March 16, 2026
From: Steven Bryant, San Rafael Resident
To: Mayor, Council Members, City Attorney, City Manager, and Planning Staff Subject: Debrief on the 700 Irwin Appeal Process and Recommendations for Future Hearings
Note: This letter is submitted as a public comment to the City Council and is intended to be entered into the administrative record for the 700 Irwin project.
Dear Mayor, City Councilmembers, City Manager, City Attorney, and Planning Staff, I am writing to offer a respectful debrief on the 700 Irwin appeal process. My purpose is not to relitigate the project – that ship has sailed. My purpose is to document three specific concerns about how the process worked, and to suggest how the City can strengthen future hearings. I offer this in the spirit of collaboration. I fully expect we will work together on future projects, and I want that process to be one the public can trust.
1. Traceability Is a Legal Requirement, Not Just Good Practice Traceability means documenting not just the conclusion, but what the conclusion relies on – the evidence accepted, the assumptions made, and the reasoning connecting them.
This is not optional. It is true that the State Density Bonus Law (SDBL) independently requires documented findings in a denial posture. However, under Topanga Association for a Scenic Community v. County of Los Angeles, California administrative law requires that the record bridge the analytic gap between evidence and decision. This requirement is independent of the SDBL or whether the decision is to deny or approve. A decision that cannot be traced from evidence to conclusion is legally vulnerable – not just harder to explain to the public, but harder to defend before any reviewing court or agency.
Throughout this process the City emphasized objective standards, which I support. But objective standards are only as strong as the record documenting them. When the record contains missing predicates, conflicting predicates, or ignored predicates, the decision rests on an unstable foundation regardless of how the conclusions are characterized.
2. Observable Contradictions in This Record
I use the phrase observable contradiction deliberately: it refers to instances where the City's own record contains two positions that cannot both be true at the same time – not as a matter of interpretation, but as a matter of documented fact. The 700 Irwin record contains three.
Observable Contradiction No. 1 – The City's Own Documents Cannot Agree on the Baseline: 100 Units vs. 50 Units: The density bonus calculation treats 100 units as the objective baseline. The City's own HCD-certified Housing Element identifies 50 units as the realistic objective capacity for this site (see Housing Element p. 453). The record also reflects staff statements that 100 units could not be used as the baseline. These positions cannot all simultaneously be correct. The record must identify which baseline is controlling and why – and if 100 units represents a policy choice rather than an objectively compelled figure, the record should say so candidly. When the public is asked to accept a project at four times the stated certified objective standard rather than twice it, that distinction matters and deserves an honest explanation.
Observable Contradiction No. 2 – 100 Units Cannot Be the Baseline Because It Requires Below-Grade Parking That Is Prohibited: The 100-unit baseline depends on below-grade residential parking. Both the City and FEMA prohibit below-grade parking for residential uses on this site. The AB 130 CEQA Exemption Checklist filed with this project (section (a)(6)(G)) on February 20, 2026, confirms the site is within Zone AE of the Special Flood Hazard Area. FEMA requirements for Zone AE mandate that the lowest floor of a residential structure be at or above base flood elevation – which prohibits belowgrade parking. The City's own record independently states that below-grade parking would not be permitted if the project were treated as residential in the floodplain. If belowgrade parking is prohibited, 100 units is not a viable baseline. The record cannot simultaneously rely on 100 units and acknowledge conditions that make 100 units unbuildable. That is an observable contradiction – and it directly reinforces Observable Contradiction No. 1. They are not independent. They compound one another.
Observable Contradiction No. 3 – The Council Was Never Given the Option We Actually Requested: Remand to Correct, Then Approve: Two appellants, including me, sought a limited remand to correct the record – not denial of the project. The matter was presented to the Council as a binary choice: 1) approve the appeal and deny the project, or 2) deny the appeal and approve the project. The Council was then walked through the financial exposure of denial and made a risk-avoidant decision. That outcome is understandable – but it rested on a false premise. A remand to cure record defects is a recognized and distinct legal remedy. It is not denial. The path we sought – remand to correct the record, followed by approval – would have resolved the predicate issues without ever triggering the risks of denial. By collapsing remand into denial, that option was removed from the Council's deliberation before it could be considered.
3. Recommendations for Future Hearings
With the above in mind, I respectfully suggest the following:
1. Require staff reports to identify the controlling assumptions, the evidence relied upon, and the reasoning connecting them – with particular attention to resolving observable contradictions before a matter reaches the Commission or Council.
2. Clearly distinguish between an appeal seeking denial and an appeal seeking remand to correct the record. Preserve remand as a distinct, available remedy and present it to the Council as such.
3. State plainly at the outset whether appeals are a public administrative safeguard or a litigation-style proceeding, so residents can participate with appropriate expectations.
4. Make draft staff reports available to the public before the recommendation is finalized, so residents have a genuine opportunity to identify factual errors and record gaps while there is still time to address them.
5. When the City's current position differs from a prior position in the record, acknowledge the difference expressly and explain it.
6. When invoking objective standards, identify the exact source, confirm it governs, and verify it is consistent with other objective sources already in the record.
San Rafael should build housing. The City's process should also be fair, traceable, and worthy of public confidence – not only in the eyes of residents, but in the eyes of any agency or reviewer that may later examine this record. Those goals are not in conflict. A record that is honest about its predicates, treats remand as a genuine option, and applies objective standards consistently is a record the City can stand behind.
I look forward to collaborating on future projects and appreciate your time and continued service to our community.
Respectfully,
Steven Bryant
San Rafael Resident