2026 Second City Council Housing Study Session
comments
June 4, 2026
I’m Jeff Rhoads speaking on behalf of San Rafael Heritage.
San Rafael is Marin’s Central City. This is a benefit and a burden. We have the greatest concentration of employment, transportation and the most urban historic downtown. We also provide a concentration of services to those in need like the unhoused.
Our Downtown competes with other Marin villages. And we lack their preciousness.
In this context how can we succeed?
Significantly increasing downtown housing can provide a catalyst for a more vibrant downtown. One that doesn’t shut down at 8:00PM. Our success is dependent on addressing
our challenges and embracing our urbanity.
Here is a list of additional things we believe will lead to a Downtown Renaissance:
1. Protect and enhance our historic resources particularly on 4th and B streets for their placemaking value. Update the Downtown Precise Plan historic resource inventory.
Establish specific standards for each building in the
inventory so that developers know the city’s
requirements. Historic resources have protection from
waivers.
2. Encourage architects to do their best work on new
buildings with voluntary Precise Plan guidelines
3. Invest in arts and cultural institutions and program activities.
4. And finally, focus on placemaking, creating downtown squares and programable spaces. My correspondence
has specific recommendations. A timely and unique
placemaking opportunity is the Downtown Transit
Center. We seek your support on our proposal. The city
is a partner on this project. Please stand up for our city and ask the district for the refinements we recommend.
Thank you
pg. 1
March 12, 2026
Reference: February 2, 2026, Bonus Density Study Session Proactive Actions Via Email and hand delivered hard copy to the City Manager’s Office Honorable Mayor Colin, City Council Members and Staff:
State housing bonus density law removes discretion in local land use decisions for applicable projects. However, there are proactive steps San Rafael can take to address quality of life by leveraging increased development. Adding resident and working population in and around Downtown will help make it active for longer hours and support retail, entertainment and food and beverage businesses.
Change is always challenging. When we look to other cities who have experienced densification, the most successful ones are those who have focused on good city making.
Commonly they have an urban design person on staff or on call as a consultant.
They have used historic preservation as a placemaking tool, promoted good period and contemporary architecture, and introduced amenities like public squares and small spaces, public art, museums and programed activities.
Our Downtown Precise Plan (DTPP) can be refined to place more emphasis on historic preservation as a placemaking tool. This builds on what we have since 4th and B Streets have intact examples of historic and contemporary architecture from 1850’s to the present.
This is unique to San Rafael and worthy of emphasis. Specific recommendations including actions to incentivize restoration of historic resources are included in a separate letter.
Objective design standards for historic resources have standing and are less susceptible to waiver.
We can also encourage a variety of architectural period styles and more compelling contemporary architecture through refinements to our DTPP design guidelines. Presently design standards for new construction are subject to waivers. However, expressing what we want to achieve through well-crafted design guidelines and working with project developers can result in better outcomes.
The DTPP suggests there are opportunities for creation of intimate public spaces along 4th Street primarily for outdoor dining. The locations were typically not specific. However, one proposal included opening the space between the historic two-story Spanish Colonial Revival former Marin Municipal Water District building and 4th Street. The exterior of the second story of the building remains intact. The first story would require restoration. A small plaza space would be between the building and 4th Street. This would be suitable for outdoor dining. The parcel extends from 4th Street to 5th Avenue providing a potential development site for a larger scale project behind the building. pg. 2
The image on the right shows the Marin Municipal Water District building shortly after its construction c1915.
The image on the left shows the same building on March 7, 2026. The original building is set back from 4th Street. Removing the more recent additions as part of a larger development would create an intimate south facing small space suitable for outdoor dining.
Two other opportunities were not included in the DTPP. Thes include the space in front of the Bank of America office tower (former location of the courthouse) and the proposed Golden Gate Bridge Highway and Transportation District Transit Center.
Bank of America building and landscaped space at 4th and A Streets. According to Paul Jensen the City retains public access rights to the space in front of the Bank of America Building. This space could be lowered to street level and expanded to include 4th Street as a larger programable public plaza. Periodic closure of the street would allow use of the full plaza for events. From a Google Earth Image. pg. 3
San Rafael retains public access rights for the Bank of America open space. Lowering this elevated area to street level and providing a durable and attractive plaza treatment extending across to the south side of 4th Street would create a large programmable space that can serve as our town square. An elevated pergola at the building entrance level overlooking the plaza would provide a compelling architectural shading element for dining seating along the base of these otherwise non-descript buildings. With sufficient downtown housing and recovery of downtown employment, the market may support a food hall in the one-story Bank of America Building (made possible by relocation of the bank to the ground floor of the tower). Programming the plaza space and the food hall would help to attract activity Downtown.
This rendering shows the western portion of the proposed Downtown Transit Center. San Rafael Heritage proposes reconstruction of the 1929 Northwestern Pacific Railroad Depot building incorporating existing historic features from the Whistlestop Building. It would serve as the transit center customer service building and retail/café. The interior space would be configured to serve contemporary needs. A small plaza activated by food serves such as adjacent building tenants or food trucks would be constructed between the restored depot and 4th Street and would serve as the transit center gateway to Downtown. Bus shelters along the curb are not shown to reveal the plaza space and reconstructed Depot building. Rendering courtesy of San Rafael Heritage
San Rafael Heritage has proposed retaining historic Whistlestop Building/Northwestern Pacific Railroad features and incorporating them into a reconstructed one story 1929 Mission Revival Depot. This would serve as a new transit customer service and café/retail building. Heritage also proposes enhancements for a small plaza to be constructed by the Bridge District between the building and 4th Street. It would be activated by brick-andmortar cafés or food trucks. The plaza would be across the new alignment of Tamalpais Avenue and the SMART station. It is essential this plaza is not interrupted by the driveway proposed by the Bridge District and the north-south greenway be located adjacent to the SMART platform to minimize crossing conflicts with pedestrians boarding busses.
This is an opportunity to create a modest scale programmable space and front door for Downtown. Since the City is a partner with the Bridge District on this project, it can ask for Heritage’s proposal be incorporated into the Transit Center design. pg. 4
Proposed Downtown San Rafael Transit Center between 3rd and 4th Streets at Hetherton. The site plan shows a reconstructed 1929 Northwestern Pacific Railroad Depot building, programmed for transit services and retail/café space, and a public plaza between the building and 4th street. The north south greenway is shown located next to the SMART platform to reduce pedestrian crossing conflicts. A driveway connecting to 4th Street on the west side of the customer service building has been eliminated to make the plaza larger and more usable. Site Plan Courtesy of San Rafael Heritage
San Rafael is and has always been Marin’s central city. Market demand, a pressing need for more housing, state regulatory mandates, and proximity to public transit and active transportation (the SMART bikeway/Great Redwood trail) will result in a more urban future for our downtown.
Downtown San Rafael competes with other Marin villages for customers. Our success will depend on increasing Downtown’s residential and working population, supporting our businesses and creating a compelling environment that is perceived as a clean safe place.
Let’s make the best of the things we can control.
Respectfully submitted,
Jeffrey D Rhoads
Argonaut Company
pg. 1
March 12, 2026
Reference: February 2, 2026, Study Session regarding State Bonus Housing Density Law Via Email and Hand Delivered to City Manager’s Office
Honorable Mayor Colin, Councilmembers, City Attorney and City Staff State legislation has been signed into law to incentivize housing production. The bonus density law has been “on the books” for decades. However, when applied in combination with other recent legislation, virtually all the local guardrails for higher density projects in “transit rich areas” have been removed. Local communities are understandably concerned about waivers from height limits, setback requirements and other impacts.
Projects like 700 Irwin highlight the challenges of municipalities being subservient to state law.
San Rafael has exercised good faith measures to ease approvals of denser multistory residential and mixed-use projects in Downtown. And yet the Downtown Precise Plan form-based code is now subject to waivers. It appears that legislative relief may ultimately be required. However, considerable work must be completed to define what relief should be and how and where it can be applied. Additional legislation will likely be needed to mitigate some of the impacts of higher density development.
The City isn’t alone on this and don’t need to go at it alone. A prudent action may be to work together with other municipalities to craft the appropriate legislation and identify sponsors. I understand Paul Jensen and Bob Brown have approached Assemblyman Connelly and others to initiate this discussion. We can reach out to our neighboring municipalities and other likeminded cities and counties statewide to draft model legislation and secure broad support when we know what we want to achieve.
Addressing health safety and welfare project Impacts:
Before proceeding into the details of the study session there are specific project impacts (other than height, bulk and design) related to the 700 Irwin project that warrant consideration.
Project location on a site in an area that is below base flood elevation and subject to sea level rise:
Site design can place occupied portions of the site above the base flood elevation (1% annual probability/100-year flood) and can accommodate a designed amount of sea level rise. However, the site will become an island in a base flood event as the adjacent streets will be inundated. This will impact access and evacuation. pg. 2
Addressing adaptation to sea level rise is a broader issue that has been a focus for the City’s recent adaptation study focused on the Canal Neighborhood. Presentation of the findings of the study to the City Council is timely. Let’s discuss what has been learned and how to proceed to the next steps. Identification of achievable adaptation strategies can and should move forward now. Otherwise, this issue will appear to be a can kicked down the road adversely impacting the city’s credibility with the community and placing the city’s economy, vulnerable housing, and mid and long-term fiscal viability at risk. As we all are aware the City is required by the State to prepare a Regional Shoreline Adaptation Plan.
This will be a proactive opportunity to address the future.
Traffic impacts of the proposed development
In my experience, singular developments of this type generally don’t have a significant traffic impact. Typically, background traffic is the driver of traffic conditions. A local example of this phenomenon is the so-called Win Cup development in Corte Madera. The completed development has not had an observable impact on congestion. Warnum Drive and other adjacent streets are fundamentally impacted by background traffic not the development itself. This may well be what is observed with the 700 Irwin project. However, the 700 Irwin site, at the northbound US 101 Central San Rafael exit, has background traffic issues on steroids!
Construction staging and access will be challenging for this small site surrounded by a freeway off ramp, highly congested streets and adjacent automobile-oriented land uses, particularly during peak periods. What can the City require of the developer to mitigate these impacts?
Vehicles accessing the site and its mechanized parking system may queue onto Second Street impacting right turn movements on to 2nd Street from the NB 101 off ramp and through traffic. Can the city require the developer to prevent waiting vehicles and delivery vans from queuing in an active traffic lane?
A significant percentage of residential tenants will likely rely on active and public transportation and not drive. In recently built multifamily residences In Downtown Redwood City approximately 40% of the residents don’t own automobiles. While the 700 Irwin project may not reflect this, it appears the developer expects a lower than suburban level of automobile ownership by tenants. This translates to greater active transportation and walking. There will be a need for on-site bicycle storage and additional signal time at the Irwin and 2nd intersection to handle pedestrian and bicycle crossings. This will impact intersection function at a particularly challenging location, queuing traffic on to the freeway. What can the City require to mitigate this?
Response to Staff February 2, 2026, Study Session Questions:
1. Should staff explore ways to revisit the topic of density downtown? The Downtown Precise Plan anticipated growth by establishing a form-based code regulating height and bulk. The plan did not set specific limits on number of residential units when the project conformed with the code. San Rafael increased the height limits for pg. 3
much of the precise plan area to encourage construction of multifamily housing and support its Regional Housing Needs Assessment (RHNA) housing allocation. Current state regulations allow waiver from the height and bulk and design requirements of the precise plan. “No good deed goes unpunished”!
Bob Brown offered the following observations:
The 1979 bonus density law (DBL) has been well used over time but initially developers were required to justify the need for waivers financially. And what’s new is the interface of the DBL with the new housing legislation: new housing laws providing streamlined process (e.g., no public hearings, no CEQA) for projects that comply with all objective development standards, but then the DBL allowing applicants to waive any and all objective standards (ODDS) with no justification necessary.
Waivers can only be rejected based on findings of specific, adverse impact on public health and safety which can’t be mitigated. Very high bar. In my work with the County to develop public works infrastructure ODDS we are looking to draft safety findings for minimum safety standards such as minimum lane widths, sidewalk requirements, etc. that can be supported by documentation.
Yes, if the mitigation measures are predetermined and made requirements for specified types of projects, locations, etc. What’s tricky is that the Housing Crisis Act prevents jurisdictions from imposing new regulations that restrict achieving approved housing densities.
Based on Bob’s findings it appears the city presently has limited recourse from the waivers other than non-mitigatable adverse impacts on public health safety and welfare, historic resources and wetlands. Currently there appears to be nothing that can be done to limit height and bulk. Regarding historic resources Bob stated:
The Sausalito ODDS I worked on include objective standards for sites in their certified historic district that include some design criteria for remodels and new construction. See (Chapter 7). SB35 and similar legislation only disallows streamlined processing for demolition of listed historic structures, not for renovations or additions.
In my informal discussion with Paul Jensen, he said that historic preservation and wetlands fall under the general heading of conditions that may be defensible from waivers. A possible approach would be to prepare ODDS for specific historic resources within the precise plan area and identify the standards that apply to each resource. Only the resources identified in the plan would be subject to the standards. All other properties would be found to not have historic resources and therefore remove this as a condition for their development. Revision of the CEQA finding regarding cultural resources for the precise plan may be required as well as a deeper dive preparing a defined inventory of historic resources and preparation of objective standards development for each. At first glance this may seem to be a heavy lift, however the ODDS are likely to be the same for many properties and AI can be used as a tool to model the appearance of restored buildings.
pg. 4
Standards for historic resources might include requirements for restoration of historic building fronts and setbacks from the facade for new higher density construction on downtown streets such as 4th and B Streets. Redwood City requires a setback of 40 feet.
Restoration of storefronts was recommended in the recently prepared economic strategy for Downtown San Rafael.
Redwood City’s Downtown Precise Plan (RCDTPP) is an example of application of ODDS. A closer look at Bob Brown’s Sausalito standards is also recommended. Incentives for compliance and local landmark designation such as favorable federal tax treatment, façade easements and Mills Act contracts could help motivate project developers. Higher density new construction would be allowed in combination with local landmark designation, when the developer conforms ODDS such as setback from the building façade and restoration of the historic building.
What constitutes ODDS that can be applied to project reviews are waiver proof or require specific mitigations as a condition of approval? Are prescriptive design criteria also considered objective standards and defensible from waiver? Bob stated:
Yes, design criteria can be objective and yes they can be waived. Most of the ODDS I’ve worked on in Marin do not include Opticos’ Architectural Standards chapter, believing them to be too prescriptive. The County, San Anselmo and Belvedere all adopted the Architectural Standards.
Examples of ODDS in the RCDTPP include requireing adherence to specific design typologies. For example: Contemporary and historical period styles such as Classical/Renaissance Revival, Spanish Colonial Revival/Mission and Craftsman.
Additionally, there are other standards such as requiring base, middle and top treatments, screening of roof top mechanical equipment and enhanced architectural expression on building entrances on corner lots and elsewhere.
Additionally, the RCDTPP required set back of building mass above two stories along certain pedestrian-oriented retail/entertainment streets. In San Rafael’s case this could include 4th and B Streets and could include a setback requirement above three or four stories although this would appear to be subject to waiver.
San Rafael Downtown Precise Plan design standards are not as prescriptive as the RCDTPP. Would San Rafael have a greater say in the design results with prescriptive design guidelines voluntarily applied by project developers? In the opinion of this writer the design outcomes for the approved multifamily projects are underwhelming and not contributory to our cityscape. The City is likely to have better community support, or at least acquiesce, for increased densification Downtown when the architecture contributes to a sense of place.
The Aegis Senior Living community on Lincoln and Mission seems to be well received by the community. It would be an example of a period architectural style included in the Redwood City standards. More definitive design guidelines could help mitigate the pg. 5
increased density and change we are experiencing through better design through a cooperative relationship with project developers.
It is said “You need to stand for something, or you will fall for anything”. The recently completed Vivalon project, 4th and Irwin, Third and Tamalpias, and 5th and C projects may have benefited from more prescriptive and objective design guidelines. Objective as these standards are they will be subject to waiver. They will be advisory for project developers for construction on sites without historic resources unless new legislation is passed that prevents waiver.
Projects impacting wetlands or specific setback requirements may be defensible and may require specific mitigations prior to final approval. This has limited applicability Downtown.
2. Should staff research the role of the Planning Commission with respect to the review of housing development?
In the opinion of this writer an advisory role for Planning Commission and public comment in would be useful informing project developers, their design teams and city staff in ministerial review. It may be that planning commission review is an outlet for public frustration. At least the city will be listening and planning commission and public comment may help shape design.
3. Should staff look into creating a new ministerial process that may encourage housing developments that align with City Council priorities? In the opinion of this writer, a new ministerial process combined with revisions to the Downtown Precise Plan, including refinement of the historic resources inventory, preparation of specific objective standards for listed historic resources and voluntary objective design standards (guidelines) for the design of new buildings would be desirable.
Amended CEQA certification may also be required.
Some additional questions and thoughts:
Is there a summary matrix of the applicable State regulations and their applicability both singularly and when taken in combination?
1. What are the applicable regulations and how are they being applied? How do they apply individually. How do they apply in combination with other regulations? This likely will take the analysis of qualified land use council. Perhaps we could share the expense of this analysis with other municipalities.
2. What constitutes objective standards or other conditions that are waiver proof? Again, advice of land use council would be helpful.
3. Are Redwood City’s objective design standards still enforceable? Perhaps we can ask them.
What can we do to enhance the city’s ability to conduct ministerial review of development proposals in conformance with Objective Standards?
pg. 6
1. Is it prudent to have either in house staff expertise or on an on-call consultant/s to advise staff when determining if development proposals conform with objective architecture, urban design, historic preservation standards and guidelines and nonmitigatable health, safety and welfare impacts? An on-call consultant would be less costly and could avail expertise that might otherwise be not available on staff.
2. Is it possible to require development proposals to provide enforceable mitigation of health, safety and welfare impacts as a condition of approval? How are these determined?
3. Can Planning Commission review of development proposals inform a ministerial process? Can they act in an advisory capacity?
What legislative relief will address current regulatory deficiencies and still provide reasonable incentives for production of housing Downtown and other targeted areas?
1. How does one arrive at reasonable height and bulk standards for given contexts?
2. How can objective design standards be made waiver proof?
3. How are major non-mitigatable health safety and welfare impacts and enforceable mitigations identified without going through a CEQA process?
4. How can good faith efforts by cities such as San Rafael’s DTPP form-based code remain enforceable?
Given the limitations on enforceability of current zoning by state law, we seem to be left with few choices. Seek modification of state law with others, prepare ODDS for specific historic resources, and work with developers to seek their conformance with voluntary design guidelines. At least the City can express to the community it’s making best efforts to respond to a situation brought on by the state.
Respectfully submitted,
Jeffrey D Rhoads
Argonaut Company