA, April 26, 2024
While the City has not taken a position on whether it agrees with HCD’s aforementioned interpretation of the SDBL, the City is aware that this is the State’s interpretation of this State law. To the extent HCD is correctly interpreting the SDBL (as set forth in their technical assistance to Sonoma County, City of Sonoma, Menlo Park and West Hollywood), such an interpretation would likely lead to HCD’s conclusion that the Project is entitled to utilize a concession to cluster affordable housing units and not provide the same amenities as between the affordable and market rate units.

Lastly, the Appeal also states that the Project appears to have been granted a concession to diverge from the City’s Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing (or “AFFH”) obligations. No such concession was applied for, and no such concession was granted by the City.

State law requires public agencies to administer housing and community development programs in a manner that affirmatively furthers fair housing by taking actions to overcome segregation and foster inclusive communities free from barriers to opportunity. (Gov. Code § 8899.50) Additionally, when adopting housing elements, cities are required to include an AFFH program and fair housing analysis that assess local patterns and trends and identify actions to promote fair housing in their planning process.

The Appeal has not pointed to any City housing or community development that fails to meet State law AFFH requirements. The City’s sixth cycle Housing Element was certified by HCD in 2024, confirming that the Housing Element meets housing element AFFH requirements. The granted waivers, incentives, and concessions pursuant to State law do not establish that the City has failed to administer City housing SAN RAFAEL CITY COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT / Page: 6
programs in a manner that furthers fair housing. No City Housing Element programs are impacted or modified by the issuance of the above-referenced waivers or concessions.

Therefore, this is not a basis upon which to grant the Appeal.

C. The Planning Commission did not improperly abdicate its discretion in approving the Project.

The Appeal notes that the City determined the Project was ineligible for streamlined, ministerial processing pursuant to AB 2011 and, therefore, the Project should not be processed ministerially. The City agrees.

The City also acknowledges that State law, namely the Housing Accountability Act, the SDBL, and AB 130, reserves to cities certain, limited discretion for projects subject to the purview of these laws. For the reasons explained above, both the Housing Accountability Act and SDBL limit the City’s ability to deny the Project or condition its approval on reduced density (and/or associated massing), even when exercising discretion.

D. The Planning Commission was not required to make findings not set forth in the Municipal Code or State law.

The Appeal states that additional findings would have assisted in demonstrating that all mandatory legal considerations were applied. Specifically, the Appeal states that the Planning Commission did not make the following findings:

1. Whether the approved concessions result in a project inconsistent with other state or federal law;

2. Whether the concentration of affordable units by floor avoids segregation;

3. Whether differences in unit-level features raise fair housing considerations;

4. How the limitation in Gov. Code section 65915(d)(1)(C) was evaluated.

There are no applicable requirements for the Planning Commission to have made such findings prior to approval of the Project. The Planning Commission and the City Council may, but need not, take positions on these matters in approving the Project.

Appeal filed by Paul Kasbar and Ken Dickinson, January 16, 2026 The grounds upon which Appellants have appealed the Planning Commission’s actions are not a basis to reverse the Planning Commission’s actions and deny the project, for the following reasons:

A. The Planning Commission properly approved the requested SDBL waivers and incentives/concessions, and the SDBL does not require findings to be made to approve such waivers or incentives/concessions.

The Appeal incorrectly states the procedural requirements of the SDBL. First, the SDBL separately establishes waivers and incentives/concessions. Each is described in further detail below. Second, the appellant’s assertions that the approval of any waiver or concession “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” is incorrect. The SDBL imposes no such requirement.

The SDBL (specifically, Government Code Section 65915(e)(1)) requires cities to waive any development standard that “will have the effect of physically precluding the construction of a development [. . .] at the densities or with the concessions or incentives permitted under” the SDBL. The applicant’s application for a density bonus, concessions, and waivers provided that eight City development standards would SAN RAFAEL CITY COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT / Page: 7
physically preclude the proposed Project at the densities allowed under the City’s Downtown Precise Plan (“DPP”) and the SDBL (See pp. 21 – 23 of the Staff Report to the Planning Commission).

Specifically, the applicant explained that the proposed Project could not be constructed at a density of 200 units/0.58 acre (100% density bonus) without the following standards set forth in the DPP being waived:

1. SRMC Section 14.18.090.E.4 (Bicycle Parking). Waiver from the requirement that projects shall provide at least an 18-inch clearance from the centerline of adjacent bicycles on the left and right, and at least 10 inches to walls and other obstructions.

2. DPP Section 2.3.050 (Bicycle Parking). Waiver of the requirement to provide a minimum of 271 bicycle parking spaces, authorizing a reduced total quantity of 60 on-site bicycle parking spaces.

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 space-saving 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 providing 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 the 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 SDBL does not require that a city make findings to approve a requested waiver. The City need not approve a waiver of development standards where the waiver “would have a specific, adverse impact, as defined upon health or safety and for which there is no feasible method to satisfactorily mitigate or avoid the specific, adverse impact.” (Gov. Code § 65915(e)(1)) A “specific, adverse impact” is defined as “a significant, quantifiable, direct, and unavoidable impact, based on objective, identified written public health or safety standards, policies, or conditions.” (Gov. Code § 65589.5(d)(2)) The City has evaluated whether it has adopted any written public health or safety standards, which standards establish that waiver of the above-referenced development standards would create significant, quantifiable, direct, and SAN RAFAEL CITY COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT / Page: 8
unavoidable impacts. The City has concluded that no such standards exist. Further, Appellant has pointed to no such standards in their Appeal.

The SDBL defines “concessions” or “incentives” as: (1) a reduction in site development standards such as a reduction in setbacks or square footage requirements, that result in actual, identifiable cost reductions for affordable housing; (2) approval of mixed-use zoning; and (3) other regulatory incentives that result in actual, identifiable cost reductions for affordable housing. (Gov. Code § 65915(k)) The applicant requested the following concessions:

Applicant requests a concession to allow for noncompliance with this standard.

14.16.030). Compliance with this standard requires 1-to-1 proportionality for bedroom counts between affordable units and market-rate units. The percentage breakdown of studios, 1- bedroom, 2-bedroom, and 3-bedroom market-rate units in the Project is different than the percentage breakdown for affordable units. Applicant requests a concession to allow for noncompliance with this standard.

3. A concession from the “amenities” requirement of Section C(2) of Resolution 14890. The exterior and interior design of the affordable housing units shall be of the same design, materials, amenities, quality of finish, and appearance as the other developed units. (Section C(2) of Resolution 14890; SRMC Ch. 14.16.030). A much smaller proportion of affordable units in the Project have balconies than the proportion of market-rate units that contain balconies. Applicant requests a concession to allow for noncompliance with this standard.

The SDBL (specifically, Government Code Section 65915(d)(1)) requires that a city “grant the concession or incentive requested by the applicant” unless certain findings can be made. The SDBL does not require that a city make any particular findings in order to approve a requested concession. Rather, the SDBL requires a city to make one of three findings if the city denies a requested concession. Such reasons upon which a city may base its denial of a concession include:

1. The concession or incentive does not result in identifiable and actual cost reductions [. . .] to provide for affordable housing costs.

2. The concession or incentive would have a “specific, adverse impact upon public health and safety and for which there is no feasible method to satisfactorily mitigate or avoid the specific, adverse impact without rendering the development unaffordable to low-income and moderate-income households.” As explained above, 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.”

3. The concession or incentive would be contrary to state or federal law.

SAN RAFAEL CITY COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT / Page: 9

3. The requested concessions are not contrary to state or federal law.

The SDBL does not require a city to make findings prior to approving an incentive/concession or waiver.

Furthermore, for the reasons specified above, the Planning Commission’s determination to approve the requested incentives/concessions and waivers is consistent with the SDBL. Therefore, this is not a basis to grant the Appeal.

B. The approval of waivers does not violate statutory requirements, and a project’s potential to create impacts is not alone sufficient to deny a waiver.

The Appeal claims that “approving waivers while acknowledging unresolved circulation and emergencyaccess risk is internally inconsistent and violates statutory requirements.” The Appeal does not specify any particular statutory requirement that has been violated, and for the reasons explained in section (a) above, approval of waivers is consistent with State law. Furthermore, there are no Level of Service (LOS) standards that apply to the Project because neither the zoning code, General Plan, nor DPP includes LOS standards that apply in the DPP area. Because the project is exempt from CEQA pursuant to AB 130 (see Public Resources Code Section 21080.66), traffic and circulation impacts, which might be analyzed in certain contexts pursuant to CEQA, were not analyzed pursuant to CEQA. The San Rafael Fire Department reviewed the Project, including all conditions of approval, and determined that the project, as conditioned, will meet emergency access requirements. Conditions include, but are not limited to: a) the design and construction of all site alterations shall comply with the 2025 California Fire Code, current NFPA Standards, and all applicable City of San Rafael Ordinances and Amendments; and b) that 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.

Therefore, this is not a basis to grant the Appeal.

C. The Planning Commission properly considered all objective standards applicable to the Project.

The Housing Accountability Act precludes local jurisdictions from denying a housing development project or reducing its density if the project is consistent with objective standards. “Objective” means “involving no personal or subjective judgment by a public official and being uniformly verifiable by reference to an external and uniform benchmark or criterion available and knowable by both the development applicant or proponent and the public official.” (Gov. Code § 65589.5(h)(9)) The Appeal claims that the Planning Commission erred by “fail[ing] to evaluate evacuation feasibility and resident vehicle access” in the event of “power outages, system failures, fire events, flooding, and other evacuation scenarios.” The City has reviewed applicable objective standards related to evacuation specified by local and state law and found no conflict with such standards.

The Appeal also claims that the Planning Commission erred by failing to “meaningfully analyze or mitigate” impacts due to the “inevitable volume of delivery, service, and loading vehicles required to serve a 200-unit residential building. The City has reviewed applicable objective standards related to delivery, loading, and service vehicles specified by local and state law and found no conflict with such standards.

Therefore, this is not a basis to grant the Appeal.

SAN RAFAEL CITY COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT / Page: 10
D. The Planning Commission did not improperly abdicate its discretion and complied with all applicable statutory timelines in approving the Project.

The Appeal notes that “while state law constrains discretion,” it does not completely eliminate a City’s discretion over a project. The City agrees. The City also acknowledges that State law, namely the Housing Accountability Act, the SDBL, and AB 130, reserves to cities certain, limited discretion for projects subject to the purview of these laws. For the reasons explained above, both the Housing Accountability Act and SDBL limit the City’s ability to deny the Project or condition its approval on reduced density (and/or associated massing), even when exercising discretion.

Additionally, the Project was processed in accordance with the timelines and shot clocks set forth in AB 130, for which the Project qualified. Therefore, this is not a basis to grant the Appeal.

E. The Project is consistent with the General Plan, Downtown Precise Plan, and Zoning Code as modified pursuant to the SDBL
The Appeal claims that the Project is inconsistent with “the City’s adopted strategic plan.” The City is unaware of an applicable strategic plan. To the extent the applicant is suggesting the Project is inconsistent with the DPP or General Plan, the City disagrees.

Pursuant to the Housing Accountability Act, the City may not deny a housing development project or reduce its density if the project is consistent with State law and applicable City objective development standards, unless the City can make certain enumerated findings. Specifically, the City may disapprove a housing development project or reduce its density if the City finds that (a) the housing development project would have a specific, adverse impact upon the public health or safety unless the project is disapproved or approved upon the condition that the project be developed at a lower density. 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, and (b) There is no feasible method to satisfactorily mitigate or avoid these adverse impact identified other than the disapproval of the housing development project or the approval of the project upon the condition that it be developed at a lower density. (Gov. Code § 65589.5(j)(1))
The City has evaluated whether it has adopted any written public health or safety standards that establish that the waiver of the above-referenced development standards would create significant, quantifiable, direct, and unavoidable impacts. The City has concluded that no such standards exist. Further, Appellant has pointed to no such standards in their Appeal.

As explained above, the SDBL allows for modifications of applicable objective standards through the approval of incentives, concessions, and waivers, which approvals are required in certain circumstances and subject to denial only based on enumerated reasons reserved by the State to local agencies (see further explanation on this above.) State law directs that a Project’s reliance on the SDBL to achieve increased density, increased height, or other deviations from applicable objective standards through the use of concessions and waivers is not a basis to find a project inconsistent with applicable objective standards. (Gov. Code § 65589.5(j)(3))
City staff reviewed the Project’s consistency with applicable objective standards, as modified by the SDBL, and determined the Project is consistent with all applicable objective standards of the General Plan, DPP, and Zoning Code, as modified. Therefore, this is not a basis to grant the Appeal.

SAN RAFAEL CITY COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT / Page: 11
Appeal filed by Alezz Laielen, January 21, 2026
The grounds upon which Appellant has appealed the Planning Commission’s actions are not a basis to reverse the Planning Commission’s actions and deny the project, for the following reasons:

A. The Planning Commission complied with all applicable statutory requirements in approving the Project.

The Appeal states that a suburb does not have skyscrapers, that San Rafael is a City in the suburb of Marin, and that for this reason, the Planning Commission should not have approved the Project, which is 17 stories tall. The Appeal does not cite any law that supports this definition or conclusion, and the City is not aware of the existence of any such law.

State laws, namely the Housing Accountability Act, the SDBL, and AB 130, constrain a city’s discretion to deny a project or condition a project’s approval on decreased density. Nevertheless, cities maintain some discretion over proposed housing development projects. Here, the City exercised its discretion in imposing over one hundred conditions of approval for the Project. For the reasons explained in the written report of the Community and Economic Development Department staff, and all attachments are linked here as Attachment 5, the City complied with all applicable statutory requirements in approving the Project.

Additionally, the Project was processed in accordance with the timelines and shot clocks set forth in AB 130, for which the Project qualified. Therefore, this is not a basis to grant the Appeal.

B. The Planning Commission properly considered all objective standards applicable to the Project.

The appeal states that the Planning Commission's role is to help maintain the environment of the suburban city of San Rafael.

The Housing Accountability Act precludes local jurisdictions from denying a housing development project or reducing its density if the project is consistent with applicable objective standards, as modified or waived by the SDBL. “Objective” means “involving no personal or subjective judgment by a public official and being uniformly verifiable by reference to an external and uniform benchmark or criterion available and knowable by both the development applicant or proponent and the public official.” (Gov. Code § 65589.5(h)(9)) City staff reviewed the Project’s consistency with applicable objective standards, as modified by the SDBL, and determined the Project is consistent with all applicable objective standards of the General Plan, DPP, and Zoning Code, as modified.

Maintaining the environment of the suburban city of San Rafael is not an objective standard.

Therefore, this is not a basis to grant the Appeal.

COMMUNITY OUTREACH:

The project has been duly noticed to the public in accordance with SRMC Chapter 14.29. Public Comments received are attached.

FISCAL IMPACT:

There is no fiscal impact associated with the recommended Council action on this item.

OPTIONS:

Pursuant to San Rafael Municipal Code section 14.28.050, after holding public hearings on the three appeals, the City Council shall affirm, modify, or reverse the January 13, 2026, Planning Commission determination approving the Project. The City Council may take any of the following actions:

SAN RAFAEL CITY COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT / Page: 12

1. Adopt the Resolution Denying the Appeal of Steven Bryant (Attachment 1), and/or the Resolution Denying the appeal of Paul Kasbar & Ken Dickinson (Attachment 2), and/or the Resolution of Alezz Laielen (Attachment 3), and Adopt the Resolution upholding the Planning Commission Approval of an Environmental and Design Review Permit, and associated conditions of approval, and the Below Market Rate (BMR) Housing Agreement for the Project (Attachment 4).

2. Modify the Planning Commission’s approval of the Environmental and Design Review Permit (ED25-031) for the Project.

3. Reverse the Planning Commission’s determination approving ED25-031. If the City Council elects to reverse the Planning Commission’s determination, the City Council should direct staff to return to the City Council with a resolution reversing the Planning Commission’s determination and the basis to support the reversal of the Planning Commission’s determination RECOMMENDED ACTION:

2. Resolution denying the appeal filed by Paul Kasbar and Ken Dickinson of the Planning Commission’s approval of an Environmental and Design Review Permit (ED25-031) to allow for development of a new mixed use building with 200 residential units and commercial space located at 700 Irwin Street (APN 014-132-18) and determination that the project is statutorily exempt from CEQA Review pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21090.66.

3. Resolution denying the appeal filed by Alezz Laielen of the Planning Commission’s approval of an Environmental and Design Review Permit (ED25-031) to allow for development of a new mixed use building with 200 residential units and commercial space located at 700 Irwin Street (APN 014-132-18) and determination that the project is statutorily exempt from CEQA Review pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21090.66.

5. Resolution Upholding the Planning Commission approval of and approving an Environmental and Design Review Permit (ED25-031), and its Conditions of Approval, which include a Below Market Rate (BMR) Housing Agreement, to allow for development of a new mixed use building with 200 residential units and commercial space located at 700 Irwin Street (APN 014-132-18) and determination that the project is statutorily exempt from CEQA Review pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21090.66.

ATTACHMENTS:

1. Draft Resolution Denying the Appeal of Steven Bryant

2. Draft Resolution Denying the Appeal of Paul Kasbar and Ken Dickinson

3. Draft Resolution Denying the Appeal of Alezz Laielen

4. Draft Resolution Upholding the Planning Commission approval of and approving an Environmental and Design Review Permit (ED25-031), and its Conditions of Approval, which include a Below Market Rate (BMR) Housing Agreement, to allow for development of a new mixed use building with 200 residential units and commercial space located at 700 Irwin Street SAN RAFAEL CITY COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT / Page: 13
(APN 014-132-18) and determination that the project is statutorily exempt from CEQA Review pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21090.66

5. Planning Commission Packet, including 700 Irwin Staff Report and all attachments, January 13, 2026

6. Appeals: (1) Steven Bryant, (2) Paul Kasbar and Ken Dickinson, (3) Alezz Laielen

7. Public Comment
RESOLUTION NO.

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN RAFAEL

DENYING THE APPEAL FILED BY STEVEN BRYANT OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION’S APPROVAL OF AN ENVIRONMENTAL AND DESIGN
REVIEW PERMIT (ED25-031) TO ALLOW FOR DEVELOPMENT OF A NEW MIXED-USE BUILDING WITH 200 RESIDENTIAL UNITS AND COMMERCIAL SPACE LOCATED AT 700 IRWIN STREET (APN 014-132-18) AND

DETERMINATION THAT THE PROJECT IS STATUTORILY EXEMPT FROM

CEQA REVIEW PURSUANT TO PUBLIC RESOURCES CODE SECTION
21080.66
WHEREAS, on November 6, 2024, 700 IrwinStreetPartners (“Applicant”) submitted to the City of San Rafael (“City”) a preliminary application for a housing development project (“Project”) pursuant to Government Code section 65941.1 located at 700 Irwin Street (APN 014-132-18) (“Project Site”); and
WHEREAS, on April 10, 2025, Applicant submitted a development application for the Project (Environmental and Design Review Permit ED25-031), proposing a new mixed-use building with 200 residential units and ground floor commercial space on the Project Site, including requests for concessions and waivers under the State Density Bonus Law (Gov. Code 65915) (“SDBL”); and WHEREAS, on May 9, 2025, after reviewing the submitted application, the City deemed the application incomplete; and
WHEREAS, on June 17, 2025, Applicant resubmitted a revised application to the City; and WHEREAS, on July 14, 2025, after reviewing the resubmitted application, the City deemed the application complete; and
WHEREAS, on September 12, 2025, after thoroughly comparing the features of the proposed Project with the applicable objective standards, the City issued Applicant a determination that the Project was inconsistent with various sections of the San Rafael Municipal Code (“SRMC”), the Downtown Precise Plan, and General Plan 2040; and
WHEREAS, on October 24, 2025, Applicant submitted revised site plans and additional requests for concessions and waivers under the SDBL; and WHEREAS, on December 19, 2025, after thoroughly comparing the features of the revised Project with the applicable objective standards, the City issued to Applicant a determination that the Project would be consistent with all applicable objective standards if the Planning Commission were to approve the requested SDBL concessions and waivers; and WHEREAS, the proposed Project would demolish the existing 4-story office building on the Project Site and construct a 17-story, 180-foot high building in its place, including 200 dwelling units (of which 15 would be affordable to very low-income households and 15 would be affordable to moderate-income households), 5,000 square feet of commercial space, and other site improvements including but not limited to bicycle and pedestrian facilities, parking areas, lighting, landscaping, and signage; and
WHEREAS, the Project is statutorily exempt from CEQA pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21080.66(a) and the City carried out all the procedures required by Public Resources Code Section 21080.66(b), and
WHEREAS, all required public notices and a public hearing were duly given and held according to law; and
WHEREAS, on January 13, 2026, the San Rafael Planning Commission held a duly noticed public hearing on the proposed Project, accepting all oral and written public testimony and the written report of the Community and Economic Development Department staff, which report and all attachments are linked to the February 17, 2026 staff report to City Council as Attachment 5, and WHEREAS, on January 13, 2026, after closing the public hearing, the Planning Commission reviewed, considered, and evaluated all public and written comments, pertinent information, documents, plans, and all other evidence in the public record on the Project; and WHEREAS, on January 13, 2026, the Planning Commission found the Project statutorily exempt from CEQA pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21080.66(a) and adopted Resolution No. 26-01 (“Approval”) approving an Environmental and Design Review Permit (ED25-031) to allow for development of the Project; and
WHEREAS, on January 15, 2026, the City received a timely appeal (“Appeal”) of the Planning Commission’s Approval from Steven Bryant (“Appellant”); 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.

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 filed by Steven Bryant, which is attached to the February 17, 2026 staff report to City Council as Attachment 6, of the proposed housing development project located at 700 Irwin Street in Downtown San Rafael based on the following findings:

I. The grounds upon which the Appellant has appealed the Planning Commission’s actions are not a basis to reverse the Planning Commission Actions and deny the project, for the following reasons:
a. The approved concessions are not contrary to state or federal law.

The Appeal states that approval of a concession pursuant to State Density Bonus Laws (Government Code § 65915 et seq.) is not required where the concession is contrary to state or federal law. The SDBL defines “concessions” or “incentives” as: (1) a reduction in site development standards such as a reduction in setbacks or square footage requirements, that result in actual, identifiable cost reductions for affordable housing; (2) approval of mixed-use zoning; and (3) other regulatory incentives that result in actual, identifiable cost reductions for affordable housing. (Gov. Code § 65915(k).)
The applicant requested the following concessions:

1. A concession from the “size” requirement of Section C(1) of Resolution 14890.

Affordable housing units shall be comparable in size to the market-rate units within the residential development project, as measured by net habitable square footage. “Comparable size” means having habitable square footage proportionate to the range of unit sizes provided for market-rate units in the project. (Section C(1) of Resolution 14890; SRMC Ch. 14.16.030).

Affordable units in the Project are, on average, slightly smaller than market-rate units, measured in net habitable square footage. Applicant requests a concession to allow for noncompliance with this standard.

2. A concession from the “type” requirement of Section C(1) of Resolution 14890.

Affordable housing units shall possess a distribution of bedroom counts proportionate to that of the market-rate units within the residential development project. (Section C(1) of Resolution 14890; SRMC Ch. 14.16.030). Compliance with this standard requires 1-to-1 proportionality for bedroom counts between affordable units and market-rate units. The percentage breakdown of studios, 1- bedroom, 2-bedroom, and 3-bedroom market-rate units in the Project is different than the percentage breakdown for affordable units. Applicant requests a concession to allow for noncompliance with this standard.

3. A concession from the “amenities” requirement of Section C(2) of Resolution 14890.

The exterior and interior design of the affordable housing units shall be of the same design, materials, amenities, quality of finish, and appearance of the other developed units. (Section C(2) of Resolution 14890; SRMC Ch. 14.16.030). A much smaller proportion of affordable units in the Project have balconies than the proportion of market-rate units that contain balconies. Applicant requests a concession to allow for noncompliance with this standard.

The SDBL (specifically, Government Code Section 65915(d)(1)) requires that a city “grant the concession or incentive requested by the applicant” unless certain findings can be made.

The SDBL does not require that a city make any particular findings in order to approve a requested concession. Rather, the SDBL requires a city to make one of three findings if the city denies a requested concession. Such reasons upon which a city may base its denial of a concession include:

1. The concession or incentive does not result in identifiable and actual cost reductions [. . .] to provide for affordable housing costs.

3. The concession or incentive would be contrary to state or federal law.

The SDBL further directs that a city “shall bear the burden of proof for the denial of a requested concession.” (Gov. Code § 65915(d)(4).) The City has not found that any of the SDBL’s enumerated reasons upon which denial of a concession may be based, are met here.

Specifically:

2. The City has evaluated whether the City has adopted any written public health or safety standards, which standards establish that waiver of the above referenced development standards would create significant, quantifiable direct and unavoidable impacts. The City has concluded that no such standards exist. Further, Appellant has pointed to no such standards in their Appeal.

3. The requested concessions are not contrary to state or federal law.

For these reasons, this is not a basis to grant the Appeal. b. The Appeal does not establish that the Project violates fair housing laws.

The Appeal states that the Project creates a segregated living pattern by clustering the required affordable housing units on “specific, contiguous floors of the building, while market rate units are located on different floors.” The Appeal does not specifically identify local, State or federal laws with which this Project feature is inconsistent.

The Project proposes to cluster all required affordable housing units on floors 5-11 (no affordable housing units are proposed to be located on floors 12-17). The City’s affordable housing development standards require that affordable housing units required pursuant to the City’s inclusionary housing requirements, be dispersed throughout a housing development project. The regulations allow for “[u]nits [to] be clustered within the residential project when the city determines that such clustering furthers affordable housing opportunities.” (See San Rafael City Council Resolution 14890, section C(1).) The Appeal also states that use of a concession to allow a disproportionate number of affordable housing units to contain balconies as compared to market rates units containing balconies is contrary to fair housing laws. The Appeal does not specifically identify local, State or federal laws with which this Project feature is inconsistent.

The proposed project proposes that 36.5% (e.g. 62 of 170) of the market rate units contain exterior balconies and only 23.3% (e.g. 7 of 30) of the affordable housing units contain exterior balconies.

The City’s affordable housing regulations require the exterior and interior design of affordable housing units required pursuant to the City’s inclusionary housing regulations to be of the same design, materials, amenities, quality of finish, and appearance as the market rate units. (See Resolution 14890, section C(2).)
The Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) has advised that a project may utilize an SDBL concession to modify local inclusionary zoning requirements, even where those standards are meant to create greater access and equity as between affordable and market rate units. Specifically, HCD has advised: “[A] concession can be used to modify certain provisions of an inclusionary ordinance. In addition to requiring that a minimum percentage of units in a project are provided as deed-restricted affordable units, inclusionary ordinances sometimes contain other requirements and development standards, such as dispersal requirements, design comparability requirements, mandated proportions of affordability, or (as seen in the subject project) a requirement that a proportion of the affordable units be provided for-sale. An SDBL concession can be used to modify a development standard or zoning code requirement if doing so would result in a construction or operational cost reduction in providing affordable housing (i.e., improve the economic feasibility of the project).” (see Sonoma County Sonoma Development Center Letter of TA, April 26, 2024.)
While the City has not taken a position on whether it agrees with HCD’s aforementioned interpretation of the SDBL, the City is aware that this is the State’s interpretation of this State law. To the extent HCD is correctly interpreting the SDBL (as set forth in their technical assistance to Sonoma County, and other local jurisdictions), such an interpretation would likely lead to HCD’s conclusion that the Project is entitled to utilize a concession to cluster affordable housing units and not provide the same amenities as between the affordable and market rate units.

State law requires public agencies to administer housing and community development programs in a manner that affirmatively furthers fair housing by taking actions to overcome segregation and foster inclusive communities free from barriers to opportunity. (Gov. Code § 8899.50.) Additionally, when adopting housing elements, cities are required to include an AFFH program and fair housing analysis that assess local patterns and trends and identify actions to promote fair housing in their planning process.

The granted waivers, incentives and concessions pursuant to State law does not establish that the City has failed to administer City housing programs in a manner that furthers fair housing. No City Housing Element programs are impacted or modified by the issuance of the above referenced waivers or concessions.

Therefore, this is not basis upon which to grant the Appeal. c. The Planning Commission did not improperly abdicate its discretion in approving the Project.

The Appeal notes that the City determined the Project was ineligible for streamlined, ministerial processing pursuant to AB 2011 and therefore, the Project should not be processed ministerially. The City agrees.

The City also acknowledges that State law, namely the Housing Accountability Act, the State Density Bonus Laws and AB 130, reserve to cities certain, limited discretion for projects subject to the purview of these laws. For the reasons explained above, both the Housing Accountability Act and State Density Bonus Laws limit the City’s ability to deny the Project or condition its approval on reduced density (and/or associated massing), even when exercising discretion.
d. The Planning Commission was not required to make findings not set forth in the Municipal Code or State law.

1. Whether the approved concessions result in a project inconsistent with other state or federal law;

2. Whether the concentration of affordable units by floor avoids segregation;

3. Whether differences in unit-level features raise fair housing considerations;

4. How the limitation in Gov. Code section 65915(d)(1)(C) was evaluated.

There are no applicable requirements for the Planning Commission to have made such findings prior to approval of the Project. The Planning Commission and the City Council, may, but need not take positions on these matters in approving the Project.

II. 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.

I, Lindsay Lara, City Clerk of the City of San Rafael, hereby certify that the above and foregoing City Council 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
RESOLUTION NO.

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN RAFAEL

DENYING THE APPEAL FILED BY PAUL KASBAR AND KEN DICKINSON OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION’S APPROVAL OF AN ENVIRONMENTAL AND DESIGN REVIEW PERMIT (ED25-031) TO ALLOW FOR DEVELOPMENT OF A NEW MIXED-USE BUILDING WITH 200 RESIDENTIAL UNITS AND
COMMERCIAL SPACE LOCATED AT 700 IRWIN STREET (APN 014-132-18)

AND DETERMINATION THAT THE PROJECT IS STATUTORILY EXEMPT

FROM CEQA REVIEW PURSUANT TO PUBLIC RESOURCES CODE SECTION 21080.66
WHEREAS, on November 6, 2024, 700 IrwinStreetPartners (“Applicant”) submitted to the City of San Rafael (“City”) a preliminary application for a housing development project (“Project”) pursuant to Government Code section 65941.1 located at 700 Irwin Street (APN 014-132-18) (“Project Site”); and
WHEREAS, on April 10, 2025, Applicant submitted a development application for the Project (Environmental and Design Review Permit ED25-031), proposing a new mixed-use building with 200 residential units and ground floor commercial space on the Project Site, including requests for concessions and waivers under the State Density Bonus Law (Gov. Code 65915) (“SDBL”); and WHEREAS, on May 9, 2025, after reviewing the submitted application, the City deemed the application incomplete; and
WHEREAS, on June 17, 2025, Applicant resubmitted a revised application to the City; and WHEREAS, on July 14, 2025, after reviewing the resubmitted application, the City deemed the application complete; and
WHEREAS, on September 12, 2025, after thoroughly comparing the features of the proposed Project with the applicable objective standards, the City issued Applicant a determination that the Project was inconsistent with various sections of the San Rafael Municipal Code (“SRMC”), the Downtown Precise Plan, and General Plan 2040; and
WHEREAS, on October 24, 2025, Applicant submitted revised site plans and additional requests for concessions and waivers under the SDBL; and WHEREAS, on December 19, 2025, after thoroughly comparing the features of the revised Project with the applicable objective standards, the City issued to Applicant a determination that the Project would be consistent with all applicable objective standards if the Planning Commission were to approve the requested SDBL concessions and waivers; and WHEREAS, the proposed Project would demolish the existing 4-story office building on the Project Site and construct a 17-story, 180-foot high building in its place, including 200 dwelling units (of which 15 would be affordable to very low-income households and 15 would be affordable to moderate-income households), 5,000 square feet of commercial space, and other site improvements including but not limited to bicycle and pedestrian facilities, parking areas, lighting, landscaping, and signage; and
WHEREAS, the Project is statutorily exempt from CEQA pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21080.66(a) and the City carried out all the procedures required by Public Resources Code Section 21080.66(b), and
WHEREAS, all required public notices and a public hearing were duly given and held according to law; and
WHEREAS, on January 13, 2026, the San Rafael Planning Commission held a duly noticed public hearing on the proposed Project, accepting all oral and written public testimony and the written report of the Community and Economic Development Department staff, which report and all attachments are linked to the February 17, 2026 staff report to City Council as Attachment 5; and WHEREAS, on January 13, 2026, after closing the public hearing, the Planning Commission reviewed, considered, and evaluated all public and written comments, pertinent information, documents, plans, and all other evidence in the public record on the Project; and WHEREAS, on January 13, 2026, the Planning Commission found the Project statutorily exempt from CEQA pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21080.66(a) and adopted Resolution No. 26-01 (“Approval”) approving an Environmental and Design Review Permit (ED25-031) to allow for development of the Project; and
WHEREAS, on January 16, 2026, the City received a timely appeal (“Appeal”) of the Planning Commission’s Approval from Paul Kasbar and Ken Dickinson (“Appellants”); 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.

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 filed by Paul Kasbar and Ken Dickinson, which is attached to the February 17, 2026 staff report to City Council as Attachment 6, of the proposed housing development project located at 700 Irwin Street in Downtown San Rafael based on the following findings:

I. The grounds upon which Appellants have appealed the Planning Commission’s actions are not a basis to reverse the Planning Commission Actions and deny the project, for the following reasons:
a. The Planning Commission properly approved the requested SDBL waivers and incentives/concessions and the State Density Bonus Laws do not require findings to be made to approve such waivers or incentives/concessions.

The Appeal incorrectly states the procedural requirements of the State Density Bonus Law (“SDBL”).

First, the SDBL separately establishes waivers and incentives/concessions. Each is described in further detail below. Second, the appellant’s assertions that the approval of any waiver or concession “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” is incorrect. The SDBL imposes no such requirement.

The applicant’s application for a density bonus, concessions and waivers provided that eight City development standards would physically preclude the proposed Project at the densities allowed under the City’s Downtown Precise Plan (“DPP”) and the SDBL (See pp. 21 – 23 of the Staff Report to the Planning Commission). Specifically, the applicant explained that the proposed Project could not be constructed at a density of 200 units/0.58 acre (100% density bonus) without the following standards, set forth in the DPP being waived:

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.

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.

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 SDBL does not require that a city make findings to approve a requested waiver. The City need not approve a waiver of development standards where the waiver “would have a specific, adverse impact, as defined upon health or safety and for which there is no feasible method to satisfactorily mitigate or avoid the specific, adverse impact.” (Gov. Code § 65915(e)(1).) A “specific, adverse impact” is defined as “a significant, quantifiable, direct, and unavoidable impact, based on objective, identified written public health or safety standards, policies, or conditions.” (Gov. Code § 65589.5(d)(2).) The City has evaluated whether the City has adopted any written public health or safety standards, which standards establish that waiver of the above referenced development standards would create significant, quantifiable direct and unavoidable impacts. The City has concluded that no such standards exist. Further, Appellant has pointed to no such standards in their Appeal.

The SDBL defines “concessions” or “incentives” as: (1) a reduction in site development standards such as a reduction in setbacks or square footage requirements, that result in actual, identifiable cost reductions for affordable housing; (2) approval of mixed-use zoning; and (3) other regulatory incentives that result in actual, identifiable cost reductions for affordable housing. (Gov. Code § 65915(k).)
The applicant requested the following concessions:

2. A concession from the “type” requirement of Section C(1) of Resolution 14890. Affordable housing units shall possess a distribution of bedroom counts proportionate to that of the market-rate units within the residential development project. (Section C(1) of Resolution 14890; SRMC Ch. 14.16.030). Compliance with this standard requires 1-to-1 proportionality for bedroom counts between affordable units and market-rate units. The percentage breakdown of studios, 1- bedroom, 2-bedroom, and 3-bedroom market-rate units in the Project is different than the percentage breakdown for affordable units. Applicant requests a concession to allow for noncompliance with this standard.

3. A concession from the “amenities” requirement of Section C(2) of Resolution 14890. The exterior and interior design of the affordable housing units shall be of the same design, materials, amenities, quality of finish, and appearance of the other developed units. (Section C(2) of Resolution 14890; SRMC Ch. 14.16.030). A much smaller proportion of affordable units in the Project have balconies than the proportion of market-rate units that contain balconies. Applicant requests a concession to allow for noncompliance with this standard.

Rather, the SDBL requires a city to make one of three findings if the city denies a requested concession. Such reasons upon which a city may base its denial of a concession include:

1. The concession or incentive does not result in identifiable and actual cost reductions [. . .] to provide for affordable housing costs.

3. The concession or incentive would be contrary to state or federal law.

3. The requested concessions are not contrary to state or federal law.

The SDBL does not require a city to make findings prior to approving an incentive/concession or waiver. Furthermore, for the reasons specified above, the Planning Commission’s determination to approve the requested incentives/concessions and waivers is consistent with the SDBL. Therefore, this is not a basis to grant the Appeal.
b. The approval of waivers does not violate statutory requirements and a project’s potential to create impacts is not alone sufficient to deny a waiver.

The Appeal claims that “approving waivers while acknowledging unresolved circulation and emergency-access risk is internally inconsistent and violates statutory requirements.” The Appeal does not specify any particular statutory requirement that has been violated, and for the reasons explained in section (a) above, approval of waivers is consistent with State law. Furthermore, there are no Level of Service (LOS) standards which apply to the Project because neither the zoning code, General Plan or DPP include LOS standards which apply in the DPP area. Because the project is exempt from CEQA pursuant to AB 130 (see Public Resources Code Section 21080.66), traffic and circulation impacts which might be analyzed in certain contexts pursuant to CEQA, were not analyzed pursuant to CEQA. The San Rafael Fire Department reviewed the Project including all conditions of approval and determined that the project, as conditioned, will meet emergency access requirements. Conditions include, but are not limited to: a) the design and construction of all site alterations shall comply with the 2025 California Fire Code, current NFPA Standards, and all applicable City of San Rafael Ordinances and Amendments; and b) that 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.

Therefore, this is not a basis to grant the Appeal.
c. The Planning Commission properly considered all objective standards applicable to the Project.

The Housing Accountability Act precludes local jurisdictions from denying a housing development project or reducing its density if the project is consistent with objective standards. “Objective” means “involving no personal or subjective judgment by a public official and being uniformly verifiable by reference to an external and uniform benchmark or criterion available and knowable by both the development applicant or proponent and the public official.” (Gov. Code § 65589.5(h)(9).) The Appeal claims that the Planning Commission erred by “fail[ing] to evaluate evacuation feasibility and resident vehicle access” in the event of “power outages, system failures, fire events, flooding, and other evacuation scenarios.” The City has reviewed applicable objective standards related to evacuation specified by local and state law and found no conflict with such standards.

The Appeal also claims that the Planning Commission erred by failing to “meaningfully analyze or mitigate” impacts due to “inevitable volume of delivery, service, and loading vehicles required to serve a 200-unit residential building. The City has reviewed applicable objective standards related to delivery, loading, and service vehicles specified by local and state law and found no conflict such standards.

Therefore, this is not a basis to grant the Appeal.
d. The Planning Commission did not improperly abdicate its discretion and complied with all applicable statutory timelines in approving the Project.

The Appeal notes that “while state law constrains discretion,” it does not completely eliminate a City’s discretion over a project. The City agrees. The City also acknowledges that State law, namely the Housing Accountability Act, the State Density Bonus Laws and AB 130, reserve to cities certain, limited discretion for projects subject to the purview of these laws. For the reasons explained above, both the Housing Accountability Act and State Density Bonus Laws limit the City’s ability to deny the Project or condition its approval on reduced density (and/or associated massing), even when exercising discretion.

Additionally, the Project was processed in accordance with the timelines and shot clocks set forth in AB 130, for which the Project qualified. Therefore, this is not a basis to grant the Appeal. e. The Project is consistent with the General Plan, Downtown Precise Plan, and Zoning Code as modified pursuant to the SDBL
The Appeal claims that the Project is inconsistent with “the City’s adopted strategic plan.” The City is unaware of an applicable strategic plan. To the extent the applicant is suggesting the Project is inconsistent with the DPP or General Plan, the City disagrees.

Pursuant to the Housing Accountability Act, the City may not deny a housing development project or reduce its density if the project is consistent with State law and applicable City objective development standards, unless the City can make certain enumerated findings. Specifically, the City may disapprove a housing development project or reduce its density if the City finds that (a) the housing development project would have a specific, adverse impact upon the public health or safety unless the project is disapproved or approved upon the condition that the project be developed at a lower density. 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, and (b) There is no feasible method to satisfactorily mitigate or avoid these adverse impact identified other than the disapproval of the housing development project or the approval of the project upon the condition that it be developed at a lower density. (Gov. Code § 65589.5(j)(1).) The City has evaluated whether the City has adopted any written public health or safety standards, which standards establish that waiver of the above referenced development standards would create significant, quantifiable direct and unavoidable impacts. The City has concluded that no such standards exist. Further, Appellant has pointed to no such standards in their Appeal.

As explained above, the SDBL allows for modifications of applicable objective standards through the approval of incentives, concessions, and waivers, which approvals are required in certain circumstances and subject to denial only based on enumerated reasons reserved by the State to local agencies (see further explanation on this, above.) State law directs that a Project’s reliance on the SDBL to achieve increased density, increased height, or other deviations from applicable objective standards through the use of concessions and waivers is not a basis to find a project inconsistent with applicable objective standards. (Gov. Code § 65589.5(j)(3).) City staff reviewed the Project’s consistency with applicable objective standards, as modified by the SDBL, and determined the Project is consistent with all applicable objective standards of the General Plan, DPP, and Zoning Code, as modified. Therefore, this is not a basis to grant the Appeal.

AYES: Councilmembers:

NOES: Councilmembers:

ABSENT: Councilmembers:
_____________________
Lindsay Lara, City Clerk
RESOLUTION NO.

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN RAFAEL

DENYING THE APPEAL FILED BY ALEZZ LAIELEN OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION’S APPROVAL OF AN ENVIRONMENTAL AND DESIGN
REVIEW PERMIT (ED25-031) TO ALLOW FOR DEVELOPMENT OF A NEW MIXED-USE BUILDING WITH 200 RESIDENTIAL UNITS AND COMMERCIAL SPACE LOCATED AT 700 IRWIN STREET (APN 014-132-18) AND

DETERMINATION THAT THE PROJECT IS STATUTORILY EXEMPT FROM

CEQA REVIEW PURSUANT TO PUBLIC RESOURCES CODE SECTION
21080.66 STREET (APN 014-132-18) AND DETERMINATION THAT THE

PROJECT IS STATUTORILY EXEMPT FROM CEQA REVIEW PURSUANT TO PUBLIC RESOURCES CODE SECTION 21080.66
WHEREAS, on November 6, 2024, 700 Irwin StreetPartners (“Applicant”) submitted to the City of San Rafael (“City”) a preliminary application for a housing development project (“Project”) pursuant to Government Code section 65941.1 located at 700 Irwin Street (APN 014-132-18) (“Project Site”); and
WHEREAS, on April 10, 2025, Applicant submitted a development application for the Project (Environmental and Design Review Permit ED25-031), proposing a new mixed-use building with 200 residential units and ground floor commercial space on the Project Site, including requests for concessions and waivers under the State Density Bonus Law (Gov. Code 65915) (“SDBL”); and WHEREAS, on May 9, 2025, after reviewing the submitted application, the City deemed the application incomplete; and
WHEREAS, on June 17, 2025, Applicant resubmitted a revised application to the City; and WHEREAS, on July 14, 2025, after reviewing the resubmitted application, the City deemed the application complete; and
WHEREAS, on September 12, 2025, after thoroughly comparing the features of the proposed Project with the applicable objective standards, the City issued Applicant a determination that the Project was inconsistent with various sections of the San Rafael Municipal Code (“SRMC”), the Downtown Precise Plan, and General Plan 2040; and
WHEREAS, on October 24, 2025, Applicant submitted revised site plans and additional requests for concessions and waivers under the SDBL; and WHEREAS, on December 19, 2025, after thoroughly comparing the features of the revised Project with the applicable objective standards, the City issued to Applicant a determination that the Project would be consistent with all applicable objective standards if the Planning Commission were to approve the requested SDBL concessions and waivers; and WHEREAS, the proposed Project would demolish the existing 4-story office building on the Project Site and construct a 17-story, 180-foot high building in its place, including 200 dwelling units (of which 15 would be affordable to very low-income households and 15 would be affordable to moderate-income households), 5,000 square feet of commercial space, and other site improvements including but not limited to bicycle and pedestrian facilities, parking areas, lighting, landscaping, and signage; and
WHEREAS, the Project is statutorily exempt from CEQA pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21080.66(a) and the City carried out all the procedures required by Public Resources Code Section 21080.66(b), and
WHEREAS, all required public notices and a public hearing were duly given and held according to law; and
WHEREAS, on January 13, 2026, the San Rafael Planning Commission held a duly noticed public hearing on the proposed Project, accepting all oral and written public testimony and the written report of the Community and Economic Development Department staff, which report and all attachments are linked to the February 17, 2026 staff report to City Council as Attachment 5; and WHEREAS, on January 13, 2026, after closing the public hearing, the Planning Commission reviewed, considered, and evaluated all public and written comments, pertinent information, documents, plans, and all other evidence in the public record on the Project; and WHEREAS, on January 13, 2026, the Planning Commission found the Project statutorily exempt from CEQA pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21080.66(a) and adopted Resolution No. 26-01 (“Approval”) approving an Environmental and Design Review Permit (ED25-031) to allow for development of the Project; and
WHEREAS, on January 21, 2026, the City received a timely appeal (“Appeal”) of the Planning Commission’s Approval from Alezz Laielen (“Appellant”); 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.

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 filed by Alezz Laielen, which is attached to the February 17, 2026 staff report to City Council as Attachment 6, of the proposed housing development project located at 700 Irwin Street in Downtown San Rafael based on the following findings:

I. The grounds upon which Appellant has appealed the Planning Commission’s actions are not a basis to reverse the Planning Commission Actions and deny the project, for the following reasons:
a. The Planning Commission complied with all applicable statutory requirements in approving the Project.

State laws, namely the Housing Accountability Act, the State Density Bonus Laws and AB 130, constrain a city’s discretion to deny a project or condition a project’s approval on decreased density. Nevertheless, cities maintain some discretion over proposed housing development projects. Here, the City exercised its discretion in imposing over one hundred conditions of approval for the Project. For the reasons explained in the written report of the Community and Economic Development Department staff, which report and all attachments are incorporated by this reference and linked to the February 17, 2026 staff report to City Council in Attachment 5, the City complied with all applicable statutory requirements in approving the Project.

The appeal states that the job of the Planning Commission is to help maintain the environment of the suburban city of San Rafael.

The Housing Accountability Act precludes local jurisdictions from denying a housing development project or reducing its density if the project is consistent with applicable objective standards, as modified or waived by the SDBL. “Objective” means “involving no personal or subjective judgment by a public official and being uniformly verifiable by reference to an external and uniform benchmark or criterion available and knowable by both the development applicant or proponent and the public official.” (Gov. Code § 65589.5(h)(9).) City staff reviewed the Project’s consistency with applicable objective standards, as modified by the SDBL, and determined the Project is consistent with all applicable objective standards of the General Plan, DPP, and Zoning Code, as modified.

Maintaining the environment of the suburban city of San Rafael is not an objective standard.

Therefore, this is not a basis to grant the Appeal.

AYES: Councilmembers:

NOES: Councilmembers:

ABSENT: Councilmembers:
_____________________
Lindsay Lara, City Clerk
RESOLUTION NO.

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN RAFAEL

UPHOLDING THE PLANNING COMMISSION APPROVAL OF AND
APPROVING AN ENVIRONMENTAL AND DESIGN REVIEW PERMIT (ED25- 031), ASSOCIATED CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL, AND A BELOW MARKET

RATE (BMR) HOUSING AGREEMENT, TO ALLOW FOR DEVELOPMENT OF A NEW MIXED-USE BUILDING WITH 200 RESIDENTIAL UNITS AND COMMERCIAL SPACE LOCATED AT 700 IRWIN STREET (APN 014-132-18)

AND DETERMINING THE PROJECT IS STATUTORILY EXEMPT FROM CEQA REVIEW PURSUANT TO PUBLIC RESOURCES CODE SECTION 21080.66 WHEREAS, on November 6, 2024, 700 Irwin Street Partners (“Applicant”) submitted to the City of San Rafael (“City”) a preliminary application for a housing development project (“Project”) pursuant to Government Code section 65941.1 located at 700 Irwin Street (APN 014-132-18) (“Project Site”); and WHEREAS, on April 10, 2025, Applicant submitted a development application for the Project (Environmental and Design Review Permit ED25-031), proposing a new mixed-use building with 200 residential units and ground floor commercial space on the Project Site, including requests for concessions and waivers under the State Density Bonus Law (Gov. Code 65915) (“SDBL”); and WHEREAS, on May 9, 2025, after reviewing the submitted application, the City deemed the application incomplete; and
WHEREAS, on June 17, 2025, Applicant resubmitted a revised application to the City; and WHEREAS, on July 14, 2025, after reviewing the resubmitted application, the City deemed the application complete; and
WHEREAS, on September 12, 2025, after thoroughly comparing the features of the proposed Project with the applicable objective standards, the City issued Applicant a determination that the Project was inconsistent with various sections of the San Rafael Municipal Code (“SRMC”), the Downtown Precise Plan, and General Plan 2040; and
WHEREAS, on October 24, 2025, Applicant submitted revised site plans and additional requests for concessions and waivers under the SDBL; and
WHEREAS, on December 19, 2025, after thoroughly comparing the features of the revised Project with the applicable objective standards, the City issued to Applicant a determination that the Project would be consistent with all applicable objective standards if the Planning Commission were to approve the requested SDBL concessions and waivers; and
WHEREAS, the proposed Project would demolish the existing 4-story office building on the Project Site and construct a 17-story, 180-foot high building in its place, including 200 dwelling units (of which 15 would be affordable to very low-income households and 15 would be affordable to moderateincome households), 5,000 square feet of commercial space, and other site improvements including but not limited to bicycle and pedestrian facilities, parking areas, lighting, landscaping, and signage; and WHEREAS, the Project is statutorily exempt from CEQA pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21080.66(a) and the City carried out all the procedures required by Public Resources Code Section 21080.66(b), and
WHEREAS, all required public notices and a public hearing were duly given and held according to law; and
WHEREAS, on January 13, 2026, the San Rafael Planning Commission held a duly noticed public hearing on the proposed Project, accepting all oral and written public testimony and the written report of the Community and Economic Development Department staff, which report and all attachments are incorporated by this reference and linked to the February 17, 2026 staff report to City Council in Attachment 5; and
WHEREAS, on January 13, 2026, after closing the public hearing, the Planning Commission reviewed, considered, and evaluated all public and written comments, pertinent information, documents, plans, and all other evidence in the public record on the Project; and WHEREAS, on January 13, 2026, the Planning Commission found the Project statutorily exempt from CEQA pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21080.66(a) and adopted Resolution No. 26-01 (“Approval”) approving an Environmental and Design Review Permit (ED25-031) to allow for development of the Project (the “Planning Commission Actions”); and
WHEREAS, the City received three timely appeals (“Appeals”) from Alezz Laielen, Steven Bryant, and a joint appeal from Paul Kasbar and Ken Dickinson of the Planning Commission’s Approval; 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 each of the three appeals.

WHEREAS, on February 17, 2026 the City Council took action on each of the three appeals, and adopted Resolution No. XX denying the appeal of Steven Bryant, Resolution No. XX, denying the appeal of Paul Kasbar and Ken Dickinson, Resolution No XX and denying the appeal of Alezz Laielen, Resolution No.

XX.

SECTION 1. ENVIRONMENTAL AND DESIGN REVIEW FINDINGS (ED25-031) The Environmental and Design Review Permit is consistent with the Findings outlined in Section

14.25.090 of the San Rafael Municipal Code as follows:

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 meets the objectives of the Downtown Mixed Use land use designation as it provides dense residential use in Downtown San Rafael in a mixed-use building.

Further, the Project site is identified in the San Rafael Housing Element as a housing opportunity site. The Housing Element estimated that the realistic development capacity of the Project Site was 67 units. However, by utilizing the State Density Bonus Law, the project contributes 200 units – including 15 units affordable to very low-income households and 15 affordable to moderateincome households – toward the 1,610 overall anticipated units in the Downtown Precise Plan area. The Project is consistent with the Project site’s inclusion as a housing opportunity site because development of 200 units on the Project site helps the City meet its Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA) goals.

Section 2.3.050 of the Downtown Precise Plan T5 Neighborhood (incorporated into Chapter 14 of the Municipal Code) calls for the City to incentivize development of a mix of housing choices based on affordability, unit type, and size. Goal H-4 of the Housing Element aims to incentivize the development of a range of housing choices and affordability levels throughout the city. Policy H-4.1 of the Housing Element encourages the creation of affordable housing opportunities in downtown San Rafael. The Project is consistent with these goals because it provides units that will be rented at prices affordable to very low-income households, moderate-income households, and at market rate; a variety of unit types, ranging from studios to three-bedroom penthouses; and a variety of unit sizes (both in terms of square footage and bedroom/bathroom count) in the Downtown area.

Policy H-4.3 mandates that the City require a certain number of affordable housing units in marketrate projects, with a deed restriction and affordability terms of at least 55 years. Consistent with this policy, the City is requiring Applicant to record a deed restriction that will guarantee that 30 units within the Project are affordable at specified affordability levels for 55 years. The required Below Market Rate (“BMR”) Agreement (Exhibit 2 to the Resolution and Conditions of Approval) ensures that the Project is in accord with Policy H-4.3 of the Housing Element and the State Density Bonus Law.

Section C of City Council Resolution 14890, which implements Section

14.16.030 of the San Rafael Municipal Code, 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. With the three concessions requested, the Project meets this requirement.

As conditioned and with approved waivers and concessions, the Project is consistent with the General Plan designation and with applicable objective goals, policies and programs of the General Plan, the Zoning Ordinance and the Downtown Precise Plan.

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 Site’s zoning is established by the Downtown Precise Plan, which designates the site as T5N 50/70. This designation establishes form-based development standards for any development on the Project Site. The maximum permissible height is 50 feet, there are no required setbacks, and there is no maximum permissible residential density expressed in dwelling units per acre. The application materials for the Project include a proposal for a hypothetical project that complies with the applicable objective standards for the T5N 50/70 district and provides 100 residential units within the maximum building envelope permitted by the T5N 50/70 development standards. By using this hypothetical project as a “base project” and designating 15 units as affordable to very low-income households and 15 as affordable to moderate-income households, the Project qualifies for a 100% density bonus (allowing the development of up to 200 residential units), three concessions, and unlimited waivers.

Were the City Council to approve the requested concessions and waivers, the Project design would be consistent with applicable regulations and guidelines applicable to the T5N 50/70 Neighborhood zoning district. The Applicant has requested the following concessions and waivers:

Concessions
1) A concession from the “size” requirement of Section C(1) of Resolution 14890. Affordable housing units shall be comparable in size to the market-rate units within the residential development project, as measured by net habitable square footage. “Comparable size” means having habitable square footage proportionate to the range of unit sizes provided for market-rate units in the project. (Section C(1) of Resolution 14890; SRMC Ch.

14.16.030). Affordable units in the Project are, on average, slightly smaller than marketrate units, measured in net habitable square footage. Applicant requests a concession to allow for noncompliance with this standard.
2) A concession from the “type” requirement of Section C(1) of Resolution 14890. Affordable housing units shall possess a distribution of bedroom counts proportionate to that of the market-rate units within the residential development project. (Section C(1) of Resolution 14890; SRMC Ch. 14.16.030). Compliance with this standard requires 1-to-1 proportionality for bedroom counts between affordable units and market-rate units. The percentage breakdown of studios, 1- bedroom, 2-bedroom, and 3-bedroom market-rate units in the Project is different than the percentage breakdown for affordable units.

Applicant requests a concession to allow for noncompliance with this standard. 3) A concession from the “amenities” requirement of Section C(2) of Resolution 14890. The exterior and interior design of the affordable housing units shall be of the same design, materials, amenities, quality of finish, and appearance of the other developed units. (Section C(2) of Resolution 14890; SRMC Ch. 14.16.030). A much smaller proportion of affordable units in the Project have balconies than the proportion of market-rate units that contain balconies. Applicant requests a concession to allow for noncompliance with this standard.

Waivers

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.

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.

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

Page 2 of 2 ends

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.

Page 2 of 4 ends

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;

Page 3 of 4 ends

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.

Page 4 of 4 ends

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.

Page 1 of 3 ends

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.

Page 2 of 3 ends

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]

Page 3 of 3 ends

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

Page 2 ends

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

Page 3 ends

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

Page 4 ends

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

Page 5 ends

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

Page 6 ends

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

Page 7 ends

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

Page 8 ends

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

Page 9 ends

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

Page 10 ends

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

Page 11 ends

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

Page 12 ends

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

Page 13 ends

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

Page 14 ends

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

Page 15 ends

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

Page 16 ends

• 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

Page 2 ends

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

Page 3 ends

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

Page 4 ends

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

Page 1 ends

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

Page 2 ends

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

Page 3 ends

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

Page 4 ends

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

Page 1 ends

San Rafael City CouncilFebruary 17, 2026

San Rafael City Council
February 17, 2026