San Rafael City Council
September 8, 2026

1. Standard Analyzed in City
October 6, 2025 Consistency
Letter

2. Actual Standard
Classification (per 10-Type
Table)

3. Code Recitation – Operative Sentence(s) Incl. Non-Objective / NonAllowable Language & Exact Code Reference (incl. SRMC § 14.12.040 overriding discretion where applicable)

4. Applicable
(External,
Uniform,
Unchanging
Benchmark)?
Y/N

5. Waiver
Applied
For? (Y /
N/A)

6. Code
Reference
Clearly
Quoted in
Oct. 6
Letter?
But not
valid in any
event

7. Accuracy Notes – Misapplication, NAF (Not Applied For) Analysis & State-Law Deemed-Satisfied Notes

47. Undergrounding of
utilities (SRMC § 15.06.130)
Type 6 (NAF) –
Entitlement/approval not
applied for; standard
inapplicable; Type 6 –
Request for more
information; not a
determination of conflict;
Type 7 – No careful
explanation of conflict
within 30/60 days; Type 5
– Argument over
interpretation / ambiguity
SRMC § 15.06.130 (quoted in letter): utility distribution facilities “installed and for the purpose of supplying service to a subdivision creating lots for development, shall be placed underground, subject to specified exceptions.” City finding: “it is impossible to determine whether the required utilities will be underground.” N N/A Y By its terms applies only to facilities serving “a subdivision creating lots” — none is proposed (NAF); contains
unenumerated “specified exceptions.”
STATE-LAW NOTE (information request): Gov. Code §
65913.4(c)(1) requires the City to make a consistency or inconsistency DETERMINATION within the 30/60-day statutory period. A request for more information / “insufficient
information” statement is “not a determination that the project conflicted” with any standard (CA Attorney General to City of Elk Grove, Mar. 16, 2023, p. 3). Because no inconsistency determination was made as to this standard, none exists — and the Project is DEEMED TO SATISFY this standard by operation of law (Ruegg & Ellsworth v. City of Berkeley (2021) 63 Cal.App.5th 277, 318; AG Elk Grove Letter: “City failed to determine in a timely and adequate manner that the Project conflicted … so … Project was deemed to satisfy the standard”).

Table B – Global Analysis: Totals by Standard Classification Category Category (Global Analysis) Count Rows / Notes
Total standards analyzed in the October 6, 2025 letter 46 rows (47 City entries; §

14.25.050 Parts A & B merged
into row 20–21)
20 Planning (GP + Zoning) · 3 Hillside Design Guidelines · 11 ODS · 4 Housing (Res. 14890) · 2 Fire · 6 Public Works (Title 15)
Type 1 – Standard codified with / exercisable by discretion (deviation, exception, or approval mechanism)
10 Rows 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 19, 20–21, 22, 44, 46 – e.g., “subject to approval by the hearing body,” “unless an exception has been granted,” “subject to review and determination by the city engineer.” ALL Ch. 14.12 rows (9–13) additionally carry SRMC § 14.12.040’s global City Council exception power over every hillside property development standard.

Type 2 – Requires personal interpretation / subjective judgment 12 Rows 3, 14, 16, 19, 20–21, 22, 23, 27, 29, 36, 37, 44 – e.g., “screened,” “equally effective,” “maximum extent practicable,” “comparable,” “integrated architectural component,” “accepted engineering standards,” “demonstrably superior” (§ 14.12.040 criteria) Type 3 – Relief available from City Council, Planning Commission, Design Review, city engineer or other city official in discretionary review but withheld from SB 35 ministerial applicant (Gov. Code § 65913.4(i)(1))
9 Rows 9–13 (via § 14.12.030 mechanisms AND § 14.12.040 City Council exception), 19, 22, 44, 46 Type 4 – No longstanding, consistent interpretation; City demands deference to its unique reading 1 Row 1 – local redefinition of “multifamily housing development” under SB 35 Type 5 – Argument over interpretation / ambiguity 9 Rows 1, 4, 14, 36, 37, 42, 43, 45, 47 (applicability/interpretation disputes incl. “private street” recharacterization)
Type 6 – Request for more information; not a determination of conflict → DEEMED SATISFIED by operation of law
36 of 46 (78%) Rows 6, 7, 9, 11–13, 15–19, 20–21, 22–24, 25–35 (all 11 ODS rows), 38–41, 42–47. Each such row carries the STATE-LAW NOTE: Gov. Code § 65913.4(c)(1) required a determination; an information request is “not a determination that the project conflicted” (AG Elk Grove p. 3); with no determination made, each standard is deemed satisfied (Ruegg & Ellsworth, 63 Cal.App.5th at 318).

Type 6 (NAF) – Standard attaches to an entitlement NOT APPLIED FOR 9 Rows 15 (fences – no fence entitlement sought), 17 (water-efficient landscape – <2,500 sf trigger not met, not applied for), 23 (fence buffer – no fence entitlement), and 42–47 (ALL six Title 15 rows – no subdivision applied for, per the City’s own project description: application “does not appear to propose a subdivision of land”)
Type 7 – No careful explanation of conflict within statutory 30/60-day period (Ruegg & Ellsworth) 35 Same rows as Type 6 except row 45; most extreme: Fire rows 40–41 (one conclusory sentence citing entire code chapters and “all applicable” NFPA standards) Type 9 – Standard applied to defeat, rather than facilitate, General Plan density / RHNA 1 Row 4 (use restriction); applies globally – restrictions enforced to prevent development rather than “facilitate and accommodate” density (Gov. Code § 65589.5(f)(1), (j)(4)) Type 10 – SDBL waiver requested; standard cannot be applied (Gov. Code § 65915(e)(1)). (This does not detail the waivers applied for prior to the March 20, 2026 re-submittal) 5 Rows 2 (GP height), 5 (setbacks), 6 (height), 9 (stepback), 11 (natural state) Column 4 = “Y” (external, uniform, unchanging benchmark; outside all 10 types) 1 Row 8 only (ADU max, Gov. Code § 66323(a)(2)) – and even it is factually misapplied: the letter’s own lot inventory shows ONE detached ADU on Lot 011-031-45, contradicting the finding. Row 45 (sidewalks) reclassified N under updated Type 6 NAF – Title 15 standard for a subdivision never applied for.

Column 4 = “N” (standard falls within one or more of the 10 non-objective / non-allowable types as applied)
45 All remaining rows
Waivers applied for (Column 5 = Y) At least 5 Including height, setbacks, height, stepback, natural state – each nonetheless listed as an “inconsistency”
Code reference clearly quoted in letter (Column 6 = Y) 28 Operative text quoted or closely recited with section number Code reference only partially cited (Column 6 = Partial) 4 Rows 2, 3, 5, 18 – page/policy cites or paraphrase without operative text Category (Global Analysis) Count Rows / Notes
Code reference not quoted / no numbered citation (Column 6 = N) 14 Row 7; all 11 ODS rows (25–35 – no numbered ODS sections, URL-only citation); Fire rows 40–41 (no quoted text)
Rows with identified analytical inaccuracies (Column 7 substantive error noted) 20+ Incl. lot-by-lot analysis of unified 6-lot common site (rows 1, 4, 10); Subdivision Ordinance (Title 15) applied though the City itself describes the project as proposing no subdivision (rows 42–47 – NAF); “average” substituted for “range”/“distribution” tests (rows 36–37); finding contradicted by letter’s own lot inventory (row 8) or by acknowledged plan data (row 18); fence/landscape standards applied where no such entitlement was sought (rows 15, 17, 23 – NAF) Note: A single standard may fall within multiple classification types, so type counts exceed the 46-row total. Of the 46 standards analyzed, 36 (78%) rest on “insufficient information” findings. As to each, State law required the City to make a consistency or inconsistency determination within the 30/60-day statutory window (Gov. Code § 65913.4(c)(1)); a request for more information “is not a determination that the project conflicted” with any standard (AG Elk Grove Letter, p. 3). No inconsistency determination therefore exists as to any of those 36 standards, and each is deemed satisfied by operation of law (Ruegg & Ellsworth, 63 Cal.App.5th at 318). Nine of those rows are further inapplicable as NAF — they govern entitlements (fences, water-efficient landscape, and Title 15 subdivision approvals) that the applicant never applied for. Every Chapter 14.12 hillside standard is additionally non-objective under SRMC § 14.12.040, which vests the City Council with exception power over the entire chapter on subjective “demonstrably superior” criteria. The net result: only ONE of 46 standards (Row 8, the state ADU cap) presents an external, uniform, unchanging benchmark applied through an actual conflict determination but is incorrectly stated — and that lone finding is contradicted by the letter’s own lot-by-lot project description, and the ADU processing fails to take into account that the application is for multifamily housing. It is possible that the impermissible standards advanced by San Rafael fall into even more of the categories than the above analysis.
63 15Complaint and Writ, amended and filed August 4,
2026. United States District Court for the Northern
District of California, before Honorable Judge Laurel
Beeler.

THIRD AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES AND PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDATE – CASE NO. 3:25-cv-04904-LB
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 14
15 16
17 18
19 20
21 22
23 24
25 26
27 28

COX, CASTLE &

NICHOLSON LLP

ATTORNEYS AT LAW

SAN FRANCISCO

COX, CASTLE & NICHOLSON LLP
Andrew B. Sabey (Bar No. 160416)
Scott B. Birkey (Bar No. 209981)
Eric J. Cohn (Bar No. 324818)
50 California Street, Suite 3200
San Francisco, California 94111-4710
Telephone: (415) 262-5100
Facsimile: (415) 262-5199
Email: [email protected];
[email protected]; [email protected]
Attorneys for Plaintiff

RIVER LANDON LLC

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

RIVER LANDON LLC,
Plaintiff,
v.

MICAH HINKLE, SAN RAFAEL

COMMUNITY AND ECONOMIC
DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR, in his
official capacity, MARGARET

KAVANAUGH-LYNCH, PLANNING

MANAGER OF THE SAN RAFAEL
CITY PLANNING DIVISION, in her
official capacity, KATE COLIN,

MAYOR OF CITY OF SAN RAFAEL,
in her official capacity, CITY OF SAN
RAFAEL, a municipal corporation;

CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF

SAN RAFAEL,
Defendants.

Case No. 3:25-cv-04904-LB

THIRD AMENDED COMPLAINT

AND PETITION FOR WRIT OF
MANDATE (CAL. CODE CIV.

PROC. §§ 1085, 1094.5) FOR:
(1) TAKINGS WITHOUT JUST
COMPENSATION;
(2) TEMPORARY TAKINGS WITHOUT
JUST COMPENSATION;
(3) VIOLATIONS OF FEDERAL AND
STATE PROCEDURAL DUE PROCESS;
(4) VIOLATIONS OF FEDERAL AND
STATE SUBSTANTIVE DUE PROCESS;
(5) VIOLATION OF GOVERNMENT
CODE SECTION 65913.4 (FAILURE TO

CARRY OUT MINISTERIAL SCOPING
CONSULTATION DUTY);
(6) VIOLATION OF GOVERNMENT
CODE SECTION 65913.4 (UNLAWFUL

INCONSISTENCY DETERMINATION
AND TREATMENT FOR 29-UNIT
PROJECT);
(7) VIOLATION OF GOVERNMENT
CODE SECTION 65913.4 (UNLAWFUL

INCONSISTENCY DETERMINATION
AND TREATMENT FOR 14-UNIT
PROJECT);
(8) VIOLATION OF GOVERNMENT
Case 3:25-cv-04904-LB Document 60 Filed 08/04/26 Page 1 of 344 - 2 -
THIRD AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES AND PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDATE – CASE NO. 3:25-cv-04904-LB
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 14
15 16
17 18
19 20
21 22
23 24
25 26
27 28

COX, CASTLE &

NICHOLSON LLP

ATTORNEYS AT LAW

SAN FRANCISCO
CODE SECTION 65913.4 (UNLAWFUL
FAILURE TO PROCESS SB 35 PROJECT

RESUBMITTAL)
(9) VIOLATIONS OF MANDATORY

DUTY(S) UNDER GOVERNMENT CODE
SECTION 65913.4;
(10) VIOLATION OF GOVERNMENT
CODE SECTION 65589.5 (UNLAWFUL

DISAPPROVAL FROM NEVER-ENDING
SCOPING CONSULTATION);
(11) VIOLATION OF GOVERNMENT
CODE SECTION 65589.5 (SUBSEQUENT
UNLAWFUL DISAPPROVAL OF 29-
UNIT PROJECT);
(12) VIOLATION OF GOVERNMENT
CODE SECTION 65589.5 (UNLAWFUL
DISAPPROVAL OF 14-UNIT PROJECT);
(13) VIOLATION OF GOVERNMENT
CODE SECTION 65589.5 (UNLAWFUL

DISAPPROVAL BY COURSE OF
CONDUCT).
(JURY TRIAL DEMANDED)
Plaintiff RIVER LANDON LLC (“Plaintiff” or “River Landon”) hereby alleges and complains against Defendants, MICAH P. HINKLE, SAN RAFAEL COMMUNITY AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR (the “CED
Director”), in his official capacity, MARGARET KAVANAUGH-LYNCH,

PLANNING MANAGER OF THE SAN RAFAEL CITY PLANNING DIVISION (the “Planning Manager”), in her official capacity; KATE COLIN, MAYOR OF CITY OF SAN RAFAEL, in her official capacity, CITY OF SAN RAFAEL, and CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN RAFAEL (“City Council” and collectively the “City” or “Defendants”), as follows:

I. INTRODUCTION

1. California has a housing crisis. The California Legislature (“Legislature”) has found that “[t]he lack of housing . . . is a critical problem that threatens the economic, environmental, and social quality of life in California.” Case 3:25-cv-04904-LB Document 60 Filed 08/04/26 Page 2 of 344 - 3 -
THIRD AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES AND PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDATE – CASE NO. 3:25-cv-04904-LB
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 14
15 16
17 18
19 20
21 22
23 24
25 26
27 28

COX, CASTLE &

NICHOLSON LLP

ATTORNEYS AT LAW

SAN FRANCISCO
(Gov. Code, § 65589.5, subd. (a)(1)(A).) This crisis is “hurting millions of Californians, robbing future generations of the chance to call California home, stifling economic opportunities for workers and businesses, worsening poverty and homelessness, and undermining the state’s environmental and climate objectives.” (Id., subd. (a)(2)(A).)

2. To address the housing crisis, the Legislature has adopted and strengthened state housing law to restrain local agency disapproval of housing development.

3. This case presents a microcosm of the problem the Legislature has sought to remedy. The City’s actions, and inactions, regarding Plaintiff’s housing development efforts on Plaintiff’s real property—consisting of six vacant lots along Coleman Drive in the City with Assessor Parcel Numbers (“APNs”) 011-031-44 through and including 011-031-49 (collectively, the “Property”)—is an example of how local governments abuse their position to deny new housing under the notion they are “protecting” existing homeowners. The state’s housing crisis is the collective result of this political self-preservation, played out again and again across the state.

4. The City, inclusive of the Mayor and City Council, Planning Manager, and CED Director, has refused, through successive and shifting “justifications,” to allow housing of any scale on Plaintiff’s Property, which land has long been designated by the City for residential use.

5. For over five years, Plaintiff has sought in good faith to develop housing on the Property, submitting multiple housing development project iterations to the City for processing under both local and state housing laws.

6. Plaintiff’s unsuccessful housing development efforts of the Property have included proposals for: (a) a two-unit housing development project (the “TwoUnit Project”) on a portion of the Property processed under the City’s local Case 3:25-cv-04904-LB Document 60 Filed 08/04/26 Page 3 of 344 - 4 -
THIRD AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES AND PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDATE – CASE NO. 3:25-cv-04904-LB
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 14
15 16
17 18
19 20
21 22
23 24
25 26
27 28

COX, CASTLE &

NICHOLSON LLP

ATTORNEYS AT LAW

SAN FRANCISCO
controls; (b) a 29-unit housing development project, which included six units for low-income households (the “29-Unit Project”) processed under state housing laws, including Senate Bill (“SB”) 35 (set forth in California Government Code section 65913.4) and the “Builder’s Remedy” (set forth in subdivision (d) of California Government Code section 65589.5); and (3) a reduced density (14-unit) housing development project, inclusive of one unit for low-income households (the “14- Unit Project”) submitted at the unit count the City itself identified as potentially acceptable for processing pursuant to the City’s Housing Element, SB 35, and the State Density Bonus Law (“SDBL”) (set forth in California Government Code section 65915).

7. Through these serial disapprovals over a five-year period, the City has rendered futile any efforts to develop the Property—leaving the Property without any economically viable use. Thus, perpetuating a taking of the Property for which just compensation is required pursuant to the Constitutions of the State of California and the United States of America.

8. Along the way the City has engaged in a pattern of unlawful acts in its “processing” of the 29-Unit Project and 14-Unit Project (as well as the Two-Unit Project). The City perpetuated several violations of state housing law—namely, violations of the City’s ministerial obligations under SB 35 and violations of the Housing Accountability Act (“HAA”) as set forth in California Government Code section 65589.5, each several times over.

9. The City exploited the mandatory scoping consultation process under SB 35 to impose a never-ending standstill of the 29-Unit Project that served no legitimate government purpose, but rather was intended to thwart Plaintiff’s lawful use of the Property. In addition to violating SB 35 and the City’s ministerial obligations under the law, this denied Plaintiff any economically viable use of the Property while the City condemned it to endless processing delay, perpetuating a Case 3:25-cv-04904-LB Document 60 Filed 08/04/26 Page 4 of 344 - 5 -
THIRD AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES AND PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDATE – CASE NO. 3:25-cv-04904-LB
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 14
15 16
17 18
19 20
21 22
23 24
25 26
27 28

COX, CASTLE &

NICHOLSON LLP

ATTORNEYS AT LAW

SAN FRANCISCO
temporary taking of the Property for which just compensation is required pursuant to the Constitutions of the State of California and the United States of America.

10. More specifically, during the approximately two-year “scoping consultation” standstill, Plaintiff was foreclosed from any economically viable use of the vacant Property. Because Plaintiff had commenced processing the 29-Unit Project under the SB 35 framework, the purpose of which is to avoid the City’s adverse exercise of discretion toward development of the Property and to expedite approval of housing, Plaintiff was practically precluded from pursuing any alternative development pathway for the Property while SB 35’s streamlined ministerial process remained pending for the 29-Unit Project. No reasonable property owner would simultaneously incur the substantial cost, time, and design burden of pursuing multiple separate entitlement pathways on the same property at the same time, especially while a statutorily streamlined, ministerial process is pending. The City’s exploitation of SB 35’s scoping consultation process constituted a temporary takings of the Property.

11. The City’s review and processing of the 29-Unit Project and 14-Unit Project have been marred by a pattern of unlawful delay, arbitrary conduct, and discriminatory treatment that violates state housing laws and both state and federal constitutional guarantees of due process. Rather than perform its ministerial duties under the law, the City has engaged in obstructionist tactics that serve no legitimate governmental purpose and have denied Petitioner a fair and lawful procedure under the Constitutions of the State of California and the United States of America.

12. By this lawsuit, Plaintiff seeks just compensation and to recover the damages it has incurred as a result of the City’s failure to comply with its ministerial obligations and by the City’s unlawful, discriminatory, arbitrary, and capricious conduct in its review and processing of the 29-Unit Project and/or 14- Unit Project. If Plaintiff has not already lost the Property as a consequence of Case 3:25-cv-04904-LB Document 60 Filed 08/04/26 Page 5 of 344 - 6 -
THIRD AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES AND PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDATE – CASE NO. 3:25-cv-04904-LB
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 14
15 16
17 18
19 20
21 22
23 24
25 26
27 28

COX, CASTLE &

NICHOLSON LLP

ATTORNEYS AT LAW

SAN FRANCISCO
Defendants’ actions, Plaintiff also seeks an order compelling the City to process and/or approve the 29-Unit Project and/or 14-Unit Project in accordance with the City’s legal obligations and applicable procedural requirements under SB 35 and other state housing laws, including the HAA and SDBL.

II. THE PARTIES

13. Plaintiff is a New Mexico limited liability company, which as an LLC is not required to be registered with the California Secretary of State.

14. Plaintiff is the “proponent” and “applicant,” as those terms are used in SB 35 and the HAA, for the 29-Unit Project and 14-Unit Project on the Property.

15. The City of San Rafael is a municipal corporation and charter city, organized and existing under the laws of the state of California, with the capacity to sue and be sued and is charged with complying with its duties under the laws and Constitutions of the State of California and the United States of America.

16. The Planning Manager is a City official responsible for among other things, overseeing the Planning Division with, and its staff-level decisions related to development applications, including applications and notices of intent submitted pursuant to SB 35.

17. The CED Director is a chief administrative officer of the Community & Economic Development department, which houses within it the Planning Division. The CED Director, among other things, has responsibility of overseeing Planning Manager and staff-level decisions on and related to development applications, including applications and notices of intent submitted pursuant to SB

35. 18. The City Council is the duly elected legislative body empowered and obligated to lead the City’s decision-making, policymaking and compliance with state and federal laws, as well as implementation of the City’s municipal code.

19. The Mayor is the leader of the City Council.

Case 3:25-cv-04904-LB Document 60 Filed 08/04/26 Page 6 of 344 - 7 -
THIRD AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES AND PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDATE – CASE NO. 3:25-cv-04904-LB
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 14
15 16
17 18
19 20
21 22
23 24
25 26
27 28

COX, CASTLE &

NICHOLSON LLP

ATTORNEYS AT LAW

SAN FRANCISCO

20. The City, inclusive of its Planning Manager, the CED Director, the Mayor, and City Council is subject to the requirements of SB 35 and the HAA, amongst other laws of the state of California and the United States of America and Constitutions of the State of California and the United States of America.

III. JURISDICTION AND VENUE

21. This Court has subject matter jurisdiction over this action because the complaint presents federal constitutional claims that may be brought in the U.S.

District Court in the first instance.

22. Alternatively, this Court has subject matter jurisdiction over this action pursuant to diversity of citizenship of the parties.

23. For purposes of diversity jurisdiction, the citizenship of a limited liability company, such as Plaintiff, is determined by the citizenship of each of its members.

24. The member of Plaintiff and his state of citizenship is as follows:

Mountain Investments, a New Mexico business trust 100% owned by Jim Miller, an individual citizen of New Mexico. Jim Miller is also the trustee of Mountain Investments.

25. This Court has personal jurisdiction over the Defendants who are all citizens of California, or creatures of California State Law, and venue is proper in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District because the land and the City are in Marin County, which lies within the Northern District.

26. Plaintiff has exhausted any and all administrative remedies available to Plaintiff to the extent required by law and has performed any and all conditions precedent to filing this action.

IV. BACKGROUND FACTS
A. The Property

27. The Property is approximately 1.4 acres.

28. The Property is vacant.

Case 3:25-cv-04904-LB Document 60 Filed 08/04/26 Page 7 of 344 - 8 -
THIRD AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES AND PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDATE – CASE NO. 3:25-cv-04904-LB
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 14
15 16
17 18
19 20
21 22
23 24
25 26
27 28

COX, CASTLE &

NICHOLSON LLP

ATTORNEYS AT LAW

SAN FRANCISCO

29. The Property is adjacent to existing residential development to the north, south, east (across Coleman Drive), and west.

30. The Property has, and as relevant hereto, has had a residential designation in the City’s General Plan (the “General Plan”). Specifically, the Property has a General Plan designation of “Low Density Residential.” The Low Density Residential designation allows a range of 2.2 to 8.7 dwelling units per acre.

31. The Property is, and at all times relevant hereto has been, located within a residential zoning district. Specifically, the Property is within the singlefamily “R10” zoning district.

32. SB 35 applies to any site that is zoned for residential use and/or has a general plan designation that allows residential use, which includes sites zoned and/or designated for single-family residential use.

33. The Property is located within a “high resource” census tract, as identified by the latest (2025) edition of the “CTAC/HCD Opportunity Map” published by the California Tax Credit Allocation Committee and the Department of Housing and Community Development.

34. The Property is not located within a designated, precisely mapped, environmentally sensitive area listed in California Government Code section 65913.4 subdivisions (a)(9)(A)–(C), (H)–(J)—i.e., coastal zone, prime farmland, farmland of statewide importance, or land zoned or designated for agricultural protection or preservation by a local ballot measure that was approved by the voters of that jurisdiction; wetlands; within a high or very high fire hazard zone; land identified for conservation in certain types of conservation plans; habitat for protected species; or land under conservation easement.

35. The Property is not located within other designated, precisely mapped, environmentally sensitive areas, which would require a SB 35 project to meet specified requirements (as specified in California Government Code section Case 3:25-cv-04904-LB Document 60 Filed 08/04/26 Page 8 of 344 - 9 -
THIRD AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES AND PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDATE – CASE NO. 3:25-cv-04904-LB
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 14
15 16
17 18
19 20
21 22
23 24
25 26
27 28

COX, CASTLE &

NICHOLSON LLP

ATTORNEYS AT LAW

SAN FRANCISCO
65913.4 subdivisions (a)(9)(D)–(G))—i.e., a hazardous waste site; within a delineated earthquake fault zone; within a special flood hazard area subject to inundation by the 1-percent annual chance flood (100-year flood); or within a regulatory floodway.

B. Plaintiff’s Housing Development Efforts of the Property The Two-Unit Project and the City’s Hamster Wheel of
“Incompleteness” Determinations

36. On October 15, 2020, Plaintiff submitted an application to the City for the Two-Unit Project on a portion of the Property. The Two-Unit Project was consistent with the City’s residential designation and zoning for the Property, as well as applicable, objective land use controls that the City was allowed to apply to the Two-Unit Project.

37. On November 20, 2020, the City determined the application for the Two-Unit Project was incomplete1 and the City could not process the Two-Unit Project until the application was determined to be complete, such as by addressing the incomplete items identified by the City.

38. On February 15, 2021, in response to and having addressed the incomplete items previously identified by the City, Plaintiff re-submitted the TwoUnit Project to the City, for a second time.

39. On March 16, 2021, the City again determined the application for the Two-Unit Project was incomplete. The City included new reasons for the incompleteness determination not previously identified as well as items that had already been addressed by Plaintiff.

40. On June 15, 2021, in response to and having addressed the incomplete 1 Under the Permit Streamlining Act (“PSA”), the City is required to determine whether a housing development project application is complete within 30 days of receipt of the application. (Cal.

Gov. Code, § 65943, subd. (a).) Further, the PSA prevents the City from “moving the goalposts” by limiting subsequent completeness determinations to items previously listed and prohibiting “the [development project] applicant [from being required] to provide any new information that was not stated in the initial list of items that were not complete.” (Id.) Case 3:25-cv-04904-LB Document 60 Filed 08/04/26 Page 9 of 344 - 10 -
THIRD AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES AND PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDATE – CASE NO. 3:25-cv-04904-LB
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 14
15 16
17 18
19 20
21 22
23 24
25 26
27 28

COX, CASTLE &

NICHOLSON LLP

ATTORNEYS AT LAW

SAN FRANCISCO
items previously identified by the City, Plaintiff re-submitted the Two-Unit Project to the City, for a third time.

41. On July 16, 2021, the City again determined the application for the Two-Unit Project was incomplete. The City included new reasons for the incompleteness determination not previously identified.

42. On October 29, 2021, in response to and having addressed the incomplete items previously identified by the City, Plaintiff re-submitted the TwoUnit Project to the City, for a fourth time.

43. Between December 17, 2021 and December 21, 2021, the City again determined the application for the Two-Unit Project was incomplete. The City included new reasons for the incompleteness determination not previously identified as well as items that had already been addressed by Plaintiff.

44. On January 29, 2022, in response to and having addressed the incomplete items previously identified by the City, Plaintiff re-submitted the TwoUnit Project to the City, for a fifth time.

45. On March 25, 2022, the City again determined the application for the Two-Unit Project was incomplete. The City included new reasons for the incompleteness determination not previously identified.

46. On April 8, 2022, in response to and having addressed the incomplete items previously identified by the City, Plaintiff re-submitted the Two-Unit Project to the City, for a sixth time.

47. On May 11, 2022, the City again determined the application for the Two-Unit Project was incomplete. The City included new reasons for the incompleteness determination not previously identified as well as items that had already been addressed by Plaintiff.

48. On July 27, 2022, in response to and having addressed the incomplete items previously identified by the City, Plaintiff re-submitted the Two-Unit Project Case 3:25-cv-04904-LB Document 60 Filed 08/04/26 Page 10 of 344 - 11 -
THIRD AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES AND PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDATE – CASE NO. 3:25-cv-04904-LB
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 14
15 16
17 18
19 20
21 22
23 24
25 26
27 28

COX, CASTLE &

NICHOLSON LLP

ATTORNEYS AT LAW

SAN FRANCISCO
to the City, for a seventh time—expressly indicating to the City that “surely this MUST now be complete.”

49. On August 25, 2022, the City again determined the application for the Two-Unit Project was incomplete. The City included new reasons for the incompleteness determination not previously identified as well as items that had already been addressed by Plaintiff.

50. On September 12, 2022, in response to and having addressed the incomplete items previously identified by the City, Plaintiff re-submitted the TwoUnit Project to the City, for an eighth time.

51. On or around October 11, 2022, the City finally determined the application for the Two-Unit Project was complete. However, three weeks or so later in several communication, the City advised Plaintiff to withdraw the Two-Unit Project application and to proceed instead under an alternative state housing law entitlement pathway, citing “neighborhood opposition” and the City’s view that such an approach would better shield the Two-Unit Project from third party criticism.

52. Because proceeding under the alternative state housing law would have required a new design, substantial additional cost, and not allowed Plaintiff to achieve its distinct investment backed expectations for the Property (given the myriad requirements and limitations of that state housing law), after already two years of delay without much progress, Plaintiff could not pursue the project.

53. The City’s handling of the Two-Unit Project reflected a consistent City objective of avoiding residential use on the Property.

The 29-Unit (SB 35) Project and the Never-Ending SB 35 “Scoping Consultation”

54. Having incurred significant expense and delay without progress, Plaintiff proposed the 29-Unit Project on the Property, inclusive of 11 accessory Case 3:25-cv-04904-LB Document 60 Filed 08/04/26 Page 11 of 344 - 12 -
THIRD AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES AND PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDATE – CASE NO. 3:25-cv-04904-LB
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 14
15 16
17 18
19 20
21 22
23 24
25 26
27 28

COX, CASTLE &

NICHOLSON LLP

ATTORNEYS AT LAW

SAN FRANCISCO
dwelling units and six units of which were designated for low-income households.

55. On May 15, 2023, the City received an SB 35 “notice of intent” for the 29-Unit Project (the “Notice of Intent”) in the form of an SB 330 preliminary application.

56. The Notice of Intent included all of the information required by SB 35 for an SB 35 notice of intent.

57. At the time of receipt, the City’s Housing Element had not been found by the California Department of Housing and Community Development (“HCD”) to be in substantial compliance with California State Housing Element Law. This placed the City squarely within the scope of the “Builder’s Remedy” at the time the 29-Unit Project was submitted to the City, and thereby vested Plaintiff’s rights to the Builder’s Remedy for the 29-Unit Project.

58. On or around June 14, 2023, the City confirmed to Plaintiff that the Notice of Intent was complete, and Plaintiff had obtained vested rights to the 29- Unit Project as of May 15, 2023.

59. The receipt of the Notice of Intent also commenced the City’s statutory SB 35 “scoping consultation” requirements.

60. On June 13, 2023, the City purportedly provided notice of the Notice of Intent to California Native American tribes that are traditionally and culturally affiliated with the geographic area of the Property.

61. The notice purportedly included an invitation to engage in a scoping consultation in accordance with SB 35.

62. On June 22, 2023, Federated Indians of Graton Rancheria (“FIGR”) accepted the scoping consultation invitation.

63. On July 14, 2023, the City communicated to Plaintiff that FIGR had accepted the scoping consultation invitation. As part of that communication, the City informed Plaintiff that it had provided the Notice of Intent, 29-Unit Project Case 3:25-cv-04904-LB Document 60 Filed 08/04/26 Page 12 of 344 - 13 -
THIRD AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES AND PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDATE – CASE NO. 3:25-cv-04904-LB
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 14
15 16
17 18
19 20
21 22
23 24
25 26
27 28

COX, CASTLE &

NICHOLSON LLP

ATTORNEYS AT LAW

SAN FRANCISCO
plans, and a geotechnical study for the Property to FIGR. The City further communicated that FIGR would like to receive any cultural resource assessments or other assessments that have been completed on all or part of the 29-Unit Project’s “potential area of project effect” (“APE”).

64. In July 2023, Plaintiff facilitated efforts for the City to commence the scoping consultation process with FIGR. Plaintiff connected the City with specialized archaeological consultants (the “Archeologists”) who were approved by FIGR to assist FIGR in preparing assessments for the 29-Unit Project’s APE.

65. Plaintiff is informed and believes and, on that basis, alleges that on August 14, 2023, the City met with FIGR to discuss the 29-Unit Project for the first time.

66. At the August 14, 2023 meeting, FIGR confirmed that it would proceed with the Archaeologists, identified by Plaintiff, for the 29-Unit Project’s SB 35 scoping consultation purposes.

67. On September 8, 2023, the Archeologists completed an archeological survey report for the Property (the “Archeological Survey”).

68. The Archeological Survey included a records search of all reports and resources within ¼-miles of the Property and surrounding lands (the “Project Area”), a review of applicable maps and ethnographic literature, outreach to Native American tribes, a geoarchaeological assessment of the Project Area which identified that the Project Area was “on a landform considered to be of low sensitivity for buried sites” and “on a prominent, exposed slope in a developed residential neighborhood” and as such “the potential for encountering subsurface archeological deposits is considered low,” an archeological field survey of the Project Area conducted by the Archeologists and cultural monitor for FIGR on September 7, 2023. Based thereon, the Archeological Survey concluded that “No cultural resources were identified within the Project Area as a result of the record Case 3:25-cv-04904-LB Document 60 Filed 08/04/26 Page 13 of 344 - 14 -
THIRD AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES AND PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDATE – CASE NO. 3:25-cv-04904-LB
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 14
15 16
17 18
19 20
21 22
23 24
25 26
27 28

COX, CASTLE &

NICHOLSON LLP

ATTORNEYS AT LAW

SAN FRANCISCO
search, literature review, Native American outreach, or archaeological field survey. [¶] As designed, the project will not cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a Tribal cultural resource….”

69. The Archeologists thereafter transmitted the Archaeological Survey to FIGR.

70. On November 9, 2023, Plaintiff submitted a complete formal application to the City for the 29-Unit Project (the “29-Unit Formal Application”).

71. The City accepted the 29-Unit Formal Application for processing, including by accepting, on or around November 8, 2023, Plaintiff’s payment of the 29-Unit Formal Application fees. Beyond accepting the 29-Unit Formal Application, the City failed to provide any response to Plaintiff that the 29-Unit Formal Application was incomplete or inconsistent. Nor did the City provide any notice to Plaintiff, around that time, that the 29-Unit Formal Application was not deemed submitted.

72. On November 20, 2023, Plaintiff discussed with the City the scheduling of a meeting between the City and FIGR to complete the scoping consultation given the Archaeological Survey conclusion of no tribal cultural resources at the Property.

73. Over the course of roughly four months, the City repeatedly claimed it was meeting with the tribal representatives but in fact no such records of meetings about the 29-Unit Project (as opposed to other matters in the City) exist or reflect any active “scoping consultation” as envisioned by SB 35. To the contrary, nothing discernible was accomplished. In reality, the City did nothing more than repeatedly schedule meetings (often after months of delay) with no agenda. Plaintiff continued to seek the conclusion of the scoping consultation process, but the City failed and refused.

74. On March 6, 2024, the City communicated to Plaintiff that FIGR has Case 3:25-cv-04904-LB Document 60 Filed 08/04/26 Page 14 of 344 - 15 -
THIRD AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES AND PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDATE – CASE NO. 3:25-cv-04904-LB
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 14
15 16
17 18
19 20
21 22
23 24
25 26
27 28

COX, CASTLE &

NICHOLSON LLP

ATTORNEYS AT LAW

SAN FRANCISCO
“requested some additional analysis for the project site” and the “City will need to accommodate this request.”

75. On March 12, 2024, Plaintiff contacted HCD, in its role of enforcing State housing laws against cities, and ensuring cities are accountable under the HAA, seeking its assistance for such, and to gain assistance to communicate to the City that the period for the purported scoping consultation was over and to start processing the Plaintiff’s 29-Unit (SB 35) Project. On March 19, 2024, HCD opened a matter for evaluation.

76. On March 13, 2024, Plaintiff again communicated to the City that the time for the scoping consultation to be completed is well overdue, inquired how the City’s actions in the scoping consultation have been meaningful and timely, and explained that Plaintiff was confused by the statement that some additional analysis was required when the “scoping consultation” had been underway for an extensive amount of time already.

77. On March 29, 2024, the City responded to Plaintiff that it had met with FIGR on August 3, 2023, January 3, 2024, and February 27, 2024, regarding the 29-Unit Project and in effort to complete the scoping consultation. The City informed Plaintiff that FIGR was requesting an extension of the ¼-mile radius conducted for the records search in the Archeological Survey to ½-mile. The City further informed Plaintiff that it would be following up with FIGR that same day on March 29, 2024, and will be scheduling a meeting with FIGR in early April 2024.

The Plaintiff inquired of the Archaeologists as to the nature of this request, and the founder of the Archaeologists, Alex DeGeorgey, responded that it was strange because a ½ mile radius is only ever used for larger uniquely Federal development projects.

78. On April 5, 2024, the Archeologists completed the additional records search with an extended ½-mile radius for previous studies and one-mile radius for Case 3:25-cv-04904-LB Document 60 Filed 08/04/26 Page 15 of 344 - 16 -
THIRD AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES AND PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDATE – CASE NO. 3:25-cv-04904-LB
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 14
15 16
17 18
19 20
21 22
23 24
25 26
27 28

COX, CASTLE &

NICHOLSON LLP

ATTORNEYS AT LAW

SAN FRANCISCO
known resources, as requested by FIGR, for the Property (the “Additional Records Search”). The Additional Records Search stated, amongst other things, that “[t]here are no cultural resources documented within the Project Area.”

79. The Additional Records Search was submitted to FIGR.

80. On April 5, 2024, the founder of the tribe’s approved Archeologists, Alex DeGeorgey, wrote to the Plaintiff and stated that the 29-Unit Project will not affect cultural resources.

81. On April 9, 2024, the Additional Records Search was provided to the City along with a request from Plaintiff to complete the scoping consultation by April 19, 2024.

82. On May 9, 2024, FIGR’s Tribal Chairman communicated directly face to face four times to Plaintiff that it was the City, and not FIGR, holding up the 29- Unit Project.

83. On May 29, 2024, Plaintiff communicated its understanding that the City had not met with FIGR regarding the scoping consultation since February 2024.

84. On May 29, 2024, Plaintiff also submitted a slightly amended application. The City accepted the amended 29-Unit Project application for processing. Beyond accepting the amended 29-Unit Project application, the City – again - failed to provide any response to Plaintiff that the amended 29-Unit Project application was incomplete or inconsistent.

85. On June 12, 2024, the City communicated to Plaintiff that the 29-Unit Project’s scoping “consultation process is not over as of this date.”

86. On June 13, 2024, the City communicated to Plaintiff that the City had met with FIGR on June 6, 2024, and that there has been agreement between the City and FIGR to proactively set up a standing monthly meeting “to establish a predictable pattern in which we will continue to meet and consult with the goal of Case 3:25-cv-04904-LB Document 60 Filed 08/04/26 Page 16 of 344 - 17 -
THIRD AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES AND PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDATE – CASE NO. 3:25-cv-04904-LB
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 14
15 16
17 18
19 20
21 22
23 24
25 26
27 28

COX, CASTLE &

NICHOLSON LLP

ATTORNEYS AT LAW

SAN FRANCISCO
moving to a conclusion of the consultation process.”

87. During early July 2024 the Plaintiff had repeated its insistence to meet to resolve the scoping consultation. On July 9, 2024, the Planning Manager did not take the required steps to conclude the consultation despite the absence of any justification to further extend the process.

88. On July 25, 2024, Plaintiff met with the City, specifically the Planning Manager and CED Director, to discuss the 29-Unit Project and the scoping consultation. At that meeting, amongst other things:
a. The CED Director stated that FIGR has not informed the City that there are cultural resources at the Property.
b. The CED Director stated to the Plaintiff that he had asked FIGR what their areas of concern are, asked that he have clarity, asked if there is anything else FIGR is looking for. The CED Director stated that FIGR did not state there are resources on the Property, and that he’s waiting for a response from them.
c. The Plaintiff asked, “what tribal cultural resources or potential tribal resources are under discussion”? The Planning Manager’s only response was “we are awaiting additional comments from them.”
d. Plaintiff informed the City that FIGR’s Tribal Chairman had communicated to Plaintiff that it was the City, and not FIGR, holding up the 29-Unit Project.
e. The Plaintiff asked why the City had approved only one single family home in the prior year, despite the City receiving large numbers of applications for single family home construction. The Planning Manager responded solely that the City doesn’t build housing.

Case 3:25-cv-04904-LB Document 60 Filed 08/04/26 Page 17 of 344 - 18 -
THIRD AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES AND PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDATE – CASE NO. 3:25-cv-04904-LB
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 14
15 16
17 18
19 20
21 22
23 24
25 26
27 28

COX, CASTLE &

NICHOLSON LLP

ATTORNEYS AT LAW

SAN FRANCISCO

89. Around this time, Plaintiff obtained and reviewed the (official) Annual Production Report of housing in City of San Rafael for 2023. This Annual Production Report for 2023 stated that the City had approved 162 condominiums but one single family home - despite the single-family zoned areas in the City being orders of magnitude larger than the small downtown area where the condominiums were approved.

90. On August 8, 2024, counsel for Plaintiff sent a letter to the City informing the City that it “has failed to carry out its ministerial duty to engage in a meaningful and timely scoping consultation process, and is instead weaponizing the consultation requirement to thwart this desperately needed housing project.” A true and correct copy of this letter is attached hereto as Exhibit A.

91. On October 4, 2024, outside counsel for the City responded to the August 8, 2024 letter disputing the contentions raised in that letter. The October 4, 2024 letter stated that the City has a follow-up meeting scheduled with FIGR for October 11, 2024 to continue the consultation.

92. On November 21, 2024, then-counsel for the Plaintiff and the City met by telephone, and counsel for the Plaintiff asked specifically for the City to put in writing its determination regarding the presence of any resources or state that it has not made a determination. The City refused.

93. On December 11, 2024, the Plaintiff met with a HCD Housing Policy Analyst and Housing Accountability Manager, that had been tasked to investigate the conduct of representatives of the City. The HCD representatives offered their assessment that this was indeed a “version of SB 35 blocking.”

94. On January 24, 2025, the city provided to the Plaintiff’s representative, in response to a California Public Records Act request multiple emails sent to FIGR by the City over the period from June 2023 to January 2025.

95. Just five days later, on January 29, 2025, the Archeologists contacted Case 3:25-cv-04904-LB Document 60 Filed 08/04/26 Page 18 of 344 - 19 -
THIRD AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES AND PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDATE – CASE NO. 3:25-cv-04904-LB
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 14
15 16
17 18
19 20
21 22
23 24
25 26
27 28

COX, CASTLE &

NICHOLSON LLP

ATTORNEYS AT LAW

SAN FRANCISCO
Plaintiff and informed Plaintiff that FIGR had requested a canine survey be conducted. Alex DeGeorgey archeologist wrote “Understandably this is unexpected, asking for more cultural resources and a seeming endless process with FIGR.” After almost two years of delay of the 29-Unit Project, Plaintiff was unwilling to conduct the canine survey without any assurance from the City and FIGR that doing so would conclude the otherwise endless scoping consultation.

96. While communications with the City in the recent prior period had been managed by HCD and attorney Brian O’Neill, on March 12, 2025, Plaintiff communicated to the City that Plaintiff has not heard from the City about the scoping consultation for several months—and that it was Plaintiff’s position that there was no scoping consultation being performed in violation of the City’s ministerial duty to do so under SB 35.

97. On March 13, 2025, the City communicated to Plaintiff that it would respond next week with a status update. The City did not in fact provide any update the following week or even the following month. Plaintiff insisted that the City conclude the purported scoping consultation.

98. On May 9, 2025, the City sent a letter to FIGR purporting to document that the City and FIGR had conducted numerous meetings and/or calls related to the scoping consultation. A true and correct copy of this letter is attached hereto as Exhibit B.

99. Plaintiff is informed and believes and, on that basis alleges, that the listed meetings and/or calls were not dedicated to Plaintiff’s 29-Unit Project, but rather a series of unrelated developments in the City’s downtown. The public records the City has produced in response to Plaintiff’s California Public Record Act requests evidence no such series of meetings regarding the Property. 100. The May 9, 2025 letter the City sent to FIGR provided:

The City is however, concerned that the consultation
process has not been “timely” as required by SB 35.

Case 3:25-cv-04904-LB Document 60 Filed 08/04/26 Page 19 of 344 - 20 -
THIRD AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES AND PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDATE – CASE NO. 3:25-cv-04904-LB
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 14
15 16
17 18
19 20
21 22
23 24
25 26
27 28

COX, CASTLE &

NICHOLSON LLP

ATTORNEYS AT LAW

SAN FRANCISCO
Throughout the meetings and ongoing consultation
process which began in May of 2023, FIGR has not
informed the City that a potential tribal cultural resource would be affected by the proposed development or that an enforceable agreement could not be documented between
FIGR and the City regarding methods, measures, and
conditions for treatment of any tribal cultural resource treatment.

The September 2023 cultural resources study conducted
by Alta on the project site and shared by FIGR with the City, did not reveal the presence or likelihood of any
tribal cultural resources. Nevertheless, the City
acknowledges that FIGR may still determine that a
potential tribal cultural resource would be affected by the proposed development. If FIGR intends to make this
determination, we ask that FIGR please inform the City of this fact within two weeks of the date of this letter. We also request that FIGR inform the City whether FIGR
believes that a mutual agreement on methods, measures,
and conditions to avoid or address impacts to tribal
cultural resources that are or may be present can be
reached.
101. Around this time, Plaintiff obtained and reviewed the official Annual Production Report of housing in City of San Rafael for calendar year 2024. This Annual Production Report for 2024 stated that the City had approved 204 condominiums but zero single family homes - despite the single-family zoned areas being orders of magnitude larger than the small downtown area where the condominiums were approved.
102. On May 15, 2025, counsel for Plaintiff sent a letter to the City stating that the City has been well-advised of its failure to carry out its ministerial scoping consultation duty under SB 35—and that the City’s disregard for its ministerial duties under the law have consequences. A true and correct copy of this letter is attached hereto as Exhibit C.
103. On May 28, 2025, the City informed Plaintiff, upon Plaintiff’s prompting, that FIGR responded that it would like to meet with the City.

Litigation Prompts the City to Quickly Document an Enforceable Agreement with FIGR and Process the 29-Unit Project, Only for the City to Further Violate Its SB 35 Obligations
Case 3:25-cv-04904-LB Document 60 Filed 08/04/26 Page 20 of 344 - 21 -
THIRD AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES AND PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDATE – CASE NO. 3:25-cv-04904-LB
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 14
15 16
17 18
19 20
21 22
23 24
25 26
27 28

COX, CASTLE &

NICHOLSON LLP

ATTORNEYS AT LAW

SAN FRANCISCO
104. The City’s inaction forced Plaintiff to file the original action. 105. At the time of Plaintiff’s filing of the initial Complaint for Damages and Petition for Writ of Mandate in this action, on June 10, 2025, the City continued the purported, endless and undocumented scoping consultation the real purpose of which appears to have been to avoid processing Plaintiff’s 29-Unit (SB 35) Project, which should have been approved long ago and fully processed under the accelerated, ministerial timeline envisioned by SB 35. 106. Under SB 35, “a scoping consultation shall be deemed to be concluded if … [t]he parties to the scoping consultation document an enforceable agreement concerning methods, measures, and conditions to avoid or address potential impacts to tribal cultural resources that are or may be present.” (Cal. Gov.

Code, § 65913.4, subd. (b)(2)(D).)
107. Within a mere 20 days of Plaintiff’s filing this action, on June 30, 2025, the City, FIGR, and Plaintiff had documented an enforceable agreement to address and protect cultural and tribal cultural resources, if any, located at the Property (the “Enforceable Agreement”). The City’s manufacturing of a two-year delay and then entering into the Enforceable Agreement within just three weeks of being sued is an abuse of governmental power that violates Plaintiff’s Constitutional rights.
108. Plaintiff is informed and believes that it was never invited to participate in the scoping consultation before filing this action. The City identified no affected tribal cultural resource nor potential tribal cultural resource and produced no documented, project-specific consultation record sufficient to justify the delay, despite two investigations finding none; its execution of the Enforceable Agreement within 20 days after suit was filed further shows that the preceding delay was unnecessary.
109. The City acknowledged the 29-Unit (SB 35) Project was deemed Case 3:25-cv-04904-LB Document 60 Filed 08/04/26 Page 21 of 344 - 22 -
THIRD AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES AND PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDATE – CASE NO. 3:25-cv-04904-LB
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 14
15 16
17 18
19 20
21 22
23 24
25 26
27 28

COX, CASTLE &

NICHOLSON LLP

ATTORNEYS AT LAW

SAN FRANCISCO
submitted upon documentation of the Enforceable Agreement on June 30, 2025. 110. Notwithstanding there are no provisions in SB 35 that allow a local government to review an SB 35 application for completeness, on July 23, 2025, the City determined the 29-Unit (SB 35) Project was “incomplete.” 111. On August 27, 2025, the City issued a letter to Plaintiff determining that the 29-Unit Project was inconsistent with City standards as well as State law, and as such the City cannot approve the 29-Unit Project. The City claimed this inconsistency determination was made in compliance with the requirements of SB 35, but, in fact, it violates SB 35. The 29-Unit Project was consistent with the standards and requirements that the City was allowed to apply to the 29-Unit Project, as controlled by SB 35 and other state housing laws. 112. On September 28, 2025, the City issued a subsequent letter to Plaintiff confirming its disapproval of the 29-Unit Project, stating:

On August 27, 2025, the City issued written
correspondence identifying inconsistencies with objective City zoning, subdivision and design review standards as well as State laws, including SB 35. This letter confirms that the [29-Unit Project] development application cannot be approved for the preceding reasons, and the City
therefore has no duty and declines to approve the [29-Unit Project] application pursuant to Government Code section 65913.4(d)(1)(A).

The August 27, 2025 letter relied on subjective, inapplicable, post-entitlement, or waived provisions rather than identifying and explaining an actual conflict with an applicable objective planning standard.

The 14-Unit (SB 35) Project Submitted at the Unit Count the City Itself Identified as Potentially Acceptable, Yet Still Disapproved 113. In August 2025, the City and Plaintiff discussed a housing development project at a unit count of 14 units, which unit count the City itself identified and communicated to Plaintiff as acceptable for processing in accordance with the City’s Housing Element and pursuant to SB 35 and SDBL.

Case 3:25-cv-04904-LB Document 60 Filed 08/04/26 Page 22 of 344 - 23 -
THIRD AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES AND PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDATE – CASE NO. 3:25-cv-04904-LB
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 14
15 16
17 18
19 20
21 22
23 24
25 26
27 28

COX, CASTLE &

NICHOLSON LLP

ATTORNEYS AT LAW

SAN FRANCISCO
114. Thereafter, to address the City’s expressed concerns (even if not meritorious) regarding the 29-Unit Project, Plaintiff expended the time and resources necessary to reconfigure its plans and submitted the 14-Unit (SB 35) Project, which consisted of 14 housing units, inclusive of six accessory dwelling units and one unit for low-income households, together with related landscaping, amenities, an internal roadway, and parking.
115. On October 1, 2025, Plaintiff, through its counsel, sent a letter to the City regarding the 14-Unit Project. This letter was sent to help the City’s review of the 14-Unit Project in accordance with state law.
116. On October 6, 2025, the City issued a letter to Plaintiff determining that the 14-Unit Project was inconsistent with City standards as well as State law, and as such the City cannot approve the 14-Unit Project. This letter largely repeated the “inconsistencies” identified in the August 27, 2025 letter for the 29- Unit Project. The City claimed this inconsistency determination was made in compliance with the requirements of SB 35, but, in fact, it was a violation of SB 35.

The 14-Unit Project was consistent with the standards and requirements that the City was allowed to apply to the 14-Unit Project, as controlled by SB 35 and other state housing laws.
117. On October 20, 2025, Plaintiff, through its counsel, notified the City that the City has made it clear that any entitlement efforts by Plaintiff are futile— and, as such, Plaintiff would no longer continue with any informal communications or tinkering with project elements. That communication stated:

The City’s August 27, 2025, letter regarding the original 29-unit project, and the City’s October 6, 2025, letter regarding the reduced density 14-unit project, which we had understood the City would process for approval as a good faith effort toward settlement, do not demonstrate the City’s willingness to take seriously its obligations under either SB 35 or the Housing Accountability Act to properly process entitlement applications
for any residential development on the Coleman site.

Case 3:25-cv-04904-LB Document 60 Filed 08/04/26 Page 23 of 344 - 24 -
THIRD AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES AND PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDATE – CASE NO. 3:25-cv-04904-LB
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 14
15 16
17 18
19 20
21 22
23 24
25 26
27 28

COX, CASTLE &

NICHOLSON LLP

ATTORNEYS AT LAW

SAN FRANCISCO
The October 6, 2025 letter repeatedly stated that information was insufficient or that consistency could not be determined, rather than identifying and explaining an actual conflict with an applicable objective standard; it also omitted the attachedunit theory first raised on December 3, 2025 after the 60-day period expired. 118. It appears that the Defendants rely on their inability to precisely define the term “multifamily” as used in SB 35 as a basis to deny the consistency of the current project even though their inability to define the term to their satisfaction actually means they must approve the project. State law mandates that local agencies interpret the law in favor of housing and that the law must be interpreted in favor of the reasonable understanding of the project applicant. Furthermore, the City’s published eligibility criteria for use of SB 35 makes clear that the “multifamily” criterion is satisfied by “verifying the development contains at least two or more net new residential units.” SB 35’s purpose is to ensure applicants can readily determine compliance through knowable and verifiable requirements.

C. Exhaustion of Administrative Remedies
119. Plaintiff has exhausted any and all administrative remedies available to Plaintiff to the extent required by law.
120. In addition, and alternatively, Plaintiff alleges it would be futile, under the circumstances, to require Plaintiff to engage in the administrative process because the City has created an endless loop process, and it is the process itself that presents the basis of the claim. The City’s practice has been to hide behind an alleged ongoing process as a means of staving off Plaintiff’s ability to proceed with the SB 35 ministerial approval. Through delay tactics over the course of more than two and one-half years the City has already communicated a final decision on the matter, which is that it will take whatever steps are necessary to continue to deny Plaintiff the ability to pursue the ministerial SB 35 process by misusing the scoping consultation step as a condition precedent to actually processing the application.

Case 3:25-cv-04904-LB Document 60 Filed 08/04/26 Page 24 of 344 - 25 -
THIRD AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES AND PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDATE – CASE NO. 3:25-cv-04904-LB
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 14
15 16
17 18
19 20
21 22
23 24
25 26
27 28

COX, CASTLE &

NICHOLSON LLP

ATTORNEYS AT LAW

SAN FRANCISCO
121. This futility was corroborated by the City’s subsequent conduct after this litigation began.

D. HCD’s SB 35 Guidelines Have Been Repealed, Plaintiff’s 29-Unit Project and 14-Unit Project are Attached, Multifamily Housing for Purposes of SB 35
122. SB 35 provides that HCD “may review, adopt, amend, and repeal guidelines to implement uniform standards or criteria that supplement or clarify the terms, references, or standards set forth in this section.” 123. To help jurisdictions implement SB 35, HCD issued Streamlined Ministerial Approval Process Guidelines” (“Original Guidelines”) on November 29, 2018.
124. The term “multifamily” is not defined in SB 35. However, in the Original Guidelines, HCD defined “multifamily” to mean: “a housing development with two or more attached residential units. The definition does not include accessory dwelling units unless the project is for new construction of a singlefamily home with an attached accessory dwelling units in a zone that allows for multifamily. Please note, accessory dwelling units have a separate permitting process pursuant to Government Code section 65852.2.”
125. Following issuance of the Original Guidelines, the Legislature amended SB 35 to add a command to SB 35, at what is now subdivision (u) of SB 35, which provides that it “is the policy of the state that [SB 35] be interpreted and implemented in a manner to afford the fullest possible weight to the interest of, and the approval and provision of, increased housing supply.” 126. Further, strengthening, or at least reinforcing, this legislative proclamation that SB 35 be liberally construed to promote housing, the Legislature subsequently added a “reasonable person” mandate to SB 35, at what is now subdivision (c)(3), which provides that for “purposes of [SB 35], a development is Case 3:25-cv-04904-LB Document 60 Filed 08/04/26 Page 25 of 344 - 26 -
THIRD AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES AND PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDATE – CASE NO. 3:25-cv-04904-LB
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 14
15 16
17 18
19 20
21 22
23 24
25 26
27 28

COX, CASTLE &

NICHOLSON LLP

ATTORNEYS AT LAW

SAN FRANCISCO
consistent with the objective planning standards specified in subdivision (a) [which includes “the development is a multifamily housing development that contains two or more residential units” standard] if there is substantial evidence that would allow a reasonable person to conclude that the development is consistent with the objective planning standards. …”
127. HCD did update the Original Guidelines (the “SB 35 Guidelines”) on March 30, 2021—i.e., after the abovementioned provisions were added to SB 35.

The definition of “multifamily” in the SB 35 Guidelines has been carried over in substantially identical form from the Original Guidelines—deleting only a single word (“an”) from the definition. HCD does not appear to have considered how the Legislature’s pro-housing interpretive mandates impacted HCD’s prior construction of the term “multifamily.”
128. In addition to the “interpretive gloss” to the text of SB 35 discussed above, Section 101(c) of the SB 35 Guidelines provides that “It is the intent of the Legislature to provide reforms and incentives to facilitate and expedite the construction of affordable housing. Therefore, these Guidelines shall be interpreted and implemented in a manner to afford the fullest possible weight to the interest of increasing housing supply.”
129. Both the 29-Unit Project and the 14-Unit Project have “attached residential units” for purposes of HCD’s “multifamily” definition. 130. Nothing in SB 35 or HCD’s now-repealed SB 35 Guidelines mandates or even hints at the conclusion that “attached” means common walls or a single apartment-type building. “Attached” is undefined and subject to reasonable interpretation consistent with the overall intent of SB 35. 131. While the 29-Unit Project does not include housing with common or shared walls, the 29-Unit Project has attached residential units through the following common and shared structural, access, and amenity elements:

Case 3:25-cv-04904-LB Document 60 Filed 08/04/26 Page 26 of 344 - 27 -
THIRD AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES AND PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDATE – CASE NO. 3:25-cv-04904-LB
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 14
15 16
17 18
19 20
21 22
23 24
25 26
27 28

COX, CASTLE &

NICHOLSON LLP

ATTORNEYS AT LAW

SAN FRANCISCO
a. Single Subterranean Foundation. All 29 units of the 29-Unit Project are attached by a single subterranean foundation of reinforced concrete and steel that runs beneath the entire development and literally cements the units together. This is not a collection of independent foundations serving individual units, it is one integrated foundation system common to the entire 29-Unit Project. b. Shared Walkways, Ramps, and Entrances. Nearly all units are attached to at least one other unit through a common or shared uncovered walkway, ramp, and/or entrance that is shared by two or more units. c. Shared Private Driveway. A shared private driveway traverses the entire Property, attaching all of the units to one another by means of ingress and egress.
d. Community Pool. The 29-Unit Project includes a common pool shared by all units, attaching all of the units in terms of amenity access. 132. While the 14-Unit Project does not include housing with common or shared walls, the 14-Unit Project has attached residential units because the 14-Unit Project is organized into three buildings, each of which is a physically integrated structure as follows:
a. Building One. Building One contains six housing units. All six units share a common single foundation, with common parking at the lowest level of the structure. Two common elevators serve the building, with one elevator serving four units and the other elevator serving the other two units. A common or shared uncovered walkway serves four units and another a common or shared uncovered walkway serves the other two units. Each unit in the building is attached to the unit next to it by continuous steel screening, running to the top of the building’s third floor, which protects occupants from direct sun at the center and rear of the building.
b. Building Two. Building Two contains six housing units as well Case 3:25-cv-04904-LB Document 60 Filed 08/04/26 Page 27 of 344 - 28 -
THIRD AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES AND PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDATE – CASE NO. 3:25-cv-04904-LB
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 14
15 16
17 18
19 20
21 22
23 24
25 26
27 28

COX, CASTLE &

NICHOLSON LLP

ATTORNEYS AT LAW

SAN FRANCISCO
as a shared community pool and event space (accessible to all units in the 14-Unit Project). All six units share a common single foundation, with common parking at the lowest level of the structure. A single elevator serves the entire building with the exception of one unit. A single fire stair provides shared egress for the entire building. A common or shared uncovered walkway serves the entire building with the exception of one unit. Each unit in the building is attached to the unit next to it by continuous steel screening, running to the top of the building’s third floor, which protects occupants from direct sun at the center and rear of the building. c. Building Three. Building Three contains two housing units. The two units share a common single foundation, with common parking at the highest level of the structure. A single elevator serves both units. A common or shared uncovered walkway serves both units. The two units are attached by continuous steel screening, running to the top of the building’s third floor, which protects occupants from direct sun at the center and rear of the building. d. Attachment Across All Three Buildings. In addition, a shared private driveway traverses the entire Property, attaching all of the units to one another by means of ingress and egress. Likewise, the 14-Unit Project includes a shared community pool and event space shared by all units, attaching all of the units in terms of amenity access.
133. In any event, Section 101(d) of the SB 35 Guidelines provides that “These Guidelines shall remain in effect until January 1, 2026, and as of that date are repealed.” Accordingly, as of January 1, 2026, “multifamily” is no longer a defined term under the SB 35 Guidelines. In the absence of any such definition, SB 35’s interpretive principles—favoring housing production and with a reasonable person standard for determining consistency with SB 35’s objective planning standards—necessarily guides the “multifamily” analysis. 134. The City never cited to the SB 35 Guidelines definition of Case 3:25-cv-04904-LB Document 60 Filed 08/04/26 Page 28 of 344 - 29 -
THIRD AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES AND PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDATE – CASE NO. 3:25-cv-04904-LB
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 14
15 16
17 18
19 20
21 22
23 24
25 26
27 28

COX, CASTLE &

NICHOLSON LLP

ATTORNEYS AT LAW

SAN FRANCISCO
“multifamily” in its August 27, 2025 letter disapproving the 29-Unit Project or in its October 6, 2025 letter disapproving the 14-Unit Project. 135. A reasonable person could conclude that the 29-Unit Project satisfies the “multifamily housing development that contains two or more residential units” criterion of SB 35 (i.e., subdivision (a)(1) of Government Code section 65913.4) due to the 29-Unit Project characteristics stated above and/or because each of the six parcels that comprises the Property contains more than one housing unit. 136. A reasonable person could conclude that the 14-Unit Project satisfies the “multifamily housing development that contains two or more residential units” criterion of SB 35 (i.e., subdivision (a)(1) of Government Code section 65913.4) due to the 14-Unit Project characteristics stated above and/or because each of the six parcels that comprises the Property contains more than one housing unit.

E. Plaintiff Resubmits the 14-Unit Project with Indisputably Attached Units and the City Refuses to Process the Resubmittal in Accordance with SB 35
137. On October 22, 2025, counsel for Plaintiff sent a letter to the City explaining that the City already had everything it needed to approve the 14-Unit Project. The letter explained why the inconsistency items identified in the City’s October 6, 2025 inconsistency letter were improper. Plaintiff insisted that the City process the 14-Unit Project in accordance with SB 35.
138. On November 13, 2025, the Planning Manager extended an invitation to Plaintiff to meet with the City because as the Planning Manager stated “[w]e think that there may be ways to modify the plans and move the project forward.” 139. On November 18, 2025, Plaintiff met with the City, specifically the Planning Manager and CED Director, to discuss the 14-Unit Project. 140. At that meeting, the parties discussed the objective meaning of the term “attached.” The City stated that it would respond to Plaintiff at a later date Case 3:25-cv-04904-LB Document 60 Filed 08/04/26 Page 29 of 344 - 30 -
THIRD AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES AND PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDATE – CASE NO. 3:25-cv-04904-LB
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 14
15 16
17 18
19 20
21 22
23 24
25 26
27 28

COX, CASTLE &

NICHOLSON LLP

ATTORNEYS AT LAW

SAN FRANCISCO
regarding the objective definition of “attached.”
141. Also at that meeting, the City identified other state housing reform laws that the City suggested could potentially be viable pathways for housing on the Property. Plaintiff informed the City that it had no interest in pursuing these potentially alternative entitlement pathways, as Plaintiff had already invested years and substantial resources in the SB 35 process, held vested rights under SB 35 and otherwise, and the 14-Unit Project already qualified for ministerial approval under SB 35, whereas choosing a new pathway carried new risks and required new processes potentially including CEQA compliance, which would empower the City to reject the Project.
142. The City did not respond to Plaintiff with the promised objective definition of “attached.” Rather, on December 3, 2025, the City issued a letter to Plaintiff offering yet “another explanation” for why the 14-Unit Project does not satisfy the SB 35 “multifamily housing development that contains two or more residential units” criterion. This time the City invoked the definition of “multifamily” in the SB 35 Guidelines and asserted that the units did not satisfy the “attached” requirement within that definition because “each [unit] is a wholly independent, stand-alone structure” and “[n]one of the dwelling are physically adjoined, connected, or otherwise integrated with any other dwelling.” 143. The City’s December 3, 2025 letter stated that the “Project is hereby denied based on the inconsistencies identified in the October 6, 2025 correspondence.”
144. On March 20, 2026, in a continued good-faith effort to obtain approval through the statutory SB 35 process and to address the City’s stated feedback (even if the feedback was untimely and not meritorious), Plaintiff resubmitted a modified version of the 14-Unit Project in accordance with subdivision (c)(1)(C) of SB 35 (the “Resubmitted 14-Unit Project”).

Case 3:25-cv-04904-LB Document 60 Filed 08/04/26 Page 30 of 344 - 31 -
THIRD AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES AND PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDATE – CASE NO. 3:25-cv-04904-LB
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 14
15 16
17 18
19 20
21 22
23 24
25 26
27 28

COX, CASTLE &

NICHOLSON LLP

ATTORNEYS AT LAW

SAN FRANCISCO
145. The Resubmitted 14-Unit Project shows residential units that are attached by the City’s expressed interpretation (i.e., sharing common walls above ground). A true and correct copy of the submitted site plan and floor plans for the Resubmitted 14-Unit Project are attached hereto as Exhibit D. 146. As the City received the Resubmitted 14-Unit Project on March 20, 2026, pursuant to SB 35, the City was required to determine whether the Resubmitted 14-Unit Project was inconsistent “with any of the objective planning standards” and “provide the development proponent written documentation of which standard or standards the development conflicts with, and an explanation for the reason or reasons the development conflicts with that standard or standards” by April 19, 2026 (i.e., within 30 days of resubmittal).
147. The City did not do so. Rather, on March 24, 2026, the City sent an email correspondence to Plaintiff that the City had denied the 14-Unit Project on December 3, 2025 and that, therefore, Plaintiff would need to submit a new application in order for the City to initiate review of the Resubmitted 14-Unit Project.
148. On April 2, 2026, counsel for Plaintiff sent written notice to the City pursuant to subdivision (h)(6)(E) of the HAA of the City’s course of conduct undertaken for an improper purpose in the City’s processing of Plaintiff’s SB 35 project (the “Challenged Course of Conduct Notice”). A true and correct copy of the Course of Conduct Notice is attached hereto as Exhibit E. 149. The Challenged Course of Conduct Notice informed the City that the “City’s latest position that it will not accept or process a re-submittal from [Plaintiff]—despite SB 35 expressly contemplating and requiring an opportunity for applicants to respond to, revise, and address prior feedback from the City— constitutes disapproval for purposes of the HAA” and that if not remedied it would be yet another violation of the HAA.

Case 3:25-cv-04904-LB Document 60 Filed 08/04/26 Page 31 of 344 - 32 -
THIRD AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES AND PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDATE – CASE NO. 3:25-cv-04904-LB
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 14
15 16
17 18
19 20
21 22
23 24
25 26
27 28

COX, CASTLE &

NICHOLSON LLP

ATTORNEYS AT LAW

SAN FRANCISCO
150. The Challenged Course of Conduct Notice also detailed other actionable conduct, including that City’s application of non-objective standards to the project, the City’s issuance of documentation that misstates and misrepresents Plaintiff’s submittals and ignores information that Plaintiff had already provided to the City, the City’s reliance on local standards preempted by state law, the city’s misrepresentation of its own local code, the City’s demands for CEQA documentation even though SB 35 projects are exempt from CEQA, the City’s improper claim that the project’s vested rights have expired, the City’s refusal to process density bonuses and waivers under the State Density Bonus Law, and the City’s general SB 35 processing violations.
151. On April 17, 2026, the City issued a purported “incompleteness” determination pursuant to the Permit Streamlining Act (specifically Government Code section 65943(a)) for the Resubmitted 14-Unit Project (the “April 17 2026 Incompleteness Determination”). A true and correct copy of the April 17, 2026 Incompleteness Determination is attached hereto as Exhibit F. 152. Although the City acknowledges that it received the March 20, 2026 resubmittal, which was clearly identified as a resubmittal, the City failed to conduct the plan-specific consistency determination required by Government Code section 65913.4 (c)(1)(c). Neither the March 24 email nor the April 17 letter identified an applicable objective planning standard and explained how the Resubmitted 14-Unit Project conflicted with that standard, as was its ministerial obligation to do. 153. On April 28, 2026, the California Housing Defense Fund (“CalHDF”)—a non-profit corporation whose mission includes advocating for increased access to housing for Californians at all income levels—submitted a letter to the City regarding Plaintiff’s SB 35 project (the “CalHDF Letter”). A true and correct copy of the CalHDF Letter is attached hereto as Exhibit G. 154. The CalHDF Letter independently documented the City’s unlawful Case 3:25-cv-04904-LB Document 60 Filed 08/04/26 Page 32 of 344 - 33 -
THIRD AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES AND PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDATE – CASE NO. 3:25-cv-04904-LB
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 14
15 16
17 18
19 20
21 22
23 24
25 26
27 28

COX, CASTLE &

NICHOLSON LLP

ATTORNEYS AT LAW

SAN FRANCISCO
processing of Plaintiff’s SB 35 project.
155. The CalHDF Letter further explained that, because the City refused to process the Resubmitted 14-Unit Project pursuant to Section (c)(1)(C) of 65913.4, and thus failed to conduct a consistency review within 30 days as required by SB 35, the Resubmitted 14-Unit Project is deemed consistent with SB 35’s objective planning standards—and, thus, “nothing further remains for the City to do but approve the project.”
156. On July 1, 2026, the City issued its written response to the Course of Conduct Notice (“City Course of Conduct Response”). The City Course of Conduct Response also responded to the CalHDF Letter. A true and correct copy of the City Course of Conduct Response is attached hereto as Exhibit H. In the City Course of Conduct Response, the City admitted that a SB 35 project was vested against changes in local standards and requirements beyond those in place as of May 15, 2023, which was the date the City received the Notice of Intent. At that time, the City’s housing element had not been found by HCD to be in substantial compliance with California State Housing Element Law, which placed the City squarely within the scope of the Builder’s Remedy and vested Plaintiff’s rights to the Builder’s Remedy for the SB 35 project. Given the vested Builder’s Remedy status, the City’s reliance on local zoning, subdivision, and design review standards as grounds for inconsistency is legally unavailable, rendering the City’s consistency analysis under those standards immaterial.

V. FIRST CLAIM FOR RELIEF
(Regulatory Takings – 42 U.S.C. § 1983; U.S. Const. amend XIV, § 1; Cal. Civ.

Proc. Code § 1085; Cal. Const. Art. 1, § 19
– Against All Defendants)
157. Plaintiff hereby re-alleges Paragraphs 1 through 156, inclusive, which are incorporated herein by reference.

Case 3:25-cv-04904-LB Document 60 Filed 08/04/26 Page 33 of 344 - 34 -
THIRD AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES AND PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDATE – CASE NO. 3:25-cv-04904-LB
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 14
15 16
17 18
19 20
21 22
23 24
25 26
27 28

COX, CASTLE &

NICHOLSON LLP

ATTORNEYS AT LAW

SAN FRANCISCO
158. Plaintiff restates this Complete Regulatory Takings First Claim for Relief without change from Plaintiff’s First Amended Petition, except for the addition of this Paragraph and updated paragraph references in the above Paragraph not intended to be substantive, to preserve this Claim for potential appellate review. 159. The United States Constitution requires just compensation be paid when private property is taken by the government.
160. The California Constitution requires just compensation be paid when private property is taken by the government.
161. Defendants’ actions (including inactions) on the Two-Unit Project, 29- Unit Project, and 14-Unit Project demonstrate that the City would not approve any development or economically viable use of the Property. 162. With any efforts to develop the Property rendered futile, Defendants’ actions (including inactions) have deprived Plaintiff of all economically viable use of the Property.
163. Plaintiff is entitled to just compensation for Defendants’ taking of the Property in an amount that exceeds the jurisdictional minimum of this Court.

VI. SECOND CLAIM FOR RELIEF
(Temporary Regulatory Takings – 42 U.S.C. § 1983; U.S. Const. amend XIV, § 1; Cal. Civ. Proc. Code § 1085; Cal. Const. Art. 1, § 19 – Against All Defendants)
164. Plaintiff hereby re-alleges Paragraphs 1 through 35, inclusive, Paragraphs 54 through 112, inclusive, and Paragraphs 119 through 156, inclusive, which are incorporated herein by reference.
165. Plaintiff restates this Temporary Regulatory Takings Second Claim for Relief without change from Plaintiff’s Second Amended Petition, except for the addition of this Paragraph and updated paragraph references in the above Paragraph not intended to be substantive, to preserve this Claim for potential appellate review.

Case 3:25-cv-04904-LB Document 60 Filed 08/04/26 Page 34 of 344 - 35 -
THIRD AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES AND PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDATE – CASE NO. 3:25-cv-04904-LB
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 14
15 16
17 18
19 20
21 22
23 24
25 26
27 28

COX, CASTLE &

NICHOLSON LLP

ATTORNEYS AT LAW

SAN FRANCISCO
166. The U.S. Constitution requires just compensation be paid when private property is taken, even temporarily, by the government. 167. The California Constitution requires just compensation be paid when private property is taken, even temporarily, by the government. 168. Defendants prolonged and unreasonable never-ending scoping consultation process for the 29-Unit Project, and the unreasonable and extraordinary delay therefrom in an effort to thwart Plaintiff’s lawful ability to use the Property, amounts to a temporary taking of the Property. 169. The never-ending scoping consultation process for the 29-Unit Project has effectively prevented Plaintiff from using its Property. 170. SB 35 imposes a prescribed streamlined, ministerial approval process as set forth in Government Code section 65913.4.
171. SB 35 imposes strict processing timeframes and requirements on local governments.
172. Pursuant to SB 35, if an SB 35 project contains 150 or fewer housing units, a local government must determine whether an application is consistent with “objective planning standards specified in subdivision (a)” of Government Code section 65913.4 within 60 days of submittal of the application. 173. Pursuant to SB 35, if an SB 35 project contains 150 or fewer housing units, a local government can conduct design review only within 90 days of submittal of the application.
174. Pursuant to SB 35, a local government must provide notice with an invitation to engage in a scoping consultation to California Native American tribes within 30 days after SB 35 project applicant submits a notice of intent. 175. Pursuant to SB 35, a Tribe has only 30 days to accept the scoping consultation invitation.
176. Pursuant to SB 35, a local government is required to commence the Case 3:25-cv-04904-LB Document 60 Filed 08/04/26 Page 35 of 344 - 36 -
THIRD AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES AND PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDATE – CASE NO. 3:25-cv-04904-LB
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 14
15 16
17 18
19 20
21 22
23 24
25 26
27 28

COX, CASTLE &

NICHOLSON LLP

ATTORNEYS AT LAW

SAN FRANCISCO
scoping consultation within 30 days of receiving a response from a Tribe accepting the invitation to engage in the scoping consultation.
177. The City does not have discretion to circumvent the abovementioned prescribed SB 35 timeframes.
178. SB 35 defines “scoping” as “the act of participating in early discussions or investigations between the local government and California Native American tribe, and the development proponent if authorized by the California Native American tribe, regarding the potential effects a proposed development could have on a potential tribal cultural resource, as defined in Section 21074 of the Public Resources Code, or California Native American tribe, as defined in Section 21073 of the Public Resources Code.” (Gov. Code, § 65913.4, subd. (b)(7)(B), emphasis added.)
179. SB 35 defines “consultation” as “the meaningful and timely process of seeking, discussing, and considering carefully the views of others, in a manner that is cognizant of all parties’ cultural values and, where feasible, seeking agreement.

Consultation between local governments and Native American tribes shall be conducted in a way that is mutually respectful of each party’s sovereignty.

Consultation shall also recognize the tribes’ potential needs for confidentiality with respect to places that have traditional tribal cultural importance. A lead agency shall consult the tribal consultation best practices described in the “State of California Tribal Consultation Guidelines: Supplement to the General Plan Guidelines” prepared by the Office of Planning and Research.” (Gov. Code, § 65913.4, subd. (b)(7)(A), emphasis added.)
180. The mandatory duty to engage in a scoping consultation must be conducted early in the process and must be a meaningful and timely effort to identify a project’s potential impacts to tribal cultural resources. The City did none of that. Rather than fulfill its ministerial duty, the City dragged the purported Case 3:25-cv-04904-LB Document 60 Filed 08/04/26 Page 36 of 344 - 37 -
THIRD AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES AND PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDATE – CASE NO. 3:25-cv-04904-LB
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 14
15 16
17 18
19 20
21 22
23 24
25 26
27 28

COX, CASTLE &

NICHOLSON LLP

ATTORNEYS AT LAW

SAN FRANCISCO
scoping consultation along for approximately two years in an effort to thwart the further mandatory processing of the 29-Unit Project, and in all that time the City has not identified any tribal cultural resource to protect. 181. Indeed, the City exploited the SB 35 scoping consultation process for over two years while FIGR’s own Tribal Chairman confirmed the delay was the City’s choice.
182. The City entered into the Enforceable Agreement within 20 days of this lawsuit being filed, confirming that the prior delay was not a good faith regulatory measure, but rather a deliberate abuse of the mandatory scoping consultation to obstruct the 29-Unit Project that City had no legitimate basis to not process.
183. During the approximately two-year “scoping consultation” standstill, Plaintiff was effectively foreclosed from any economically viable use of the vacant Property. Because Plaintiff had already commenced processing the 29-Unit Project under the SB 35 framework, Plaintiff was practically precluded from pursuing any alternative development project or entitlement of the Property while SB 35’s streamlined ministerial process remained pending for the 29-Unit Project. No reasonable property owner would simultaneously incur the substantial cost, time, and design burden of pursuing multiple separate entitlement pathways on the same property at the same time, especially while a statutorily streamlined, ministerial process is pending. Plaintiff is not required to pursue multiple simultaneous entitlement applications at great cost in order to mitigate a temporary takings claim.

The City’s exploitation of SB 35’s scoping consultation process has thus constituted a temporary takings of the Property.
184. The duration of the temporary deprivation must be assessed in the context of SB 35’s statutory framework. SB 35 prescribes a process measured in days—30 days for Tribal notification, 30 days for Tribal acceptance, 30 days for the Case 3:25-cv-04904-LB Document 60 Filed 08/04/26 Page 37 of 344 - 38 -
THIRD AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES AND PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDATE – CASE NO. 3:25-cv-04904-LB
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 14
15 16
17 18
19 20
21 22
23 24
25 26
27 28

COX, CASTLE &

NICHOLSON LLP

ATTORNEYS AT LAW

SAN FRANCISCO
City to commence the scoping consultation, 60 days for the City’s consistency determination, 90 days for the City to conduct design review. In the context of a statute designed to ensure a streamlined process measured in days—not years—a delay of approximately two years (730 days) during the “scoping consultation” represents an extraordinary and significant period of time. 185. Plaintiff is entitled to just compensation for Defendants’ taking of the Property in an amount that exceeds the jurisdictional minimum of this Court. As stated in Plaintiff’s letter to the City on May 15, 2025, Plaintiff’s damages were accruing on a monthly basis. Given strong rises in property values and rental rates, Plaintiff has estimated damages now accruing at a rate of over $642,000.00 per month.

VII. THIRD CLAIM FOR RELIEF
(Violation of Procedural Due Process – 42 U.S.C. § 1983; U.S. Const. amend XIV, § 1; Cal. Civ. Proc. Code § 1085; Cal. Const. Art. 1, § 7(a) – Against All Defendants)
186. Plaintiff hereby re-alleges Paragraphs 1 through 156, inclusive, which are incorporated herein by reference.
187. Plaintiff restates this Violation of Procedural Due Process Third Claim for Relief without change from Plaintiff’s First Amended Petition, except for the addition of this Paragraph and updated paragraph references in the above Paragraph not intended to be substantive, to preserve this Claim for potential appellate review. 188. Through the purported scoping consultation process, Defendants acted under color of state law and deprived Plaintiff of its procedural due process rights as secured by the Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution. 189. The purported scoping consultation process has deprived Plaintiff of a protected property interest in that Plaintiff had a clear expectation deriving from SB 35 in the benefit of Defendants engaging in a scoping consultation as prescribed in Case 3:25-cv-04904-LB Document 60 Filed 08/04/26 Page 38 of 344 - 39 -
THIRD AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES AND PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDATE – CASE NO. 3:25-cv-04904-LB
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 14
15 16
17 18
19 20
21 22
23 24
25 26
27 28

COX, CASTLE &

NICHOLSON LLP

ATTORNEYS AT LAW

SAN FRANCISCO
SB 35, timely leading the scoping consultation to conclusion, and not unduly delaying the further mandatory processing of the 29-Unit Project. 190. The purported scoping consultation process has deprived Plaintiff of a protected property interest in Plaintiff’s by-right use and development of the Property in accordance with SB 35.
191. The purported scoping consultation process has deprived Plaintiff of its procedural due process rights as secured by article I, section 7(a) of the California Constitution.
192. Through the purported SB 35 inconsistency determination for the 29- Unit Project, Defendants acted under color of state law and deprived Plaintiff of its procedural due process rights as secured by the Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution.
193. The purported SB 35 inconsistency determination for the 29-Unit Project has deprived Plaintiff of a protected property interest in Plaintiff’s by-right use and development of the Property in accordance with SB 35. 194. The purported SB 35 inconsistency determination for the 29-Unit Project has deprived Plaintiff of its procedural due process rights as secured by article I, section 7(a) of the California Constitution. 195. Through the purported SB 35 inconsistency determination for the 14- Unit Project, Defendants acted under color of state law and deprived Plaintiff of its procedural due process rights as secured by the Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution.
196. The purported SB 35 inconsistency determination for the 14-Unit Project has deprived Plaintiff of a protected property interest in Plaintiff’s by-right use and development of the Property in accordance with SB 35. 197. The purported SB 35 inconsistency determination for the 14-Unit Project has deprived Plaintiff of its procedural due process rights as secured by Case 3:25-cv-04904-LB Document 60 Filed 08/04/26 Page 39 of 344 - 40 -
THIRD AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES AND PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDATE – CASE NO. 3:25-cv-04904-LB
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 14
15 16
17 18
19 20
21 22
23 24
25 26
27 28

COX, CASTLE &

NICHOLSON LLP

ATTORNEYS AT LAW

SAN FRANCISCO
article I, section 7(a) of the California Constitution. 198. Defendants failed to afford Plaintiff adequate due process of law before or after depriving Plaintiff of its protected property interests. Defendants have provided no procedural avenue of relief to Plaintiff to enforce its protected property interests short of litigation.
199. As a direct and proximate result of the Defendants’ actions, Plaintiff has suffered substantial damages in excess of the jurisdictional minimum of this Court. As stated in Plaintiff’s letter to the City on May 15, 2025, Plaintiff’s damages were accruing on a monthly basis. Given strong rises in property values and rental rates, Plaintiff has estimated damages now accruing at a rate of over $642,000.00 per month.

VIII. FOURTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF
(Violation of Substantive Due Process – 42 U.S.C. § 1983; U.S. Const. amend XIV, § 1; Cal. Civ. Proc. Code § 1085; Cal. Const. Art. 1, § 7(a) – Against All Defendants)
200. Plaintiff hereby re-alleges Paragraphs 1 through 156, inclusive, which are incorporated herein by reference.
201. Plaintiff restates this Violation of Substantive Due Process Fourth Claim for Relief without change from Plaintiff’s Second Amended Petition, except for the addition of this Paragraph and updated paragraph references in the above Paragraph not intended to be substantive, to preserve this Claim for potential appellate review
202. Through the purported scoping consultation process, Defendants acted under color of state law and deprived Plaintiff of its substantive due process rights as secured by the Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution. 203. The purported scoping consultation process has deprived Plaintiff of a protected property interest in that Plaintiff had a clear expectation deriving from SB Case 3:25-cv-04904-LB Document 60 Filed 08/04/26 Page 40 of 344 - 41 -
THIRD AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES AND PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDATE – CASE NO. 3:25-cv-04904-LB
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 14
15 16
17 18
19 20
21 22
23 24
25 26
27 28

COX, CASTLE &

NICHOLSON LLP

ATTORNEYS AT LAW

SAN FRANCISCO
35 in the benefit of Defendants engaging in a scoping consultation as prescribed in SB 35, timely leading the scoping consultation to conclusion, and not unduly delaying the further mandatory processing of the 29-Unit Project. 204. The purported scoping consultation process has deprived Plaintiff of a protected property interest in Plaintiff’s by-right use and development of the Property in accordance with SB 35.
205. The purported scoping consultation process has deprived Plaintiff of its substantive due process rights as secured by article I, section 7(a) of the California Constitution.
206. Plaintiff worked in good faith with Defendants, including through the use of the Archaeologists and the Archaeological Survey, to establish that there is no potential impacts to cultural resources from the 29-Unit Project. 207. Nonetheless, Defendants violated the law through the never-ending scoping consultation process, which was arbitrary and unreasonable, and having no substantial relation to the public health, safety, morals, or general welfare. 208. Defendants by way of the purported scoping consultation process has engaged in obstructionist tactics that serve no legitimate governmental purpose. 209. Indeed, FIGR’s own Tribal Chairman confirmed the scoping consultation delay was the City’s choice and the City entering into the Enforceable Agreement within 20 days of this lawsuit being filed, confirms that the scoping consultation delay was not a good faith regulatory measure, but rather a deliberate abuse of the mandatory scoping consultation to obstruct the 29-Unit Project that the City had no legitimate basis to not process.
210. The Enforceable Agreement ultimately executed by FIGR and City was an “off-the-shelf” agreement FIGR had previously agreed to in other contexts and would have been available to the City at the outset had it actually sought to conclude the consultation and process Plaintiff’s application.

Case 3:25-cv-04904-LB Document 60 Filed 08/04/26 Page 41 of 344 - 42 -
THIRD AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES AND PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDATE – CASE NO. 3:25-cv-04904-LB
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 14
15 16
17 18
19 20
21 22
23 24
25 26
27 28

COX, CASTLE &

NICHOLSON LLP

ATTORNEYS AT LAW

SAN FRANCISCO
211. The arbitrary or conscience-shocking nature of the City’s conduct must be assessed in the context of SB 35’s statutory framework. SB 35 prescribes a process measured in days—30 days for Tribal notification, 30 days for Tribal acceptance, 30 days for the City to commence the scoping consultation, 60 days for the City’s consistency determination, 90 days for the City to conduct design review.

In the context of a statute designed to ensure a streamlined process measured in days—not years—a delay of approximately two years during the “scoping consultation” represents an extraordinary and significant period of time. 212. Through the purported SB 35 inconsistency determination for the 29- Unit Project, Defendants acted under color of state law and deprived Plaintiff of its substantive due process rights as secured by the Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution.
213. The purported SB 35 inconsistency determination for the 29-Unit Project has deprived Plaintiff of a protected property interest in Plaintiff’s by-right use and development of the Property in accordance with SB 35. 214. The purported SB 35 inconsistency determination for the 29-Unit Project has deprived Plaintiff of its substantive due process rights as secured by article I, section 7(a) of the California Constitution. 215. Defendants violated the law through the SB 35 inconsistency determination for the 29-Unit Project, which was arbitrary and unreasonable, and having no substantial relation to the public health safety, morals, or general welfare. 216. Through the purported SB 35 inconsistency determination for the 14- Unit Project, Defendants acted under color of state law and deprived Plaintiff of its substantive due process rights as secured by the Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution.
217. The purported SB 35 inconsistency determination for the 14-Unit Project has deprived Plaintiff of a protected property interest in Plaintiff’s by-right Case 3:25-cv-04904-LB Document 60 Filed 08/04/26 Page 42 of 344 - 43 -
THIRD AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES AND PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDATE – CASE NO. 3:25-cv-04904-LB
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 14
15 16
17 18
19 20
21 22
23 24
25 26
27 28

COX, CASTLE &

NICHOLSON LLP

ATTORNEYS AT LAW

SAN FRANCISCO
use and development of the Property in accordance with SB 35. 218. The purported SB 35 inconsistency determination for the 14-Unit Project has deprived Plaintiff of its substantive due process rights as secured by article I, section 7(a) of the California Constitution. 219. Defendants violated the law through the SB 35 inconsistency determination for the 14-Unit Project, which was arbitrary and unreasonable, and having no substantial relation to the public health safety, morals, or general welfare. 220. As a direct and proximate result of the Defendants’ actions, Plaintiff has suffered substantial damages in excess of the jurisdictional minimum of this Court. As stated in Plaintiff’s letter to the City on May 15, 2025, Plaintiff’s damages were accruing on a monthly basis. Given strong rises in property values and rental rates, Plaintiff has estimated damages now accruing at a rate of over $642,000.00 per month.

IX. FIFTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF
(Violation of Cal. Gov. Code § 65913.4 – Failure to Carry Out Ministerial Scoping Consultation Duty; Cal. Civ. Proc. Code § 1085
– Against the City)
221. Plaintiff hereby re-alleges Paragraphs 1 through 35, inclusive, Paragraphs 54 through 112, inclusive, and Paragraphs 119 through 136, inclusive, which are incorporated herein by reference.
222. SB 35 imposes a prescribed streamlined, ministerial approval process as set forth in Government Code section 65913.4.
223. Since its adoption in 2017, the Legislature has further amended and strengthened SB 35 to better fulfill its purposes of facilitating and expediting the construction of more housing. (See Gov. Code, § 65582.1; Gov. Code, § 65913.4, subd. (u) [“[i]t is the policy of the state that this section be interpreted and implemented in a manner to afford the fullest possible weight to the interest of, and Case 3:25-cv-04904-LB Document 60 Filed 08/04/26 Page 43 of 344 - 44 -
THIRD AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES AND PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDATE – CASE NO. 3:25-cv-04904-LB
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 14
15 16
17 18
19 20
21 22
23 24
25 26
27 28

COX, CASTLE &

NICHOLSON LLP

ATTORNEYS AT LAW

SAN FRANCISCO
the approval and provision of, increased housing supply”].) 224. SB 35 imposes strict processing timeframes and requirements on local governments.
225. Pursuant to SB 35, if an SB 35 project contains 150 or fewer housing units, a local government must determine whether an application is consistent with “objective planning standards specified in subdivision (a)” of Government Code section 65913.4 within 60 days of submittal of the application. 226. Pursuant to SB 35, if an SB 35 project contains 150 or fewer housing units, a local government can conduct design review only within 90 days of submittal of the application.
227. Pursuant to SB 35, a local government must provide notice with an invitation to engage in a scoping consultation to California Native American tribes within 30 days after SB 35 project applicant submits a notice of intent. 228. Pursuant to SB 35, a Tribe has only 30 days to accept the scoping consultation invitation.
229. Pursuant to SB 35, a local government is required to commence the scoping consultation within 30 days of receiving a response from a Tribe accepting the invitation to engage in the scoping consultation.
230. The City does not have discretion to circumvent the abovementioned prescribed SB 35 timeframes.
231. SB 35 defines “scoping” as “the act of participating in early discussions or investigations between the local government and California Native American tribe, and the development proponent if authorized by the California Native American tribe, regarding the potential effects a proposed development could have on a potential tribal cultural resource, as defined in Section 21074 of the Public Resources Code, or California Native American tribe, as defined in Section 21073 of the Public Resources Code.” (Gov. Code, § 65913.4, subd. (b)(7)(B), Case 3:25-cv-04904-LB Document 60 Filed 08/04/26 Page 44 of 344 - 45 -
THIRD AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES AND PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDATE – CASE NO. 3:25-cv-04904-LB
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 14
15 16
17 18
19 20
21 22
23 24
25 26
27 28

COX, CASTLE &

NICHOLSON LLP

ATTORNEYS AT LAW

SAN FRANCISCO
emphasis added.)
232. SB 35 defines “consultation” as “the meaningful and timely process of seeking, discussing, and considering carefully the views of others, in a manner that is cognizant of all parties’ cultural values and, where feasible, seeking agreement.

Consultation between local governments and Native American tribes shall be conducted in a way that is mutually respectful of each party’s sovereignty.

Consultation shall also recognize the tribes’ potential needs for confidentiality with respect to places that have traditional tribal cultural importance. A lead agency shall consult the tribal consultation best practices described in the “State of California Tribal Consultation Guidelines: Supplement to the General Plan Guidelines” prepared by the Office of Planning and Research.” (Gov. Code, § 65913.4, subd. (b)(7)(A), emphasis added.)
233. The City has a ministerial duty to engage in a scoping consultation (as defined in SB 35).
234. The City failed to proceed in a manner required by law when they violated this ministerial duty to engage in a scoping consultation. 235. The City failed to comply with its ministerial duty to commence the scoping consultation within 30 days of receiving a response from FIGR that it had accepted the invitation to engage in a scoping consultation. 236. The mandatory duty to engage in a scoping consultation must be conducted early in the process and must be a meaningful and timely effort to identify a project’s potential impacts to tribal cultural resources. The City has done none of that. Rather than fulfill its ministerial duty, the City has dragged the purported scoping consultation along for approximately two years in an effort to thwart the further mandatory processing of the 29-Unit Project, and in all that time the City has not identified any tribal cultural resource to protect. 237. Plaintiff is beneficially interested in the subject of this petition for writ Case 3:25-cv-04904-LB Document 60 Filed 08/04/26 Page 45 of 344 - 46 -
THIRD AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES AND PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDATE – CASE NO. 3:25-cv-04904-LB
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 14
15 16
17 18
19 20
21 22
23 24
25 26
27 28

COX, CASTLE &

NICHOLSON LLP

ATTORNEYS AT LAW

SAN FRANCISCO
of mandate (“Petition”) and has no plain, speedy, or adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law, unless this Court grants the requested Petition. 238. For the foregoing reasons, the City has failed to proceed in accordance with the law, and Plaintiff is entitled to issuance of the writ.

X. SIXTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF
(Second Violation of Cal. Gov. Code § 65913.4 – Unlawful Inconsistency Determination and Treatment for 29-Unit Project; Cal. Civ. Proc. Code § 1085 – Against the City)
239. Plaintiff hereby re-alleges Paragraphs 1 through 35, inclusive, and Paragraphs 54 through 136, inclusive, which are incorporated herein by reference. 240. SB 35 imposes a prescribed streamlined, ministerial approval process as set forth in Government Code section 65913.4.
241. SB 35 imposes strict processing timeframes and requirements on local governments.
242. Pursuant to SB 35, if an SB 35 project contains 150 or fewer housing units, a local government must determine whether an application is consistent with “objective planning standards specified in subdivision (a)” of Government Code section 65913.4 (“objective planning standards”) within 60 days of submittal of the application.
243. If, within the above-mentioned 60-day period, the local government determines an SB 35 project is inconsistent “with any of the objective planning standards,” the local government “shall provide the development proponent written documentation of which standard or standards the development conflicts with, and an explanation for the reason or reasons the development conflicts with that standard or standards.”
244. If the local government fails to provide this required documentation, “the development shall be deemed to satisfy the objective planning standards.” Case 3:25-cv-04904-LB Document 60 Filed 08/04/26 Page 46 of 344 - 47 -
THIRD AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES AND PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDATE – CASE NO. 3:25-cv-04904-LB
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 14
15 16
17 18
19 20
21 22
23 24
25 26
27 28

COX, CASTLE &

NICHOLSON LLP

ATTORNEYS AT LAW

SAN FRANCISCO
245. Pursuant to SB 35, the local government shall approve the development if it is deemed consistent with the objective planning standards and/or if there is substantial evidence that would allow a reasonable person to conclude that the development is consistent with the objective planning standards. 246. This reasonable person standard is intentionally deferential to housing development, and in line with the legislative proclamation that it “is the policy of the state that [SB 35] be interpreted and implemented in a manner to afford the fullest possible weight to the interest of, and the approval and provision of, increased housing supply.” (Cal. Gov. Code, § 65913.4, subd. (u).) 247. All told, if there is a plausible view of whether a project is in compliance with an “objective planning standard,” then the project must be deemed consistent with that standard for SB 35 purposes. (Cf. California Renters Legal Advocacy & Education Fund v. City of San Mateo (2021) 68 Cal.App.5th 820, 844– 845.)
248. SB 35 also confines a local government’s review and documentation requests to only that which are necessary to arrive at a reasonable person conclusion of consistency with SB 35 requirements. (Cal. Gov. Code, § 65913.4, subds. (c)(3), (f).)
249. A local government cannot impose any requirement on an SB 35 project solely or partially on the basis that the project is being processed under SB

35. (Cal. Gov. Code, § 65913.4, subd. (i)(1).)
250. These limitations under SB 35 are not incidental—they reflect the Legislature’s deliberate effort to prevent agencies (such as the City) from obstructing housing development projects that advance resolution of the statewide housing crisis.
251. The City does not have discretion to circumvent the abovementioned requirements, obligations, and limitations imposed on the City pursuant to SB 35.

Case 3:25-cv-04904-LB Document 60 Filed 08/04/26 Page 47 of 344 - 48 -
THIRD AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES AND PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDATE – CASE NO. 3:25-cv-04904-LB
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 14
15 16
17 18
19 20
21 22
23 24
25 26
27 28

COX, CASTLE &

NICHOLSON LLP

ATTORNEYS AT LAW

SAN FRANCISCO
252. The City has a ministerial duty to approve the 29-Unit Project. 253. The City failed to comply with its ministerial duty to approve the 29- Unit Project because (a) there is substantial evidence that would allow a reasonable person to conclude that the development is consistent with the objective planning standards and/or (b) the 29-Unit Project is deemed (pursuant to SB 35) to satisfy the objective planning standards.
254. The City failed to proceed in a manner required by law when they violated this ministerial duty to approve the 29-Unit Project. 255. The City failed to proceed in the manner required by law when it imposed requirements on Plaintiff and the 29-Unit Project that are unauthorized under SB 35.
256. Plaintiff is beneficially interested in the subject of this Petition and has no plain, speedy, or adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law, unless this Court grants the requested Petition.
257. For the foregoing reasons, the City has failed to proceed in accordance with the law, and Plaintiff is entitled to issuance of the writ.

XI. SEVENTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF
(Third Violation of Cal. Gov. Code § 65913.4 – Unlawful Inconsistency Determination and Treatment for 14-Unit Project; Cal. Civ. Proc. Code § 1085 – Against the City)
258. Plaintiff hereby re-alleges Paragraphs 1 through 35, inclusive, and Paragraphs 54 through 136, inclusive, which are incorporated herein by reference. 259. SB 35 imposes a prescribed streamlined, ministerial approval process as set forth in Government Code section 65913.4.
260. SB 35 imposes strict processing timeframes and requirements on local governments.
261. Pursuant to SB 35, if an SB 35 project contains 150 or fewer housing Case 3:25-cv-04904-LB Document 60 Filed 08/04/26 Page 48 of 344 - 49 -
THIRD AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES AND PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDATE – CASE NO. 3:25-cv-04904-LB
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 14
15 16
17 18
19 20
21 22
23 24
25 26
27 28

COX, CASTLE &

NICHOLSON LLP

ATTORNEYS AT LAW

SAN FRANCISCO
units, a local government must determine whether an application is consistent with “objective planning standards” within 60 days of submittal of the application. 262. Pursuant to SB 35, if a development proposal is submitted to address feedback provided by the local government, a local government must determine whether that proposal is consistent with “objective planning standards” within 30 days of submittal of the proposal.
263. If, within the above-mentioned periods, the local government determines an SB 35 project is inconsistent “with any of the objective planning standards,” the local government “shall provide the development proponent written documentation of which standard or standards the development conflicts with, and an explanation for the reason or reasons the development conflicts with that standard or standards.”
264. If the local government fails to provide this required documentation, “the development shall be deemed to satisfy the objective planning standards.” 265. Pursuant to SB 35, the local government shall approve the development if it is deemed consistent with the objective planning standards and/or if there is substantial evidence that would allow a reasonable person to conclude that the development is consistent with the objective planning standards. 266. This reasonable person standard is intentionally deferential to housing development, and in line with the legislative proclamation that it “is the policy of the state that [SB 35] be interpreted and implemented in a manner to afford the fullest possible weight to the interest of, and the approval and provision of, increased housing supply.” (Cal. Gov. Code, § 65913.4, subd. (u).) 267. All told, if there is a plausible view of whether a project is in compliance with an “objective planning standard,” then the project must be deemed consistent with that standard for SB 35 purposes. (Cf. California Renters Legal Advocacy & Education Fund v. City of San Mateo (2021) 68 Cal.App.5th 820, 844– Case 3:25-cv-04904-LB Document 60 Filed 08/04/26 Page 49 of 344 - 50 -
THIRD AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES AND PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDATE – CASE NO. 3:25-cv-04904-LB
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 14
15 16
17 18
19 20
21 22
23 24
25 26
27 28

COX, CASTLE &

NICHOLSON LLP

ATTORNEYS AT LAW

SAN FRANCISCO
845.)
268. SB 35 also confines a local government’s review and documentation requests to only that which are necessary to arrive at a reasonable person conclusion of consistency with SB 35 requirements. (Cal. Gov. Code, § 65913.4, subds. (c)(3), (f).)
269. A local government cannot impose any requirement on an SB 35 project solely or partially on the basis that the project is being processed under SB

35. (Cal. Gov. Code, § 65913.4, subd. (i)(1).)
270. These limitations under SB 35 are not incidental—they reflect the Legislature’s deliberate effort to prevent agencies (such as the City) from obstructing housing development projects that advance resolution of the statewide housing crisis.
271. The City does not have discretion to circumvent the abovementioned requirements, obligations, and limitations imposed on the City pursuant to SB 35. 272. The City has a ministerial duty to approve the 14-Unit Project. 273. The City failed to comply with its ministerial duty to approve the 14- Unit Project because (a) there is substantial evidence that would allow a reasonable person to conclude that the development is consistent with the objective planning standards and/or (b) the 14-Unit Project is deemed (pursuant to SB 35) to satisfy the objective planning standards.
274. The City failed to proceed in a manner required by law when it violated this ministerial duty to approve the 14-Unit Project. Accordingly, the October 6 letter did not constitute the written documentation required by section 65913.4(c)(1).
275. The City failed to proceed in the manner required by law when it imposed requirements on Plaintiff and the 14-Unit Project that are unauthorized under SB 35.

Case 3:25-cv-04904-LB Document 60 Filed 08/04/26 Page 50 of 344 - 51 -
THIRD AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES AND PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDATE – CASE NO. 3:25-cv-04904-LB
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 14
15 16
17 18
19 20
21 22
23 24
25 26
27 28

COX, CASTLE &

NICHOLSON LLP

ATTORNEYS AT LAW

SAN FRANCISCO
276. Plaintiff is beneficially interested in the subject of this Petition and has no plain, speedy, or adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law, unless this Court grants the requested Petition.
277. For the foregoing reasons, the City has failed to proceed in accordance with the law, and Plaintiff is entitled to issuance of the writ.

XII. EIGHTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF
(Fourth Violation of Cal. Gov. Code § 65913.4(c)(1)(C) – Unlawful Failure to Process and Approve the (Resubmitted 14-Unit Project; Cal. Civ.

Proc. Code § 1085 – Against the City)
278. Plaintiff hereby re-alleges Paragraphs 1 through 35, inclusive, Paragraphs 54 through 156, inclusive, which are incorporated herein by reference. 279. SB 35 imposes a prescribed streamlined, ministerial approval process as set forth in Government Code section 65913.4. The April 17 completeness review was not the consistency determination required by section 65913.4(c)(1)(c). 280. SB 35 imposes strict timeframes and requirements on local governments.
281. Pursuant to SB 35, if a local government determines that an SB 35 project is inconsistent with SB 35’s objective planning standards, the development proponent may resubmit a modified development proposal, and the local government must complete its consistency review of the resubmittal within 30 days of the resubmittal. (Cal. Gov. Code, § 65913.4, subd. (c)(1)(C).) 282. If, within the above-mentioned 30-day period, the local government determines the resubmitted proposal is inconsistent “with any of the objective planning standards,” the local government “shall provide the development proponent written documentation of which standard or standards the development conflicts with, and an explanation for the reason or reasons the development conflicts with that standard or standards.” (Cal. Gov. Code, § 65913.4, subd.

Case 3:25-cv-04904-LB Document 60 Filed 08/04/26 Page 51 of 344 - 52 -
THIRD AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES AND PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDATE – CASE NO. 3:25-cv-04904-LB
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 14
15 16
17 18
19 20
21 22
23 24
25 26
27 28

COX, CASTLE &

NICHOLSON LLP

ATTORNEYS AT LAW

SAN FRANCISCO
(c)(1).)
283. If the local government fails to provide the required documentation, “the development shall be deemed to satisfy the objective planning standards.” (Cal. Gov. Code, § 65913.4, subd. (c)(2).)
284. Pursuant to SB 35, the local government shall approve the development if it is deemed consistent with the objective planning standards and/or if there is substantial evidence that would allow a reasonable person to conclude that the development is consistent with the objective planning standards. 285. The City does not have discretion to circumvent the abovementioned requirements, obligations, and limitations imposed on the City pursuant to SB 35. 286. The City has a ministerial duty to process the Resubmitted 14-Unit Project in accordance with SB 35, including to complete its consistency review within 30 days of the March 20, 2026 resubmittal.
287. The City failed to comply with, and failed to proceed in the manner required by law with respect to, that ministerial duty. Rather than complete the required consistency review of the Resubmitted 14-Unit Project within 30 days, the City refused to process the Resubmitted 14-Unit Project. 288. Because the City failed to provide the required documentation of any inconsistency with the objective planning standards within 30 days of the March 20, 2026 resubmittal, the Resubmitted 14-Unit Project is deemed—pursuant to SB 35—to satisfy SB 35’s objective planning standards.
289. Substantial evidence would allow a reasonable person to conclude that the Resubmitted 14-Unit Project—with its unquestionably attached residential units—is consistent with SB 35’s objective planning standards, including the “multifamily housing development that contains two or more residential units” criterion.
290. The City accordingly has a ministerial duty to approve the Case 3:25-cv-04904-LB Document 60 Filed 08/04/26 Page 52 of 344 - 53 -
THIRD AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES AND PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDATE – CASE NO. 3:25-cv-04904-LB
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 14
15 16
17 18
19 20
21 22
23 24
25 26
27 28

COX, CASTLE &

NICHOLSON LLP

ATTORNEYS AT LAW

SAN FRANCISCO
Resubmitted 14-Unit Project and the City failed to proceed in a manner required by law when it violated this ministerial duty to approve the Resubmitted 14-Unit Project.
291. Plaintiff is beneficially interested in the subject of this Petition and has no plain, speedy, or adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law, unless this Court grants the requested Petition.
292. For the foregoing reasons, the City has failed to proceed in accordance with the law, and Plaintiff is entitled to issuance of the writ.

XIII. NINTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF
(Breach of Mandatory Duty(s) Imposed by Enactment – Gov. Code § 815.6 – Against All Defendants)
293. Plaintiff hereby re-alleges Paragraphs 1 through 35, inclusive, Paragraphs 54 through 156, inclusive, and Paragraphs 221 through 292, inclusive, which are incorporated herein by reference.
294. Plaintiff has complied with the applicable requirements of Government Code sections 810 et seq. (i.e., the “Government Claims Act”). On December 6, 2024 and December 9, 2024, Plaintiff submitted a required claim (the “Claim”) to the City, in a timely manner—because the Claim, which stated that Plaintiff suffered and was continuing to suffer damages from the City’s failure to comply with its ministerial duties under SB 35, was presented within the allowed time after accrual. (Gov. Code, § 911.2, subd. (a).) The City denied the Claim. (Gov. Code, § 912.4, subds. (a)–(c).) The filing of this action is timely. (Gov. Code, § 945.6, subd. (a)(2).)
295. Pursuant to Government Code § 815.6, “[w]here a public entity is under a mandatory duty imposed by an enactment that is designed to protect against the risk of a particular kind of injury, the public entity is liable for an injury of that kind proximately caused by its failure to discharge the duty unless the public entity Case 3:25-cv-04904-LB Document 60 Filed 08/04/26 Page 53 of 344 - 54 -
THIRD AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES AND PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDATE – CASE NO. 3:25-cv-04904-LB
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 14
15 16
17 18
19 20
21 22
23 24
25 26
27 28

COX, CASTLE &

NICHOLSON LLP

ATTORNEYS AT LAW

SAN FRANCISCO
establishes that it exercised reasonable diligence to discharge the duty.” 296. SB 35 imposes a prescribed scoping consultation on the City that must be followed once a Tribe accepts a local government’s invitation to engage in a scoping consultation.
297. SB 35 mandates that the City approve the 29-Unit Project. 298. SB 35 mandates that the City approve the 14-Unit Project. 299. SB 35 mandates that the City approve the Resubmitted 14-Unit Project.
300. As a proximate result of the Defendants failure to follow its mandatory duty(s) under SB 35, Plaintiff has suffered damages in excess of the jurisdictional minimum of this Court. Section 65913.4’s mandatory duties protect housing proponents from prolonged processing delay, needless carrying and professional costs, loss of use, and impairment of vested rights; the City’s breaches proximately caused Plaintiff those injuries.
301. As stated in Plaintiff’s letter to the City on May 15, 2025, Plaintiff’s damages were accruing on a monthly basis. Given strong rises in property values and rental rates, Plaintiff has estimated damages now accruing at a rate of over $642,000.00 per month.
302. Defendants’ prolonged violation of Plaintiff’s rights has caused Plaintiff to suffer consequential damages including the risk of entire loss of the Property due to the inability to maintain the assemblage of parcels for the 29-Unit Project or the 14-Unit Project at which point the Plaintiff would suffer a total loss.

XIV. TENTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF
(Violation of Gov. Code § 65589.5; Cal. Civ. Proc. Code § 1094.5 – Against the City)
303. Plaintiff hereby re-alleges Paragraphs 1 through 35, inclusive, Paragraphs 54 through 112, inclusive, Paragraphs 119 through 136, inclusive, and Case 3:25-cv-04904-LB Document 60 Filed 08/04/26 Page 54 of 344 - 55 -
THIRD AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES AND PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDATE – CASE NO. 3:25-cv-04904-LB
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 14
15 16
17 18
19 20
21 22
23 24
25 26
27 28

COX, CASTLE &

NICHOLSON LLP

ATTORNEYS AT LAW

SAN FRANCISCO
Paragraphs 221 through 238, inclusive, which are incorporated herein by reference. 304. The 29-Unit Project is a “housing development project” as that term is used in the HAA because the 29-Unit Project consists of residential units only. 305. Plaintiff, as the 29-Unit Project applicant, may bring an action to enforce the HAA.
306. Government Code section 65589.5 (the “HAA”) subdivision (h)(6) lists a non-exclusive list of ways a local agency can “disapprove the housing development project.”
307. A “disapprov[al] of the housing development project” under the HAA includes a local agency’s obstructionist tactics to a proposed housing development project that effectively disapproves the proposed housing development project. 308. The City’s never-ending scoping consultation to thwart the further mandatory processing of the 29-Unit Project has effectively disapproved the 29- Unit Project and constitutes a “disapprov[al] of the housing development project” under the HAA.
309. Having failed to make the requisite findings under the HAA needed to disapprove the 29-Unit Project, supported by a preponderance of the evidence on the record, the City’s disapproval of the 29-Unit Project violated the HAA. 310. Pursuant to Government Code section 65589.6, the City bears “the burden of proof that its decision [to disapprove the 29-Unit Project] has conformed to all of the conditions specified in Section 65589.5.” 311. The City has not met its burden of proof to disapprove the 29-Unit Project.
312. Pursuant to Government Code section 65589.5, subdivision (k)(1)(A)(ii), “[t]he court may issue an order or judgment directing the local agency to approve the housing development project or emergency shelter if the court finds that the local agency acted in bad faith when it disapproved or conditionally Case 3:25-cv-04904-LB Document 60 Filed 08/04/26 Page 55 of 344 - 56 -
THIRD AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES AND PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDATE – CASE NO. 3:25-cv-04904-LB
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 14
15 16
17 18
19 20
21 22
23 24
25 26
27 28

COX, CASTLE &

NICHOLSON LLP

ATTORNEYS AT LAW

SAN FRANCISCO
approved the housing development [] in violation of this section.” 313. The City acted in “bad faith” in disapproving the 29-Unit Project when it was repeatedly made aware of its review and processing obligations under SB 35, but failed to comply with those obligations.
314. Because the City acted in “bad faith” when it disapproved the 29-Unit Project, pursuant to Government Code section 65589.5, subdivision (k)(1)(A)(ii), Plaintiff is entitled to an order or judgment directing the City to approve the 29- Unit Project. The City’s own acknowledgments and completion of the Enforceable Agreement within 20 days after suit support the inference that the prolonged course of conduct was pretextual and intended to cause unnecessary delay. 315. A party that successfully enforces the HAA is entitled to attorneys’ fees and costs of suit.

XV. ELEVENTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF
(Second Violation of Gov. Code § 65589.5; Cal. Civ. Proc. Code § 1094.5 – Against the City)
316. Plaintiff hereby re-alleges Paragraphs 1 through 35, inclusive, and Paragraphs 54 through 136, inclusive, and Paragraphs 239 through 257, inclusive, which are incorporated herein by reference.
317. The 29-Unit Project is a “housing development project” as that term is used in the HAA because the 29-Unit Project consists of residential units only. 318. Plaintiff, as the 29-Unit Project applicant, may bring an action to enforce the HAA.
319. Government Code section 65589.5 (the “HAA”) subdivision (h)(6) lists a non-exclusive list of ways a local agency can “disapprove the housing development project.”
320. The HAA states that a local agency “disapprove[s] the housing development project” if the local agency “[v]otes or takes final administrative Case 3:25-cv-04904-LB Document 60 Filed 08/04/26 Page 56 of 344 - 57 -
THIRD AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES AND PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDATE – CASE NO. 3:25-cv-04904-LB
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 14
15 16
17 18
19 20
21 22
23 24
25 26
27 28

COX, CASTLE &

NICHOLSON LLP

ATTORNEYS AT LAW

SAN FRANCISCO
action on a proposed housing development project application and the application is disapproved, including any required land use approvals or entitlements necessary for the issuance of a building permit.”
321. The HAA states that a local agency “disapprove[s] the housing development project” if the local agency “adopt[s] or impose[s] any requirement, process, practice, or procedure or undertake any course of conduct, including, but not limited to, increased fees or inclusionary housing requirements, that applies to a project solely or partially on the basis that the project is a builder’s remedy project.” 322. The HAA states that a local agency “disapprove[s] the housing development project” if the local agency “[m]akes a written determination that a preliminary application described in subdivision (a) of Section 65941.1 has expired or that the applicant has otherwise lost its vested rights under the preliminary application for any reason other than those described in subdivisions (c) and (d) of Section 65941.1.”
323. The City has disapproved the 29-Unit Project, including (a) by its purported SB 35 inconsistency determination for the 29-Unit Project, (b) by disparately treating the 29-Unit Project because it is a SB 35 project and/or subject to the builder’s remedy; and/or (c) because the City has stated in writing that the 29-Unit Project has lost its vested rights.
324. Having failed to make the requisite findings under the HAA needed to disapprove the 29-Unit Project, supported by a preponderance of the evidence on the record, the City’s disapproval of the 29-Unit Project violated the HAA. 325. Pursuant to Government Code section 65589.6, the City bears “the burden of proof that its decision [to disapprove the 29-Unit Project] has conformed to all of the conditions specified in Section 65589.5.” 326. The City has not met its burden of proof to disapprove the 29-Unit Project.

Case 3:25-cv-04904-LB Document 60 Filed 08/04/26 Page 57 of 344 - 58 -
THIRD AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES AND PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDATE – CASE NO. 3:25-cv-04904-LB
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 14
15 16
17 18
19 20
21 22
23 24
25 26
27 28

COX, CASTLE &

NICHOLSON LLP

ATTORNEYS AT LAW

SAN FRANCISCO
327. Pursuant to Government Code section 65589.5, subdivision (k)(1)(A)(ii), “[t]he court may issue an order or judgment directing the local agency to approve the housing development project or emergency shelter if the court finds that the local agency acted in bad faith when it disapproved or conditionally approved the housing development [] in violation of this section.” 328. The City acted in “bad faith” in disapproving the 29-Unit Project when it was repeatedly made aware of its review and processing obligations under SB 35, but failed to comply with those obligations.
329. Because the City acted in “bad faith” when it disapproved the 29-Unit Project, pursuant to Government Code section 65589.5, subdivision (k)(1)(A)(ii), Plaintiff is entitled to an order or judgment directing the City to approve the 29- Unit Project. The City’s continued reliance on subjective, inapplicable, preempted, factually satisfied, or waived standards, together with materially different grounds supplied after the statutory period, further supports bad faith. 330. A party that successfully enforces the HAA is entitled to attorneys’ fees and costs of suit.
331. “If a court has previously found that the local agency violated [the HAA] within the same planning period, the court shall multiply the [otherwise required HAA] fines by an additional factor for each previous violation.” (Gov.

Code, § 65589.5, subd. (l).)
XVI. TWELFTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF
(Third Violation of Gov. Code § 65589.5; Cal. Civ. Proc. Code § 1094.5 – Against the City)
332. Plaintiff hereby re-alleges Paragraphs 1 through 35, inclusive, and Paragraphs 54 through 136, inclusive, and Paragraphs 258 through 277, which are incorporated herein by reference.
333. The 14-Unit Project is a “housing development project” as that term is Case 3:25-cv-04904-LB Document 60 Filed 08/04/26 Page 58 of 344 - 59 -
THIRD AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES AND PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDATE – CASE NO. 3:25-cv-04904-LB
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 14
15 16
17 18
19 20
21 22
23 24
25 26
27 28

COX, CASTLE &

NICHOLSON LLP

ATTORNEYS AT LAW

SAN FRANCISCO
used in the HAA because the 14-Unit Project consists of residential units only. 334. Plaintiff, as the 14-Unit Project applicant, may bring an action to enforce the HAA.
335. Government Code section 65589.5 (the “HAA”) subdivision (h)(6) lists a non-exclusive list of ways a local agency can “disapprove the housing development project.”
336. The HAA states that a local agency “disapprove[s] the housing development project” if the local agency “[v]otes or takes final administrative action on a proposed housing development project application and the application is disapproved, including any required land use approvals or entitlements necessary for the issuance of a building permit.”
337. The HAA states that a local agency “disapprove[s] the housing development project” if the local agency “adopt[s] or impose[s] any requirement, process, practice, or procedure or undertake any course of conduct, including, but not limited to, increased fees or inclusionary housing requirements, that applies to a project solely or partially on the basis that the project is a builder’s remedy project.” 338. The HAA states that a local agency “disapprove[s] the housing development project” if the local agency “[m]akes a written determination that a preliminary application described in subdivision (a) of Section 65941.1 has expired or that the applicant has otherwise lost its vested rights under the preliminary application for any reason other than those described in subdivisions (c) and (d) of Section 65941.1.”
339. The City has disapproved the 14-Unit Project, including (a) by its purported SB 35 inconsistency determination for the 14-Unit Project, and/or (b) because the City has stated in writing that the 14-Unit Project has lost its vested rights.
340. Having failed to make the requisite findings under the HAA needed to Case 3:25-cv-04904-LB Document 60 Filed 08/04/26 Page 59 of 344 - 60 -
THIRD AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES AND PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDATE – CASE NO. 3:25-cv-04904-LB
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 14
15 16
17 18
19 20
21 22
23 24
25 26
27 28

COX, CASTLE &

NICHOLSON LLP

ATTORNEYS AT LAW

SAN FRANCISCO
disapprove the 14-Unit Project, supported by a preponderance of the evidence on the record, the City’s disapproval of the 14-Unit Project violated the HAA. 341. Pursuant to Government Code section 65589.6, the City bears “the burden of proof that its decision [to disapprove the 14-Unit Project] has conformed to all of the conditions specified in Section 65589.5.” 342. The City has not met its burden of proof to disapprove the 14-Unit Project.
343. Pursuant to Government Code section 65589.5, subdivision (k)(1)(A)(ii), “[t]he court may issue an order or judgment directing the local agency to approve the housing development project or emergency shelter if the court finds that the local agency acted in bad faith when it disapproved or conditionally approved the housing development [] in violation of this section.” 344. The City acted in “bad faith” in disapproving the 14-Unit Project when it was repeatedly made aware of its review and processing obligations under SB 35, but failed to comply with those obligations.
345. Because the City acted in “bad faith” when it disapproved the 14-Unit Project, pursuant to Government Code section 65589.5, subdivision (k)(1)(A)(ii), Plaintiff is entitled to an order or judgment directing the City to approve the 14- Unit Project. The City’s first use of the attached-unit theory after the statutory period after promising an objective definition and consideration of modifications further supports pretext and unnecessary delay.
346. A party that successfully enforces the HAA is entitled to attorneys’ fees and costs of suit.
347. “If a court has previously found that the local agency violated [the HAA] within the same planning period, the court shall multiply the [otherwise required HAA] fines by an additional factor for each previous violation.” (Gov.

Code, § 65589.5, subd. (l).)
Case 3:25-cv-04904-LB Document 60 Filed 08/04/26 Page 60 of 344 - 61 -
THIRD AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES AND PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDATE – CASE NO. 3:25-cv-04904-LB
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 14
15 16
17 18
19 20
21 22
23 24
25 26
27 28

COX, CASTLE &

NICHOLSON LLP

ATTORNEYS AT LAW

SAN FRANCISCO
XVII. THIRTEENTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF
(Fourth Violation of Gov. Code § 65589.5; Cal. Civ. Proc. Code § 1094.5 – Against the City)
348. Plaintiff hereby re-alleges Paragraphs 1 through 35, inclusive, and Paragraphs 54 through 156, inclusive, and Paragraphs 278 through 292, which are incorporated herein by reference.
349. The Resubmitted 14-Unit Project is a “housing development project” as that term is used in the HAA because it consists of residential units only. 350. Plaintiff, as the Resubmitted 14-Unit Project applicant, may bring an action to enforce the HAA.
351. Government Code section 65589.5 (the “HAA”) subdivision (h)(6) lists a non-exclusive list of ways a local agency can “disapprove the housing development project.”
352. The HAA states that a local agency “disapprove[s] the housing development project” when the local agency “[f]ails to cease a course of conduct undertaken for an improper purpose, such as to harass or to cause unnecessary delay or needless increases in the cost of the proposed housing development project, that effectively disapproves the proposed housing development without taking final administrative action” if certain conditions are met. (Cal. Gov. Code, § 65589.5, subd. (h)(6)(E).)
353. On April 2, 2026, Plaintiff sent City the Challenged Course of Conduct Notice providing written notice of the City’s course of conduct undertaken for an improper purpose in the City’s processing of Plaintiff’s SB 35 project. The course of conduct at issue relates back to the inception of the SB 35 process at issue. 354. The City publicly posted the Challenged Course of Conduct Notice and, thereafter, CalHDF submitted the CalHDF Letter to the City independently documenting the City’s ongoing unlawful processing conduct.

Case 3:25-cv-04904-LB Document 60 Filed 08/04/26 Page 61 of 344 - 62 -
THIRD AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES AND PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDATE – CASE NO. 3:25-cv-04904-LB
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 14
15 16
17 18
19 20
21 22
23 24
25 26
27 28

COX, CASTLE &

NICHOLSON LLP

ATTORNEYS AT LAW

SAN FRANCISCO
355. The City was required to consider all objections, comments, evidence, and concerns about the project or the applicant’s written notice and then issue a written statement that it will immediately cease the challenged conduct or issue written findings that comply with both of the following requirements: (I) The findings articulate an objective basis for why the challenged course of conduct is necessary and (II) The findings provide clear instructions on what the applicant must submit or supplement so that the local agency can make a final determination regarding the next necessary approval or set the date and time of the next hearing. (Cal Gov. Code, § 65589.5, subd. (h)(6)(E)(iii)–(iv).)
356. The City did not issue a written statement that it will immediately cease the challenged conduct, including that the City would accept and process the Resubmitted 14-Unit Project in accordance with SB 35, or any of the SB 35 submittals.
357. Instead, on July 1, 2026, the City issued the City Course of Conduct Response, which fails to comply with the applicable findings requirements, including because the City Course of Conduct Response does not articulate an objective basis for why the City will not accept and process the Resubmitted 14- Unit Project in accordance with SB 35.
358. Having failed to cease the challenged course of conduct in the Course of Conduct Notice, and having failed to issue compliant written findings, the City has disapproved the Resubmitted 14-Unit Project within the meaning of the HAA.

The response also failed to provide clear, lawful and usable instructions because it relied on unavailable submission mechanisms and an inapplicable completeness process. The July 1 ‘findings’ constitute the final administrative action for adjudicating whether the challenged course of conduct constitutes disapproval. 359. The City bears the burden of establishing that its course of conduct does not constitute a disapproval of the Resubmitted 14-Unit Project. (Cal. Gov.

Case 3:25-cv-04904-LB Document 60 Filed 08/04/26 Page 62 of 344 - 63 -
THIRD AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES AND PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDATE – CASE NO. 3:25-cv-04904-LB
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 14
15 16
17 18
19 20
21 22
23 24
25 26
27 28

COX, CASTLE &

NICHOLSON LLP

ATTORNEYS AT LAW

SAN FRANCISCO
Code, § 65589.5, subd. (h)(6)(E)(v)(I).) The City has not met this burden. By continuing the challenged conduct and failing to issue compliant findings, the City triggered the burden-shifting rule in Government Code section 65589.5 (h)(6)(E)(v)(I).
360. Pursuant to Government Code section 65589.6, the City bears “the burden of proof that its decision [to disapprove the Resubmitted 14-Unit Project] has conformed to all of the conditions specified in Section 65589.5.” The City has not met this burden.
361. “The court may issue an order or judgment directing the local agency to approve the housing development project or emergency shelter if the court finds that the local agency acted in bad faith when it disapproved or conditionally approved the housing development [] in violation of [the HAA].” 362. The City acted in “bad faith” when it disapproved the Resubmitted 14- Unit Project by way of its course of conduct undertaken for an improper purpose, including because the City was repeatedly made aware of its review and processing obligations under SB 35 and the HAA—including through the Course of Conduct Notice and the CalHDF Letter—but still failed to comply with those obligations. 363. Because the City acted in “bad faith” when it disapproved the Resubmitted 14-Unit Project, Plaintiff is entitled to an order or judgment directing the City to approve the Resubmitted 14-Unit Project.
364. A party that successfully enforces the HAA is entitled to attorneys’ fees and costs of suit.
365. “If a court has previously found that the local agency violated [the HAA] within the same planning period, the court shall multiply the [otherwise required HAA] fines by an additional factor for each previous violation.” (Cal.

Gov. Code, § 65589.5, subd. (l).)
Case 3:25-cv-04904-LB Document 60 Filed 08/04/26 Page 63 of 344 - 64 -
THIRD AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES AND PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDATE – CASE NO. 3:25-cv-04904-LB
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 14
15 16
17 18
19 20
21 22
23 24
25 26
27 28

COX, CASTLE &

NICHOLSON LLP

ATTORNEYS AT LAW

SAN FRANCISCO

PRAYER FOR RELIEF
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff prays for judgment as follows:

On the First Claim for Relief (Takings)

1. For a determination that Defendants have taken Plaintiff’s property;

2. For a determination of the amount of just compensation that Plaintiff is entitled;

3. For prejudgment interest thereon.

On the Second Claim for Relief (Temporary Takings)

4. For a determination that Defendants have taken Plaintiff’s property;

5. For a determination of the amount of just compensation that Plaintiff is entitled;

6. For prejudgment interest thereon.

On the Third Claim for Relief (Procedural Due Process)

7. For damages in an amount to be proven at the time of trial;

8. For prejudgment interest thereon.

On the Fourth Claim for Relief (Substantive Due Process)

9. For damages in an amount to be proven at the time of trial;

10. For prejudgment interest thereon.

On the Fifth Claim for Relief (Violation of SB 35)

11. For a peremptory writ of mandamus directing the City to comply with SB 35, including, but not limited to, an order compelling the City to timely complete the processing of the 29-Unit Project in accordance with the process and requirements imposed by SB 35.

On the Sixth Claim for Relief (Second Violation of SB 35)

12. For a peremptory writ of mandamus directing the City to comply with SB 35, including, but not limited to, an order compelling the City to approve the Case 3:25-cv-04904-LB Document 60 Filed 08/04/26 Page 64 of 344 - 65 -
THIRD AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES AND PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDATE – CASE NO. 3:25-cv-04904-LB
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 14
15 16
17 18
19 20
21 22
23 24
25 26
27 28

COX, CASTLE &

NICHOLSON LLP

ATTORNEYS AT LAW

SAN FRANCISCO
29-Unit Project in accordance with the process and requirements imposed by SB

35. On the Seventh Claim for Relief (Third Violation of SB 35)

13. For a peremptory writ of mandamus directing the City to comply with SB 35, including, but not limited to, an order compelling the City to approve the 14-Unit Project in accordance with the process and requirements imposed by SB

35. On the Eighth Claim for Relief (Fourth Violation of SB 35)

14. For a peremptory writ of mandamus directing the City to comply with SB 35, including, but not limited to, an order compelling the City to approve the Resubmitted 14-Unit Project in accordance with the process and requirements imposed by SB 35.

On the Ninth Claim for Relief (Breach of Mandatory Duty(s))

15. For damages in an amount to be proven at the time of trial;

16. For prejudgment interest thereon.

On the Tenth Claim for Relief (Violation of HAA)

17. For a peremptory writ of mandamus directing the City to comply with the HAA, including, but not limited to, an order or judgment compelling the City to approve the 29-Unit Project.

On the Eleventh Claim for Relief (Second Violation of HAA)

18. For a peremptory writ of mandamus directing the City to comply with the HAA, including, but not limited to, an order or judgment compelling the City to approve the 29-Unit Project.

On the Twelfth Claim for Relief (Third Violation of HAA)

19. For a peremptory writ of mandamus directing the City to comply with the HAA, including, but not limited to, an order or judgment compelling the City to approve the 14-Unit Project.

Case 3:25-cv-04904-LB Document 60 Filed 08/04/26 Page 65 of 344 - 66 -
THIRD AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES AND PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDATE – CASE NO. 3:25-cv-04904-LB
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 14
15 16
17 18
19 20
21 22
23 24
25 26
27 28

COX, CASTLE &

NICHOLSON LLP

ATTORNEYS AT LAW

SAN FRANCISCO
On the Thirteenth Claim for Relief (Fourth Violation of HAA)

20. For a peremptory writ of mandamus directing the City to comply with the HAA, including, but not limited to, an order or judgment compelling the City to approve the Resubmitted 14-Unit Project.

On All Claims for Relief

21. For attorneys’ fees as provided by law, including, but not limited to, California Government Code section 65589.5 and California Government Code section 65914.2(b)(1);

22. For costs of suit and litigation expenses as provided by law; and

23. For such other relief as the Court deems just and proper.

JURY DEMAND
Plaintiff hereby demands a jury trial in this action.

Dated: August 4, 2026 COX, CASTLE & NICHOLSON LLP
By:

Andrew B. Sabey
Scott B. Birkey
Eric J. Cohn
Attorneys for Plaintiff River Landon LLC
Case 3:25-cv-04904-LB Document 60 Filed 08/04/26 Page 66 of 344 - 67 -
THIRD AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES AND PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDATE – CASE NO. 3:25-cv-04904-LB
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 14
15 16
17 18
19 20
21 22
23 24
25 26
27 28

COX, CASTLE &

NICHOLSON LLP

ATTORNEYS AT LAW

SAN FRANCISCO

VERIFICATION
I, Carmen Vila declare:

I am authorized to make this verification on River Landon LLC’s behalf. I have read the foregoing THIRD AMENDED COMPLAINT AND PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDATE, and know its contents. I am informed and believe, and on that ground allege, that the matters stated in the foregoing document are true.

I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing is true and correct.

Executed on August 4, 2026.

____________________________________
Carmen Vila
Case 3:25-cv-04904-LB Document 60 Filed 08/04/26 Page 67 of 344

EXHIBIT A
Case 3:25-cv-04904-LB Document 60 Filed 08/04/26 Page 68 of 344 PATTERSON & O’NEILL, PC
235 Montgomery Street, Suite 950
San Francisco, CA 94104
Telephone: (415) 907-9110
Facsimile: (415) 907-7704
www.pattersononeill.com
August 8, 2024

VIA E-MAIL
Margaret Kavanaugh-Lynch
Planning Manager
1400 Fifth Avenue, Top Floor
San Rafael, CA 94901
Re: SB 35 Housing Development Project Application
Coleman Drive in San Rafael, APNs 011-031-44 though -49 Dear Ms. Kavanaugh-Lynch:

Our office represents the applicant for a housing development project on six vacant lots along Coleman Drive in San Rafael, APNs 011-031-44 though -49. The proposed housing development project includes 18 dwelling units and 11 accessory dwelling units, with six of the units proposed to be restricted as affordable for low-income households and including teachers.

Our client proposed this multi-unit housing development project pursuant the state Streamlined Ministerial Approval Process, commonly referred to as SB 35 (Gov. Code § 65913.4), the Housing Accountability Act (Gov. Code § 65589.5), and the Permit Streamlining Act (Gov.

Code § 65943.) A notice of intent in the form of a preliminary application for the project was submitted and accepted as complete on May 15, 2023. As you are aware, once a notice of intent has been submitted, SB 35 requires a local government to engage in a scoping consultation with any California Native American tribe that is traditionally and culturally affiliated with the geographic area before a development application for ministerial processing can be accepted. (Gov. Code § 65913.4(b)(1)(A)(ii).)
To date, the City has failed to carry out its ministerial duty to engage in a meaningful and timely scoping consultation process, and is instead weaponizing the consultation requirement to delay this desperately needed housing project. The Applicant has gone above and beyond what is legally required to move the consultation process forward by providing the City with incontrovertible evidence that no tribal cultural resources are present at the project site. As explained in more detail below, the City has failed in its duty to timely engage in a scoping consultation and, because there is no evidence that the project has the potential to affect any tribal cultural resources, the City is required to ministerially process the project application.

Case 3:25-cv-04904-LB Document 60 Filed 08/04/26 Page 69 of 344 Margaret Kavanaugh-Lynch, Planning Manager
August 8, 2024

Scoping Consultation Requirements
A local government is required to provide notice with an invitation to engage in a scoping consultation to the tribes within 30 days after the preliminary application is submitted and local tribes have 30 days to accept the invitation. (Gov. Code § 65913.4(b)(1)(A)(ii)-(iii).) A local government is then required to engage in the consultation within 30 days after receiving a notice accepting the invitation. (Id.) Thus, in total a local agency is required to complete the consultation process within 90 days.

SB 35 defines “consultation” as “the meaningful and timely process of seeking, discussing, and considering carefully the views of others, in a manner that is cognizant of all parties’ cultural values and, where feasible, seeking agreement.” (Gov. Code § 65913.4(b)(7).) A local government is required to utilize the tribal consultation best practices described in the “State of California Tribal Consultation Guidelines: Supplement to the General Plan Guidelines” (“Consultation Guidelines”). (Id.) The term “scoping” means early discussions or investigations between the local government and California Native American tribe regarding the potential effects a proposed development could have on a potential tribal cultural resource, as defined in Section 21074 of the Public Resources Code. (Id.)
The City Has Failed to Engage in a Meaningful and Timely Consultation Process The Federated Indians of Graton Rancheria (“FIGR”) accepted the City’s consultation invitation on June 22, 2023 – more than a year ago. Despite the requirement that a local government engage in scoping within 30 days, the City did not meet with FIGR for nearly two months.

Neither party identified any tribal cultural resources that may be impacted by the project at that initial meeting, and instead FIGR requested that the applicant complete an archeological survey and report to determine if any cultural resources exist. We note that in the Consultation Guidelines, potential tribal resources are supposed to be identified by the local government from record searches through the Native American Heritage Commission and California Historic Resources Information System, or from the tribe itself. Nothing requires a project applicant to fund an independent survey and report to identify potential resources.

Nonetheless, the Applicant cooperated with FIGR’s request and commissioned an archeological survey (attended by FIGR Cultural Monitor Owen Knight) and report that was forwarded to FIGR on November 15, 2023. That survey and report confirmed that no tribal cultural resources would be impacted by the project, and that due to the landform and existing surrounding development the potential for encountering any type of subsurface archaeological deposits at the site was low.

Despite these conclusive findings, the City did not meet to discuss the report with FIGR for nearly two months, and then again two months after that, only to then request that the radius of the record search be expanded – despite the fact that any tribal resources beyond a quarter mile from the project site would have no potential to be impacted by this modest residential development. A supplemental report was provided on April 5, 2024, once again confirming no Case 3:25-cv-04904-LB Document 60 Filed 08/04/26 Page 70 of 344 Margaret Kavanaugh-Lynch, Planning Manager
August 8, 2024

potential impacts to tribal resources. The City waited another three and a half months to meet with FIGR to discuss this four-page addendum to the report.

More than a year has gone by and the City has done nothing to move the consultation process forward. The City failed to conduct its own record search, failed to make a determination whether any tribal cultural resources would be affected by the development, and failed to propose any agreement to avoid or address any potential impacts. In short, nothing the City has done over the last year can be considered a meaningful or timely consultation process. Rather, the City appears to be utilizing the scoping consultation process requirement as a method to delay the proposed project and deny the applicant its rights to ministerial processing under SB

35. There is No Evidence of Potential Impacts to Tribal Cultural Resources The term “tribal cultural resources” are defined as either 1) sites, features, places, cultural landscapes, sacred places, and objects with cultural value to a California Native American tribe that are included or determined to be eligible for inclusion in the California Register of Historical Resources or are included in a local register of historical resources, or 2) a resource determined by the lead agency, in its discretion and supported by substantial evidence, to be significant pursuant to the established criteria for inclusion the California Register of Historical Resources. (Pub. Res. Code § 21074.) If no potential tribal cultural resources would be affected by a proposed development, the City is required to process the application pursuant to SB 35’s streamlined, ministerial approval process. (Gov. Code § 65913.4(b)(2).) As explained above, the applicant retained one of FIGR’s preferred archeological consultants to conduct an extensive record search, outreach to tribal organizations, and a field survey to determine whether any tribal cultural resources would be impacted by the project. The report confirmed that there are no records of any documented tribal cultural resources that would be impacted, and due to the results of the field survey, in addition to location and landform of the project site, that there is no evidence that any subsurface tribal cultural resources would be impacted by the project. Not only is there no substantial evidence that any tribal cultural resources would be impacted by the project, but there is not even a scintilla of evidence of any potential impacts to tribal resources.

As noted above, the term “scoping” means discussions regarding the potential effects a proposed development could have on a potential tribal cultural resource. When there is no potential for such effects, there is nothing left for the City to discuss, and the scoping consultation must end.

If the City has determined that there are potential tribal cultural resources would be affected by the project, and can support that determination with substantial evidence, the City must do so. If the City cannot, the City is obligated to ministerially process the project application. In short, the City has a clear obligation to make a determination regarding whether tribal resources would be impacted. The City cannot drag its feet under the guise of ‘consultation’ without making this basic, initial determination regarding whether any further discussions are necessary.

Case 3:25-cv-04904-LB Document 60 Filed 08/04/26 Page 71 of 344 Margaret Kavanaugh-Lynch, Planning Manager
August 8, 2024

The California Department of Housing and Community Development has asked to meet to discuss concerns regarding the City’s implementation of its Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing obligations, the lack of housing approvals outside of the downtown area, and the delays in carrying out the City’s Housing Element programs. The City’s response to this letter will inform that discussion.

Conclusion
The applicant has gone above and beyond to work cooperatively with the City to ensure that no tribal resources will be impacted by the project. The applicant has afforded the City more than enough time to discuss these issues with FIGR, yet the City has failed to complete even the basic step of determining whether the project would have any impacts. This clearly demonstrates that the City is not utilizing the scoping consultation requirement to engage in a meaningful and timely process as intended, but instead the City is weaponizing this procedural requirement as a means to disapprove much needed housing.

Because there is no potential for tribal cultural resources to be affected by this development, the City must process the application pursuant to SB 35’s streamlined, ministerial approval process. (Gov. Code § 65913.4(b)(2).) If the City fails to confirm within the next 10 days that it will now process the SB 35 application, our client may be left with no choice but to seek judicial review of the City’s failure to carry out its ministerial duties under SB 35. We must note that the City is not immune from liability for damages caused by its negligent failure to carry out a mandatory duty imposed by state law. (Gov. Code § 815.6.) Courts have found that when a public official fails to carry out a ministerial duty, those officials can be held liable for any damages caused by that failure. (See Morris v. County of Marin (1977) 18 Cal.3d 901, 917.) We urge the City to adhere to its ministerial duty under SB 35, and process the application as required by law.

Very truly yours,

PATTERSON & O’NEILL, PC
____________________________________
Brian O’Neill
CC (via email): Robert Epstein, City Attorney
Kate Colin, City Mayor
Jon Haveman, Vice-Chair of Planning Commission
Micah Hinkle, Community & Economic Development Director Case 3:25-cv-04904-LB Document 60 Filed 08/04/26 Page 72 of 344

EXHIBIT B
Case 3:25-cv-04904-LB Document 60 Filed 08/04/26 Page 73 of 344 4931-1622-3293 v1
Kate Colin, Mayor • Maribeth Bushey, Vice Mayor • Eli Hill, Councilmember • Rachel Kertz, Councilmember • Maika Llorens Gulati, Councilmember Sent Via Electronic Mail
May 9, 2025
Federated Indians of the Graton Rancheria
[email protected]
Dear Buffy McQuillen:

RE: PLAN23-067 – Coleman SB 35 Project
I am writing regarding the SB 35 housing development project currently proposed in the City on Coleman Drive. The City very much appreciates the ongoing dialogue that we have had with you and other members of the FIGR.

As you know, SB 35 requires the City, upon receipt of notice of an SB 35 development application to engage in a scoping consultation regarding the proposed development with any California Native American tribe that is traditionally and culturally affiliated with the geographic area, as described in Section 21080.3.1 of the Public Resources Code, of the proposed development.

Looking back on our records, City staff have had meetings and/or calls with the representatives of the FIGR regarding this project on the following dates:

June 22, 2023
July 14, 2023
July 20, 2023
August 3, 2023
November 14, 2023
November 20, 2023
December 12, 2023
December 13, 2023
January 3, 2024
February 2, 2024
February 12, 2024
February 27, 2024
March 29, 2024
April 9, 2024
May 14, 2024
May 21, 2024
June 6, 2024
July 14, 2024
August 9, 2024
October 11, 2024
March 18, 2025
Case 3:25-cv-04904-LB Document 60 Filed 08/04/26 Page 74 of 344 4931-1622-3293 v1
Kate Colin, Mayor • Maribeth Bushey, Vice Mayor • Eli Hill, Councilmember • Rachel Kertz, Councilmember • Maika Llorens Gulati, Councilmember February 12, 2025
January 8, 2025
February 12, 2025
March 12, 2025
April 9, 2025
Again, we very much appreciate and value your time in meeting with City representatives on these various occasions. We believe these meetings have adhered to SB 35’s requirements that the consultation process involve the meaningful process of seeking, discussing and considering carefully the views of others, in a manner that is cognizant of all parties’ cultural values and, where feasible, seeking agreement.

The City is however, concerned that the consultation process has not been “timely” as required by SB 35. Throughout the meetings and ongoing consultation process which began in May of 2023, FIGR has not informed the City that a potential tribal cultural resource would be affected by the proposed development or that an enforceable agreement could not be documented between FIGR and the City regarding methods, measures, and conditions for treatment of any tribal cultural resource treatment.

The September 2023 cultural resources study conducted by Alta on the project site and shared by FIGR with the City, did not reveal the presence or likelihood of any tribal cultural resources. Nevertheless, the City acknowledges that FIGR may still determine that a potential tribal cultural resource would be affected by the proposed development. If FIGR intends to make this determination, we ask that FIGR please inform the City of this fact within two weeks of the date of this letter. We also request that FIGR inform the City whether FIGR believes that a mutual agreement on methods, measures, and conditions to avoid or address impacts to tribal cultural resources that are or may be present can be reached.

Please let me know if you have any questions, and as always, I am available to meet and speak with you about any issues related to this project.

Sincerely,
Micah Hinkle
Community and Economic Development Director
Case 3:25-cv-04904-LB Document 60 Filed 08/04/26 Page 75 of 344

EXHIBIT C
Case 3:25-cv-04904-LB Document 60 Filed 08/04/26 Page 76 of 344 www.coxcastle.com Los Angeles | Orange County | San Francisco Cox, Castle & Nicholson LLP
50 California Street, Suite 3200
San Francisco, California 94111-4710
P: 415.262.5100 F: 415.262.5199
Andrew B. Sabey
415.262.5103
[email protected]
May 15, 2025
Mayor Kate Colin ([email protected])
Vice Mayor Maribeth Bushey ([email protected]) Councilmember Maika Llorens Gulati ([email protected]) Councilmember Eli Hill ([email protected])
Councilmember Rachel Kertz ([email protected]) City of San Rafael
c/o City Clerk Lindsay Lara ([email protected]) 1400 Fifth Avenue, Room 203
San Rafael, CA 94901
Re: Next Steps for the City and the 253–281 Coleman Drive SB 35 Project Dear Mayor Colin and Members of the City Council:

We represent River Landon LLC (“Applicant”) in connection with its housing development efforts at 253–281 Coleman Drive (the “Property”)1 in the City of San Rafael (the “City”). Despite the Applicant’s continued efforts to advance a housing development project on the Property, the City has illegally refused to process the application. The current application for a 29-unit housing development project proposed pursuant to Senate Bill 35 (the “Project”) has been pending in the City for two full years with no discernible progress.

California has a housing crisis. Marin County is among the least affordable areas of the State. The City’s actions contribute directly to the ongoing crisis. The Legislature has been increasingly active in its efforts to demand that local agencies process and approve desperately needed housing. SB 35 was enacted to provide a streamlined, ministerial approval process— with approval or denial of a SB 35 project like this one needing to occur within 90 calendar days of submittal of the application. (Gov. Code, § 65913.4(d)(1).) SB 35 does not allow for indefinite delay or procedural gamesmanship, yet this is precisely what the City appears to have engaged in for the Project with its use of the ministerial SB 35 scoping consultation for the Project as a pretext to thwart the Project.

The City has been well-advised of its failure to carry out its ministerial scoping consultation duty under SB 35. In August 2024, the Applicant made clear that the City’s handling of the consultation process was not only legally unsound, but also financially reckless. (See Exhibit A [August 8, 2024 Letter to City Planning Manager documenting that the City has failed to engage in a meaningful and timely consultation process, there is no evidence of 1 The Property consists of six Assessor Parcel Numbers (“APNs”)—011-031-44 through and including 011-031-49.

Case 3:25-cv-04904-LB Document 60 Filed 08/04/26 Page 77 of 344 Mayor Kate Colin ([email protected])
May 15, 2025

potential impacts to Tribal cultural resources, and that the City is not immune for liability for damages caused by its negligent failure to carry out this mandatory duty].) Nearly a full year later, the Applicant is stuck in what is now a two-year “consultation period” for a 1.4-acre infill property with not a scintilla of evidence of any potential impact to tribal cultural resources. Based on an extensive record search, outreach to Tribal organizations, and multiple field surveys, nothing has been identified that would even suggest a risk of impact.

In the face of that record, the City’s unlawful and negligent failure to carry out its ministerial scoping consultation duty persists.

The City’s recent letter (attached hereto as Exhibit B) purporting to have conducted numerous meetings with the Federated Indians of the Graton Rancheria (“FIGR”) about the Project2 belies the facts. The facts, obtained from Public Records Act requests, show that there has only been sparse communication with FIGR about the Project separated by many months of utter silence. There is no evidence whatsoever that the City and FIGR have substantially engaged in any SB 35 scoping consultation, despite the City’s documented requests including in Spring 2024. While the Applicant appreciates that the City wrote a letter to FIGR with a purported deadline, the substance of the letter actually undermines the process by suggesting a robust consultation when there has been next to none, and certainly nothing that comes close to complying with the letter and spirit of SB 35. The City’s letter does nothing to change the fundamental reality that the City has failed and continues to fail to discharge its ministerial duties under SB 35. The only solution is for the City to commence SB 35 processing immediately.

The City’s disregard for its ministerial duties under state law has consequences. In the form of damages—as the City’s obstruction and disregard for its ministerial duties under SB 35 has caused significant financial damage to Applicant. This damage continues to accumulate at the rate of approximately $338,330 per month in lost rental profit and lost capital appreciation. Moreover, if the City’s delays continue, and the Applicant’s investors are forced to withdraw the Project completely, the resulting damages could quickly escalate to approximately $56.47 million based on the net present value of the Project.

Compounding the matter for the City, Applicant would be entitled to attorneys’ fees and costs of suit were it to prevail in litigation against the City pursuant to both the Housing Accountability Act (“HAA”)3 and regulatory takings and civil rights laws. (Gov. Code, § 2 We do not doubt the meetings listed in the letter transpired. We do doubt that “meaningful” discussion about the Property, Project, and its potential impacts to Tribal cultural resources transpired. (See Gov.

Code, § 65913.4(b)(7)(A) [definition of “consultation”].) Even assuming all of those meetings were about the Property, Project, and its potential impacts to Tribal cultural resources, it defies reason that a SB 35 scoping consultation would take 26 meetings for any property, let alone one that is an infill site that is only 1.4 acres in size.
3 Case law is clear that a single action can violate both SB 35 and the HAA. (See Ruegg & Ellsworth v.

City of Berkeley (2023) 89 Cal.App.5th 258, 261.) That is the case here.

Case 3:25-cv-04904-LB Document 60 Filed 08/04/26 Page 78 of 344 Mayor Kate Colin ([email protected])
May 15, 2025

65589.5(k)(1)(A)(ii); Code of Civ. Proc., § 1036; 42 U.S.C., § 1988.) The City could also be subject to a minimum fine in the amount of $290,000, which minimum amount can reach $1.45 million if a court finds the City has acted in bad faith. (Gov. Code, § 65589.5(k)(1)(B), (l); see also SB 10374, effective January 1, 2025 [creating new legal remedies, inclusive of penalties in the range of $10,000 to $50,000 per month, in actions brought to enforce any state law that requires a local government to ministerially approve any planning or permitting application related to a housing development project, which includes SB 35].) The financial recklessness Applicant warned the City about in August 2024, and again in December 2024 when Applicant submitted a “Government Claim” form to the City owing to the damage caused by City’s failure to discharge its ministerial SB 35 scoping consultation duties, has now reached a crossroads. Despite the continued delays and damages, Applicant remains committed to bringing the Project and its much-needed housing to the City5. Applicant also understands its rights and will not hesitate to enforce those rights through legal action, if necessary. Accordingly, we urge the City to recognize its legal responsibilities and respond accordingly by processing in good faith the SB 35 Project.

We appreciate the City’s attention to this matter.

Sincerely,
Andrew B. Sabey
cc: Robert Epstein, City Attorney ([email protected]) Nira Doherty, Burke Williams & Sorensen ([email protected]) 4 Available at https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billTextClient.xhtml?bill_id=202320240SB1037.

Further, to the extent the City has not already seen the California Department of Justice Office of the Attorney General Legal Alert (No. OAG 2025-002, dated May 15, 2025) on the new civil penalties authorized by SB 1037, even though the Alert was directed to the City among all other cities and counties in the state, we include the Alert here as well. (See https://oag.ca.gov/system/files/attachments/pressdocs/Legal%20Alert%20-%20SB%201037.pdf.) 5 To this effect, we note that housing laws are evolving rapidly—and new statutory regimes, including SB 9/450, SB 684/1123 (as well as Applicant’s fully vested “builder’s remedy” project application for the Property) will further limit the City’s ability to obstruct housing on the Property. The City’s continued resistance to the Project would likely only increase the City’s potential financial exposure.

Case 3:25-cv-04904-LB Document 60 Filed 08/04/26 Page 79 of 344

EXHIBIT A
Case 3:25-cv-04904-LB Document 60 Filed 08/04/26 Page 80 of 344 PATTERSON & O’NEILL, PC
235 Montgomery Street, Suite 950
San Francisco, CA 94104
Telephone: (415) 907-9110
Facsimile: (415) 907-7704
www.pattersononeill.com
August 8, 2024

VIA E-MAIL
Margaret Kavanaugh-Lynch
Planning Manager
1400 Fifth Avenue, Top Floor
San Rafael, CA 94901
Re: SB 35 Housing Development Project Application
Coleman Drive in San Rafael, APNs 011-031-44 though -49 Dear Ms. Kavanaugh-Lynch:

Our office represents the applicant for a housing development project on six vacant lots along Coleman Drive in San Rafael, APNs 011-031-44 though -49. The proposed housing development project includes 18 dwelling units and 11 accessory dwelling units, with six of the units proposed to be restricted as affordable for low-income households and including teachers.

Our client proposed this multi-unit housing development project pursuant the state Streamlined Ministerial Approval Process, commonly referred to as SB 35 (Gov. Code § 65913.4), the Housing Accountability Act (Gov. Code § 65589.5), and the Permit Streamlining Act (Gov.

Code § 65943.) A notice of intent in the form of a preliminary application for the project was submitted and accepted as complete on May 15, 2023. As you are aware, once a notice of intent has been submitted, SB 35 requires a local government to engage in a scoping consultation with any California Native American tribe that is traditionally and culturally affiliated with the geographic area before a development application for ministerial processing can be accepted. (Gov. Code § 65913.4(b)(1)(A)(ii).)
To date, the City has failed to carry out its ministerial duty to engage in a meaningful and timely scoping consultation process, and is instead weaponizing the consultation requirement to delay this desperately needed housing project. The Applicant has gone above and beyond what is legally required to move the consultation process forward by providing the City with incontrovertible evidence that no tribal cultural resources are present at the project site. As explained in more detail below, the City has failed in its duty to timely engage in a scoping consultation and, because there is no evidence that the project has the potential to affect any tribal cultural resources, the City is required to ministerially process the project application.

Case 3:25-cv-04904-LB Document 60 Filed 08/04/26 Page 81 of 344 Margaret Kavanaugh-Lynch, Planning Manager
August 8, 2024

Scoping Consultation Requirements
A local government is required to provide notice with an invitation to engage in a scoping consultation to the tribes within 30 days after the preliminary application is submitted and local tribes have 30 days to accept the invitation. (Gov. Code § 65913.4(b)(1)(A)(ii)-(iii).) A local government is then required to engage in the consultation within 30 days after receiving a notice accepting the invitation. (Id.) Thus, in total a local agency is required to complete the consultation process within 90 days.

SB 35 defines “consultation” as “the meaningful and timely process of seeking, discussing, and considering carefully the views of others, in a manner that is cognizant of all parties’ cultural values and, where feasible, seeking agreement.” (Gov. Code § 65913.4(b)(7).) A local government is required to utilize the tribal consultation best practices described in the “State of California Tribal Consultation Guidelines: Supplement to the General Plan Guidelines” (“Consultation Guidelines”). (Id.) The term “scoping” means early discussions or investigations between the local government and California Native American tribe regarding the potential effects a proposed development could have on a potential tribal cultural resource, as defined in Section 21074 of the Public Resources Code. (Id.)
The City Has Failed to Engage in a Meaningful and Timely Consultation Process The Federated Indians of Graton Rancheria (“FIGR”) accepted the City’s consultation invitation on June 22, 2023 – more than a year ago. Despite the requirement that a local government engage in scoping within 30 days, the City did not meet with FIGR for nearly two months.

Neither party identified any tribal cultural resources that may be impacted by the project at that initial meeting, and instead FIGR requested that the applicant complete an archeological survey and report to determine if any cultural resources exist. We note that in the Consultation Guidelines, potential tribal resources are supposed to be identified by the local government from record searches through the Native American Heritage Commission and California Historic Resources Information System, or from the tribe itself. Nothing requires a project applicant to fund an independent survey and report to identify potential resources.

Nonetheless, the Applicant cooperated with FIGR’s request and commissioned an archeological survey (attended by FIGR Cultural Monitor Owen Knight) and report that was forwarded to FIGR on November 15, 2023. That survey and report confirmed that no tribal cultural resources would be impacted by the project, and that due to the landform and existing surrounding development the potential for encountering any type of subsurface archaeological deposits at the site was low.

Despite these conclusive findings, the City did not meet to discuss the report with FIGR for nearly two months, and then again two months after that, only to then request that the radius of the record search be expanded – despite the fact that any tribal resources beyond a quarter mile from the project site would have no potential to be impacted by this modest residential development. A supplemental report was provided on April 5, 2024, once again confirming no Case 3:25-cv-04904-LB Document 60 Filed 08/04/26 Page 82 of 344 Margaret Kavanaugh-Lynch, Planning Manager
August 8, 2024

potential impacts to tribal resources. The City waited another three and a half months to meet with FIGR to discuss this four-page addendum to the report.

More than a year has gone by and the City has done nothing to move the consultation process forward. The City failed to conduct its own record search, failed to make a determination whether any tribal cultural resources would be affected by the development, and failed to propose any agreement to avoid or address any potential impacts. In short, nothing the City has done over the last year can be considered a meaningful or timely consultation process. Rather, the City appears to be utilizing the scoping consultation process requirement as a method to delay the proposed project and deny the applicant its rights to ministerial processing under SB

35. There is No Evidence of Potential Impacts to Tribal Cultural Resources The term “tribal cultural resources” are defined as either 1) sites, features, places, cultural landscapes, sacred places, and objects with cultural value to a California Native American tribe that are included or determined to be eligible for inclusion in the California Register of Historical Resources or are included in a local register of historical resources, or 2) a resource determined by the lead agency, in its discretion and supported by substantial evidence, to be significant pursuant to the established criteria for inclusion the California Register of Historical Resources. (Pub. Res. Code § 21074.) If no potential tribal cultural resources would be affected by a proposed development, the City is required to process the application pursuant to SB 35’s streamlined, ministerial approval process. (Gov. Code § 65913.4(b)(2).) As explained above, the applicant retained one of FIGR’s preferred archeological consultants to conduct an extensive record search, outreach to tribal organizations, and a field survey to determine whether any tribal cultural resources would be impacted by the project. The report confirmed that there are no records of any documented tribal cultural resources that would be impacted, and due to the results of the field survey, in addition to location and landform of the project site, that there is no evidence that any subsurface tribal cultural resources would be impacted by the project. Not only is there no substantial evidence that any tribal cultural resources would be impacted by the project, but there is not even a scintilla of evidence of any potential impacts to tribal resources.

As noted above, the term “scoping” means discussions regarding the potential effects a proposed development could have on a potential tribal cultural resource. When there is no potential for such effects, there is nothing left for the City to discuss, and the scoping consultation must end.

If the City has determined that there are potential tribal cultural resources would be affected by the project, and can support that determination with substantial evidence, the City must do so. If the City cannot, the City is obligated to ministerially process the project application. In short, the City has a clear obligation to make a determination regarding whether tribal resources would be impacted. The City cannot drag its feet under the guise of ‘consultation’ without making this basic, initial determination regarding whether any further discussions are necessary.

Case 3:25-cv-04904-LB Document 60 Filed 08/04/26 Page 83 of 344 Margaret Kavanaugh-Lynch, Planning Manager
August 8, 2024

The California Department of Housing and Community Development has asked to meet to discuss concerns regarding the City’s implementation of its Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing obligations, the lack of housing approvals outside of the downtown area, and the delays in carrying out the City’s Housing Element programs. The City’s response to this letter will inform that discussion.

Conclusion
The applicant has gone above and beyond to work cooperatively with the City to ensure that no tribal resources will be impacted by the project. The applicant has afforded the City more than enough time to discuss these issues with FIGR, yet the City has failed to complete even the basic step of determining whether the project would have any impacts. This clearly demonstrates that the City is not utilizing the scoping consultation requirement to engage in a meaningful and timely process as intended, but instead the City is weaponizing this procedural requirement as a means to disapprove much needed housing.

Because there is no potential for tribal cultural resources to be affected by this development, the City must process the application pursuant to SB 35’s streamlined, ministerial approval process. (Gov. Code § 65913.4(b)(2).) If the City fails to confirm within the next 10 days that it will now process the SB 35 application, our client may be left with no choice but to seek judicial review of the City’s failure to carry out its ministerial duties under SB 35. We must note that the City is not immune from liability for damages caused by its negligent failure to carry out a mandatory duty imposed by state law. (Gov. Code § 815.6.) Courts have found that when a public official fails to carry out a ministerial duty, those officials can be held liable for any damages caused by that failure. (See Morris v. County of Marin (1977) 18 Cal.3d 901, 917.) We urge the City to adhere to its ministerial duty under SB 35, and process the application as required by law.

Very truly yours,

PATTERSON & O’NEILL, PC
____________________________________
Brian O’Neill
CC (via email): Robert Epstein, City Attorney
Kate Colin, City Mayor
Jon Haveman, Vice-Chair of Planning Commission
Micah Hinkle, Community & Economic Development Director Case 3:25-cv-04904-LB Document 60 Filed 08/04/26 Page 84 of 344

EXHIBIT B
Case 3:25-cv-04904-LB Document 60 Filed 08/04/26 Page 85 of 344 4931-1622-3293 v1
Kate Colin, Mayor • Maribeth Bushey, Vice Mayor • Eli Hill, Councilmember • Rachel Kertz, Councilmember • Maika Llorens Gulati, Councilmember Sent Via Electronic Mail
May 9, 2025
Federated Indians of the Graton Rancheria
[email protected]
Dear Buffy McQuillen:

RE: PLAN23-067 – Coleman SB 35 Project
I am writing regarding the SB 35 housing development project currently proposed in the City on Coleman Drive. The City very much appreciates the ongoing dialogue that we have had with you and other members of the FIGR.

As you know, SB 35 requires the City, upon receipt of notice of an SB 35 development application to engage in a scoping consultation regarding the proposed development with any California Native American tribe that is traditionally and culturally affiliated with the geographic area, as described in Section 21080.3.1 of the Public Resources Code, of the proposed development.

Looking back on our records, City staff have had meetings and/or calls with the representatives of the FIGR regarding this project on the following dates:

June 22, 2023
July 14, 2023
July 20, 2023
August 3, 2023
November 14, 2023
November 20, 2023
December 12, 2023
December 13, 2023
January 3, 2024
February 2, 2024
February 12, 2024
February 27, 2024
March 29, 2024
April 9, 2024
May 14, 2024
May 21, 2024
June 6, 2024
July 14, 2024
August 9, 2024
October 11, 2024
March 18, 2025
Case 3:25-cv-04904-LB Document 60 Filed 08/04/26 Page 86 of 344 4931-1622-3293 v1
Kate Colin, Mayor • Maribeth Bushey, Vice Mayor • Eli Hill, Councilmember • Rachel Kertz, Councilmember • Maika Llorens Gulati, Councilmember February 12, 2025
January 8, 2025
February 12, 2025
March 12, 2025
April 9, 2025
Again, we very much appreciate and value your time in meeting with City representatives on these various occasions. We believe these meetings have adhered to SB 35’s requirements that the consultation process involve the meaningful process of seeking, discussing and considering carefully the views of others, in a manner that is cognizant of all parties’ cultural values and, where feasible, seeking agreement.

The City is however, concerned that the consultation process has not been “timely” as required by SB 35. Throughout the meetings and ongoing consultation process which began in May of 2023, FIGR has not informed the City that a potential tribal cultural resource would be affected by the proposed development or that an enforceable agreement could not be documented between FIGR and the City regarding methods, measures, and conditions for treatment of any tribal cultural resource treatment.

The September 2023 cultural resources study conducted by Alta on the project site and shared by FIGR with the City, did not reveal the presence or likelihood of any tribal cultural resources. Nevertheless, the City acknowledges that FIGR may still determine that a potential tribal cultural resource would be affected by the proposed development. If FIGR intends to make this determination, we ask that FIGR please inform the City of this fact within two weeks of the date of this letter. We also request that FIGR inform the City whether FIGR believes that a mutual agreement on methods, measures, and conditions to avoid or address impacts to tribal cultural resources that are or may be present can be reached.

Please let me know if you have any questions, and as always, I am available to meet and speak with you about any issues related to this project.

Sincerely,
Micah Hinkle
Community and Economic Development Director
Case 3:25-cv-04904-LB Document 60 Filed 08/04/26 Page 87 of 344

EXHIBIT D
Case 3:25-cv-04904-LB Document 60 Filed 08/04/26 Page 88 of 344 x 391
x 359
x 368
parking level
x 383 parking level parking level
parking level
PARKING 1
PARKING 4
PARKING 5
PARKING 2 AERIAL FIRE

APPARATUS

ACCESS ROAD

PRIVATE STREET

PRIVATE STREET

PRIVATE
STREET
Cherry Laurel
Parking Screening
8'-1 31/64"
17'-9 31/32"
11'-3 31/64"
S86°03'46W
5" TREE
14" TREE
SHRUBS
AND
BUSHES 2-4" TREES
2-4" TREES
TO BE

REMOVED
APN: 011-031-46 APN: 011-031-47 APN: 011-031-48
APN: 011-031-45
5' wide R/W
5' wide R/W
5' wide R/W Marin Water Easement
SLOPE= 43.21%
SLOPE= 44.09%
APN: 011-031-49
APN: 011-031-44
201.906
200.000

50.18 50.18
S 86° 06' 21" W
N 5° 37' 00" W
S 86° 03' 46" W
30 CHULA VISTA
DRIVE
32 CHULA VISTA
DRIVE
36 CHULA VISTA
DRIVE
44 CHULA VISTA
DRIVE
DRIVE
N 7° 48' 00" W
222.782
N 5° 37' 00" W
207.683
S 86° 29' 20" W
S 86° 27' 36" W
121 SLOPE=43%
124
125
128
129
132

FIRE HYDRANT

37.87 ft
203.811

50.31 ft

18.27 ft

42.16 ft

18.17 ft

28.11 ft

18.50 ft

23.03 ft

18.57 ft
10952 SF
10575 SF
10159 SF
10255 SF
10159 SF
10064 SF

50.12 50.12

50.12 50.12

50.18 50.18

50.18 48.33
205.717
215.232
2-4" TREES
48 CHULA VISTA
N 0° 50' 00" E
Marin Water Easement
N 7° 48' 00" W

50.12 50.12
SLOPE=42%
SLOPE=43.21%
SLOPE=43.21%
SLOPE=44.09%
SLOPE=44.09%

COLEMAN DRIVE

CENTERLINE
122 123
126
127
130
131
134
S 86° 09' 00" W
Recorded Right
of Way for

ROADWAY ACCESS
purposes
N 7° 48' 00" W
4" TREE
Enclosed trash
& recycling area
Upon plan/configuration
approval will submit for
post-entitlement:

Stormwater
Utilities
MCSTOPPP plan
Drainage
All are engineering plans
Utilities:

Water - water main on
property
Undergrounded electric
Cable
Sewer laterals to street sewer
4'-0" 8% gradient
x346
x349
x352
x355
x373
x370
x385
x376
x388 x391
x394
x397
x391
x379
x382

ROADWAY LEVEL

ROADWAY LEVEL

ROADWAY LEVEL

ROADWAY LEVEL

ROADWAY LEVEL

ROADWAY LEVEL ROADWAY LEVEL

ROADWAY LEVEL

ROADWAY LEVEL

ROADWAY LEVEL

ROADWAY LEVEL

ROADWAY LEVEL

ROADWAY LEVEL

ROADWAY LEVEL

ROADWAY LEVEL
x358

ROADWAY LEVEL
x364
x367
x361

ROADWAY LEVEL

ROADWAY LEVEL

ROADWAY LEVEL
Fire Turnaround
26'-0"
46'-10 1/4"
3'-0"
8'-4 3/8"
3'-0"
2'-5 1/8"
2'-3 3/4"
3'-0"
4'-0"
36'-7 3/8"
2'-5"
8'-4 3/8"
4'-0"
6'-0"
22'-6 1/8"
40'-1 1/4"
8'-4 3/8"
8'-4 3/8"
4'-10 5/8"
8'-4 3/8"
26'-0"
5'-11 1/2"
18'-5 3/8"
21'-11 3/8"
26'-0"
2'-7 7/8"
1'-1 5/8"
2'-4"
8'-4 3/8"
8'-7 1/4"
7'-1 1/2"
8% gradient
8% gradient
8% gradient
8% gradient 26'-0"
2'-5"
26'-0"
38'-11 5/8"
26'-0"
8'-4 3/8"
8'-4 3/8"
8'-5"
9'-0 1/2"
4'-0"
8'-5 5/8"
32'-1"
4'-0"
28'-11 5/8"
4'-0"
70'-0"
19'-9"
14'-6 3/8"
22'-2 1/8"

BUILDING ONE

BUILDING TWO

BUILDING THREE
10,577 sq ft
14,127 sq ft
4,526 sq ft
Drg.

Date
Scale
Applicant: Drg. Title
River Landon LLC
Description Rev. Date Issued
These plans and designs are property and copyright of their respective owners. Not to be copied nor disseminated except for the express purpose for which they are provided. Use of the plans/designs is acknowledgement of these rights.

Housing Development
with Affordable Component
APNs: No.
011-031-44, 011-031-45,
011-031-46, 011-031-47,
011-031-48, 011-031-49
Preliminary Submittal 5/15/23 PM Address:

Coleman Drive,
San Rafael, CA
Full application 11/9/23
Small changes, clarifications to 11/9/23 Submittal 5/28/24 Submittal HAA SB 35 DBL Settlement application (distinct from standard HAA application made) 9/05/25
Submittal HAA SB 35 DBL Settlement application (distinct from standard HAA application made) 3/18/26
11 x 17
A.0.2
1/32"=1'
3/18/26

SITE PLAN
Case 3:25-cv-04904-LB Document 60 Filed 08/04/26 Page 89 of 344 Outline of second F. above
B
N S
Outline of second F. above
B
N S
Outline of First Floor Below
Outline of First Floor Below

O P P P P D
O F F
P
F
P
42'-0" 42'-0" 42'-0" 8'-43
8" 8'-43
8"
142'-849 64"
31'-6" 31'-6"
15'-9" 15'-9" 8'-43
8" 8'-43
8"
142'-849 64"
7'-101
2"
39'-43164"
39'-4 1/2"
26'-3" 26'-3" 15'-9" 26'-3"
7'-101
2"
7'-101
2"
39'-43164"
23'-7 1/2"
7'-10 1/2"
7'-10 1/2"
39'-4 31/64"
Outline of second F. above
B
N S
Unit Name sq ft
Unit 1
Unit 2
3,550
3,550
3,477

BUILDING - ONE
TOTAL 10,577
Unit 3
- Building One
- Building One
- Building One
Drg.

Date
Scale
Applicant: Drg. Title
River Landon LLC
Description Rev. Date Issued
These plans and designs are property and copyright of their respective owners. Not to be copied nor disseminated except for the express purpose for which they are provided. Use of the plans/designs is acknowledgement of these rights.

Housing Development
with Affordable Component
APNs: No.
011-031-44, 011-031-45,
011-031-46, 011-031-47,
011-031-48, 011-031-49
Preliminary Submittal 5/15/23 PM Address:

Coleman Drive,
San Rafael, CA
Full application 11/9/23
Small changes, clarifications to 11/9/23 Submittal 5/28/24 Submittal HAA SB 35 DBL Settlement application (distinct from standard HAA application made) 9/05/25
Submittal HAA SB 35 DBL Settlement application (distinct from standard HAA application made) 3/18/26
11 x 17
A.1.1
1/8"=1'

FLOOR PLAN
3/18/26

BUILDING ONE
BUILDING ONE North
Sprinklered as may be required/required by Fire Code
Case 3:25-cv-04904-LB Document 60 Filed 08/04/26 Page 90 of 344

EXHIBIT E
Case 3:25-cv-04904-LB Document 60 Filed 08/04/26 Page 91 of 344

www.coxcastle.com 109689\18674466v5 Los Angeles | Orange County | San Francisco Cox, Castle & Nicholson LLP
50 California Street, Suite 3200
San Francisco, California 94111-4710
P: 415.262.5100 F: 415.262.5199
Andrew B. Sabey
415.262.5103
[email protected]
April 2, 2026
VIA E-MAIL @ [email protected]
City of San Rafael Planning Division
City of San Rafael
c/o Planning Manager Kavanaugh-Lynch ([email protected]) 1400 Fifth Avenue, Top Floor
San Rafael, CA 94901
Re: Challenged “Course of Conduct Undertaken for an Improper Purpose” Notice (Gov. Code § 65589.5(h)(6)(E)) Regarding 235–281 Coleman Drive SB 35 Project
Dear Planning Division:

We represent River Landon LLC (“Applicant”) in connection with its housing development project utilizing Senate Bill (“SB”) 35 (the “Project”) at 253–281 Coleman Drive (the “Property”) in the City of San Rafael (the “City”). The purpose of this letter is to provide written notice to the City regarding its engagement in a “course of conduct undertaken for an improper purpose” in its ongoing violations of SB 35 and the Housing Accountability Act (Gov.

Code, § 65589.5, et seq.) (“HAA”) in its processing of the Project. Should the City fail to cease this course of conduct, then it will have further violated the HAA. (Gov. Code, § 65589.5, subd. (h)(6)(E).) The Project is subject to these HAA protections, as well as protections afforded by Section 65589.5(d)(5) of the Government Code.

1. Challenged Conduct and Why It Constitutes Disapproval As detailed in Exhibit A, the City has engaged in conduct for an improper purpose. The City’s legally and factually unsupported, inconsistent, and shifting demands, including the City’s latest position that it will not accept or process a re-submittal from Applicant—despite SB 35 expressly contemplating and requiring an opportunity for applicants to respond to, revise, and address prior feedback from the City—constitutes disapproval for purposes of the HAA. (Gov.

Code, § 65589.5, subd. (h)(6)(E)(i); Gov. Code, § 65913.4(c)(1)(C).) The City’s improper conduct, if not remedied, is yet another violation of the HAA1. (Gov. Code, § 65589.5, subd. (h)(6)(E)(v).)
1 Applicant currently has litigation pending against the City for its multiple violations of the HAA, SB 35, as well as other state law and federal Constitutional claims arising from Applicant’s efforts to develop the Case 3:25-cv-04904-LB Document 60 Filed 08/04/26 Page 92 of 344

109689\18674466v5

2. City Actions for Compliance with the HAA
The City’s improper processing conduct violates the HAA. The City must take immediate action in response to this written notice, including:
 Within five working days of receiving this written notice (i.e., by April 9, 2026), the City must (I) post this notice on its internet website, (II) provide a copy of the notice to any person who has made a written request for notices pursuant to subdivision (f) of Section 21167 of the Public Resources Code, and (III) file the notice with the county clerk of each county2 in which the Project will be located. (Gov. Code, § 65589.5, subd. (h)(6)(E)(ii).) All pages of the notice (all 25 pages) must be included when the City posts the notice, provides the notice to any person who has made a written request, and files the notice with the county clerk.
 Within between 60 and 90 days of receiving this written notice, the City must consider all objections, comments, evidence, and concerns about the Project or this written notice and then issue a written statement that it will immediately cease the abovementioned challenged conduct or issue written findings that comply with both of the following requirements: (I) an objective basis for why the challenged course of conduct is necessary and (II) clear instructions on what the applicant must submit or supplement so that the local agency can make a final determination regarding the next necessary approval or set the date and time of the next hearing [the latter of which is inapplicable to the SB 35 Project]. (Gov. Code, § 65589.5, subds. (h)(6)(E)(iii)–(iv).) Importantly, the City must continue to process the Project despite this notice. (Gov. Code, § 65913.4, subd. (c)(1)(C).)
* * *
We look forward to the City’s timely compliance with the abovementioned requirements of the HAA. We remind the City that an improper disapproval of the Project under the HAA could subject the City to a minimum fine in the amount of $10,000 per unit in the housing development, which amount, depending on the facts, can reach a minimum of $50,000 per housing unit if a court finds the City acted in bad faith. (Gov. Code, § 65589.5, subds. (k)(1)(A)(ii), (k)(1)(B), (l).) Further, Applicant would be entitled to attorneys’ fees and costs of suit. (Gov. Code, § 65589.5, subd. (k)(1)(A)(ii); Gov. Code, § 65914.2, subd. (b)(1).) Property. (See River Landon LLC v. Hinkle et al, U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California Case No. 3:25-cv-04904-LB.)
2 In turn, the county clerk shall post the notice and make it available for public inspection in the manner set forth in subdivision (c) of Section 21152 of the Public Resources Code. (Gov. Code, § 65589.5, subd. (h)(6)(E)(ii).)
Case 3:25-cv-04904-LB Document 60 Filed 08/04/26 Page 93 of 344

109689\18674466v5
Sincerely,
Cox, Castle & Nicholson LLP
Andrew B. Sabey
cc: Andrea Visveshwara, City Attorney
Kevin Siegel, Burke, Williams & Sorensen, LLP
Nira Doherty, Burke, Williams & Sorensen, LLP
Exhibits:

A. Challenged Course of Conduct Table
Case 3:25-cv-04904-LB Document 60 Filed 08/04/26 Page 94 of 344 109689\19341676v3 1
Exhibit A
Challenged Course of Conduct
The following conduct has been undertaken by the City for an improper purpose:

Challenged conduct: City sent/sends
documentation which
states:

Applicant’s response
Applying non-objective standards to development Refuse collection areas shall be …located in areas
convenient to users and
collectors.

There shall be adequate
ingress and egress to all
utilities.

These are non-objective
standards.

Walls, etc. shall be used to
screen parking and loading
areas from view
This is a non-objective
standard.

What percentage of view
shall be shielded, and from
what angles, from how far
upslope?
Sending documentation/stating inconsistency by
alleging standards are applicable that have no
connection to the development submittal
Structures may encroach
into a required yard with a
compensating increase
subject to approval by the
hearing body
The applicant did not
request any such
encroachment
Case 3:25-cv-04904-LB Document 60 Filed 08/04/26 Page 95 of 344 109689\19341676v3 2
Challenged conduct: City sent/sends
documentation which
states:

Applicant’s response
Fences located within the
front and streetside
setbacks may be 4 feet tall
etc. The plans do not
contain enough detail for
the city to determine
whether the project
complies with the fence
standards at this time
No fences have been
proposed
Sending documentation/stating inconsistency that
improperly relies on local standards when State
standards have preempted those local standards
The city equates all of these
together - housing types to
single family/multifamily to
a zoning classification –
single family to low density,
multifamily to medium/high
density zones. The city
claims that the
development must comply
with medium density
residential
development/multifamily
developments of a
minimum of 3 attached
units. It provides no
explanation of how that
would be permitted in a low
density residential zone nor
how it would be permitted
State law preempts this in
SB 35 which authorizes
multifamily housing on any
residential land. SB 35
provides for any qualifying
multifamily development of
2 or more units on any
residentially zoned land.

Case 3:25-cv-04904-LB Document 60 Filed 08/04/26 Page 96 of 344 109689\19341676v3 3
Challenged conduct: City sent/sends
documentation which
states:

Applicant’s response
in a single family zone such
as the subject lots (such is
not permitted under city
code)
Developments must
provide two covered parking
spaces per unit
No covered parking is
required under State law
Sending documentation /stating inconsistency by
purporting a standard is not met when the
development contains/includes nothing to which
that standard applies
Additionally, on streets less
than twenty-six feet, a
minimum of two additional
on-site parking spaces
must be provided
The street is 26’ wide, is
clearly such and is clearly
marked as such
Where the proposed
landscape area is equal to
or greater than 2,500 sq ft
Sheet A.0.5. The
landscaping is less than
2,500 sq.ft.

Section requires driveways
serving residential uses
with less than 6 vehicle
parking spaces to be a min.
of 10 feet wide
The driveway serves 39
parking spaces. The
driveway (private street) is
26’, and wider in parts
No subdivision of land into
two (2) or more lots or
parcels for the purpose of
development shall be
approved unless it is
determined that the
following utilities and
services can be provided
No subdivision of land into
two or more lots is being
proposed
Case 3:25-cv-04904-LB Document 60 Filed 08/04/26 Page 97 of 344 109689\19341676v3 4
Challenged conduct: City sent/sends
documentation which
states:

Applicant’s response
Table 1.4 Objective Design
Standards adopted March
2024.

First sentence of the
standards. “These
standards apply to all
“residential multifamily”
“residential singlefamily”..development.., all
of which are terms defined
in SRMC section

14.03.030”:

14.03.030: “”Residential,
multifamily means medium
and high density residential
development,…. containing
three (3) or more attached
dwelling units..” – a zoning
designation for land zoned
medium and high density
per the zoning ordinance
and General Plan.

Residential single family
means low density
residential development
The development is clearly
not in either of those
categories.

Further, the development
vested prior to these
standards being created
The subject lots are not in
this zoning.

This is not applicable to the
development
Case 3:25-cv-04904-LB Document 60 Filed 08/04/26 Page 98 of 344 109689\19341676v3 5
Challenged conduct: City sent/sends
documentation which
states:

Applicant’s response
containing one (1) primary
residential dwelling unit for
use by a single household
on a single parcel
Sending documentation/stating inconsistency by
alleging that planning data is not in the
development submittal when it is
Plans do not show
screening of parking from
the street
The plans clearly show
screening of parking from
the street.

Insufficient information has
been provided in plans to
verify the proposed height
Heights are clearly shown
on A2.2 to A3.4 - 15 sheets
comprehensively showing
the height as defined by
municipal code for every
building.

New streets and driveway
grades shall not exceed 18
per cent. The projects
plans do not appear to
indicate the proposed slope
A.0.2 site plan very clearly
shows the gradient of the
street at 8%, as do A.0.3,
A.0.8.

The cover page notes that
all spaces are 9 by 19 feet,
the application does not
contain information to
determine where all parking
spaces (sic)
Parking is shown on the
parking sheet A.0.3 and is
clearly shown as 19’ x 9’
Lighting for parking areas
must be mounted at
maximum of 15 feet
A.0.3 Parking & circulation
plan. The plans state
“Parking lighting is mounted
at 14’ from floor”
Case 3:25-cv-04904-LB Document 60 Filed 08/04/26 Page 99 of 344 109689\19341676v3 6
Challenged conduct: City sent/sends
documentation which
states:

Applicant’s response
Sending documentation that misrepresents city
municipal code
Side yard setback to be 10
feet and front yard setback
to be 20 feet.

In fact municipal code
defines the yard
requirement as the average
on the block. (14.04.030)
Hillside Design Guidelines
state Fences and walls over
3 feet in height that face
public streets SHOULD (not
shall)
Definitions in Hillside
guidelines – SHOULD (not
shall) and where SHOULD is
used it states are not
mandatory.

City rewrites this code in its
consistency analysis stating
the word is “requires”
City misstates its own code
Res 14890: The affordable
housing units shall possess
a distribution of bedroom
counts proportionate to
that of the market-rate units
within the residential
development project
“The affordable housing
units shall have access to
the same amenities and
This code does not exist
The code in fact states
“Compatibility with
the…amenities…of the
Case 3:25-cv-04904-LB Document 60 Filed 08/04/26 Page 100 of 344 109689\19341676v3 7
Challenged conduct: City sent/sends
documentation which
states:

Applicant’s response
common spaces as the
market rate units”
other developed units”. The
city rewrote this code
specifically for the
consistency notice on the
fly to make it objective.

Compatible is nonobjective. But the code
simply doesn’t exist
There are many examples of
the city making up the code
for the consistency letter of
October 2025. Yes – just
inventing municipal code,
to delay this compliant
application.

Asking for documents that have already been
provided
Geotechnical report is
required
Geotechnical report has
been provided
Demanding documents that are CEQA reports A Transportation Analysis report is required per city
Guidelines.

describe the report as
producing an outcome “that
include[s] conditions of
approval and/or mitigation
measures under CEQA”
Requiring this report is
prohibited under SB 35.

Case 3:25-cv-04904-LB Document 60 Filed 08/04/26 Page 101 of 344 109689\19341676v3 8
Challenged conduct: City sent/sends
documentation which
states:

Applicant’s response
Claiming – both directly and indirectly – that the
housing development project did not vest on May
15, 2023.

Making written statements that adopt, repeat, flow
from, or attempt to give effect to the City’s
erroneous position that the housing development
project did not vest on May 15, 2023
Definitive codification of
specifically SB 35 vesting:

Govt Code
65913.4(d) (1) review
“strictly focused on
assessing compliance with
criteria required for
streamlined projects, as
well as any reasonable
objective design standards
published and adopted by
ordinance or resolution by a
local jurisdiction before
submission of a
development application,
and shall be broadly
applicable to development
within the jurisdiction”
Ignoring Govt Code 65905.5 (c)(1) City raises multiple items (see above) that are subject
to the applying of density
bonus and waivers and thus
its (c)(1) letter in those
regards is invalid and not
issued consistent with State
law.
“The receipt of a density
bonus including any
incentives, concessions, or
waivers pursuant to Section
65915 shall not constitute a
valid basis on which to find
that a proposed housing
development project is
inconsistent, not in
Case 3:25-cv-04904-LB Document 60 Filed 08/04/26 Page 102 of 344 109689\19341676v3 9
Challenged conduct: City sent/sends
documentation which
states:

Applicant’s response
Issuing inconsistency letters under 65913.4 (c) (A) &
(C) without first approving density bonus and
waivers & incorporating their effect into 65913.4 (c)
communications
Sending documentation alleging inconsistency of
items that are resolved by issuance of a bonus &
waivers, which bonus & waivers are being
improperly delayed by the city
Example
The General Plan limits
height on the site to 30 feet
tall. All primary dwellings
exceed 30 feet in height.
compliance, or not in
conformity, with an
applicable plan, program,
policy, ordinance, standard,
requirement, or other
similar provision.

The applicant had applied
for a waiver of this
standard, but the city is
unreasonably and with no
valid reason delaying the
issuance of the waiver
The development is entitled
to a bonus & waivers under
State law.

Case 3:25-cv-04904-LB Document 60 Filed 08/04/26 Page 103 of 344 109689\19341676v3 10
Challenged conduct: City sent/sends
documentation which
states:

Applicant’s response
Stating “the applicant has not submitted sufficient
information to enable the City to analyze this
standard; therefore the Project is not consistent
with this standard” because the applicant has
submitted plans that provide substantial evidence
Repeated continually
throughout the purported
‘inconsistency’ letter
This is NOT the standard by
which SB 35 developments
are reviewed by a local
government:

Govt Code 65913.4 (f) (1).
“..shall not require studies
nor information that do not
pertain directly to
determining whether the
development is consistent
with objective planning
standards”
Govt Code 65913.4
(c)(3) “For purposes of this
section, a development is
consistent with the
objective planning
standards specified in
subdivision (a) if there is
substantial evidence that
would allow a reasonable
person to conclude that the
development is consistent
with the objective planning
standards. The local
government shall not
Case 3:25-cv-04904-LB Document 60 Filed 08/04/26 Page 104 of 344 109689\19341676v3 11
Challenged conduct: City sent/sends
documentation which
states:

Applicant’s response
determine that a
development… is in conflict
with the objective planning
standards on the basis that
application materials are
not included, if the
application contains
substantial evidence that
would allow a reasonable
person to conclude that the
development is consistent
with the objective planning
standards”
The development submitted
contained substantial
evidence that would allow a
reasonable person to
conclude that the
development is consistent
with the objective planning
standards.

Representing that the city can end the processing
of an SB 35 project by issuing a denial letter (and
after the 60 day (c)(1) period).

Representing that an applicant cannot resubmit
and processing be continued
Govt Code 65913.4 (a) “….
satisfies all of the following
objective planning
standards: (1) The
development is a
multifamily housing
Case 3:25-cv-04904-LB Document 60 Filed 08/04/26 Page 105 of 344 109689\19341676v3 12
Challenged conduct: City sent/sends
documentation which
states:

Applicant’s response
development that contains
two or more residential
units…”etc. Then,
65913.4(c)(1) ….Upon a
determination that a
development submitted
pursuant to this section is
in conflict with any of the
objective planning
standards specified in
subdivision (a), the local
government staff or
relevant local planning and
permitting department that
made the determination
shall provide the
development proponent
written documentation of
which standard or
standards the development
conflicts with, and an
explanation for the reason
or reasons the development
conflicts with that standard
or standards.

Case 3:25-cv-04904-LB Document 60 Filed 08/04/26 Page 106 of 344 109689\19341676v3 13
Challenged conduct: City sent/sends
documentation which
states:

Applicant’s response
65913.4 (c)(1)(C) [shall
provide written
documentation] “within 30
days of submittal of any
development proposal that
was resubmitted to address
written feedback provided
by the local government
pursuant to this paragraph”
The city has no
authorization to require that
an applicant ‘start again
from the beginning”- nor be
subject to changed or
significantly changed city
planning standards since
the applicant designed the
development and
submitted its SB 35
application.

By way of this section, the
Statute provides (and the
Legislature definitively
intended for) the absolute
right to resubmit the
application. If this were not
Case 3:25-cv-04904-LB Document 60 Filed 08/04/26 Page 107 of 344 109689\19341676v3 14
Challenged conduct: City sent/sends
documentation which
states:

Applicant’s response
so, a city could simply
require that an applicant
start at the back of the line
again each time the city
raised an issue – and the
city could start its
incomplete all over again,
creating very extensive
delays, and, restart its
‘scoping consultation
process’ all over again, and
as importantly the
development would lose its
vesting, and the
development be subjected
to significant amendment
by the applicant if new
applicable standards had
been created by the local
government in the interim.

Needlessly raising the cost of obtaining approvals The city continually raises subjects in writing that do
not conform to State law
(see this notice), and that
often stop processing of
this streamlined ministerial
application, & that lead to
the applicant engaging in
Case 3:25-cv-04904-LB Document 60 Filed 08/04/26 Page 108 of 344 109689\19341676v3 15
Challenged conduct: City sent/sends
documentation which
states:

Applicant’s response
extensive unnecessary
work, and work that is not
required by state law
Failing to follow the processes outlined in Govt
Code 65913.4 as described in the case law,
including 40 Main Street Offices LLC v. City of Los
Altos
See attached excerpts from
Order Granting
Consolidated Petitions for
Writ of Mandate, 40 Main
Street Offices, LLC v. City of
Los Altos, Case No.
19CV349845 (County of
Santa Clara, April 24, 2020).

Delaying approval of housing in the residential
zones in favor of development more acceptable in
general to residents of the City in the
downtown/commercial districts.

Following a policy of denying housing on the
improper basis that residential lots have or may
have circulation, access, and slope issues.

City advised applicant that
“there are issues with these
lots.”
Housing of all types,
including housing with
yards, and in all parts of
San Rafael, is supported by
Affirmatively Furthering Fair
Housing requirements and
Federal Fair Housing law,
No Net Loss law, Housing
Crisis Act, Housing Element
Law
It should be noted that it is the applicant’s position that the development is subject to Gov’t Code Section 65589.5(d)(5).

Case 3:25-cv-04904-LB Document 60 Filed 08/04/26 Page 109 of 344 109689\19341676v3 16
Excerpts from
Order Granting Consolidated Petitions for Writ of Mandate 40 Main Street Offices, LLC v. City of Los Altos,
Case No. 19CV349845 (County of Santa Clara, April 24, 2020) Case 3:25-cv-04904-LB Document 60 Filed 08/04/26 Page 110 of 344 O&DOONJQU‘I-bwmfl
NNMNNNNNNr—Iy—Ap—LHHr—Lt—Hr—Ir—n
OO‘QONM-fiUJNHOWOOflQM-PWNH
get the City Council t0 recognize the mandatory timelines and requirements 0f SB 35 and the consequences 0f its having earlier failed t0 meet those provisions, and t0 correct its prior en'oneous approach.

Finally, the Court concludes that the inj ustice that would result in the absence 0f estoppel is enough t0 justify application 0f the doctrine here.

For all 0f these reasons, the Court rejects the City’s statute-of—limitations defense and reaches the merits 0f petitioners’ claims.

B. Petitioners Are Entitled t0 Reliefon the Merits
Petitioners allege that the City’s conduct violated three different housing statutes:
(1) the streamlining statute (§ 65913.4, SB 35); (2) the Density Bonus Law (§ 6591 5); and (3) the Housing Accountability Act (§ 65589.5).

1. The City Failed t0 Comply wifh Section 65913.4
i. Statutory Background
In 2017, the Legislature passed SB 35 t0 reform land-use and housing law, including by creating “a streamlined, ministerial approval process for infill developments in localities that have failed to meet their regional housing needs assessment numbers?” (Sen. Rules C0111, Rep. 0n Sen. Bill N0. 35 (2017—2018 Reg. Sass.) May 27, 2017.) Section 65913.4, subdivision (a) states in relevant part: “A development proponent may submit an application for development that is subject t0 the streamlined, ministerial approval process provided by subdivision (b) and not subj ect t0 conditional use permit if the development satisfies all 0f the obj ective planning standards” set forth further in subdivision (a).
13 As part 0f the housing element 0f municipality’s general plan, it must calculate its Regional Housing Needs Allocation 0r Assessment (RHNA), which is the ‘existing and proj ected need for housing’ in the area for individuals and households 0f all income levels. (Fomeca v. City osz'Zray (2007) 148 Ca1.App.4th 1174, 1186, fn. 8, quoting Gov. Code, 65583.) If municipality’s present and proj acted housing needs exceed its housing stock and land available for development, it must work t0 satisfy its RHNA by increasing the availability 0f land for housing development by, for example, changing zoning and development restrictions. (Gov. Code, 65583, subd. (c)(1)(A).)
23 ORDER GRANTING PETITIONS FOR WRIT OF MANDATE
Case 3:25-cv-04904-LB Document 60 Filed 08/04/26 Page 111 of 344 The objective planning standards that operate as eligibility criteria for streamlined, ministerial review consist 0f inclusionary and exclusionary criteria. 111 the abstract, the inclusionary and exclusionary criteria balance the primary policy of expediting housing construction with the competing policy 0f safe, well—designed construction as embodied in existing law. T0 illustrate, proposed development must be “a multifamily housing development that contains two 0r more residential units” in an urban area that will not displace existing rentcontrolled and income-restricted housing. (§ 65913.4, subds. (a)(1)—(2), (a)(7).) mixed~use development still qualifies if “at least two—thirds 0f the square footage of the development [are] designated for residential use.” (§ 6591 3.4, subd. (a)(2)(C).) Exclusionary criteria disqualify development proposed for construction in 01* 0n coastal zone, fire zone, flood plain, earthquake fault zone, hazardous-waste site, wetland, 01‘ prime famnland. (§ 6591 3.4, subd. (a)(6).) Currently, the statute specifies that when evaluating consistency with the standards above, development is consistent “if there is substantial evidence that would allow reasonable person t0 conclude that the development is consistent with the obj active planning standards?” (§ 65913.4, subd. (b)(3).) Unless an agency timely explains t0 developer in writing the reasons why the proposed development is not consistent with the eligibility criteria, “the development Shall be deemed t0 satisfy the objective planning standards in subdivision (3).” (§ 65913.4, subds. (b)(1)—(2).) An agency’s deadline for notifying project proponent 0f ineligibility for streamlined, ministerial review is either 60 0r 90 days depending 011 the size 0f the proposed development. (§ 65913.4, subds. (b)(l)(A)—(B).)
Proposed developments that qualify for streamlined, ministerial review may still be subj ect t0 design review 01‘ public oversight with the limitation that this oversight “shall be objective and be strictly focused 0n assessing compliance with criteria required for streamlined proj ects, as well as any reasonable objective dasign standards published and adopted by ordinance 0r resolution by local jurisdiction before submission 0f development application, l4 Section 65913.4, subdivision (b)(3) became effective January 1, 2020. (Sen. Bill N0. 23S (2019—2020 Reg. Sess.) 5.3; Assem. Bill N0. 1485 (2019m2020 Reg. Sass.) 1.) 24 ORDER GRANTING PETITIONS FOR WRIT OF MANDATE
Case 3:25-cv-04904-LB Document 60 Filed 08/04/26 Page 112 of 344 OONJQM¥UJNHO©OONJOMAWNH
onooxmcxmh‘ww
and shall be broadly applicable t0 development within the jurisdiction.” (§ 65913.4, subd. (c)(l),) The design review must be completed, if at all, within 90 0r 180 days” depending 0n the size 0f the development and “shall not in any way inhibit, chill, or preclude the ministerial approval provided by this section or its effect .”'6 (§ 65913.4, subd. (c)(l).) ii. Application
The City’s notice 0f inconsistencyhere, its SB 35 denial letter 0f December 7, 2018, was neither code-compliant nor suppofied by substantial evidence.

Section 65913.4 subdivision (b)(l) provides: “If local government determines that development submitted pursuant t0 this section is in conflict with any 0fthe objective planning standards specified in subdivision (a), it Shall provide the development proponent written documentation 0f which standard 0r standards the development conflicts with, and an explanation for the reason 01‘ reasons the development conflicts with that standard 01' standards .” The Court concludes here that the City failed t0 comply with this notice requirement 15 This means that for smaller development, the deadline for notice of ineligibility is 60 days (§ 65913.4, subd. (b)(])(A)) and an agency may take an additional 30 days t0 complete design review 0r public oversight for total 0f 90 days (§ 6591 3.4, subd. (c)(1)). For larger development, the deadline for notice 0f ineligibility is 90 days (§ 65913.4, subd. (b)(1)(B)) and an agency may take an additional 90 days t0 complete design review 0r public oversight for total 0f 180 days (§ 65913.4, subd. (c)(2)).
16 Notably, while section 6591 3.4, subdivision (c) gives localities additional time to review objective design standards, the Legislature also enumerates compliance with “objective design review standards” as an objective planning standard~—an eligibility criterion—in subdivision (a)(S). There does not appear t0 be substantive distinction between these two terms.

The descriptions in subdivisions (a)(5) and (c) of what design standards may be applied are so similar that they suggest the terms are equivalent. The statutory framing 0f design standards as both eligibility criteria and criteria capable 0f review during the extended timeframe for public oversight is problematic because 0f the distinct deadlines for making those distinct determinations. Treating compliance with Obj ective design standards as an objective planning standard under subdivision (a) arguably renders as surpluSage the later deadline for design review in subdivision (c)(l). Coufls typically avoid intelpreting statutes in such manner. (Amer! v. Dal Cielo (1996) 14 Cal.4th 4, 22.) Ultimately, the Court need not resolve this ambiguity based on the pafiicular record and arguments advanced here. The City did not comply by either deadline and does not ask for additional time t0 conduct public oversight in its supplemental brief 0n the scope 0f relief that is warranted. 25 ORDER GRANTWG PETITIONS FOR WRIT OF MANDATE
Case 3:25-cv-04904-LB Document 60 Filed 08/04/26 Page 113 of 344 OO‘QONL/i-RUJN
O\O
11 12
13 14
15 16
17 18
19 20
21 22
23 24
25 26
27 28
because the City did not adequately identify objective standards and provide an explanation 0f inconsistencies supported by substantial evidence in its SB 35 denial letter.

First, the City did not adequately identify applicable objective standards with which the project did not comply. The City conceded its initial error in asserting that higher percentage of affordable units was required; it had relied 0n an outdated and incorrect HCD determination. (AROOOI 69.) Thus, it is undisputed that the first bullet point in the City’s denial letter was based 011 an incorrect and inapplicable standard.

As for the other two bullet points, the City did not adequately identify the standards or code provisions it was referring t0 01‘ relying 0n. It concluded the proj ect lacked “the required number 0f off-street residefitial and Visitor parking spaces” and “adequate access/egress t0 the proposed off-Street parking.” (AR000127.) But it is not apparent from this vague statement just what those purpofied standards are. 01‘ where they can be located. Thus, the City did not adequately identify the parking standards it was relying 0n. And notwithstanding the opacity and ambiguity 0f the City’s statement, it is apparent that it was not relying on permissible, obj ective standards for parking. First, section 65913.4, subdivision (d)(2) states that “the local government shall not impose automobile parking requirements for streamlined developments approved pursuant t0 this section that exceed one parking space per unit.” (§ 65913.4, subd. (d)(2).) And for proj ects meeting certain criteria—such as projects within 011e—half mile of‘tl‘ansithno parking requirements may be imposed. (§ 6591 3.4, subd. (d)(1).) Consequently, the City not only failed t0 identify the purported parking requirement but also failed t0 account for the prohibitions in section 6591 3.4, subdivision (d) as well. Moreover, the City has yet t0 identify any evidence in the record t0 support the conclusion that it could require more parking based 011 the location and characteristics 0f the proj ect here.

As for ingress and egress, “adequacy” is not an obj ective stahdard that may be applied t0 streamlined proj eats. Obj ective standards are those “that involve 110 personal 0r subjective judgment by public official and are uniformly verifiable by reference t0 an external and uniform benchmark 0r criterion available and knowabls by both the development applicant 0r proponent and the public official before submittal.” (§ 65913.4, subd. (a)(S).) What qualifies as 26 ORDER GRANTING PETITIONS FOR WRIT OF MANDATE
Case 3:25-cv-04904-LB Document 60 Filed 08/04/26 Page 114 of 344 oxooouoxm-bmmp
[\J
[\J
[\J
[\J
[\J
t—t
:—
t—
u—s
,—-
’—A
p—
,_..
00 \J
(Jl
-D
DJ
GO
\J
ON
U’l
U)
adequate—in the absence 0f an identifiable standard 01‘ definition—is simply matter of personal 0r subj ective judgment. T0 date, the City has not identified uniformly verifiable, knowable standard for adequate ingress and egress. Accordingly, it impermissibly relied 0n subjective standard in its denial letter.

What’s more, there is n0 explanation in the denial letter about how the proposal was inconsistent with the unspecified standards applied by the City. For example, the City did not explain that the project provided only number of parking spaces when the required number was Y. So, the City’s denial letter was not code-compliant in this regard as well.

The City does not present convincing argument t0 support contrary conclusion. In the City’s papers, it does not clearly and directly counter petitioners’ supporting points. For example, the City does not argue that it adequately identified all 0f the Objective standards set forth in its denial letter 01‘ that all 0f the standards it identified qualified as objective standards permissibly applied in the course 0f streamlined review. And the City does not explain how its cursory reference t0 such standards qualified as “an explanation for the reason 0r reasons the development conflicts with that standard 0r standards.” (§ 6591 3.4, subd. (b)(l).)17 Instead, the City argues the denial letter, when read in conjunction with the incomplete notice, put Developer 0n sufficient notice so as t0 somehow satisfy section 6591 3.4. This argument lacks merit.

The first problem with the City’s contention is that it relies 0n an unspecified standard for the sufficiency 0f notice in lieu 0f the standard spelled out by the Legislature in section 65913.4, subdivision (b)(l). Although not clearly articulated by the City, it seems t0 invoke the concept 0f notice in the context 0f the constitutional minimum for procedural due process. (See generally Gilbert v. City ofSunnyvaZe (2005) 130 Cal.App.4th 1264, 1275—1280.) But the issue here is not whether the City met the constitutional minimum. The issue is whether it complied with the applicable statutory requirements.
17 Section 6591 3.4 does not merely require statement ofreasons for denying an application for streamlined review. Rather, it imposes the more specific requirement 0f an explanation 0f how the proposed development conflicts with the objective standards that the municipality identifies.
27 ORDER GRANTING PETITIONS FOR WRIT OF MANDATE
Case 3:25-cv-04904-LB Document 60 Filed 08/04/26 Page 115 of 344 OKOOOHQU‘I—b-UJNH
[\J
[\J
NAN
{\J
[\J
>—
y—n
u—n
:—-
p—I
n—
—I
r—t
>—~
\J
K)!
-§
LN
[\J
|—‘
00 \J
O\
(.11
-P
1).)
[\3
The City does not advance persuasive argument for disregarding the Specific statutory requirements for notice. While it purpons t0 invoke principle 0f statutOIy construction that places substance over form, it is not necessary t0 rely 0n, and the City does not fairly interpret and rely 0n, that principle. (See generally Troyk v. Farmers Group, Inc. (2009) 171 Cal.App.4th 1305, 1332 [discussing scope and limitations 0f concept 0f substantial compliance].) In actuality, the City urges complete disregard for the language of the statute in vacuum and without regard for the statute’s purpose. In other words, the City disregards the form and the substance 0f the statute. The language the City asks the Court t0 ignore——What it suggests is mere formality—is in fact the specific procedure at the heart 0f the statute that effectuates its purpose.

In the absence 0f deemed compliance under section 6591 3.4, subdivision (b), the statute would operate as mere suggestion without an enforcement mechanism. And, because section 659 .4, subdivision (b) is consistent with and Effectuates the purpose 0f the statute, there is 110 inconsistency between that “form” and the substance 0f the statute necessitating reconciliation 0f those concepts under the canon invoked by the City. The City’s argument in this regard is questionable and its reliance 0n County ofKem v. TCEF, Inc. (2016) 246 Cal.App.4th 301 is misplaced. The Court applies the requirements for notice 0f inconsistency that are plainly spelled out in the statute, not an amorphous due process standard that would d0 violence to its very language and purpose.

The second problem with the City’s argument is that it relies 0n an implausible and unreasonable interpretation 0f the record. The City states that its incomplete notice and denial letter provide sufficient documentation when read together. But the terms 0f these documents d0 not support such construction. The City explicitly stated that it was proceeding as though it had two applications submitted by Developer in November 201 8. It purported t0 deny one application and find the other incomplete. The conespondence setting forth those distinct decisions, while issued together, cannot be fairly read and interpreted in the manner the City now urges. The incomplete notice does not purpofi t0 specify inconsistencies with Obj ective standards under SB 35; it purports t0 specify the additional information required before traditional, discretionary review could be commenced. Similarly, the denial letter does not purport t0 require additional 28 ORDER GRANTING PETITIONS FOR WRIT OF MANDATE
Case 3:25-cv-04904-LB Document 60 Filed 08/04/26 Page 116 of 344

EXHIBIT F
Case 3:25-cv-04904-LB Document 60 Filed 08/04/26 Page 117 of 344 1 Kate Colin, Mayor • Eli Hill, Vice Mayor • Maribeth Bushey, Councilmember • Rachel Kertz, Councilmember • Maika Llorens Gulati, Councilmember April 17, 2026
Chris Sullivan
River Landon LLC
PO Box 29281
San Francisco, CA 94129
[email protected]
Dear Mr. Chris Sullivan:

The City of San Rafael has received Development Application submitted on March 20, 2026 and proposing an 9-Unit Residential Development with 3 Accessory Dwelling Units (ADUs) located on Coleman and Fair Drive, APNs: 011- 031-44, 45, 46, 47, 48, & 49, in the R10 Single-family Residential Zoning District (hereinafter the “Project.”).

Although no development fees have been submitted and therefore the Project has not yet been formally submitted, as a courtesy the City is providing a completeness review within the first thirty days. (Gov. Code § 65943(a).) The City finds that the application is incomplete. Please provide the following information in order to complete your application:

Completeness Comments

1.A - Application Form
Section 1.A of the General Planning Permit Application Submittal Requirements (Attachment 1) requires a property owner signature on the General Application.

Completeness Review Consideration Factors and Notes Action Required to Complete
Application
This item is incomplete. This form was not submitted as part of the application.

Submit a fully
completed General
Application Form
and agree to pay
Case 3:25-cv-04904-LB Document 60 Filed 08/04/26 Page 118 of 344 2 Kate Colin, Mayor • Eli Hill, Vice Mayor • Maribeth Bushey, Councilmember • Rachel Kertz, Councilmember • Maika Llorens Gulati, Councilmember ☐ fees, see
Attachment 2.

1.C – Fees
Section 1.C of the General Planning Permit Application Submittal Requirements requires submission of all fees that are relevant to a particular development application.

Completeness Review Consideration Factors and Notes Action Required to Complete
Application
This item is incomplete.
☐
No fees have been submitted for
this project. Please identify the
entitlements you are submitting for,
(e.g. SB35, Environmental Design
Review Subdivision Map) and
submit fees as shown on Master
Fee Sheet
Submit appropriate
fees for project.

1.D – Cost Recovery Agreement. A cost recovery agreement is required for application types that are identified in the Fee Schedule as deposit-based fees. Section 1.D of the General Planning Permit Application Submittal Requirements requires submission of all fees that are relevant to a particular development application.

Completeness Review Consideration Factors and Notes Action Required to Complete
Application
This item is incomplete.
☐
No Cost Recovery Agreement has
been submitted.

Submit Cost
Recovery
Agreement

1.E – Preliminary Title Report
Section 1.E of the General Planning Permit Application Submittal Requirements requires submission of a Preliminary Title Report. The report shall be no more than three months old and at a minimum shall include the current ownership of the property. It shall also show active hyperlinks for all referenced documents in the Report and it must be issued by a Title Company.

Completeness Review Consideration Factors and Notes Action Required to Complete
Application
Case 3:25-cv-04904-LB Document 60 Filed 08/04/26 Page 119 of 344 3 Kate Colin, Mayor • Eli Hill, Vice Mayor • Maribeth Bushey, Councilmember • Rachel Kertz, Councilmember • Maika Llorens Gulati, Councilmember This item is incomplete.
☐
No Preliminary Title Report was
submitted as part of the Application.

Submit Preliminary
Title Report.

2.A – Project Narrative
Section 2.A of the General Planning Permit Application Submittal Requirements requires submission of a written project narrative that describes the proposed project.

Completeness Review Consideration Factors and Notes Action Required to Complete
Application
This item is incomplete.
☐
No Project Narrative was submitted
as part of the Application.

Submit Project
Narrative including:

1. All proposed
grading and
excavating,
including estimated
cubic feet of soil to
be added or
removed from the
site.

2.Existing and
proposed legal lots
of record included
in the project site.

3. Number of lots
and the
approximate size of
each one.

4. Existing natural
features, including
trees and creeks.

5. All phases of the
proposed
development,
including number
and size of new
Case 3:25-cv-04904-LB Document 60 Filed 08/04/26 Page 120 of 344 4 Kate Colin, Mayor • Eli Hill, Vice Mayor • Maribeth Bushey, Councilmember • Rachel Kertz, Councilmember • Maika Llorens Gulati, Councilmember buildings and/or
additions.

2.D – Site Photographs
Section 2.D of the General Planning Permit Application Submittal Requirements requires submission of an adequate number of photos to show entire project site and all adjacent buildings for context. Where possible, take wide-angle shots showing project site and adjacent buildings together.

Completeness Review Consideration Factors and Notes Action Required to Complete
Application
This item is incomplete.
☐
The Application does not include
the required photos.

Submit
photographs of the
project site,
including

1. the APN of
each photo
and photo
captions.

2. A map or
diagram
indicating
location of
photos.

2.F – Findings of Approval
Section 2.F of the General Planning Permit Application Submittal Requirements requires submission of a list of requested planning entitlements and explain how the proposed project satisfies the findings required by the San Rafael Municipal Code for each entitlement.

Completeness Review Consideration Factors and Notes Action Required to Complete
Application
This item is incomplete.
☐
As stated earlier, it is not clear what
entitlements are being requested. If
this Application includes an
application for an Environmental
and Design Review Permit, include
an explanation of how the Project
satisfies the findings required by
San Rafael Municipal Code Section

14.25.090.

Submit an
explanation of how
the Project satisfies
the required
findings.

Case 3:25-cv-04904-LB Document 60 Filed 08/04/26 Page 121 of 344 5 Kate Colin, Mayor • Eli Hill, Vice Mayor • Maribeth Bushey, Councilmember • Rachel Kertz, Councilmember • Maika Llorens Gulati, Councilmember

3.A – Cover Sheet
Section 3.A of the General Planning Permit Application Submittal Requirements require submission of cover sheet with specific items listed.

Completeness Review Consideration Factors and
Notes
Action Required to
Complete
Application
This item is incomplete.
☐
While a Cover Sheet was
submitted, a number of required
items were not included. The list
that needs to be added is found in
the next column, Action Required
to Complete Application.

Revise Cover Sheet
to include:

1. Zoning
district.

2. Size of
property
including
gross and net
lot area.

3. Square
footage of all
proposed
buildings.

4. Parking
analysis for
building use
and zoning
district with
code
requirements
and proposed
spaces.

5. Percent of lot
area for each
of the
following:
landscaping,
impervious
surfaces,
common
open space,
and private
usable space.

Case 3:25-cv-04904-LB Document 60 Filed 08/04/26 Page 122 of 344 6 Kate Colin, Mayor • Eli Hill, Vice Mayor • Maribeth Bushey, Councilmember • Rachel Kertz, Councilmember • Maika Llorens Gulati, Councilmember

6. Lot coverage
calculations,
percent of net
lot area
covered by
buildings.

7. Whether the
project is in a
Flood Zone.

8. Whether the
project is in a
Fire Zone.

9. Contact data.

Name,
address, and
phone
number of the
property
owner,
applicant,
architect,
engineer,
and/or
surveyor.

10.Legend
describing all
symbols,
notations,
and
abbreviations.

11.Construction
Type.

3.B, 3.C – Existing Site Plan, Proposed Site Plan
Section 3.B and 3.C of the General Planning Permit Application Submittal Requirements require submission of an existing site plan and a proposed site plan that depict property lines and lot dimensions
Completeness
Review
Consideration Factors and
Notes
Action Required to
Complete Application
Case 3:25-cv-04904-LB Document 60 Filed 08/04/26 Page 123 of 344 7 Kate Colin, Mayor • Eli Hill, Vice Mayor • Maribeth Bushey, Councilmember • Rachel Kertz, Councilmember • Maika Llorens Gulati, Councilmember This item is
incomplete.
☐
While a site plan is included in
the application, numerous items
requested in the General
Planning Permit Application
Submittal Requirements are not
shown. The list that needs to be
added is found in the next
column, Action Required to
Complete Application
Submit a proposed site
plan that includes all
the additional items
listed below.

1. Site plans shall
be drawn to
1”=10’ or 1/8”=1’
scale.

2. Indicate the
footprints and
use of all
proposed
structures and
buildings,
including any
structures
proposed to be
removed.

Clearly identify
which
improvements
are new,
existing to
remain, or
existing to be
removed. The
minimum
setbacks from
the exterior
walls of all
buildings to all
property lines
and access
easements must
be dimensioned.

3. Plans for
retaining walls
shall indicate the
top and bottom
of wall
elevations. The
footprint and
height of any
existing or
proposed
Case 3:25-cv-04904-LB Document 60 Filed 08/04/26 Page 124 of 344 8 Kate Colin, Mayor • Eli Hill, Vice Mayor • Maribeth Bushey, Councilmember • Rachel Kertz, Councilmember • Maika Llorens Gulati, Councilmember structure on
adjacent
properties must
be required to
be provided.

4. Clearly indicate
required and
proposed
setbacks for
zoning district.

5. Proposed Site
Conditions -
show any
proposed
building
envelope
expansion,
roadway and
frontage
improvements,
parking
modifications,
outdoor
improvements,
accessory
structures,
replacement or
expansion of
exterior decks,
fences and
retaining walls,
hillside natural
state, tree and
vegetation
removal or
addition,
pools/spas, A/C
units/generators,
any other
mechanical
equipment, and
any other
proposed site
features.

Case 3:25-cv-04904-LB Document 60 Filed 08/04/26 Page 125 of 344 9 Kate Colin, Mayor • Eli Hill, Vice Mayor • Maribeth Bushey, Councilmember • Rachel Kertz, Councilmember • Maika Llorens Gulati, Councilmember

6. Adjacent
Properties -
include primary
buildings,
accessory
structures, and
uses on parcels
adjacent to the
subject property.

7. The location of
identification
signs, propane
tanks, trash
enclosures,
exterior lighting
fixtures,
mailboxes,
fencing, paths
and walkways,
retaining walls,
bicycle racks,
and other
features that
affect the
exterior
appearance and
use of the
property.

8. The location of
any proposed
swimming pool
equipment, air
conditioners,
generators, or
other noise
generators,
must be
indicated, and
specifications
including the
size, height, and
anticipated
noise levels
noted.

Case 3:25-cv-04904-LB Document 60 Filed 08/04/26 Page 126 of 344 10 Kate Colin, Mayor • Eli Hill, Vice Mayor • Maribeth Bushey, Councilmember • Rachel Kertz, Councilmember • Maika Llorens Gulati, Councilmember

3.D – Elevations. Provide elevations of each existing and proposed building(s) included in the project.

Section 3.D of the General Planning Permit Application Submittal Requirements requires submission of proposed elevations for each new building.

Completeness
Review
Consideration Factors and
Notes
Action Required to
Complete
Application
This item is
incomplete.
☐
While building elevations are
included in the plan set,
numerous items requested in the
General Planning Permit
Application Submittal Requirements
are not shown. The list that needs
to be added is found in the next
column, Action Required to
Complete Application.

Submit revised
elevations that include
the following items:

1. Proposed
Elevations shall
include for
each proposed
building:
a. Proposed
elevations
of all sides
of the
building(s).
b. Building
sections
showing
wall, eaves,
roof
height(s)
and roof
slope(s).
c. One set of
building
elevations
colored to
the
proposed
scheme for
the project.
d. Location,
dimension
and style of
doors,
windows,
chimneys,
stairs, bays,
and all
Case 3:25-cv-04904-LB Document 60 Filed 08/04/26 Page 127 of 344 11 Kate Colin, Mayor • Eli Hill, Vice Mayor • Maribeth Bushey, Councilmember • Rachel Kertz, Councilmember • Maika Llorens Gulati, Councilmember major
architectural
features.
(make,
model of
pre-made
features eg.

Cut or
specification
sheets shall
be required,
see material
board,
below).

2. Height of each
proposed
building –
based on the
project location,
as defined in
SRMC Section

14.03.030 –
Definitions-
"Height,
hillside" –the
site is located
in the Hillside
Overlay Zone.

3. Cross section
of roofmounted
screening. 
Topography
with existing
and proposed
grades
accurately
represented to
show building
height to
indicate
relationship of
building to the
site and
Case 3:25-cv-04904-LB Document 60 Filed 08/04/26 Page 128 of 344 12 Kate Colin, Mayor • Eli Hill, Vice Mayor • Maribeth Bushey, Councilmember • Rachel Kertz, Councilmember • Maika Llorens Gulati, Councilmember adjacent
properties.

4. Location and
type of
buildingmounted
exterior
lighting. Include
specification
sheets. See
Exterior
Lighting, below.

5. Notations
identifying the
exterior
materials and
finishes on
elevations
including
colors, types,
manufacturers.

6. Provide
enlarged
details for entry
features and
any special
architectural
features.

3.F – Roof Plans
Section 3.F of the General Planning Permit Application Submittal Requirements requires submission of a roof plan for each proposed building. Each roof plan shall include adjacent property lines, outline of building footprint, direction and slope of drainage, location of drainage collectors, labeled rooftop structures including vents, equipment, screening, access, material, ridge elevations, roof levels and slopes.

Completeness Review Consideration Factors and Notes Action Required to Complete
Application
This item is incomplete.
☐
While roof plans are submitted,
numerous items requested in the
General Planning Permit Application
Submittal Requirements are not
shown. The list that needs to be
Submit revised roof
plans that include
all items listed in

3.F, including:

Case 3:25-cv-04904-LB Document 60 Filed 08/04/26 Page 129 of 344 13 Kate Colin, Mayor • Eli Hill, Vice Mayor • Maribeth Bushey, Councilmember • Rachel Kertz, Councilmember • Maika Llorens Gulati, Councilmember added is found in the next column,
Action Required to Complete
Application.

1. Adjacent
property
lines, outline
of building
footprint.

2. Location of
drainage
collectors,
labeled
rooftop
structures
including
vents,
equipment,
screening,
access,
material,
ridge
elevations,
roof levels
and slopes.

3.G – Exterior Lighting Plans
Section 3.G of the General Planning Permit Application Submittal Requirements requires a site plan noting the location of all outdoor lighting fixtures within the project site. Details describing the type and height of all light fixtures within all outdoor areas shall be included as well as the make, model of pre-made features e.g. cut or specification sheet for each style of light fixture proposed.

Completeness Review Consideration Factors and Notes Action Required to Complete
Application
This item is incomplete.
☐
No Exterior Lighting Plan was
submitted in the application.

Submit Exterior
Lighting Plan with
all the required
information
included.

3.H – Preliminary Landscape Plans
Section 3.H of the General Planning Permit Application Submittal Requirements requires a Preliminary Landscape Plan for residential projects of three or more dwelling units, as well as any other project that is subject to the Water Efficient Landscaping Ordinance. Scale of drawing at 1” = 20’ and North arrow, including an Engineer’s Scale and a Scale Bar.

Case 3:25-cv-04904-LB Document 60 Filed 08/04/26 Page 130 of 344 14 Kate Colin, Mayor • Eli Hill, Vice Mayor • Maribeth Bushey, Councilmember • Rachel Kertz, Councilmember • Maika Llorens Gulati, Councilmember Completeness Review Consideration Factors and Notes Action Required to Complete
Application
This item is incomplete.
☐
While a landscaping plan was
submitted, numerous items
requested in the General Planning
Permit Application Submittal
Requirements are not shown. The
list that needs to be added is found
in the next column, Action Required
to Complete Application.

Submit revised
Preliminary
Landscape Plans
that include all
items listed in 3.H,
including:

1. Proposed trees,
shrubs, shrub
groupings,
lawn,
groundcover
areas, existing
trees and plant
materials to be
saved.

2. Stormwater
treatment
areas.

3. Special paving,
hardscape, and
cut sheet and
specifications of
site furnishings.

4. Size, species,
and spacing of
street trees.

5. Landscape
legend with a
list of plant
materials (in
Latin and
common
name), plant
sizes and
spacing.

6. Size, species,
trunk location,
and canopy of
Case 3:25-cv-04904-LB Document 60 Filed 08/04/26 Page 131 of 344 15 Kate Colin, Mayor • Eli Hill, Vice Mayor • Maribeth Bushey, Councilmember • Rachel Kertz, Councilmember • Maika Llorens Gulati, Councilmember all existing
trees (6 inch
diameter or
larger) on site
and adjacent
properties that
could be
affected by the
project. Identify
trees to remain
and to be
removed.

7. Estimated
representation
of plant
materials within
three years.

8. Color
representation
of proposed
landscaping.

9. Lighting Plan,
showing
location and
type of exterior
lighting both
fixed to building
and
freestanding,
and any lights
for circulation,
security,
landscaping,
building accent
or other
purpose.

Lighting shall
be dark sky
compliant, with
shields so that
adjacent
properties are
not impacted.

Case 3:25-cv-04904-LB Document 60 Filed 08/04/26 Page 132 of 344 16 Kate Colin, Mayor • Eli Hill, Vice Mayor • Maribeth Bushey, Councilmember • Rachel Kertz, Councilmember • Maika Llorens Gulati, Councilmember

10.Location and
screening of all
above-grade
utilities and bioswales or other
stormwater
treatment areas
with 1:10 scale
cross sections
showing the
planting within
the bio-swales
and screening
of utilities.

11.Enlarged
details
(minimum of
1:10 scale) for
focal points and
accent areas,
i.e. courtyards,
entry features,
landscape
walls, or special
areas.

12.Location and
details of all
hardscapes
including
specifications of
walls, fences,
paving,
decorative
planters,
trellises, arbors,
and other
landscape
features.

13.Statement
noting that the
Water Efficient
Landscape
Ordinance
(WELO)
Case 3:25-cv-04904-LB Document 60 Filed 08/04/26 Page 133 of 344 17 Kate Colin, Mayor • Eli Hill, Vice Mayor • Maribeth Bushey, Councilmember • Rachel Kertz, Councilmember • Maika Llorens Gulati, Councilmember standards will
be adhered to
when
applicable.

14.Show line of
sight triangle for
all intersections
and driveways.

15.Provide a
written
Vegetation
Management
Plan (VMP).

Refer to City of
San Rafael
Ordinance1856.

3.I – Sections and Profiles
Section 3.I of the General Planning Permit Application Submittal Requirements requires at least two cross sections at 1/4” = 1’ scale, to illustrate building and floor area details, grading, etc. Include references on relevant site, floor, and/or elevation drawings. The drawings should show ceiling heights of each floor (including basements and attics), first story finished floor elevation, and the existing and proposed grade of the property. The set should include at least one transverse section and one longitudinal section. At least one of the sections should go through the highest point of the building. If any area could appear from the elevations to include “non-standard” FAL/FAR area (such as large attic areas), provide additional sections though that area to clarify.

Completeness Review Consideration Factors and Notes Action Required to Complete
Application
This item is incomplete.
☐
Although one section and profile
was provided, a set for each of the
buildings in the specific location
was not provided. The list that
needs to be added is found in the
next column, Action Required to
Complete Application.

Submit sections
and profiles for
each building in
their proposed
location. These
drawings should
include:

1.At least two cross
sections at 1/4” = 1’
scale, to illustrate
building and floor
area details,
Case 3:25-cv-04904-LB Document 60 Filed 08/04/26 Page 134 of 344 18 Kate Colin, Mayor • Eli Hill, Vice Mayor • Maribeth Bushey, Councilmember • Rachel Kertz, Councilmember • Maika Llorens Gulati, Councilmember grading, etc.

Include references
on relevant site,
floor, and/or
elevation drawings.

The drawings
should show ceiling
heights of each
floor (including
basements and
attics), first story
finished floor
elevation and the
existing and
proposed grade of
the property. The
set should include
at least one
transverse section
and one
longitudinal section
for each building. At
least one of the
sections should go
through the highest
point of the
building. If any area
could appear from
the elevations to
include “nonstandard” FAL/FAR
area (such as large
attic areas), provide
additional sections
though that area to
clarify.

3.J – Preliminary Grading Plans
Section 3.J of the General Planning Permit Application Submittal Requirements requires Preliminary Grading Plan. For projects involving the cut and fill of soil, provide to-scale plans graphically identifying areas of cut, areas of fill, and total cut/fill amounts, retaining walls and heights, locations of significant trees and driplines. Existing and proposed contour lines shall be indicated with existing contours indicated with a solid line, contours to be eliminated with a dash line and new contour lines with a bold solid line, at intervals as follows:

Case 3:25-cv-04904-LB Document 60 Filed 08/04/26 Page 135 of 344 19 Kate Colin, Mayor • Eli Hill, Vice Mayor • Maribeth Bushey, Councilmember • Rachel Kertz, Councilmember • Maika Llorens Gulati, Councilmember Completeness Review Consideration Factors and Notes Action Required to Complete
Application
This item is incomplete.
☐
No Preliminary Grading Plan was
submitted in the application.

Submit a
Preliminary Grading
Plan with all the
required
information
included.

3.K – Boundary Survey
Section 3.K of the General Planning Permit Application Submittal Requirements requires submission of a boundary survey for construction of any new main building or for any construction located within four feet of a property line. The survey must meet the following requirements:

1. Wet-stamped, signed by a licensed surveyor or appropriately licensed civil engineer

2. Minimum scale of 1/10” = 1’.

3. All property lines, curb and sidewalk, spot elevations, existing structures, building dimensions, and setbacks to all property lines.

4. For projects in the Hillside Overlay, survey must be no more than five years old and must show contour lines with minimum 5-foot intervals.

Completeness Review Consideration Factors and Notes Action Required to Complete
Application
This item is incomplete.
☐
The Application contains various
pages that could serve as a
boundary survey, but none is
labeled as such and each one is
more than five years in age.

Submit a boundary
survey that
contains all the
required elements
and meets the age
restriction specified.

3.L – Colors and Materials Board
Section 3.L of the General Planning Permit Application Submittal Requirements requires a Colors and Materials Board. Actual materials and color sample chips of major exterior materials, (elevations, roof, trim, etc) on a board no larger than 11” x 17” with labels for each material(s), and project name on board. Complete details, including dimensions, materials, and colors for all proposed retaining walls and fencing shall also be submitted.

Case 3:25-cv-04904-LB Document 60 Filed 08/04/26 Page 136 of 344 20 Kate Colin, Mayor • Eli Hill, Vice Mayor • Maribeth Bushey, Councilmember • Rachel Kertz, Councilmember • Maika Llorens Gulati, Councilmember Completeness Review Consideration Factors and Notes Action Required to Complete
Application
This item is incomplete.
☐
While the application includes
references to materials and colors,
not Color and Material Board was
submitted
Submit a Color and
Material Board that
contains all the
required elements.

4.A – Housing Affordability Statement
Section 4.A of the General Planning Permit Application Submittal Requirements requires a Housing Affordability Statement for developments of two or greater residential units.

Completeness Review Consideration Factors and Notes Action Required to Complete
Application
This item is incomplete.
☐
While the application refers to
below market rate housing, it does
not provide the required details.

Submit a statement
that contains:

A statement is
required describing
the following:

1. How the project
complies with the
City’s Affordable
Housing
Requirements
Affordable Housing
Requirements

2. Level of
affordability that will
be provided and/or
amount of in lieu
fee that will be paid.

3. Number and
proposed location
of any affordable
units provided

4. Size and
amenities
(bedrooms,
bathrooms, parking
Case 3:25-cv-04904-LB Document 60 Filed 08/04/26 Page 137 of 344 21 Kate Colin, Mayor • Eli Hill, Vice Mayor • Maribeth Bushey, Councilmember • Rachel Kertz, Councilmember • Maika Llorens Gulati, Councilmember facilities) of any
affordable units

4.C – Housing Affordability Statement
Section 4.C of the General Planning Permit Application Submittal Requirements requires a Density Bonus Analysis. Required for projects requesting a density bonus pursuant to Government Code Section 65915 and City Council Resolution No. 14891. Submit the following information: 1. A written statement that includes the following information: a. Number of “base project” units b. Number and percent of affordable units on site and level of affordability c. Percent density bonus requested and allowed pursuant to Government Code Section 65915 d. Any requested waivers or modifications of development standards necessary to physically accommodate “density bonus” units (e.g., increased height, reduced setbacks or parking, etc.) e. If the project is requesting any incentive or concession, describe each incentive or concession being requested in addition to (or instead of) waivers or modifications necessary to accommodate density bonus f. Parking ratio requested pursuant to Government Code §65915(p). 2. Plans showing a “base project” that complies with all applicable Zoning Ordinance requirements, without any waivers or modification to development standards.

Completeness Review Consideration Factors and Notes Action Required to Complete
Application
This item is incomplete.
☐
As stated earlier, it is not clear what
entitlements are being requested
though there are references to
waivers and concessions on the
cover page. If the project is
pursuing an Environmental Design
Review with a state density bonus
requested, all of the information
must be submitted that is listed
above.

Identify the correct
entitlement and
submit a statement
that contains all the
required elements.

5.A/5.B – Property Line Modifications
Sections 5.B and 5.B of the General Planning Permit Application Submittal Requirements requires the following:

A. Subdivision and Tentative Maps. Any request to divide real property into five (5) or more lots (Major Subdivision) requires the filing of a Tentative Map application with the Department of Community and Economic Development. The application must be filed by the subdivider, the property owner of record, or a representative of the property owner and must include the following information (filed concurrently with any additional required entitlement requests). See requirements for Subdivision and Tentative Parcel Map applications here:

Subdivision Submittal Requirements - San Rafael
Case 3:25-cv-04904-LB Document 60 Filed 08/04/26 Page 138 of 344 22 Kate Colin, Mayor • Eli Hill, Vice Mayor • Maribeth Bushey, Councilmember • Rachel Kertz, Councilmember • Maika Llorens Gulati, Councilmember B. Lot Line Adjustment and Merger. Any request to adjust or consolidate a lot line(s) between or among four (4) or fewer existing, legal and adjacent record lots of land (aka, parcels or lots) shall require the filing of an application with the Department of Community Development. The application shall be filed by the property owner(s) or representatives of the property owner(s). See requirements for Lot Line Adjustment and Merger applications here: Lot Line Adjustment and Consolidation - San Rafael Completeness Review Consideration Factors and Notes Action Required to Complete
Application
This item is incomplete.
☐
As stated earlier, it is not clear what
entitlements are being requested. If
the project includes the subdivision
of the lot, a Tentative Map
application is needed. If the project
is proposing to merge up to four of
the lots, a Lot Line Adjustment and
Merger is needed.

Identify the correct
entitlement or Map
application and
submit a statement
that contains all the
required elements.

6.C – Preliminary Drainage Plan
Section 6.C of the General Planning Permit Application Submittal Requirements requires the following:

Preliminary Drainage Plan. A preliminary drainage plan, prepared by a qualified civil engineer, hydrologist, architect or landscape architect, shall be prepared for all development projects greater than three dwelling units and all non-residential development projects. This plan shall show existing and proposed drainage for the site, structures, driveway and other improvements must be submitted. The plan must indicate the direction, path, and method of water dispersal for existing and proposed drainage channels or facilities. The drainage plan must indicate existing and proposed areas of impervious surfaces. Hydrologic calculations may be required to determine whether there would be any additional surface run-off resulting from the development. The drainage plan shall be drawn at the same scale as the site plan.

Completeness Review Consideration Factors and Notes Action Required to Complete
Application
This item is incomplete.
☐
No Preliminary Drainage Plan has
been provided
Submit a
Preliminary
Drainage Plan that
contains all the
required elements.

6.D– Fire Emergency Vehicle Access Plan
Section 6.D of the General Planning Permit Application Submittal Requirements requires the following:

Case 3:25-cv-04904-LB Document 60 Filed 08/04/26 Page 139 of 344 23 Kate Colin, Mayor • Eli Hill, Vice Mayor • Maribeth Bushey, Councilmember • Rachel Kertz, Councilmember • Maika Llorens Gulati, Councilmember Fire Emergency Vehicle Access Plan. A fire apparatus access plan shall be prepared for all development projects greater than three dwelling units and all nonresidential development projects. Fire apparatus plan shall show the location the following: 1. Designated fire apparatus access roads. 2. Red curbs and no parking fire lane signs. 3. Fire hydrants. 4. Fire Department Connection (FDC). 5. Double detector check valve. 6. Street address sign. 7. Recessed Knox Box 8. Fire Alarm annunciator panel. 9. NFPA 704 placards. 10. 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.

Completeness Review Consideration Factors and Notes Action Required to Complete
Application
This item is incomplete.
☐
While a Preliminary Fire Plan was
provided, numerous items
requested in the General Planning
Permit Application Submittal
Requirements are not shown. The
list that needs to be added is found
in the next column, Action Required
to Complete Application.

The following items
are needed:

1. Location of
Red curbs
and no
parking fire
lane signs.

2. Fire
Department
Connection
(FDC).

3. Double
detector
check valve.

4. Street
address
sign.

5. Recessed
Knox Box

6. Fire Alarm
annunciator
panel.

7. NFPA 704
placards.

8. Provide a
note on the
plan, as
follows: The
designated
fire
apparatus
access
roads and
fire hydrant
Case 3:25-cv-04904-LB Document 60 Filed 08/04/26 Page 140 of 344 24 Kate Colin, Mayor • Eli Hill, Vice Mayor • Maribeth Bushey, Councilmember • Rachel Kertz, Councilmember • Maika Llorens Gulati, Councilmember shall be
installed and
approved by
the Fire
Prevention
Bureau prior
construction
of the
building.

6.I – Stormwater
Section 6.I of the General Planning Permit Application Submittal Requirements requires submission of specified stormwater-related documents for certain projects.

Construction projects that include the alteration of land shall be required to comply with all regional stormwater management regulations. If required, they shall include a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPP) and Erosion Sediment Control Plan (ESCP), which shall be prepared by a registered civil engineer, architect, or landscape architect. For detailed guidance on how to prepare these plans, please visit the “Resources and Stormwater Best Management Practices for Construction Projects at www.mcstoppp.org, under the “Construction Projects” section.

Templates for these plans are available on the website as well. A preliminary Operations and Maintenance Plan for the Stormwater Control Plan shall also be required.

Completeness Review Consideration Factors and Notes Action Required to Complete
Application
This item is incomplete.
☐
The 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.

In accordance with BASMAA and
Marin County Stormwater Pollution
Prevention Program (MCSTOPPP)
requirements, the following
documents and information must be
submitted:
a.Provide a Stormwater Control
Plan narrative report, prepared
per the template format provided
Submit the required
documents and
information.

Case 3:25-cv-04904-LB Document 60 Filed 08/04/26 Page 141 of 344 25 Kate Colin, Mayor • Eli Hill, Vice Mayor • Maribeth Bushey, Councilmember • Rachel Kertz, Councilmember • Maika Llorens Gulati, Councilmember as Appendix D in the BASMAA
Post-Construction Manual.
b.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:
i. Equal or greater amount of
runoff infiltrated or
evapotranspired.
ii. Equal or lower pollutant
concentrations in runoff that
is discharged after
biotreatment
iii. Equal or greater protection
against shock loadings and
spills
iv. Equal or greater
accessibility and ease of
inspection and maintenance
Please note that the City uses
BASMAA standards, not C.3.

Please update references as
needed.

The Stormwater Control Plan must
include as an attachment a letter
from the manufacturer stating the
manufacturer has reviewed the
Plan, the proposed device meets
these technical criteria, and the
manufacturer will provide a
warranty for two years following
activation of the facility Refer to the
Technical Criteria for Non-LID
Treatment Facilities handout found
on the MCSTOPPP website:
https://mcstoppp.org/2020/03/newand-redevelopment/
More information and templates are
available from the MCSTOPPP
Case 3:25-cv-04904-LB Document 60 Filed 08/04/26 Page 142 of 344 26 Kate Colin, Mayor • Eli Hill, Vice Mayor • Maribeth Bushey, Councilmember • Rachel Kertz, Councilmember • Maika Llorens Gulati, Councilmember website. See tools and guidance,
and post-construction requirements
at:
https://mcstoppp.org/2020/03/newand-redevelopment/

6.J – Transportation Impact Analysis
Section 6.J of the General Planning Permit Application Submittal Requirements require submission of a transportation impact analysis for projects that propose new residential units and are requesting a parking modification, to demonstrate consistency with the General Plan or the Congestions Management Plan, as a CEQA compliance requirement, or as otherwise deemed necessary by the Traffic Engineer. More information can be found here. The project is required to provide a transportation analysis report in accordance with the San Rafael Transportation Analysis Guidelines, February 2022. Prior to conducting the transportation analysis, the applicant shall provide the scope of work for the transportation analysis to the Department of Public Works for approval. The applicant shall also provide a completed TA Assessment Form, available as Attachment B to the San Rafael Transportation Analysis Guidelines, when providing the scope of work for review.

Completeness Review Consideration Factors and Notes Action Required to Complete
Application
This item is incomplete.
☐
The Project proposes to add
residential units and also appears
to be requesting parking
modifications; however a Traffic
Impact Analysis was not submitted
with the Application.

Submit a
Transportation
Impact Analysis.

6.K – Trash and Recycling Plan
Section 6.K of the General Planning Permit Application Submittal Requirements requires the following:

This plan shall be prepared for all development projects greater than three dwelling units. They shall include 1. A written description of all waste streams and proposed enclosures, staging areas and corresponding project plans and elevations. 2. A site plan, floor plan and elevations for all trash and recycling enclosures, staging areas, and internal collection room details, shown in plan and elevation view. Details must be shown that provide clear and complete design information. Plan view details shall illustrate sufficient access, circulation and function for both residents/employees and service providers. All dimensions must be shown, including the widths of the pedestrian entrance and service gates, all proposed containers labeling their intended usage and capacity (i.e. “3 cubic yard recycle” or : “2 cubic yard trash”) and all functional components such as drains, bollards, wheel stops, curbs and ramps Case 3:25-cv-04904-LB Document 60 Filed 08/04/26 Page 143 of 344 27 Kate Colin, Mayor • Eli Hill, Vice Mayor • Maribeth Bushey, Councilmember • Rachel Kertz, Councilmember • Maika Llorens Gulati, Councilmember shall be included. 3. Elevation view details shall show proposed materials and colors, label all design components, and provide any other specifications for all components. Elevations shall also describe wall and gate construction including recessed and projected material patterns, base and top treatments and other design features. Include labeling, detail enlargements and cross sections if needed to adequately describe the depth of materials and construction intent. 4. The access route for trash and recycling haulers to service the development shall be labeled showing all forward and reversing operations. For areas where the hauling path requires the hauler to manually maneuver containers because the truck access point is separated from the storage location, the hauling path shall also be depicted and labeled.

Completeness Review Consideration Factors and Notes Action Required to Complete
Application
This item is incomplete.
☐
No Trash and Recycling Plan has
been provided
Submit a Trash and
Recycling Plan that
contains all the
required elements.

6.L – Preliminary Utilities Plan
Section 6.L of the General Planning Permit Application Submittal Requirements requires the following:

Preliminary Utilities Plan. This plan shall be prepared for all development projects greater than three dwelling units and all non-residential development projects. It shall include the location of all public and private utility connections and methods of extension (overhead or underground) must be indicated. The size and capacity of the utilities shall be labeled.

Completeness Review Consideration Factors and Notes Action Required to Complete
Application
This item is incomplete.
☐
No Preliminary Drainage Plan has
been provided
Submit a
Preliminary
Drainage Plan that
contains all the
required elements.

Should you have any questions please do not hesitate to contact me at 415-485- 3095 or [email protected]
Sincerely,
Margaret Kavanaugh-Lynch
Margaret Kavanaugh-Lynch
Planning Manager
Case 3:25-cv-04904-LB Document 60 Filed 08/04/26 Page 144 of 344 28 Kate Colin, Mayor • Eli Hill, Vice Mayor • Maribeth Bushey, Councilmember • Rachel Kertz, Councilmember • Maika Llorens Gulati, Councilmember Attachment 1: GENERAL PLANNING APPLICATION
Attachment 2: GENERAL PLANNING PERMIT APPLICATION

SUBMITTAL REQUIREMENTS
Case 3:25-cv-04904-LB Document 60 Filed 08/04/26 Page 145 of 344 1 General Planning Permit Application
Submittal Requirements
General Planning Application Submittal Requirements are listed below. All documents, reports and plans must be provided in digital format (pdf). Files cannot exceed 100 MB.

A. General Application. Property owner signature is required.

B. Development Permit Application and Agreement to Pay Fees. A completed Development Permit application and agreement to pay fees shall be submitted prior to or concurrently with submittal of a General Application and other required application materials.

C. Fees. A planner will review your online submittal and assess the appropriate processing fees. An invoice will be emailed to the applicant with instructions to pay through the online application portal.

The application will not be deemed officially submitted until the required payment is received.

See Fee Schedule online.

D. Cost Recovery Agreement. A cost recovery agreement is required for application types that are identified in the Fee Schedule as deposit-based fees.

Note: The applicant is responsible for the cost recovery of the total number of hours for City of San Rafael staff, consultants, and legal team to review an application. Additional time will be charged per staff hour worked as necessary, plus any costs for outside consultant peer reviews as noted on the City’s Fee Schedule. The applicant shall be required to replenish funds as necessary and any unused fees will be refunded.

E. Preliminary Title Report. The report shall be no more than three months old and at a minimum shall include the current ownership of the property. It shall also show active hyperlinks for all referenced documents in the Report and it must be issued by a Title Company.

F. Project Narrative. Submit a written project narrative that describes the proposed project. See Section 2 below for detailed requirements.

G. Project Plans. For projects involving new construction, or physical modifications to existing structures or landscaping, submit one electronic plan set, as detailed in Section 3 below.

Submit a written project narrative that describes the proposed project. This narrative shall include the following details, as applicable:

A. Proposed Project.

1. All proposed demolition, including proposed removal of dwelling units, if applicable.

2. All proposed grading and excavating, including estimated cubic feet of soil to be added or removed from the site.

3. Existing and proposed legal lots of record included in the project site.

4. Number of lots and the approximate size of each one.

5. Description of existing development, including list of existing buildings and their approximate size,

PLANNING DIVISION
Section 1 – General Requirements- ALL PROJECTS SHALL SUBMIT ITEMS A THROUGH G Section 2 – Project Narrative
Case 3:25-cv-04904-LB Document 60 Filed 08/04/26 Page 146 of 344 2 height, and use.

6. Existing parking.

7. Existing natural features, including trees and creeks.

8. All phases of the proposed development, including number and size of new buildings and/or additions.

9. A letter that completely describes the proposed project, use, or business. Please include all appropriate information for the project, including:
 Type of business or use. For interim use, specify duration of use.  Accessory uses: Will any additional uses or activities be conducted along with the primary use (e.g., catering in association with a restaurant)?
 If there will be multiple uses or activities, indicate the proportion of the site and building(s) that will be dedicated to each use or activity.

10. Days and hours of operation.

11. Outdoor uses: Will any aspect of the business be conducted outside of the building (e.g., storage, sales, special events, customer seating)?

12. Number of individuals (e.g., employees, clients, customers, spectators, teachers, students) anticipated to be at the site at peak times.

13. Traffic: How many vehicles will come to the site per day? What is the primary mode of travel (e.g. automobile, transit, bicycling, walking) people will use to get there?

14. Circulation: How will vehicles, bikes, and pedestrians enter, exit, and move around the site?

15. Parking: How many parking spaces are available on the site to serve the use? If located in a shopping center, how many spaces will be available for this particular business?

16. Hazardous materials: Will hazardous materials be stored or used in conjunction with the business?

17. Alcohol: If a business is proposed, will it include the sale of alcohol? If so, include the type of license to be requested from the Department of Alcoholic Beverage Control (ABC).

18. Cannabis: If a business is proposed, will it include cannabis in any form? If so, please include the type of license to be requested from the Bureau of Cannabis Control, CDFA’s Cal Cannabis Cultivation Licensing, and/or CDPH’s Manufactured Cannabis Safety Branch.

19. If a business is proposed, will it include live entertainment: (e.g., live bands, karaoke)? If so, what are the plans for:
 Controlling projected sound levels in decibels and any soundproofing or noise mitigation measures
 Proposed site maintenance and/or safety (e.g., trash clean-up) B. Exterior Modifications. Provide a description of proposed exterior modifications including:

1. Any proposed changes to the exterior of all buildings included in the project. (The plans may indicate elevations to match existing colors and materials, if applicable).

2. Signage. Existing and proposed exterior signage if applicable for the project. Please indicate if site is part of a Sign Program.

C. Inventory of Existing and Proposed Uses. For Use Permits on multi-tenant sites, provide an inventory of all business uses on site, with square footage.

D. Site Photographs. Provide an adequate number of photos to show entire project site and all adjacent buildings for context. Where possible, take wide-angle shots showing project site and adjacent buildings together.

1. Photos of the existing building and site, including photo captions.

2. Photos of the adjacent buildings on the block face on both sites of the street, including the address of each photo and photo captions.

3. Map or diagram indicating location of photos.

E. Vicinity Map. Mark the site location and surrounding features, topography, vegetation, existing improvements, and prominent public viewpoints and view sheds (if applicable).

Case 3:25-cv-04904-LB Document 60 Filed 08/04/26 Page 147 of 344 3 F. Findings of Approval. Include a list of requested planning entitlements and explain how the proposed project satisfies the findings required by the San Rafael Municipal Code for each entitlement. See below for a list of the most common findings. The entire Zoning Code is found here if you need to reference additional entitlements. If an application includes a request for Reasonable Accommodation(s) per SRMC Chapter 14.26, explain which elements of the standard entitlement findings need not be made and why.

Administrative Use Permit
Use Permit
Variance
Exception
Environmental and Design Review Permit
Hillside Exception
All plan sheets must be fully dimensioned. They must also provide a graphic and written scale of 1/8” or 1/4" or 1/20” as appropriate unless otherwise stated below. The plan set shall include:

A. Cover Sheet.

1. A vicinity map that clearly shows the subject property and surrounding roads.

2. Project Data Table containing:
 General Plan designation and Zoning district.
 Size of property including gross and net lot area.
 Adjacent land uses.
 Square footage of all existing buildings.
 Square footage of all proposed buildings.
 Parking analysis for building use and zoning district with code requirements and proposed spaces.
 Percent of lot area for each of the following: landscaping, impervious surfaces, common open space, and private usable space.
 Lot coverage calculations, percent of net lot area covered by buildings.  Whether the project is in a Flood Zone.
 Whether the project is in a Fire Zone.

3. Contact data. Name, address, and phone number of the property owner, applicant, architect, engineer, and/or surveyor.

4. Sheet index.

5. Name of person preparing plans.

6. Dates of preparation and revisions.

7. Project Address and Assessor Parcel Number(s)

8. North arrow.

9. Legend describing all symbols, notations, and abbreviations.

10. Construction Type.

B. Existing Site Plan. An existing site plan shall be submitted that contains the information listed below.

1. Property lines and lot dimensions. If a boundary survey is required, the property lines shall be consistent with the boundary survey.

2. Setbacks – note required setbacks for zoning district.

3. Existing Site Conditions - show existing building and site conditions, including site slope(s), property lines, easements, adjacent street names, roadway and frontage improvements, parking conditions, outdoor improvements, accessory structures, exterior decks, fences and retaining walls, hillside natural state, significant trees and vegetation, pools/spas, A/C units/generators, any other mechanical equipment, and any other existing site features.

Section 3 – Project Plans, Boundary Surveys and Material Sample Boards Case 3:25-cv-04904-LB Document 60 Filed 08/04/26 Page 148 of 344 4 4. All natural features must be shown, such as rock outcrops, ridgelines, wetlands, creeks (flow line and top of bank), ponds, water bodies, natural habitat areas and all existing significant vegetation.

5. The trunk location, dripline, and common and scientific names of all existing trees on the subject property with a 6-inch or greater trunk diameter measured at a height of 4.5 feet above grade.

Any trees proposed for removal must be indicated.

6. Areas of geological instability shall be identified, including faults and landslides.

7. Adjacent Properties - include primary buildings, accessory structures, and uses on parcels adjacent to the subject property.

C. Proposed Site Plan. Submit a proposed site plan containing the information listed below. Site plans shall be drawn to 1”=10’ or 1/8”=1’ scale.

1. Property lines and lot dimensions. If a boundary survey is required, the property lines shall be consistent with the boundary survey.

2. Indicate the footprints and use of all proposed structures and buildings, including any structures proposed to be removed. Clearly identify which improvements are new, existing to remain, or existing to be removed. The minimum setbacks from the exterior walls of all buildings to all property lines and access easements must be dimensioned.

3. For projects that involve additions, the additional building area shall be shaded and walls to be demolished shall be dashed. Areas proposed for demolition shall be hatched.

4. Plans for retaining walls shall indicate the top and bottom of wall elevations. The footprint and height of any existing or proposed structure on adjacent properties must be required to be provided.

5. Setbacks – Clearly indicate required and proposed setbacks for zoning district.

6. Proposed Site Conditions - show any proposed building envelope expansion, roadway and frontage improvements, parking modifications, outdoor improvements, accessory structures, replacement or expansion of exterior decks, fences and retaining walls, hillside natural state, tree and vegetation removal or addition, pools/spas, A/C units/generators, any other mechanical equipment, and any other proposed site features.

7. Adjacent Properties - include primary buildings, accessory structures, and uses on parcels adjacent to the subject property.

8. The location of identification signs, propane tanks, trash enclosures, exterior lighting fixtures, mailboxes, fencing, paths and walkways, retaining walls, bicycle racks, and other features that affect the exterior appearance and use of the property.

9. The location of any proposed swimming pool equipment, air conditioners, generators, or other noise generators, must be indicated, and specifications including the size, height, and anticipated noise levels noted.

D. Elevations. Provide elevations of each existing and proposed building(s) included in the project.

1. Existing Elevations - include all sides of structure(s) and existing features (including windows, doors, and decks.) with height and length measurements. Photos may be used in lieu of the items above, subject to the approval of the Director.

2. Proposed Elevations shall include for each proposed building:
 Proposed elevations of all sides of the building(s).
 Building sections showing wall, eaves, roof height(s) and roof slope(s).  One set of building elevations colored to the proposed scheme for the project.  Location, dimension and style of doors, windows, chimneys, stairs, bays, and all major architectural features. (make, model of pre-made features eg. Cut or specification sheets Case 3:25-cv-04904-LB Document 60 Filed 08/04/26 Page 149 of 344 5 shall be required, see material board, below).
 Height of each proposed building – based on the project location, as defined in SRMC Section 14.03.030 – Definitions:
• “Height, non-hillside” if the project is not subject to the Hillside Overlay Zone or located in the Downtown Precise Plan Area;
• "Height, hillside" – if the site is located in the Hillside Overlay Zone; • "Height, downtown mixed use district" if the project is located in the in the Downtown Precise Plan Area.
 Cross section of roof-mounted screening.
 Topography with existing and proposed grades accurately represented to show building height to indicate relationship of building to the site and adjacent properties.  Location and type of building-mounted exterior lighting. Include specification sheets. See Exterior Lighting, below.
 Notations identifying the exterior materials and finishes on elevations including colors, types, manufacturers.
 Provide enlarged details for entry features and any special architectural features.

E. Floor Plan. Provide floor plans that show all existing and proposed spaces. The floor plan shall include the square footage calculations of the proposed use(s). Floor plan(s) must show the following:

1. All floors, including mezzanines, basements, and attics.

2. Overall building dimensions to exterior walls and interior dimensions of all rooms.

3. Use of all rooms (existing and proposed), per the California Building Code.

4. Location and dimensions of windows, doors, equipment rooms.

5. Trash/Recycling and Green Waste room(s) pursuant to Public Works Department requirements and as noted in section M, below.

6. Long-Term Bicycle parking, showing location of lockers or racks suitable for secure locks and For changes to existing buildings, provide separate plans for existing and proposed conditions, or if changes are limited, use dashed lines for demolished features and solid lines for new features.

7. All plumbing fixture types/units and locations in both existing and proposed floor plans.

F. Roof Plan. Provide a roof plan for each proposed building. Each roof plan shall include adjacent property lines, outline of building footprint, direction and slope of drainage, location of drainage collectors, labeled rooftop structures including vents, equipment, screening, access, material, ridge elevations, roof levels and slopes.

G. Exterior Lighting Plan. Provide a site plan noting the location of all outdoor lighting fixtures within the project site. Details describing the type and height of all light fixtures within all outdoor areas shall be included as well as the make, model of pre-made features e.g. cut or specification sheet for each style of light fixture proposed.

H. Preliminary Landscape Plan. Required for residential projects of three or more dwelling units and non-residential projects that are making changes to landscaping/parking areas, as well as any other project that is subject to the Water Efficient Landscaping Ordinance. Scale of drawing at 1” = 20’ and North arrow, including an Engineer’s Scale and a Scale Bar. The Plans shall include:

1. Proposed trees, shrubs, shrub groupings, lawn, groundcover areas, existing trees and plant materials to be saved, stormwater treatment areas, special paving, hardscape, and cut sheet and specifications of site furnishings.

2. Size, species, and spacing of street trees.

3. Landscape legend with a list of plant materials (in Latin and common name), plant sizes and

4. spacing.

5. Size, species, trunk location, and canopy of all existing trees (6 inch diameter or larger) on site and adjacent properties that could be affected by the project. Identify trees to remain and to be Case 3:25-cv-04904-LB Document 60 Filed 08/04/26 Page 150 of 344 6 removed.

6. Estimated representation of plant materials within three years.

7. Color representation of proposed landscaping.

8. Lighting Plan, showing location and type of exterior lighting both fixed to building and freestanding, and any lights for circulation, security, landscaping, building accent or other purpose. Lighting shall be dark sky compliant, with shields so that adjacent properties are not impacted.

9. Location and screening of all above-grade utilities and bio-swales or other stormwater treatment areas with 1:10 scale cross sections showing the planting within the bio-swales and screening of utilities.

10. Enlarged details (minimum of 1:10 scale) for focal points and accent areas, i.e. courtyards, entry features, landscape walls, or special areas.

11. Location and details of all hardscapes including specifications of walls, fences, paving, decorative planters, trellises, arbors, and other landscape features.

12. Statement noting that the Water Efficient Landscape Ordinance (WELO) standards will be adhered to when applicable.

13. Show line of sight triangle for all intersections and driveways.

14. Provide a written Vegetation Management Plan (VMP). Refer to City of San Rafael Ordinance1856.

I. Sections and Profiles. Provide at least two cross sections at 1/4” = 1’ scale, to illustrate building and floor area details, grading, etc. Include references on relevant site, floor, and/or elevation drawings.

The drawings should show ceiling heights of each floor (including basements and attics), first story finished floor elevation, base flood elevation (if applicable), and the existing and proposed grade of the property. The set should include at least one transverse section and one longitudinal section. At least one of the sections should go through the highest point of the building. If any area could appear from the elevations to include “non-standard” FAL/FAR area (such as large attic areas), provide additional sections though that area to clarify.

J. Preliminary Grading Plan. For projects involving the cut and fill of soil, provide to-scale plans graphically identifying areas of cut, areas of fill, and total cut/fill amounts, retaining walls and heights, locations of significant trees and driplines.

Existing and proposed contour lines shall be indicated with existing contours indicated with a solid line, contours to be eliminated with a dash line and new contour lines with a bold solid line, at intervals as follows:

SLOPE Under 5% 5-20% Over 20%
INTERVAL 2’ 5’ 10’
K. Boundary Survey. Required for construction of any new main building or for any construction located within four feet of a property line. The survey must meet the following requirements:

1. Wet-stamped, signed by a licensed CA surveyor or appropriately licensed civil engineer

2. Minimum scale of 1/10” = 1’.

3. All property lines, curb and sidewalk, spot elevations, existing structures, building dimensions, and setbacks to all property lines.

4. For projects in the Hillside Overlay, survey must be no more than five years old and must show contour lines with minimum 5-foot intervals.

L. Colors and Materials Board. Actual materials and color sample chips of major exterior materials, (elevations, roof, trim, etc) on a board no larger than 11” x 17” with labels for each material(s), and project name on board. Complete details, including dimensions, materials, and colors for all proposed retaining walls and fencing shall also be submitted. This may be omitted if the plans may indicate elevations to match existing colors and materials on additions, only.

Case 3:25-cv-04904-LB Document 60 Filed 08/04/26 Page 151 of 344 7 Section 4 – Additional Requirements for Projects Subject to Affordable Housing Requirements A. Housing Affordability Statement. For developments of two or greater residential units, provide a statement describing the following:

1. How the project complies with the City’s Affordable Housing Requirements Affordable Housing Requirements

2. Level of affordability that will be provided and/or amount of in lieu fee that will be paid. For Projects of greater than 15 units, provide a statement declaring if project will use Primary and Secondary Requirements

3. Number and proposed location of any affordable units provided

4. Size and amenities (bedrooms, bathrooms, parking facilities) of any affordable units B. Housing Demolition/Government Code §66300(d) Compliance. For new housing developments that propose the demolition of any residential dwelling unit, provide a statement that includes the following:

1. Number of existing and proposed residential dwelling units, and maximum number of dwelling units on the site within five years of the date of application submittal if different than existing

2. Number of existing units that are currently occupied and income level of occupant household, if known

3. Number of residential dwelling units proposed to be demolished

4. Number of residential dwelling units proposed to be demolished that are protected. “Protected units” means any of the following:
a. Residential dwelling units that are or were subject to a recorded covenant, ordinance, or law that restricts rents to levels affordable to persons and families of lower or very low income within the past five years.
b. Residential dwelling units that are or were subject to any form of rent or price control through a public entity’s valid exercise of its police power within the past five years. c. Residential dwelling units that are or were rented by lower or very low-income households within the past five years.
d. Residential dwelling units that were withdrawn from rent or lease in accordance with Chapter 12.75 (commencing with Section 7060) of Division 7 of Title 1 (the Ellis Act) within the past 10 years.

5. Number of units to be demolished for which the applicant does not have and cannot obtain information that the occupants are above the lower income level.

C. Density Bonus Analysis. Required for projects requesting a density bonus pursuant to Government Code Section 65915 and City Council Resolution No. 14891. Submit the following information:

1. A written statement that includes the following information:
a. Number of “base project” units
b. Number and percent of affordable units on site and level of affordability c. Percent density bonus requested and allowed pursuant to Government Code Section 65915
d. Any requested waivers or modifications of development standards necessary to physically accommodate “density bonus” units (e.g., increased height, reduced setbacks or parking, etc.)
e. If the project is requesting any incentive or concession, describe each incentive or concession being requested in addition to (or instead of) waivers or modifications necessary to accommodate density bonus
f. Parking ratio requested pursuant to Government Code §65915(p).

2. Plans showing a “base project” that complies with all applicable Zoning Ordinance requirements, without any waivers or modification to development standards.

Case 3:25-cv-04904-LB Document 60 Filed 08/04/26 Page 152 of 344 8 Section 5 – Property Line Modifications
A. Subdivision and Tentative Maps. Any request to divide real property into four (4) or fewer lots (Minor Subdivision) requires the filing of a Parcel Map application, and any request to divide real property into five (5) or more lots (Major Subdivision) requires the filing of a Tentative Map application with the Department of Community and Economic Development. The application must be filed by the subdivider, the property owner of record, or a representative of the property owner and must include the following information (filed concurrently with any additional required entitlement requests). See requirements for Subdivision and Tentative Parcel Map applications here:

Subdivision Submittal Requirements - San Rafael
B. Lot Line Adjustment and Merger. Any request to adjust or consolidate a lot line(s) between or among four (4) or fewer existing, legal and adjacent record lots of land (aka, parcels or lots) shall require the filing of an application with the Department of Community Development. The application shall be filed by the property owner(s) or representatives of the property owner(s). See requirements for Lot Line Adjustment and Merger applications here:

Lot Line Adjustment and Consolidation - San Rafael
Section 6 – Additional Items
A. Arborist Report. Projects involving any construction activity (including excavation, trenching, demolition, paving, storage of materials, and parking of vehicles) within the drip line of a significant tree shall be required to submit a report by a certified arborist assessing the project’s impacts on the affected tree(s) (tree may be located either on- or off-site) and recommending preservation measures both during and after construction.

B. Historic Resource Evaluation. If a project is proposed on any state, federal or local landmarked property, a historic resource evaluation shall be requested to evaluate the proposed project in accordance with the Secretary of the Interior's Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties. The evaluation must be prepared by a qualified historian, architectural historian or historic architect according to the Secretary of the Interior Professional Qualifications Standards.

C. Preliminary Drainage Plan. A preliminary drainage plan, prepared by a qualified civil engineer, hydrologist, architect or landscape architect, shall be prepared for all development projects greater than three dwelling units and all non-residential development projects. This plan shall show existing and proposed drainage for the site, structures, driveway and other improvements must be submitted.

The plan must indicate the direction, path, and method of water dispersal for existing and proposed drainage channels or facilities. The drainage plan must indicate existing and proposed areas of impervious surfaces.

Hydrologic calculations may be required to determine whether there would be any additional surface run-off resulting from the development. The drainage plan shall be drawn at the same scale as the site plan.

D. Fire Emergency Vehicle Access Plan. A fire apparatus access plan shall be prepared for all development projects greater than three dwelling units and all non-residential development projects.

Fire apparatus plan shall show the location the following:

1. Designated fire apparatus access roads.

2. Red curbs and no parking fire lane signs.

Case 3:25-cv-04904-LB Document 60 Filed 08/04/26 Page 153 of 344 9 3. Fire hydrants.

4. Fire Department Connection (FDC).

5. Double detector check valve.

6. Street address sign.

7. Recessed Knox Box

8. Fire Alarm annunciator panel.

9. NFPA 704 placards.

10. 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.

E. Flood Elevation Certificate. This Certificate is required for all projects taking place in a Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA)-designated flood zone. Any proposed construction within a flood zone must comply with FEMA and City floodproofing regulations. Additional information on these requirements is available on the Public Works web site.

F. Geotechnical/Soils Report. Applications for master plan zoning, subdivision, use permit/grading permit, design review, or conditional certificates of compliance require geotechnical studies. If the site is rated 3 or 4 (most hazardous) on the General Plan Geoseismic or Slope Stability Maps, a Geotechnical Investigation Report will be required for projects to be deemed complete. If the site is rated 1 or 2, a preliminary Geologic Report will be required. A Geotechnical Investigation may also be required on a more stable site if the use is a defined "critical use" or if the site is downslope of possible debris flow avalanche areas. Additionally, for use permits, subdivisions except lot line adjustments, design review permits and master plan zonings located on artificial fill or on land which has been used by businesses, the preliminary Geotechnical Report shall include a preliminary hazardous materials evaluation. If the preliminary evaluation identifies evidence of hazardous materials, a Hazardous Waste Investigation Report will be required. To determine slope stability of the project site, see Appendix F: Geotechnical Review Requirements.

G. Preliminary Grading Plan. A preliminary grading plan that indicates existing and proposed contours across the building site, existing and proposed lot slope, and the limits of grading shall be prepared for all development projects greater than three dwelling units and all non-residential development projects. Existing contours shall be shown with light lines and proposed contours shall be shown with darker lines. The amount of proposed excavation and fill in cubic yards and the location of proposed deposition and borrow sites for each major element of the project must be indicated as well as the total area of disturbance proposed for the project and the limits of grading. The grading plan shall be drawn at the same scale as the site plan. The total amount of offhaul shall be identified in cubic yards H. Photometric Study. All projects involving the installation of new or modified lighting may be required to submit a photometric study to show that proposed/installed lighting complies with the required Light and Glare standards pursuant to SRMC §14.16.227.

I. Stormwater. Construction projects that include the alteration of land shall be required to comply with all regional stormwater management regulations. If required, they shall include a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPP) and Erosion Sediment Control Plan (ESCP), which shall be prepared by a registered civil engineer, architect, or landscape architect. For detailed guidance on how to prepare these plans, please visit the “Resources and Stormwater Best Management Practices for Construction Projects at www.mcstoppp.org, under the “Construction Projects” section. Templates for these plans are available on the website as well. A preliminary Operations and Maintenance Plan for the Stormwater Control Plan shall also be required.

J. Transportation Impact Analysis. Projects that propose net new commercial square footage and/or residential units, that are requesting a parking modification shall be required to submit a Transportation Impact Analysis (TIA) to demonstrate consistency with the General Plan or the Congestions Management Plan, as a CEQA compliance requirement, or as otherwise deemed necessary by the Case 3:25-cv-04904-LB Document 60 Filed 08/04/26 Page 154 of 344 10 Traffic Engineer. More information can be found on line in the City of San Rafael Transportation Impact Analysis Guidelines
K. Trash and Recycling Plan. This plan shall be prepared for all development projects greater than three dwelling units and all non-residential development projects. They shall include

1. A written description of all waste streams and proposed enclosures, staging areas and corresponding project plans and elevations.

2. A site plan, floor plan and elevations for all trash and recycling enclosures, staging areas, and internal collection room details, shown in plan and elevation view. Details must be shown that provide clear and complete design information. Plan view details shall illustrate sufficient access, circulation and function for both residents/employees and service providers. All dimensions must be shown, including the widths of the pedestrian entrance and service gates, all proposed containers labeling their intended usage and capacity (i.e. “3 cubic yard recycle” or : “2 cubic yard trash”) and all functional components such as drains, bollards, wheel stops, curbs and ramps shall be included.

3. Elevation view details shall show proposed materials and colors, label all design components, and provide any other specifications for all components. Elevations shall also describe wall and gate construction including recessed and projected material patterns, base and top treatments and other design features. Include labeling, detail enlargements and cross sections if needed to adequately describe the depth of materials and construction intent.

4. The access route for trash and recycling haulers to service the development shall be labeled showing all forward and reversing operations. For areas where the hauling path requires the hauler to manually maneuver containers because the truck access point is separated from the storage location, the hauling path shall also be depicted and labeled.

L. Preliminary Utilities Plan. This plan shall be prepared for all development projects greater than three dwelling units and all non-residential development projects. It shall include the location of all public and private utility connections and methods of extension (overhead or underground) must be indicated. The size and capacity of the utilities shall be labeled.

M. Wildland Urban Interface Technical Evaluation. If project site is located in a wildland urban interface, a wildland urban interface fire technical evaluation shall be required to determine the scope of vegetation management required to ensure the safety of the proposed construction as well as surrounding properties and evacuation routes.

N. Project Noticing Board. A public hearing notification sign shall be required for the following applications: planned developments, rezonings and general plan amendments involving a land use change, tentative maps, variances, use permits involving new construction and environmental and design review permits when development is proposed on a vacant lot or when additional building area is proposed on an existing developed property. For these project types, the applicant shall install a 24” x 36” project noticing board made from a weather durable material (e.g. corrugated plastic) on site, visible to passersby, at each frontage. Use the following to assist in creation of the noticing board:
• Project Noticing Board Instructions
• Project Noticing Board Template - fillable
Note: City staff will prepare a Public Hearing Notice and send the document via email to the applicants.

Applicants shall be required to attach the Notice to the Project Noticing Board in the designated UPCOMING PUBLIC HEARING block. Applicants shall be required to submit photo evidence of posting on the subject property to city staff a minimum of 15 days prior to the public hearing. Projects may be continued to a later hearing if evidence of posting is not received. The text of the public hearing notice must be legible in the photo.

Case 3:25-cv-04904-LB Document 60 Filed 08/04/26 Page 155 of 344 Project No(s).

GENERAL PLANNING APPLICATION

APPLICATION FOR
Certificate of Compliance
Pre-Application/Concept Design Review
Design Review
Development Agreement
Environmental Review
Exception
General Plan Amendment
Lot Line Adjustment
Subdivision/Tent. Map
Sign Program/Amendment
Sign Review
Use Permit
Variance
Zone Change/Planned Dev
Other

REVIEW/HEARING BODIES
Design Review Board
Staff/Administration
Zoning Administrator
City Council
Planning Commission

APPLICATION FOR
STREET ADDRESS: ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NO(S):

EXISTING ZONING: GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION:

PRESENT USE OF PROPERTY: SIZE OF PROPERTY:

APPLICANT INFORMATION
PROPERTY OWNER NAME: TELEPHONE/FAX:

ADDRESS: EMAIL:

CITY/ZIP:

AUTHORIZED AGENT/APPLICANT NAME: TELEPHONE/FAX:

ADDRESS: EMAIL:

CITY/ZIP:

CONTACT (if different from above): TELEPHONE/ EMAIL:

DETAILED DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT
DO NOT WRITE BELOW THIS LINE: See Conditions of Application on Reverse

FILL OUT UPON RECEIPT
APPLICATION DATE: _______________________________________ RECEIVED BY:_______________________________________________ FEES: $ _______________________________________________________ STAFF PERSON: ______________________________________________ COMPLETENESS DATE:____________________________________
CEQA ASSMT: _______________________________________________ DATE:BBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBB PLANNING Feb 2020 GENERAL APPLICATION FORM
ACTION BY:

STAFF: _________________________________________
ZA: ____________________________________________
PC:____________________________________________
CC: ____________________________________________
CDD: _________________________________________
DATE: ________________________
DATE: ________________________
DATE: ________________________
DATE: ________________________
DATE: ________________________
Case 3:25-cv-04904-LB Document 60 Filed 08/04/26 Page 156 of 344 PLANNING Feb 2020 GENERAL APPLICATION FORM Project No(s).

CONDITIONS OF APPLICATION
1) All materials submitted in conjunction with this form shall be considered a part of this application. 2) This application will not be considered filed and processing may not be initiated until the Planning Division determines that the submittal is complete with all necessary information and is "accepted as complete." The City will notify the applicant of all application deficiencies no later than 30 days following application submittal. 3) The property owner authorizes the listed authorized agent(s)/contact(s) to appear before the City Council, Planning Commission, Design Review Board and Zoning Administrator and to file applications, plans, and other information on the owner’s behalf. 4) The Owner shall inform the Planning Division in writing of any changes. 5) INDEMNIFICATION: As a condition of this application, applicant agrees to defend, indemnify, release and hold harmless the City, its agents, officers, attorneys, employees, boards and commissions from any claim, action or proceeding brought against any of the foregoing individuals or entities ("indemnities"), the purpose of which is to attack, set aside, void or annul the approval of this application or the adoption of any environmental document which accompanies it. This indemnification shall include, but not be limited to, damages, costs, expenses, attorney fees or expert witness fees that may be asserted or incurred by any person or entity, including the applicant, third parties and the indemnities, arising out of or in connection with the approval of this application, whether or not there is concurrent, passive or active negligence on the part of the indemnities.

In the event that any claim, action or proceeding as described above is brought, the City shall promptly notify the applicant of any such claim, action or proceeding, and the City will cooperate fully in the defense of such claim, action, or proceeding. In the event the applicant is required to defend the City in connection with any said claim, action or proceeding, the City shall retain the right to (1) approve the counsel to so defend the City, (2) approve all significant decisions concerning the manner in which the defense is conducted, and (3) approve any and all settlements, which approval shall not be unreasonably withheld. Nothing herein shall prohibit the City from participating in the defense of any claim, action or proceeding, provided that if the City chooses to have counsel of its own to defend any claim, action or proceeding where applicant already has retained counsel to defend the City in such matters, the fees and the expenses of the counsel selected by the City shall be paid by the City. 6) ATTORNEY'S EXPENSES COST REIMBURSEMENT: As a condition of this application, applicant agrees to be responsible for the payment of all City Attorney expenses and costs, both for City staff attorneys and outside attorney consultants retained by the City, associated with the reviewing, process and implementing of the land use approval and related conditions of such approval. City Attorney expenses shall be based on the rates established from time to time by the City Finance Director to cover staff attorney salaries, benefits, and overhead, plus the actual fees and expenses of any attorney consultants retained by the City. Applicant shall reimburse City for City Attorney expenses and costs within 30 days following billing or same by the City. 7) RECOVERY OF ATTORNEY'S FEES BY PREVAILING PARTY: In any action brought to enforce the applicant's obligations, including the Indemnification and Attorneys' Expenses Cost Reimbursement conditions set forth above, the prevailing party shall be entitled to an award of reasonable litigation costs, including attorneys' fees and costs. 8) COST BASED FEE SYSTEM (not applicable to flat fee applications): Applicant agrees to pay to the City all incurred costs, both direct and indirect, including State-mandated costs, associated with review and processing of the accompanying application for land use approval(s), even if the application is withdrawn or not approved.

Reimbursable costs include all staff and overhead costs as established in the City’s adopted Cost Recovery Fee Program Master Fee Schedule, as well as the cost of required professional consultants to assist in environmental, engineering or legal review.

If expenditures exceed 75% of the deposit amount required by the Cost Recovery Fee Program, additional deposits will be requested. Applicant understands and agrees that nonpayment of deposit requests within the time period specified in the request shall be deemed a withdrawal of the application. Any unexpended funds will be refunded by the City after completion of application processing.

I have read and agree with all of the above. I declare under penalty of perjury that the information contained in this application is true and correct to the best of my knowledge.

Property Owner:_____________________________________________________________________________ Dated:_________________________________________ Authorized Agent/Applicant:__________________________________________________________________ Dated:_________________________________________ Case 3:25-cv-04904-LB Document 60 Filed 08/04/26 Page 157 of 344

EXHIBIT G
Case 3:25-cv-04904-LB Document 60 Filed 08/04/26 Page 158 of 344 Apr 28, 2026
City of San Rafael
1400 Fifth Avenue
San Rafael, CA 94901
Re: Housing Development Project at 235-281 Coleman Drive To: [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]
Cc: [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected] To the City of San Rafael:

The California Housing Defense Fund (“CalHDF”) submits this letter regarding the proposed housing development project at 235-281 Coleman Drive (“Project”). CalHDF submits this comment during the 60-90 day window following the City’s required posting of the Housing Accountability Act (“HAA”) course of conduct notice (Gov. Code § 65589.5, subd. (h)(6)(E)(ii)), to document the City’s ongoing unlawful processing conduct and to notify City of CalHDF’s intention to pursue litigation if the City does not cease this conduct and properly process the Project. CalHDF also writes more generally concerning the City’s legal obligations with respect to the project application.

Legal Background
The HAA provides the Project legal protections. It requires approval of zoning- and general plan-compliant housing development projects unless findings can be made regarding specific, objective, written health and safety hazards. (Gov. Code, § 65589.5, subds. (d), (j).) Slow-walking an application, i.e., any “course of conduct undertaken for an improper purpose” that effectively blocks or delays a project, constitutes an illegal disapproval under the HAA, even without a formal denial. (Id. at subd. (h)(6)(E).) If the City is found to have violated the HAA, organizations like CalHDF have standing to pursue litigation and are entitled to recover attorney’s fees, as are applicants. (Id. at subd. (k)(1)(A)(ii); Gov. Code § 65914.2, subd. (b)(1).) Additionally, courts may also impose fines for improper disapproval at 2201 Broadway, PH1, Oakland, CA 94612
www.calhdf.org
Case 3:25-cv-04904-LB Document 60 Filed 08/04/26 Page 159 of 344 $10,000 per unit and $50,000 per unit if the City has been found to act in bad faith. (Gov.

Code, § 65589.5, subds. (k)(1)(A)(ii), (k)(1)(B), (l).) SB 35, enacted in 2017 to address California’s severe and ongoing housing crisis, establishes a streamlined, ministerial review process for qualifying multifamily housing projects, requiring local governments to approve eligible developments within 60 to 90 days based solely on objective planning standards. (Gov. Code, § 65913.4.) The statute deliberately removes local discretion to disapprove or even delay projects and eliminates local review under the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”). (Ibid.; see also 1000 Friends Protecting Historic Benicia v. City of Benicia (Jan. 16, 2026, No. A172005) 2026 Cal. App. Unpub.

LEXIS 2891.)
The local government must approve an SB 35 application so long as “substantial evidence … would allow a reasonable person to conclude that the development” meets SB 35’s criteria. (Id. at subd. (c)(3).) In its review, the agency “shall be objective and be strictly focused on assessing compliance with criteria required for streamlined projects.” (Gov. Code § 65913.4, subd. (c)(1).) Thus, SB 35 leaves the local government no discretion to disapprove eligible projects or even delay their approval. (See generally Gov. Code, § 65913.4; see also Mountain Lion Foundation v. Fish & Game Com. (1997) 16 Cal.4th 105, 117 [holding ministerial actions leave no room for government agency to exercise discretion].) If an applicant receives an inconsistency notice from the local agency, the applicant may resubmit the application at any time; the agency then has 30 days to respond to the resubmittal. (Id. at subd. (c)(1)(C).) Additionally, SB 35 projects are entitled to density bonuses and waivers under the Density Bonus Law (“DBL”) (Gov. Code § 65915), i.e., the grant of a density bonus cannot be a basis for finding inconsistency (Gov. Code § 65905.5, subd. (c)(1)).

Crucially, SB 35’s approval process leaves no room for the local government to review the application under CEQA (See Gov. Code, § 65913.4), which does not apply to ministerial projects, only to discretionary projects. (Pub. Resources Code, § 21080, subd. (b)(1); 14 C.C.R. § 15268, subd. (a); see also California Department of Housing and Community Development, Updated Streamlined Ministerial Approval Process, Government Code section 65913.4 Guidelines, at p. 12, available at
https://www.hcd.ca.gov/policy-research/docs/sb-35-guidelines-update- final.pdf; 1000 Friends Protecting Historic Benicia v. City of Benicia (Jan. 16, 2026, No. A172005) 2026 Cal. App.

Unpub. LEXIS 289.) SB 35 also states explicitly that SB 35 applications do not constitute a “project” for purposes of CEQA. (Gov. Code, § 65913.4, subd. (o).) Consequently, SB 35 applications, which must be processed ministerially, do not trigger any duties under CEQA.

Therefore, if an SB 35 application meets SB 35’s criteria, the local government must approve it within the statute’s accelerated timeline without further process. This was the intention of the Legislature when it enacted SB 35 and related housing laws, “to facilitate and expedite 1 A copy of the opinion is attached for reference.
2 of 9
Case 3:25-cv-04904-LB Document 60 Filed 08/04/26 Page 160 of 344 the construction of affordable housing” (Gov. Code, § 65582.1) and attack “[l]engthy permitting processes and approval times” for housing projects. (Stats. 2019, ch. 654, § 2(a)(10).)
If a local government does not respond to an SB 35 application or resubmission within the statutory timeframes, the project is deemed consistent with all applicable planning standards. (Gov. Code, § 65913.4, subd. (c)(2).) The HAA provides a further backstop on this point: if the local government does not provide the applicant a written determination of any points on which the proposed project does not comply with local standards within 30 days of the date the application is complete (60 days for large projects), then “the housing development project shall be deemed consistent, compliant, and in conformity with” all local standards. (Gov. Code, § 65589.5, subd. (j)(2).)
Factual Background
Applicant River Landon LLC submitted an SB 35 application for a multifamily housing project at 235-281 Coleman Drive (“Project”), a residentially zoned site. The Project contained 29 units, including 11 accessory dwelling units (“ADUs’) and six low-income units. Thereafter, on May 15, 2023, the City received an SB 35 “notice of intent” for the Project (the “Notice of Intent”) in the form of an SB 330 preliminary application. The Notice of Intent included all of the information required by SB 35 for an SB 35 notice of intent.

At the time of receipt, the City’s Housing Element had not been found by the California Department of Housing and Community Development (“HCD”) to be in substantial compliance with California State Housing Element Law. This placed the City squarely within the scope of the “Builder’s Remedy” at the time the Project was submitted to the City, and thereby vested Plaintiff’s rights to the Builder’s Remedy for the Project 2 . On or around June
14, 2023, the City confirmed to Plaintiff that the Notice of Intent was complete, and Plaintiff had obtained vested rights to the Project as of May 15, 2023, locking in the objective standards in effect at that time. (Gov. Code § 65913.4, subd. (a)(5).) The Project was also protected under the HAA because it was consistent with the City’s objective zoning standards (except to the extent density bonus waivers apply). (Gov. Code § 65589.5, subd. (d)(5).)
After the City's scoping consultation standstill and inconsistency determination, the applicant reduced the project to 14 units, including 6 ADUs and one low-income unit, at a unit count the City itself had identified as acceptable; the City then issued another 2 Although this letter focuses on the City’s duties under other provisions of state law, CalHDF notes that the project’s eligibility for the builder’s remedy (Gov. Code, § 65589.5, subds. (d)(5), (d)(6)) constitutes another reason why the City is obliged to process and approve the project: the builder’s remedy bars the City from disapproving the project based on inconsistencies with the City’s local code.
3 of 9
Case 3:25-cv-04904-LB Document 60 Filed 08/04/26 Page 161 of 344 inconsistency determination recycling the same objections as the previous inconsistency determination.

Despite pursuing litigation, the Applicant has continued to resubmit materials to the City in a good-faith effort to obtain approval through the statutory SB 35 process. The City has continued to slow-walk those resubmittals as described below.

The City’s Conduct Violates the HAA
As detailed below, the City has engaged in conduct for an improper purpose under Government Code § 65589.5, subd. (h)(6)(E). The City’s legally and factually unsupported, inconsistent, and shifting demands, including the City’s latest position that it will not accept or process a resubmittal from the Applicant, despite SB 35’s expressly contemplating and requiring an opportunity for applicants to respond to, revise, and address prior feedback from the City, constitute disapproval under the HAA. (Id. at subd. (h)(6)(E)(i); Gov. Code, § 65913.4(c)(1)(C).) The City’s improper conduct, if not remedied, is a violation of the HAA. (Gov.

Code, § 65589.5, subd. (h)(6)(E)(v).)
Thus, the Applicant has submitted written notice of the City’s improper course of conduct, and, within between 60 and 90 days of receiving such written notice, the City must consider all objections, comments, evidence, and concerns, about the Project or the Applicant’s notice, including this letter, and then issue a written statement that it will immediately cease the challenged conduct or issue written findings that provide: (I) an objective basis for why the challenged course of conduct is necessary and (II) clear instructions on what the applicant must submit or supplement so that the local agency can make a final determination regarding the next necessary approval or set the date and time of the next hearing [the latter of which is inapplicable to the SB 35 Project]. (Gov. Code, § 65589.5, subds. (h)(6)(E)(iii)–(iv).) Importantly, the City must continue to process the Project during the pendency of the Applicant’s notice. (Gov. Code, § 65913.4, subd. (c)(1)(C).) The following categories of conduct, detailed in the applicant’s course of conduct notice (Exhibit 1) and its attached Exhibit A, constitute a “course of conduct undertaken for an improper purpose” within the meaning of Gov. Code § 65589.5, subd. (h)(6)(E). Each category independently violates the HAA and/or SB 35.

1. The City has applied non-objective standards to the Project. The HAA prohibits disapproval of applications on the basis of non-objective standards. (Gov. Code. § 65589.5, subd. (d).) SB 35 is even more explicit: review “shall be objective and be strictly focused” on objective criteria. (Gov. Code § 65913.4, subd. (c)(1).) Objective standards are those “that involve no personal or subjective judgment by a public official and are uniformly verifiable by reference to an external and uniform benchmark or criterion.” (Id. at subd. (a)(5).) According to Exhibit A of the Applicant's 4 of 9
Case 3:25-cv-04904-LB Document 60 Filed 08/04/26 Page 162 of 344 written notice, the City requires refuse collection areas to be “located in areas convenient to users and collectors,” which is not an objective standard. Neither is “adequate ingress and egress to all utilities.” Similarly, the use of “[w]alls, etc… to screen parking and loading areas from view” cannot be evaluated by an objective standard. (Cf. California Renters Legal Advocacy & Education Fund v. City of San Mateo (2021) 68 Cal.App.5th 820, 840 [requiring a “transition or step in height” is not an objective standard].) Thus, the City must withdraw all inconsistency findings based on non-objective standards.

2. The City has sent the Applicant documents that misstate and misrepresent the Applicant’s submittals and ignore information that the Applicant has already included in their submittals, constituting a delay tactic and improper course of conduct under Government Code § 65589.5, subd. (h)(6)(E). Examples include claiming that Applicant’s plans do not show screening of parking from the street, that Applicant provided insufficient information to verify height, that the plans don’t show the slope of the driveway, that claimed parking space dimensions were not identifiable, and that parking lot lighting height was unspecified—all contradicted by Applicant’s plans. These misrepresentations burden the applicant with unnecessary responses, drawn-out timelines, and increased uncertainty and cost of the approval process in violation of the HAA’s anti-delay provisions.

3. The City has applied standards that are preempted by state law. SB 35 preempts local standards that conflict with state housing law. (Gov. Code § 65913.4, subd. (a); § 65589.5, subd. (d).) SB 35 prohibits local governments from imposing parking requirements exceeding one space per unit for qualifying streamlined developments and, in some cases, e.g., proximity to transit, bars parking requirements altogether. (Gov. Code § 65913.4, subd. (e).) The City demanded two covered spaces per unit, a requirement the state has preempted. Additionally, the City is attempting to apply objective design standards applicable to “medium” or “high density” residential zones and to “multifamily” zones as defined under its municipal code. These classifications do not apply to this site. SB 35 authorizes multifamily housing on any residentially zoned land and limits review to standards applicable to the Project as submitted.

Therefore, the City cannot import zoning standards from inapplicable classifications. (Id. at subds. (a)(5), (c)(1).) Finally, the City has attempted to apply objective design standards adopted in March 2024, which came after the Project’s May 2023 vesting date. Standards adopted after submittal and vesting cannot be applied to the Project. (Id. at subd. (a)(5).)

4. The City has misrepresented its own municipal code, characterizing a “should” provision in its Hillside Design Guidelines as a mandatory “shall” requirement and citing an affordable housing distribution requirement from Resolution 14890 using language that does not appear in the actual resolution; the City appears to have 5 of 9
Case 3:25-cv-04904-LB Document 60 Filed 08/04/26 Page 163 of 344 rewritten the code in its consistency analysis. This conduct, i.e., misrepresenting binding legal standards to manufacture grounds for delay, is precisely the kind of bad-faith course of conduct the legislature intended to prevent when it enacted the HAA. If proven at trial, it supports a finding of bad faith and the $50,000-per-unit minimum penalty. (Gov. Code § 65589.5, subd. (k)(1)(B).)

5. The City has demanded CEQA documents from the Applicant. However, SB 35 projects are exempt from CEQA. (Gov. Code § 65913.4, subd. (o); 1000 Friends Protecting Historic Benicia v. City of Benicia (Jan. 16, 2026, No. A172005) 2026 Cal. App.

Unpub. LEXIS 289 [attached as Exhibit 2].) CEQA does not apply to the ministerial determination of whether a project qualifies for streamlined review. The City has demanded a Transportation Analysis Report that, by its own guidelines, produces “conditions of approval and/or mitigation measures under CEQA.” Requiring this report is expressly prohibited by SB 35. (Gov. Code § 65913.4, subds. (f)(1), (o).) The City also cannot require any studies or information that “do not pertain directly to determining whether the development is consistent with objective planning standards.” (Id. at subd. (f)(1).)

6. The City has improperly claimed that the Project’s vesting rights have expired. The Project vested under SB 35 on May 15, 2023, when the Notice of Intent was submitted. (Id. at subd. (a)(5).) Vesting locks in the objective planning standards in effect at the time of submittal, thus the City cannot apply subsequently adopted standards.

Furthermore, the HAA independently protects vesting: Government Code § 65589.5, subd. (j) prohibits the City from relying on post-submittal changes to zoning or general plan to disapprove the project; Government Code § 65589.5, subd. (o) further protects the project’s entitlements once the HAA is triggered. 3 Here, the City has
made written statements that adopt the erroneous position that vesting did not occur. Any attempt by the City to require the applicant to “start again from the beginning” under new standards, or to treat the vesting date as other than May 15, 2023, is unlawful.

7. The City has refused to process density bonuses and waivers under the DBL, to which the Project is entitled. (Gov. Code § 65915.) The DBL imposes a mandatory duty on the City to grant a density bonus when an applicant meets the eligibility criteria and imposes on the City the burden of proof to deny any waiver or incentive. (Id. at subds. (b)(1), (d)(1), (e)(1).) The grant of a density bonus cannot be used as a basis to find the project inconsistent with applicable zoning or planning standards. (Gov. Code § 65905.5, subd. (c)(1); § 65589.5, subd. (j)(3); § 65913.4, subd. (a)(5).) The City has unreasonably delayed the processing of the applicant’s density bonus and waiver requests, and has continued to cite height and other standards as bases for inconsistency even though those standards are subject to waivers. 3 The HAA’s vesting provisions also protect the project’s right to proceed under the builder’s remedy. 6 of 9
Case 3:25-cv-04904-LB Document 60 Filed 08/04/26 Page 164 of 344

8. The City has misunderstood the rules for review of SB 35 applications. As stated above, under Government Code § 65913.4, subd. (c)(3), a project is consistent with objective planning standards if “there is substantial evidence that would allow a reasonable person to conclude that the development is consistent.” This is a generous standard for applicants. The City may not find a project inconsistent on the ground that the application materials do not include certain information, if the application meets this “substantial evidence” standard. (Ibid.) The Applicant’s submittals contain substantial evidence of consistency across all material standards, and the City’s repeated demands for additional information, despite the plans’ already containing the relevant information, are a misapplication of the legal standard and an unlawful delay tactic.

9. The City has ignored SB 35 deadlines and refused to accept resubmittals. SB 35 requires the City to respond to a resubmittal within 30 days. (Gov. Code § 65913.4, subd. (c)(1)(C).) Not only has the City missed or ignored this deadline, but it has also represented that it will not accept or process further resubmittals from the Applicant. SB 35 expressly contemplates and requires that applicants have the opportunity to respond to, revise, and resubmit at any time after the City rejects a prior submittal. (Ibid.) The City’s refusal to accept resubmittals constitutes a constructive disapproval of the project under the HAA. (Gov. Code § 65589.5, subd. (h)(6)(E)(i).) As stated above, the City also has no authority to require the Applicant to “start again from the beginning,” reset the scoping or consultation process, or subject the application to newly adopted standards. To do so would violate the letter and intent of SB 35’s streamlined approval process.

The City’s Conduct Violates Its Duty to Affirmatively Further Fair Housing California law imposes on local governments the duty to “affirmatively further fair housing” (“AFFH”) (Gov. Code § 8899.50 et seq.) This entails not just refraining from overt discrimination but also proactively addressing historic patterns of segregation. San Rafael is a high-resource, predominantly white, high-income community with a documented history of residential segregation. Housing of all types, including multifamily housing in single-family and low-density neighborhoods, is affirmatively supported by AFFH requirements and federal Fair Housing law. (42 U.S.C. § 3608.) The City’s failure to produce its share of affordable and multifamily housing, as exhibited by its attempts to obstruct this Project through subjective and pretextual criteria, perpetuates those patterns.

Thanks to the City’s Refusal to Process the Applicant’s Resubmittals, the Project Is Now Deemed Consistent with All Local Standards as a Matter of Law As explained earlier in this letter, both the HAA and SB 35 impose consequences on the City if it fails to evaluate an applicant’s submittal for consistency with local standards within a 7 of 9
Case 3:25-cv-04904-LB Document 60 Filed 08/04/26 Page 165 of 344 specific timeframe. For SB 35 resubmittals after an initial application and initial inconsistency letter, the timeframe is 30 days. (Gov. Code, § 65913.4, subd. (c)(1)(C).) For purposes of the HAA, the timeframe for projects of 150 units or fewer is also 30 days. (Gov.

Code, § 65589.5, subd. (j)(2).) In either case, if the City does not provide a consistency evaluation within 30 days, the project is “deemed consistent, compliant, and in conformity with” all local standards. (Id. at subd. (j)(2)(B); see also § 65913.4, subd. (c)(2) [“If the local government[] … fails to provide the required documentation [within 30 days] the development shall be deemed to satisfy the objective planning standards”].) Here, the Applicant resubmitted application materials on March 20, 2026. The City responded with an “incompleteness determination” but did not review the materials for consistency with local standards. The City’s actions suggest it believes that Government Code section 65943 is the only governing statute in this circumstance, but the City is mistaken. Whether 65943 applies, other statutes, including the HAA and SB 35, also govern the City’s conduct in this case. Those statutes require the City to have issued a consistency review within 30 days of March 20, 2026, and the City’s failure to do so means the project is now deemed consistent with all local standards as a matter of law. The California Supreme Court has explained that the term “deemed” creates a rule of substantive law by establishing the legal equivalent of a particular fact or scenario. (People v. McCall (2004) 32 Cal.4th 175, 188.)
As the project is now consistent with all local standards and not subject to CEQA, nothing further remains for the City to do but approve the project. If it fails to do this, CalHDF will file a lawsuit to compel the City to uphold its legal duties. ⧫ ⧫ ⧫
The City’s conduct, as documented in the Applicant’s course of conduct notice, constitutes a systematic and bad-faith course of conduct undertaken for the improper purpose of blocking or delaying a lawful SB 35 and HAA-protected housing project. The City must immediately cease all challenged conduct, accept and process the Applicant’s resubmittals in compliance with SB 35’s deadlines, and issue its density bonus and waiver determinations without further delay. CalHDF urges the City to issue written findings within the 60-90 day window that acknowledge these violations and commit to full statutory compliance. Finally, CalHDF reiterates that at this point, no further review of the project is necessary: the project complies with local standards and is not subject to CEQA. All that remains is for the City to approve the project. If the City persists in refusing to do this, CalHDF will pursue all available remedies under the HAA, SB 35, the DBL, and applicable fair housing laws, including seeking civil penalties (minimum $10,000–$50,000 per unit), injunctive relief, and attorney’s fees.

CalHDF is a 501(c)(3) non-profit corporation whose mission includes advocating for increased access to housing for Californians at all income levels, including low-income households. You may learn more about CalHDF at www.calhdf.org. 8 of 9
Case 3:25-cv-04904-LB Document 60 Filed 08/04/26 Page 166 of 344 Sincerely,
Dylan Casey
CalHDF Executive Director
9 of 9
Case 3:25-cv-04904-LB Document 60 Filed 08/04/26 Page 167 of 344 Exhibit 1
Case 3:25-cv-04904-LB Document 60 Filed 08/04/26 Page 168 of 344

www.coxcastle.com 109689\18674466v5 Los Angeles | Orange County | San Francisco Cox, Castle & Nicholson LLP
50 California Street, Suite 3200
San Francisco, California 94111-4710
P: 415.262.5100 F: 415.262.5199
Andrew B. Sabey
415.262.5103
[email protected]
April 2, 2026
VIA E-MAIL @ [email protected]
City of San Rafael Planning Division
City of San Rafael
c/o Planning Manager Kavanaugh-Lynch ([email protected]) 1400 Fifth Avenue, Top Floor
San Rafael, CA 94901
Re: Challenged “Course of Conduct Undertaken for an Improper Purpose” Notice (Gov. Code § 65589.5(h)(6)(E)) Regarding 235–281 Coleman Drive SB 35 Project
Dear Planning Division:

We represent River Landon LLC (“Applicant”) in connection with its housing development project utilizing Senate Bill (“SB”) 35 (the “Project”) at 253–281 Coleman Drive (the “Property”) in the City of San Rafael (the “City”). The purpose of this letter is to provide written notice to the City regarding its engagement in a “course of conduct undertaken for an improper purpose” in its ongoing violations of SB 35 and the Housing Accountability Act (Gov.

Code, § 65589.5, et seq.) (“HAA”) in its processing of the Project. Should the City fail to cease this course of conduct, then it will have further violated the HAA. (Gov. Code, § 65589.5, subd. (h)(6)(E).) The Project is subject to these HAA protections, as well as protections afforded by Section 65589.5(d)(5) of the Government Code.

1. Challenged Conduct and Why It Constitutes Disapproval As detailed in Exhibit A, the City has engaged in conduct for an improper purpose. The City’s legally and factually unsupported, inconsistent, and shifting demands, including the City’s latest position that it will not accept or process a re-submittal from Applicant—despite SB 35 expressly contemplating and requiring an opportunity for applicants to respond to, revise, and address prior feedback from the City—constitutes disapproval for purposes of the HAA. (Gov.

Code, § 65589.5, subd. (h)(6)(E)(i); Gov. Code, § 65913.4(c)(1)(C).) The City’s improper conduct, if not remedied, is yet another violation of the HAA1. (Gov. Code, § 65589.5, subd. (h)(6)(E)(v).)
1 Applicant currently has litigation pending against the City for its multiple violations of the HAA, SB 35, as well as other state law and federal Constitutional claims arising from Applicant’s efforts to develop the 04/03/2026
4/3/26 5/3/26
Case 3:25-cv-04904-LB Document 60 Filed 08/04/26 Page 169 of 344