4898-1728-1390 v3
4. City of San Rafael Hillside Design Guidelines
Because the proposed project is subject to the Hillside Development Overlay District of the SRMC, it is also subject to the Design Guidelines Applicable to All Hillside Residential Development Projects 1 . Table 1.3 below evaluates the Project for consistency with the Hillside Design Guidelines.
Table 1.3
Design Guidelines Applicable to All Hillside Residential Development Projects IV.A5. Street Layout, Driveway and Parking Design
Consistency Review Consideration Factors and Notes
The Applicant has not
submitted sufficient
information to enable the
City to analyze this
standard; therefore the
Project is not consistent
with this standard.
This section of the Design Guidelines establishes that driveway grades may be a maximum of 18%. This section of the Design Guidelines also requires that parking landings shall be required on all driveways over 10% grade. The application does not specify the grade of every driveway and every parking landing, so the City cannot currently determine whether the Project is consistent with this standard.
IV.A7. Hillside Architectural Character
Consistency Review Consideration Factors and Notes
The Applicant has not
submitted sufficient
information to enable the
City to analyze this
standard; therefore the
Project is not consistent
with this standard.
This section of the Design Guidelines requires fences and walls over 3 feet in height that face public streets to provide a fully landscaped buffer at least 5 feet deep on the street facing side of the fence or wall.
The cover page notes that there are fences included in the project that are “2' - 14' (with a small number outliers upwards of 16')”, but the plans do not indicate whether the required 5-foot landscaped buffer will be provided. Additional information is needed to verify compliance with this standard.
IV. A9. Site Lighting
Consistency Review Consideration Factors and Notes
The Applicant has not
submitted sufficient
information to enable the
City to analyze this
standard; therefore the
Project is not consistent
with this standard.
This section of the Design Guidelines establishes that any overhead lighting for residential parking areas must be mounted at a maximum of 15 feet, and lighting for pedestrian areas must be 8 feet or less. No lighting information is provided and as such, additional information is needed to verify compliance.
1 Available at https://www.cityofsanrafael.org/documents/hillside-design-guidelines-hillsideresidential-development-projects/ standard; therefore the
Project is not consistent
with this standard.
building and the landscape. Utility meters and transformers shall be incorporated into the overall project design. The application does not contain enough information to allow the City to determine compliance with any of these standards
Case 3:25-cv-04904-LB Document 60 Filed 08/04/26 Page 308 of 344
4898-1728-1390 v3
5. City of San Rafael Objective Design Standards (ODS)
On March 18, 2024, the San Rafael City Council adopted Resolution 15280, adopting objective design standards for residential developments.2 The San Rafael Objective Design Standards (“ODS”) apply to all residential projects.
Table 1.4 evaluates the Project for consistency with the ODS and includes additional consideration factors and notes for context.
Table 1.4
Objective Design Standards
1. Site Planning and Layout (Building Orientation)
Consistency Review Consideration Factors and Notes
The Applicant has not
submitted sufficient
information to enable the
City to analyze this
standard; therefore the
Project is not consistent
with this standard.
This section of the ODS requires buildings adjacent to a public street or alley to design primary building entrances to face the public street or alley. There is not enough information provided to verify if primary building entrances are designed to face Coleman Drive, a public street. The residences appear to face Coleman Drive, but the exact location of individual building entrances is not clearly shown on the Plans. As such, compliance with this ODS cannot be verified.
1. Site Planning and Layout (Windows and Privacy)
Consistency Review Consideration Factors and Notes
The Applicant has not
submitted sufficient
information to enable the
City to analyze this
standard; therefore the
Project is not consistent
with this standard.
This section of the ODS requires windows that are within 10 feet vertically or horizontally of facing residential bedroom windows or private open space of existing residences to have an opaque or translucent glazing at or below 5 feet above finished floor or be offset a minimum of 5 feet horizontally (as measured by nearest edge of existing facing window). The project is abutting existing residential development to the north, south, and west. The plans do not include enough information to determine whether new residences are within 10 feet vertically or horizontally of facing residential bedroom windows or private open space of existing residences. As such, compliance with this ODS cannot be verified.
1. Site Planning and Layout (Ensure Adequate Screening) Consistency Review Consideration Factors and Notes
The Applicant has not
submitted sufficient
information to enable the
City to analyze this
standard; therefore the
Project is not consistent
with this standard.
This section of the ODS requires screening between new residential development and adjacent existing residential uses to obscure direct sight lines between private yards. Such screening shall consist of a continuous view-obscuring wood fence, masonry wall, or an irrigated and maintained evergreen hedge, not less than four feet in height, and not more than six feet in height, which may be broken only for access driveways and walkways. The width of screens consisting of evergreen hedges shall be at least 40% of their height. The project is adjacent to 2 The Objective Design Standards can be found starting at page 37 of this PDF document:
https://storage.googleapis.com/proudcity/sanrafaelca/uploads/2024/03/CC-SA-Agenda-Packet2024-03-18.pdf Case 3:25-cv-04904-LB Document 60 Filed 08/04/26 Page 309 of 344
4898-1728-1390 v3
existing residential uses. The plans do not show if and/or how the project will incorporate screening between the proposed and existing residences.
This section of the ODS also requires trash and refuse collection and disposal facilities to be enclosed by a solid fence or hedge that is no lower than the facilities themselves, and requires these facilities to be covered. The plans do not provide details regarding the location of refuse bins. As such, compliance with this ODS cannot be verified.
1. Site Planning and Layout (Ground Level Utility Location and Utility Screening) Consistency Review Consideration Factors and Notes
The Applicant has not
submitted sufficient
information to enable the
City to analyze this
standard; therefore the
Project is not consistent
with this standard.
This section of the ODS requires back flow preventers, transformers, and other utilities to be out of sight either in sidewalk vaults or screened from view with either architecture or landscaping. Utility transformers or boxes are required to be underground or, if not allowed by PG&E, screened and not visible from the public right of way. There is not enough information to determine whether the project includes ground level utilities. If the project includes and/or requires such utilities, the location shall be shown on a utility plan and shall demonstrate screening in compliance with this standard.
1. Site Planning and Layout (Parking Garage)
Consistency Review Consideration Factors and Notes
The Applicant has not
submitted sufficient
information to enable the
City to analyze this
standard; therefore the
Project is not consistent
with this standard.
This section of the ODS requires any parking visible from the public right-of-way to be screened by continuous landscaping, or other architectural features. There is not enough information to verify whether parking will be screened by continuous landscaping or other architectural features.
2. Building Design and Architecture (Trim Requirements) Consistency Review Consideration Factors and Notes
The Applicant has not
submitted sufficient
information to enable the
City to analyze this
standard; therefore the
Project is not consistent
with this standard.
The section of the ODS requires stucco foam trim to be limited to one element of trim detail and shall not be used as the sole trim molding material. The plans do not include materials information and as such, additional information is needed to verify compliance.
2. Building Design and Architecture (Colors and Reflective Materials) Consistency Review Consideration Factors and Notes
The Applicant has not
submitted sufficient
information to enable the
City to analyze this
standard; therefore the
Project is not consistent
This section of the ODS sets forth the following related to colors and materials:
1. Facades shall include between 2 and 4 colors. One color shall be the ‘main color’ and be used on no less than 70% of the nonglazed area of a building’s façade. The other colors shall be defined each as an ‘accent color’ each of which shall not be used Case 3:25-cv-04904-LB Document 60 Filed 08/04/26 Page 310 of 344
4898-1728-1390 v3
with this standard. on more than 30% of the non-glazed area of a building’s façade
2. Buildings shall include the same colors and materials on all elevations. At least one accent color is required to appear on all elevations.
3. “Gloss” paint finishes shall not be used for a building’s main color but may be used for accent colors and on trim. The highest sheen that may be used for a main color is semi-gloss.
4. The main color shall have a light reflective value of between 20% and 80%. Trim and accent colors may use colors of any light reflective value.
5. Fluorescent, iridescent, or metallic paints are prohibited.
6. Metal seam or other metal roofing, if used, shall be anodized, fluoro-coated, or painted with a non-gloss and non-glare finish.
Copper and lead roofs shall be natural or pre-oxidized.
7. Any colors used on stucco walls shall be incorporated into the stucco mixture as an integral color.
The plans do not include information about colors or the level of information regarding materials that is needed to verify compliance with these standards.
2. Building Design and Architecture (Blank Walls)
Consistency Review Consideration Factors and Notes
The Applicant has not
submitted sufficient
information to enable the
City to analyze this
standard; therefore the
Project is not consistent
with this standard.
This section of the ODS requires all building walls to have a minimum 15% transparency on each floor. Ground floors without a lobby shall exhibit a variegated façade with changes in transparencies and materials so that no one form represents more than 75% of the surface area. The plans do not include enough information to verify consistency with this standard.
2. Building Design and Architecture (Rooftop Utility Screening) Consistency Review Consideration Factors and Notes
The Applicant has not
submitted sufficient
information to enable the
City to analyze this
standard; therefore the
Project is not consistent
with this standard.
This section of the ODS requires all mechanical equipment to be screened and shall not project above its enclosure. Roof-mounted mechanical equipment shall be screened from public view by a parapet wall, decorative equipment screen, or other architectural treatment.
The point of view for determining visibility shall be five feet above grade at a distance of 200 feet from any point of the structure at ground level.
The plans do not include enough information to verify consistency with this standard.
3. Open Space and Landscape (Useable Outdoor Space)
Consistency Review Consideration Factors and Notes
The Applicant has not
submitted sufficient
information to enable the
City to analyze this
standard; therefore the
Project is not consistent
with this standard.
This section of the ODS requires the project to provide a minimum of 100 square feet of useable open space per dwelling unit and specifies objective standards related to accessibility, unit assignment, dimensions, balconies, slope, landscaping, and amenities of these useable open space areas. The plans do not include enough information to verify consistency with this standard.
4. Lighting (Light and Glare)
Consistency Review Consideration Factors and Notes
Case 3:25-cv-04904-LB Document 60 Filed 08/04/26 Page 311 of 344
4898-1728-1390 v3
The Applicant has not
submitted sufficient
information to enable the
City to analyze this
standard; therefore the
Project is not consistent
with this standard.
This section of the ODS requires exterior lights to have a minimum ground level illumination of 1 foot-candle at doorways and entryways.
Elsewhere, exterior lights are required to have a maximum ground level illumination of ½ foot-candle. Additionally, this section requires all lighting sources to be shielded from view from the public right of way and from neighboring properties and specifies that exterior lights:
• shall produce no indirect light extending 5 ft. beyond a property line
• shall not be placed higher than the height of the principal structure.
• shall have a maximum angle of direct illumination of 60 degrees if placed more than 6 ft high.
• shall be rated for 4500 Kelvins or fewer.
No lighting information was provided. The plans do not include enough information to verify consistency with this standard.
Case 3:25-cv-04904-LB Document 60 Filed 08/04/26 Page 312 of 344
4898-1728-1390 v3
Attachment 2: Housing Division Consistency Review Comments Table 2.1 below evaluates the Project for consistency with the City’s affordable housing requirements (SRMC Section 14.16.030 and Resolution 14890) and includes additional consideration factors and notes for context.
Table 2.1
SRMC Section 14.16.030 and City Council Resolution 14890 Size. The affordable housing units shall be comparable in size to the market-rate units within the residential development project, as measured by net habitable square footage.
For purposes of this provision, “comparable size” means having habitable square footage proportionate to the range of unit sizes provided for market-rate units in the project. (Section C(1) of Resolution 14890)
Consistency Review Consideration Factors and Notes
The Project is not
consistent with this
standard.
The application indicates that one ADU (building 2, unit 1) would be an affordable unit. The average size of market rate units is 2,544 square feet ((8*3,52 + 5*976)/13). At 976 square feet, the affordable unit is significantly smaller than the average size of the market rate units.
Type. The affordable housing units shall possess a distribution of bedroom counts proportionate to that of the market-rate units within the residential development project. (Section C(1) of Resolution 14890)
Consistency Review Consideration Factors and Notes
The Project is not
consistent with this
standard.
The average bedroom count for market rate units is 3.85 bedrooms per unit ((5*8+2*10)/13). The affordable unit contains only 2 bedrooms.
Design and Materials. The exterior and interior design of the affordable housing units shall be of the same design, materials, amenities, quality of finish, and appearance of the other developed units. (Section C(2) of Resolution 14890)
Consistency Review Consideration Factors and Notes
The Applicant has not
submitted sufficient
information to enable the
City to analyze this
standard; therefore the
Project is not consistent
with this standard.
The application does not contain information regarding the materials, amenities, quality of finish, and appearance of the exterior and interior for each of the units, so the City cannot determine at this time whether the Project is consistent with this standard.
Access. The affordable housing units shall have access to the same amenities and common spaces as the market rate units. (Section C(2) of Resolution 14890) Case 3:25-cv-04904-LB Document 60 Filed 08/04/26 Page 313 of 344
4898-1728-1390 v3
Consistency Review Consideration Factors and Notes
The Project is not
consistent with this
standard
The application does not affirmatively indicate that the affordable housing unit will have access to the same amenities (e.g., the pool) and common spaces that the market rate units will have access to, so the City cannot determine at this time whether the Project is consistent with this standard.
Case 3:25-cv-04904-LB Document 60 Filed 08/04/26 Page 314 of 344
4898-1728-1390 v3
Attachment 3: Fire Department Consistency Review Comments Table 3.1
Fire Regulations
Fire Apparatus Access Roads – SRMC Chapter 4. 2022 California Fire Code Section 503, Appendix D, and all applicable National Fire Protection Standards.
Consistency Review Consideration Factors and Notes
The project is not
consistent with this
development regulation.
The current plans do not clearly demonstrate compliance with the provisions of these sections of the code.
Fire Flow for Fire Hydrants and fire sprinkler systems - SRMC Chapter 4. 2022 California Fire Code sections 507, Appendix BB, Appendix C, Appendix CC, and all applicable National Fire Protection Association standards.
Consistency Review Consideration Factors and Notes
The project is not
consistent with this
development regulation.
The current plans do not clearly demonstrate compliance with the provisions of these sections of the code.
Case 3:25-cv-04904-LB Document 60 Filed 08/04/26 Page 315 of 344
4898-1728-1390 v3
Attachment 4: Department of Public Works Review Comments Table 4.1
Chapter 15.06.020 - Utilities and Services
No subdivision of land into two (2) or more lots or parcels for the purpose of development shall be approved by the city unless it is determined that the following utilities and services can be provided:
(a) Water Service. Domestic water service for all new lots or parcels shall be provided by the Marin municipal water district (MMWD).
(b) Wastewater and Sewage Disposal. Wastewater and sewage disposal for all new lots or parcels shall be provided by either the San Rafael sanitation district or the Las Gallinas Valley sanitary district, depending upon the property location. The creation of an individual on-site septic system intended to serve a new lot or parcel shall be prohibited. (c) Gas and Electric Service. Gas and electric service for all new lots or parcels shall be provided by the Pacific Gas & Electric Company (PG & E).
(d) Communication Services. Telephone and cable television service shall be available to all new lots or parcels.
Consistency Review Consideration Factors and Notes
The project is inconsistent with
this standard.
The plans do not indicate that the Project will be served by any of the following utilities: water, wastewater and sewage, gas and electric, communication services.
Section 15.06.050(g) – Hillside Streets; 15.07.030 - Street, driveway and parking standards.
All new streets in hillside areas shall comply with the requirements of Section 15.07.030 (Standards for Hillside Subdivisions) of this title.
No private street leading to a private driveway on a lot shall exceed a grade of eighteen percent (18%).
Consistency Review Consideration Factors and Notes
The Development Application
contains insufficient information
to analyze consistency with this
standard and therefore the
Project is not consistent with
this standard.
The plans show a new private street transversing the 6 Project parcels. The plans do not indicate the grade of the private street.
Section 15.06.070(e) - General design conditions for streets Curve radius. The center line curve radius on all streets and highways shall conform to accepted engineering standards of design and shall be subject to approval by the city engineer.
Consistency Review Consideration Factors and Notes
The Development Application
contains insufficient information
The plans show a new street traversing the 6 Project parcels so it is subject the general design conditions for streets. There is Case 3:25-cv-04904-LB Document 60 Filed 08/04/26 Page 316 of 344
4898-1728-1390 v3
to analyze consistency with this
standard and therefore the
Project is not consistent with
this standard
insufficient curve radius data to verify consistency with this section.
Section 15.06.080 - Sidewalks and walkways
Sidewalks and walkways shall be required along both sides of new public or private streets and incorporated into the right-of-way width requirements specified in Section 15.06.050 of this chapter.
Sidewalks along streets intended for residential use shall be a minimum of four feet (4') in width. All sidewalks and walkways shall be designed to comply with the requirements of the Americans with Disability Act (ADA).
Consistency Review Consideration Factors and Notes
The Project is inconsistent with
this standard.
The plans show a new street traversing the 6 Project parcels. The plans do not depict a sidewalk along either side of the street.
Section 15.06.110 - Grading and drainage
Graded slopes shall not exceed two to one (2:1), unless the city engineer determines that a steeper slope is justified to minimize the amount of grading or to reduce potential tree removal and, where it is determined that the soil and geologic conditions are suitable for and capable of accommodating a steeper slope.
Retaining walls shall not exceed eight feet (8') in height, unless approved by the Planning Commission.
Consistency Review Consideration Factors and Notes
The Development Application
contains insufficient information
to analyze consistency with this
standard and therefore the
Project is not consistent with
this standard
Plans lack sufficient information to determine if whether grading slopes exceed 2:1 or how tall any proposed retaining walls are.
Section 15.06.130 - Undergrounding of utilities
All utility distribution facilities, including but not limited to electric (carrying normal voltage of less than thirty-five thousand (35,000) volts), gas, communication and cable television lines, installed and for the purpose of supplying service to a subdivision creating lots for development, shall be placed underground, subject to specified exceptions.
Consistency Review Consideration Factors and Notes
The Development Application
contains insufficient information
to analyze consistency with this
standard and therefore the
Project is not consistent with
this standard
The plans do not clearly show the proposed utilities serving the project. Therefore, it is impossible to determine whether the required utilities will be underground, as required.
Case 3:25-cv-04904-LB Document 60 Filed 08/04/26 Page 317 of 344
4898-1728-1390 v3
Attachment 5: Courtesy Comments
The following comments do not address consistency with applicable standards, so they were not included in the tables above. However, the City is providing these additional comments to you as a courtesy. Please note the following:
Department of Public Works
1. Per San Rafael Municipal Code Section 9.30.151, where required by the Phase II Stormwater Permit Provision E.12, or where required by the nature and extent of a proposed project and where deemed appropriate by the agency, every applicant shall develop, submit and implement a Stormwater Control Plan (SCP) as described in the section. The Project creates more than 5,000 square feet of impervious area and therefore will be considered a regulated project. You will therefore be required to submit a stormwater control plan.
2. Per San Rafael Municipal Code Section 14.16.170, development applications require geotechnical reports consistent with the geotechnical matrix in the general plan appendices to assess such hazards as potential seismic hazards, liquefaction, landsliding, mudsliding, erosion, sedimentation and settlement and hazardous soils conditions to determine the optimum location for structures, to advise of special structural requirements and to evaluate the feasibility and desirability of a proposed facility in a specific location. In accordance with Section S-2 (Geotechnical Review) and Appendix F of the San Rafael General Plan, you will be required to submit a geotechnical investigation report.
3. The project is required to provide a transportation analysis report in accordance with the San Rafael Transportation Analysis Guidelines3, 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.
4. The 2022 California Residential Code (CRC) SECTION R311- MEANS OF EGRESS applies:
a. R311.1 Means of egress. Dwellings shall be provided with a means of egress in accordance with this section. The means of egress shall provide a continuous and unobstructed path of vertical and horizontal egress travel from all portions of the dwelling to the required egress door without requiring travel through a garage. The required egress door shall open directly into a public right of way or to a yard or court that opens to a public way.
5. The 2022 California Building Code (CBC) SECTION 1029 - EGRESS COURTS applies:
a. 1029.2 Width or capacity. The required capacity of egress courts shall be determined as specified in Section 1005.1, but the minimum width shall be not less than 44 inches (1118mm), except as specified herein. 3 Available at https://www.cityofsanrafael.org/documents/sanrafael-ta-guidelines-feb-2022/ Case 3:25-cv-04904-LB Document 60 Filed 08/04/26 Page 318 of 344
4898-1728-1390 v3
Egress courts serving Group R-3 and U occupancies shall not be less than 36 inches (914mm) in width. The required capacity and width of egress courts shall be unobstructed to a height of 7 feet (2134mm). The width of the egress court shall be not less than the required capacity.
6. The following frontage/off-site improvements may be required to comply with postentitlement building, fire, and other standards:
a. Upgrade Coleman Drive roadway width along project frontage. b. Extend new curb and gutter along the project frontage to match existing curb and gutter ending near the proposed driveway approach. Include a minimum 2’ wide shoulder width from the toe of the hill or wall to the back of the new curb.
c. Install a culvert or concrete valley gutter at the driveway approach to allow uphill water on the roadside to travel past the driveway approach. d. Remove and replace the existing sand bag retaining wall along the project frontage with a new wall to support the proposed driveway and improvements.
e. Install underground storm drain piping and catch basins as necessary to convey uphill water to the existing catch basin at the toe of Parcel 011- 031-049 (south-east project limit). Consider installing a catch basin on the uphill side of the new common driveway approach to limit water conveyed across the driveway approach.
f. Pavement restoration along project frontage. Asphalt grind and overlay shall have a minimum thickness of 2 inches.
7. Mass grading and earthwork operations shall occur between April 15 and October 15 unless approved otherwise by DPW.
8. A construction management plan should be submitted for City review prior to issuance of building permit. The project site is on a steep slope with minimal level area for set up and storage, construction staging will be required to be onsite unless negotiated otherwise with DPW.
9. An encroachment permit and grading permit will be required from the DPW prior to construction.
San Rafael Sanitation District
1. There is currently no public sewer main in Colemen Drive fronting the property. A new sewer main extension will be required from the proposed development to the end of the existing public sewer on the south side of the property at 241 Coleman Drive.
Case 3:25-cv-04904-LB Document 60 Filed 08/04/26 Page 319 of 344 December 3, 2025
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 your revised SB 35 Development Application submitted on September 6, 2025 (PLAN23-067, PA23-007) and proposing an 8-Unit Residential Development with 6 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.”).
The City has analyzed the Development Application, pursuant to Government Code section 65913.4(c)(1), for consistency with objective planning standards specified in Government Code section 65913.4(a), including but not limited to City objective zoning standards, objective subdivision standards, and objective design review standards in effect on the date of submittal of the Development Application. Although we met with you on November 10 at city offices and attempted to discuss options that would help your project to be consistent and therefore able to be approved, you stated at the meeting that you were not interested in revising the project.
As set forth in the City’s October 6, 2025 correspondence, which is attached hereto, the Project remains inconsistent with multiple City objective zoning standards, objective subdivision standards, and objective design review standards. Additionally, the Project is inconsistent with provisions of State law. The Project is hereby denied based on the inconsistencies identified in the October 6, 2025 correspondence. In particular, we provide another explanation below, regarding why the Project cannot be processed pursuant to SB 35 because it is not a “multifamily housing development.” The City would like to work with you to revise your application in a manner that it can be processed and approved. This would include identifying available concessions/incentives and waivers pursuant to the State Density Bonus Law which would enable the project to exceed or deviate from objective development standards.
Attachment E: December 3, 2025 denial of Alternative Project Case 3:25-cv-04904-LB Document 60 Filed 08/04/26 Page 320 of 344
1. Inconsistency with Government Code 65913.4(a).
The Project is ineligible for the streamlined ministerial approval process set forth in Government Code section 65913.4 et seq. (“SB 35”) because the project is not a “multifamily housing development.” (Gov. Code § 65913.4(a)(1); see also HCD Guidelines § 102(p).)
SB 35 allows a development proponent to submit an application for a development that is subject to the streamlined, ministerial approval process of SB 35 if the development satisfies certain objective development enumerated in SB 35 (see Gov. Code § 65913.4(a).) The first such standard listed in SB 35 is: “[T]he development is a multifamily housing development that contains two or more residential units.” SB 35 specifically vests HCD with the authority to “ review, adopt, amend, and repeal guidelines to implement uniform standards or criteria that supplement or clarify the terms, references, or standards set forth in [SB 35].” (Gov. Code § 65913.4(n).) HCD’s SB 35 Guidelines define “multifamily” as follows: “’Multifamily’ means a housing development with two or more attached residential units. This includes mixed-use projects as stated in Section 400(a). The definition does not include accessory dwelling units unless the project is for new construction of a single family home with attached accessory dwelling units. Please note, accessory dwelling units have a separate permitting process pursuant to Government Code section 65852.2.”1 While neither SB 35 nor HCD’s SB 35 Guidelines specifically define “attached,” the common meaning of that term is to be physically adjoined, or as defined by Mariam Webster Dictionary, to be “connected or joined to something.” The Project consists of eight (8) single family dwellings and six (6) ADUs, each of which is a wholly independent, stand-alone structure. None of the dwellings are physically adjoined, connected, or otherwise integrated with any other dwelling. Each unit is constructed with four separate and distinct exterior walls and maintains its own structural envelope. No dwelling shares any wall, roof, ceiling, floor assembly, or other load-bearing or non-load-bearing building component with another dwelling. Accordingly, all eight (8) single family dwellings and six (6) ADUs are properly characterized as detached singlefamily residences and detached ADUs.
In addition to the Project not being a “multifamily housing development” under State law, the Project is also not a “multifamily housing development” under San Rafael law.2 Pursuant to San Rafael Municipal Code (“SRMC”) section 14.03.030 – Definitions, multifamily residential development means “medium and high density residential development [. . .] containing three (3) or more attached dwelling units in one (1) or more structures located on a single parcel or common lot.” (SRMC § 14.03.030, “Residential, multifamily.”)
1 See HCD SB 35 Guidelines, section 102(p) (https://www.hcd.ca.gov/policy-research/docs/sb-35- guidelines-update-�inal.pdf) 2 We note that SB 35 indeed gives certain deference to a local jurisdiction’s identi�ication of local multifamily zoning criteria, and SB 35 does not expressly preclude the City from relying, in part, on its own de�inition and/or classi�ication of “multifamily housing,” in determining whether a proposed SB 35 project is indeed a “multifamily” project. See, e.g. Gov. Code § 65913.4(a)(6)(A)(iv), and (e)(1).
Case 3:25-cv-04904-LB Document 60 Filed 08/04/26 Page 321 of 344
Staff notes that the project consists of detached single family dwellings that share a “silver metal screen” that runs between adjacent detached single family dwellings on adjacent, separate lots. The “silver metal screen” is a “fence,” as defined by the San Rafael Municipal Code. (SRMC § 14.30.030, “Fence”.) This fence that crosses property lines is also used to connect detached accessory dwelling units. This configuration does meet the definition of attached dwelling units on a common parcel or lot pursuant to either SB 35 or the San Rafael Municipal Code.
Instead, the Project contains six lots and each are described separately below:
Lot 011-031-49 consists of a single family dwelling and a detached accessory dwelling unit.
Lot 011-031-48 consists of two detached single family dwellings and a detached accessory dwelling unit.
Lot 011-031-47 consists of a single family dwelling and a detached accessory dwelling unit.
Lot 011-031-46 consists of a single family dwelling and a detached accessory dwelling unit, along with an accessory structure with a pool house.
Lot 011-031-45 consists of two detached single family dwellings and a detached accessory dwelling unit.
Lot 011-031-44 consists of a single family dwelling and a detached accessory dwelling unit.
No single parcel contains three or more attached dwelling units, so no parcel contains “multifamily housing.”
As we discussed when we met on November 18, 2025, we believe there is a viable path forward to project approval under SB 9 and/or SB 684 and we would encourage you to consider these paths forward, with certain project modifications. As I mentioned, we would be happy to work with you to review a revised application to conform to the requirements of SB 9 and/or SB 684 in order to move the project forward in a timely manner and pursuant to ministerial review.
Should you have any questions, please contact me at Margaret.kavanaugh[email protected].
Thank you,
Margaret Kavanaugh-Lynch
Planning Manager
City of San Rafael
Attachment
October 6, 2025, Correspondence-City of San Rafael
Case 3:25-cv-04904-LB Document 60 Filed 08/04/26 Page 322 of 344 October 6, 2025
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 your revised SB 35 Development Application submitted on September 6, 2025 (PLAN23-067, PA23-007) and proposing an 8-Unit Residential Development with 6 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.”).
The City has analyzed the Development Application, pursuant to Government Code section 65913.4(c)(1), for consistency with objective planning standards specified in Government Code section 65913.4(a), including but not limited to City objective zoning standards, objective subdivision standards, and objective design review standards in effect on the date of submittal of the Development Application.
Project Description
The project proposes the construction of an 8-Unit Residential Development with 6 Accessory Dwelling Units (ADUs) on six (6) lots identified as Assessor’s Parcel Numbers APNs: 011-031-44, 45, 46, 47, 48, & 49. The application does not appear to propose a subdivision of land but proposes to construct a mix of single detached family residences and detached ADUs on each lot. The project also includes the construction of a driveway across all parcels of various widths (26 feet to 46 feet- ten inches) as well as two hammerheads.
The project site is comprised of six (6) vacant lots identified as Assessor’s Parcel Numbers APNs: 011-031-44, 45, 46, 47, 48, & 49. The project site totals 61,844 sf (1.4 acres) and is designated Low Density Residential by the City of San Rafael General Plan and is zoned R10 with a potential Hillside Overlay. The proposed project is subject to standards in the Hillside Development Overlay District as all six lots have an average slope of over 25 percent (Chapter 14.12.020; Section 14.16.200).
Case 3:25-cv-04904-LB Document 60 Filed 08/04/26 Page 323 of 344
4898-1728-1390 v3
Consistency Review
This consistency review has been conducted based on application materials submitted on September 6, 2025. If the proposed Project, application materials for the Project, or proposal on the Project site are modified, these changes may result in updates to the City’s consistency review determinations and may trigger additional review pursuant to Government Code section 65913.4 subds. (a) and (c)(1)(C).
This consistency determination does not analyze the Project’s consistency with postentitlement permit requirements, including but not limited to standards and regulations applicable to any and all building permits (including but not limited to demolition, grading, foundation, and/or vertical infrastructure building permits). Prior to the issuance of any building permit, the Project must comply with all Sanitary District, Fire Department, Marin Municipal Water District, utility companies’, and other relevant local/State/federal agencies’ regulations that are directly applicable to the project.
Additionally, as the City has previously notified you, you have failed to reimburse the City for fees related to the processing of the Development Application. These fees must be paid in full.
Determination of Inconsistency.
The Project is inconsistent with multiple City objective zoning standards, objective subdivision standards, and objective design review standards. Additionally, the Project is inconsistent with provisions of State law. These inconsistencies are detailed in this letter. Because the Project is inconsistent with City standards as well as State law, the City cannot approve the Project as proposed. However, you are free to resubmit a modified development application, including modified plans and/or additional requests for waivers and/or incentives/concessions under State Density Bonus Laws (“SDBL”).
Should you choose to do so, the City will review your resubmitted development application pursuant to Government Code section 65913.4(c)(1) within the timelines set forth in section 65913.4(c)(1)(C).
Should you have any questions, please contact me at Margaret.kavanaugh[email protected].
Thank you,
Margaret Kavanaugh-Lynch
Planning Manager
City of San Rafael
ATTACHMENTS
1. Planning Division Consistency Review Comments
2. Housing Division Consistency Review Comments
3. Fire Department Consistency Review Comments
4. Department of Public Works Consistency Review Comments
5. Courtesy Comments
Case 3:25-cv-04904-LB Document 60 Filed 08/04/26 Page 324 of 344
4898-1728-1390 v3
Attachment 1: Planning Division Consistency Determinations
1. Inconsistency with Government Code 65913.4(a).
The Project is ineligible for the streamlined ministerial approval process set forth in Government Code section 65913.4 et seq. (“SB 35”) because the project is not a “multifamily housing development” (see Gov. Code § 65913.4(a)(1).) Pursuant to San Rafael Municipal Code (“SRMC”) section 14.03.030 – Definitions, multifamily residential development means “medium and high density residential development [. . .] containing three (3) or more attached dwelling units in one (1) or more structures located on a single parcel or common lot.” (SRMC § 14.03.030, “Residential, multifamily.”)
Staff notes that the project consists of detached single family dwellings that share a “silver metal screen” that runs between adjacent detached single family dwellings on adjacent, separate lots. The “silver metal screen” is a “fence,” as defined by the San Rafael Municipal Code. (SRMC § 14.30.030, “Fence”.) This fence that crosses property lines is also used to connect detached accessory dwelling units. This configuration does meet the definition of attached dwelling units on a common parcel or lot pursuant to either SB 35 or the San Rafael Municipal Code.
Instead, the Project contains six lots and each are described separately below:
Lot 011-031-49 consists of a single family dwelling and a detached accessory dwelling unit.
Lot 011-031-48 consists of two detached single family dwellings and a detached accessory dwelling unit.
Lot 011-031-47 consists of a single family dwelling and a detached accessory dwelling unit.
Lot 011-031-46 consists of a single family dwelling and a detached accessory dwelling unit, along with an accessory structure with a pool house.
Lot 011-031-45 consists of two detached single family dwellings and a detached accessory dwelling unit.
Lot 011-031-44 consists of a single family dwelling and a detached accessory dwelling unit.
No single parcel contains three or more attached dwelling units, so no parcel contains “multifamily housing.”
2. Inconsistency with City of San Rafael General Plan
The Project site and each parcel within the Project site has a General Plan designation of Low Density Residential. The Project is inconsistent with various Low Density Residential development standards.
Case 3:25-cv-04904-LB Document 60 Filed 08/04/26 Page 325 of 344
4898-1728-1390 v3
Table 1.1 City of San Rafael General Plan
Maximum Height - (General Plan p. 3-25)
Consistency Review Consideration Factors and Notes
The Project is not
consistent with this
development
regulation. A waiver
pursuant to the SDBL
has been sought to
exceed height
standards.
The General Plan limits height on the site to 30 feet tall. All primary dwellings exceed 30 feet in height.
Parking and Driveways (General Plan Policy CDP-4.9)
Consistency Review Consideration Factors and Notes
The Project is not
consistent with this
development
regulation.
Parking is required to be screened from the street by landscaping. Plans do not show screening of parking.
Case 3:25-cv-04904-LB Document 60 Filed 08/04/26 Page 326 of 344
4898-1728-1390 v3
3. Inconsistency with City of San Rafael Zoning Code (Title 14) The project site is zoned R10 with a Hillside Overlay. The proposed project is subject to standards in the Hillside Development Overlay District as all existing lots have an average slope exceeding 25 percent, with existing average slopes ranging from 44.5 to 47.3 percent (SRMC Chapter 14.12.020 and SRMC Section 14.16.200). The Project is not consistent with several standards contained in the City of San Rafael Zoning Code.
Table 1.2
Base District Regulations (Chapter 14.04)
Single-Family Residential District Purpose (Section 14.04.010.H - Specific purposes; 14.04.020 – Land Use Regulations)
Consistency Review Consideration Factors and Notes
The Project is not
consistent with this
development
regulation.
The R-10 single-family zoning district allows for detached single-family residential uses. (SRMC Ch. 14.04.020.) Single-family residential use is defined as “low density residential development containing one (1) primary residential ‘dwelling unit’ for use by a single household on a single parcel.” (SRMC § 14.03.030, "Residential, single-family.”) The project proposes to construct two (2) primary dwelling units on lot 011-031-45 and lot 011-031-
48. Because the Project proposes multiple primary dwelling units on two lots, the Project is inconsistent with this standard.
The type of housing proposed (i.e. two primary dwelling units on a single lot) is only allowed in combination with an SB 9 application.
Setbacks (14.04.030 - Property development standards (R)) Consistency Review Consideration Factors and Notes
The Project is not
consistent with this
development regulation. A
waiver pursuant to the
SDBL has been sought to
exceed rear, side, and front
setback standards.
The R10 zoning district requires a minimum side yard setback of 10 feet.
All lots propose development with side yard setbacks of approximately 4 feet. The R10 zoning district requires a minimum rear yard setback of 10 feet. All lots have rear yard setbacks of approximately 4 feet for the primary dwellings. The R10 zoning district requires a minimum front yard setback of 20 feet. While some of the lots propose development with front yard setbacks of greater than 20 feet, lot 011-031-48 has a front setback of approximately 2.5 feet for a primary dwelling unit.
Height (14.04.030 - Property development standards (R)) Consistency Review Consideration Factors and Notes
The Applicant has not
submitted sufficient
information to enable the
City to analyze this
standard. A waiver
pursuant to the SDBL has
been sought to exceed
height standards.
The R 10 zoning district requires a maximum height of 30 feet tall. (General Plan p. 3-25.) All primary units appear to exceed 30 feet in height, although insufficient information has been provided in plans to verify the proposed height using the formula required for lots in the Hillside Overlay District, “Hillside Lots”. SRMC Section 14.03.030 (Definitions) defines height as:
"Height, hillside" means the height of all structures, fences and walls measured vertically from the existing (e.g., natural) Case 3:25-cv-04904-LB Document 60 Filed 08/04/26 Page 327 of 344
4898-1728-1390 v3
grade to the uppermost point of the roof edge, wall parapet, mansard or other feature above the existing grade at any given point. See illustration below.
Height of Proposed Structures.
Maximum Lot Coverage (14.04.030 - Property development standards (R)) Consistency Review Consideration Factors and Notes
The Applicant has not
submitted sufficient
information to enable the
City to analyze this
standard; therefore the
Project is not consistent with
this standard.
The plan set pages that attempt to illustrate lot coverage do not show the lot lines themselves, therefore staff is not able to confirm the summary calculations provided.
Accessory Dwelling Units (14.16.285)
Consistency Review Consideration Factors and Notes
The Project is not
consistent with this
development regulation.
No more than one detached new construction ADU is permitted on lots with an existing or proposed single-family dwelling (see Gov. Code, § 66323, subd. (a)(2) and San Rafael Municipal Code § 14.16.285(E)(2).) The Project proposes more than one detached new construction ADU on lot 011-031-45 and is therefore inconsistent with both the San Rafael Municipal Code and State laws regarding the maximum number of detached ADUs.
Hillside Development Overlay District (Chapter 14.12)
Building Stepback - 14.12.030.A - Property development standards (-H) Consistency Review Consideration Factors and Notes
The Applicant has not
submitted sufficient
information to enable the
City to analyze this
standard; therefore the
Project is not consistent
with this standard. A
Per San Rafael Municipal Code Section 14.12.030:
On non-downhill slope, walls facing front and side property lines shall have a twenty-foot (20′) height limit measured from existing grade shall be observed within all areas within fifteen feet (15′) of the maximum building envelope limit. To allow for design flexibility on non-downhill slopes, an encroachment into the street front, Case 3:25-cv-04904-LB Document 60 Filed 08/04/26 Page 328 of 344
4898-1728-1390 v3
waiver pursuant to the
SDBL has been sought to
exceed the stepback
standards.
street side and interior side stepback is permitted along twenty-five percent (25%) of the building length.
The proposed plans do not specify the required stepbacks, making it unclear whether compliance can be confirmed without supporting calculations. Certain portions of the proposed residence appear to exceed the stepback requirement; however, it is undetermined whether this exceeds the allowable 25% threshold.
Building Setbacks - 14.12.030.B - Property development standards (-H) Consistency Review Consideration Factors and Notes
The Project is not
consistent with this
standard.
Structures may encroach into a required yard or setback for a distance of not more than one-half (½) of the required yard or setback provided that the decrease minimizes the impact of hillside development and grading, subject to approval by the hearing body of an environmental and design review permit. If such a reduction is granted, a compensating increase in setback is required in the opposing setback, i.e., a five-foot reduction in a front yard setback would increase the rear yard setback by five feet (5').
The setbacks shown on the plans illustrate that this development standard is not met on any parcel.
Natural State - 14.12.030.C - Property development standards (-H) Consistency Review Consideration Factors and Notes
The Applicant has not
submitted sufficient
information to enable the
City to analyze this
standard; therefore the
Project is not consistent
with this standard. A
waiver pursuant to the
SDBL has been sought to
exceed this standard.
A minimum area of twenty-five percent (25%) of the lot area plus the percentage figure of average slope must remain in its natural state. “Natural state" means all portions of lots that remain undeveloped and undisturbed. Grading, excavating, filling and/or the construction roadways, driveways, parking areas and structures are prohibited.
Here, with average slopes ranging from 44.5 to 47.3 percent, lots must maintain a minimum natural state area of 69.5 to 72.3 percent. The proposed plans do not accurately illustrate the required and proposed natural state requirements; further as the lot lines were removed from the plan set pages that attempt to illustrate the lot coverage, staff is not able to calculate the lot coverage per lot and therefore not able to ascertain consistency with this development standard.
Parking Requirements - 14.12.030 - Property development standards (-H) and Parking Requirements - Section 14.18.040
Consistency Review Consideration Factors and Notes
The Applicant has not
submitted sufficient
information to enable the
City to analyze this
standard; therefore the
Project is not consistent
with this standard.
Single-family residential developments must provide two covered parking spaces per unit. (SRMC Table 14.18.040.) Additionally, on streets less than twenty-six feet (26') wide, a minimum of two (2) additional on-site parking spaces must be provided (not on the driveway apron). (SRMC Ch. 14.12.030(F).)
As the floor plans for the primary structure are not specific to each proposed location, it is not possible to determine based on the plan set provided if each unit has any covered parking. Further, the parking plans provided are not sufficient to determine the exact location of the Case 3:25-cv-04904-LB Document 60 Filed 08/04/26 Page 329 of 344
4898-1728-1390 v3
spaces related to the dwelling units, so it is not possible to determine if the additional uncovered parking requirements are met for each site.
Streets and Driveways - 14.12.030 - Property development standards (-H) Consistency Review Consideration Factors and Notes
The Applicant has not
submitted sufficient
information to enable the
City to analyze this
standard; therefore the
Project is not consistent
with this standard.
New streets and driveway grades shall not exceed 18 percent unless an exception has been granted by the hearing body and the design has been recommended by the public works director and fire marshal to allow a driveway or street slope up to a maximum 25 percent. The project plans do not appear to indicate the proposed slope and therefore consistency cannot be determined at this time.
Site and Use Regulations (Chapter 14.16)
Affordable Housing - Section 14.16.030
Consistency Review Consideration Factors and Notes
The Project is not
consistent with this
standard.
Pursuant to San Rafael Municipal Code Section 14.16.030, residential development projects must provide affordable housing units as described in the policies and procedures specified in the San Rafael City Council's Guidelines for the Administration of the Affordable Housing Trust Fund (Resolution 14890). See Table 2.1 below for analysis regarding consistency with such Guidelines.
Fences and Walls Section - 14.16.140
Consistency Review Consideration Factors and Notes
The Applicant has not
submitted sufficient
information to enable the
City to analyze this
standard; therefore the
Project is not consistent
with this standard.
Fences located within the front and streetside setbacks may be 4 feet tall while fences not exceeding seven feet (7’) in height may be located within the required rear yard or interior side yard. Retaining walls not exceeding a height of four feet (4’) in height may be located within the required rear yard and interior side yard. (SRMC Ch. 14.16.140.) The plans do not contain enough detail for the City to determine whether the Project complies with the fence standards at this time.
Swimming pools, hot tubs, and other mechanical equipment - Section 14.16.320 Consistency Review Consideration Factors and Notes
The Applicant has not
submitted sufficient
information to enable the
City to analyze this
standard; therefore the
Project is not consistent
with this standard.
If a pump or filter or any similar mechanical equipment, including new but not limited to transformers for electric vehicle charging stations and wind energy systems, is located within fifteen feet (15') of any bedroom window on an adjacent lot, a three (3) sided solid enclosure with baffles to screen the equipment from the bedroom, or equally effective measure(s), shall be provided to reduce noise impact. Sound attenuation shall be provided around mechanical equipment to ensure that any mechanical noise that is perceptible at the property line (and generally measured in direct line of sight of the equipment) is attenuated to the maximum extent practicable and that
daytime/nighttime thresholds established under SRMC Table 8.13-1 for the applicable zoning district are not exceeded. The plans indicate that the Project will include a pool, but do not contain enough detail to determine whether the Project complies with this standard.
Water-efficient landscape Section 14.16.370
Consistency Review Consideration Factors and Notes
Case 3:25-cv-04904-LB Document 60 Filed 08/04/26 Page 330 of 344
4898-1728-1390 v3
The Applicant has not
submitted sufficient
information to enable the
City to analyze this
standard; therefore the
Project is not consistent
with this standard.
Any project that proposes new or rehabilitated landscapes which are developer-installed in single-family residential and all other residential developments, regardless of size, where the proposed landscape area is equal to or greater than two thousand five hundred (2,500) square feet must comply with water-efficient landscape requirements and monitor water usage for irrigation. The City has adopted by reference the standards contained in the Marin Municipal Water District (MMWD) Ordinance (Water Conservation). The Project application incorrectly states that these standards are not triggered. Further, the application does not clearly detail how it would meet these requirements, so the City cannot determine at this time whether the Project is consistent with these standards.
Parking Space Dimensions - Section 14.18.100
Consideration Factors and Notes
The Applicant has not
submitted sufficient
information to enable the
City to analyze this
standard; therefore the
Project is not consistent
with this standard.
This section specifies parking space dimensions for standard and compact parking stalls. While some dimensions are provided, and the cover pages notes that all spaces are 9 feet by 19 feet, the application does not contain enough information to determine whether all parking spaces additional information is needed to verify compliance.
Access to the Public Right-of-Way - Section 14.18.140
Consistency Review Consideration Factors and Notes
The Applicant has not
submitted sufficient
information to enable the
City to analyze this
standard; therefore the
Project is not consistent
with this standard.
Subsection (A) of this section requires driveways serving residential uses with less than 6 vehicle parking spaces to be a minimum of 10 feet wide.
Subsection (C) of this section specifies that driveway grades are subject to review and determination by the city engineer, noting that the maximum driveway grade typically allowed is eighteen percent (18%*).
The plans do not contain enough information to determine whether the Project complies with these standards.
Environmental and Design Review Permits (Chapter 14.25) Review Criteria – Section 14.25.050
Consistency Review Consideration Factors and Notes
The Applicant has not
submitted sufficient
information to enable the
City to analyze this
standard; therefore the
Project is not consistent
with this standard.
Utility Service. Utility connections shall be installed underground.
Proposed method of sanitary sewage disposal for all buildings shall be indicated. Refuse collection areas shall be screened and located in areas convenient both to users and to persons who make collections.
There shall be adequate ingress and egress to all utilities. (Note:
Recycling facilities must meet Standard of Resolution 93-57.) The application does not contain enough information to allow the City to determine compliance with any of these standards.
The Applicant has not
submitted sufficient
information to enable the
City to analyze this
Walls, Fences, and Screening. Walls, fences and screening shall be used to screen parking and loading areas, refuse collection areas and mechanical equipment from view. Screening of mechanical equipment shall be designed as an integrated architectural component of the Case 3:25-cv-04904-LB Document 60 Filed 08/04/26 Page 331 of 344
4898-1728-1390 v3
4. City of San Rafael Hillside Design Guidelines
Because the proposed project is subject to the Hillside Development Overlay District of the SRMC, it is also subject to the Design Guidelines Applicable to All Hillside Residential Development Projects 1 . Table 1.3 below evaluates the Project for consistency with the Hillside Design Guidelines.
Table 1.3
Design Guidelines Applicable to All Hillside Residential Development Projects IV.A5. Street Layout, Driveway and Parking Design
Consistency Review Consideration Factors and Notes
The Applicant has not
submitted sufficient
information to enable the
City to analyze this
standard; therefore the
Project is not consistent
with this standard.
This section of the Design Guidelines establishes that driveway grades may be a maximum of 18%. This section of the Design Guidelines also requires that parking landings shall be required on all driveways over 10% grade. The application does not specify the grade of every driveway and every parking landing, so the City cannot currently determine whether the Project is consistent with this standard.
IV.A7. Hillside Architectural Character
Consistency Review Consideration Factors and Notes
The Applicant has not
submitted sufficient
information to enable the
City to analyze this
standard; therefore the
Project is not consistent
with this standard.
This section of the Design Guidelines requires fences and walls over 3 feet in height that face public streets to provide a fully landscaped buffer at least 5 feet deep on the street facing side of the fence or wall.
The cover page notes that there are fences included in the project that are “2' - 14' (with a small number outliers upwards of 16')”, but the plans do not indicate whether the required 5-foot landscaped buffer will be provided. Additional information is needed to verify compliance with this standard.
IV. A9. Site Lighting
Consistency Review Consideration Factors and Notes
The Applicant has not
submitted sufficient
information to enable the
City to analyze this
standard; therefore the
Project is not consistent
with this standard.
This section of the Design Guidelines establishes that any overhead lighting for residential parking areas must be mounted at a maximum of 15 feet, and lighting for pedestrian areas must be 8 feet or less. No lighting information is provided and as such, additional information is needed to verify compliance.
1 Available at https://www.cityofsanrafael.org/documents/hillside-design-guidelines-hillsideresidential-development-projects/ standard; therefore the
Project is not consistent
with this standard.
building and the landscape. Utility meters and transformers shall be incorporated into the overall project design. The application does not contain enough information to allow the City to determine compliance with any of these standards
Case 3:25-cv-04904-LB Document 60 Filed 08/04/26 Page 332 of 344
4898-1728-1390 v3
5. City of San Rafael Objective Design Standards (ODS)
On March 18, 2024, the San Rafael City Council adopted Resolution 15280, adopting objective design standards for residential developments.2 The San Rafael Objective Design Standards (“ODS”) apply to all residential projects.
Table 1.4 evaluates the Project for consistency with the ODS and includes additional consideration factors and notes for context.
Table 1.4
Objective Design Standards
1. Site Planning and Layout (Building Orientation)
Consistency Review Consideration Factors and Notes
The Applicant has not
submitted sufficient
information to enable the
City to analyze this
standard; therefore the
Project is not consistent
with this standard.
This section of the ODS requires buildings adjacent to a public street or alley to design primary building entrances to face the public street or alley. There is not enough information provided to verify if primary building entrances are designed to face Coleman Drive, a public street. The residences appear to face Coleman Drive, but the exact location of individual building entrances is not clearly shown on the Plans. As such, compliance with this ODS cannot be verified.
1. Site Planning and Layout (Windows and Privacy)
Consistency Review Consideration Factors and Notes
The Applicant has not
submitted sufficient
information to enable the
City to analyze this
standard; therefore the
Project is not consistent
with this standard.
This section of the ODS requires windows that are within 10 feet vertically or horizontally of facing residential bedroom windows or private open space of existing residences to have an opaque or translucent glazing at or below 5 feet above finished floor or be offset a minimum of 5 feet horizontally (as measured by nearest edge of existing facing window). The project is abutting existing residential development to the north, south, and west. The plans do not include enough information to determine whether new residences are within 10 feet vertically or horizontally of facing residential bedroom windows or private open space of existing residences. As such, compliance with this ODS cannot be verified.
1. Site Planning and Layout (Ensure Adequate Screening) Consistency Review Consideration Factors and Notes
The Applicant has not
submitted sufficient
information to enable the
City to analyze this
standard; therefore the
Project is not consistent
with this standard.
This section of the ODS requires screening between new residential development and adjacent existing residential uses to obscure direct sight lines between private yards. Such screening shall consist of a continuous view-obscuring wood fence, masonry wall, or an irrigated and maintained evergreen hedge, not less than four feet in height, and not more than six feet in height, which may be broken only for access driveways and walkways. The width of screens consisting of evergreen hedges shall be at least 40% of their height. The project is adjacent to 2 The Objective Design Standards can be found starting at page 37 of this PDF document:
https://storage.googleapis.com/proudcity/sanrafaelca/uploads/2024/03/CC-SA-Agenda-Packet2024-03-18.pdf Case 3:25-cv-04904-LB Document 60 Filed 08/04/26 Page 333 of 344
4898-1728-1390 v3
existing residential uses. The plans do not show if and/or how the project will incorporate screening between the proposed and existing residences.
This section of the ODS also requires trash and refuse collection and disposal facilities to be enclosed by a solid fence or hedge that is no lower than the facilities themselves, and requires these facilities to be covered. The plans do not provide details regarding the location of refuse bins. As such, compliance with this ODS cannot be verified.
1. Site Planning and Layout (Ground Level Utility Location and Utility Screening) Consistency Review Consideration Factors and Notes
The Applicant has not
submitted sufficient
information to enable the
City to analyze this
standard; therefore the
Project is not consistent
with this standard.
This section of the ODS requires back flow preventers, transformers, and other utilities to be out of sight either in sidewalk vaults or screened from view with either architecture or landscaping. Utility transformers or boxes are required to be underground or, if not allowed by PG&E, screened and not visible from the public right of way. There is not enough information to determine whether the project includes ground level utilities. If the project includes and/or requires such utilities, the location shall be shown on a utility plan and shall demonstrate screening in compliance with this standard.
1. Site Planning and Layout (Parking Garage)
Consistency Review Consideration Factors and Notes
The Applicant has not
submitted sufficient
information to enable the
City to analyze this
standard; therefore the
Project is not consistent
with this standard.
This section of the ODS requires any parking visible from the public right-of-way to be screened by continuous landscaping, or other architectural features. There is not enough information to verify whether parking will be screened by continuous landscaping or other architectural features.
2. Building Design and Architecture (Trim Requirements) Consistency Review Consideration Factors and Notes
The Applicant has not
submitted sufficient
information to enable the
City to analyze this
standard; therefore the
Project is not consistent
with this standard.
The section of the ODS requires stucco foam trim to be limited to one element of trim detail and shall not be used as the sole trim molding material. The plans do not include materials information and as such, additional information is needed to verify compliance.
2. Building Design and Architecture (Colors and Reflective Materials) Consistency Review Consideration Factors and Notes
The Applicant has not
submitted sufficient
information to enable the
City to analyze this
standard; therefore the
Project is not consistent
This section of the ODS sets forth the following related to colors and materials:
1. Facades shall include between 2 and 4 colors. One color shall be the ‘main color’ and be used on no less than 70% of the nonglazed area of a building’s façade. The other colors shall be defined each as an ‘accent color’ each of which shall not be used Case 3:25-cv-04904-LB Document 60 Filed 08/04/26 Page 334 of 344
4898-1728-1390 v3
with this standard. on more than 30% of the non-glazed area of a building’s façade
2. Buildings shall include the same colors and materials on all elevations. At least one accent color is required to appear on all elevations.
3. “Gloss” paint finishes shall not be used for a building’s main color but may be used for accent colors and on trim. The highest sheen that may be used for a main color is semi-gloss.
4. The main color shall have a light reflective value of between 20% and 80%. Trim and accent colors may use colors of any light reflective value.
5. Fluorescent, iridescent, or metallic paints are prohibited.
6. Metal seam or other metal roofing, if used, shall be anodized, fluoro-coated, or painted with a non-gloss and non-glare finish.
Copper and lead roofs shall be natural or pre-oxidized.
7. Any colors used on stucco walls shall be incorporated into the stucco mixture as an integral color.
The plans do not include information about colors or the level of information regarding materials that is needed to verify compliance with these standards.
2. Building Design and Architecture (Blank Walls)
Consistency Review Consideration Factors and Notes
The Applicant has not
submitted sufficient
information to enable the
City to analyze this
standard; therefore the
Project is not consistent
with this standard.
This section of the ODS requires all building walls to have a minimum 15% transparency on each floor. Ground floors without a lobby shall exhibit a variegated façade with changes in transparencies and materials so that no one form represents more than 75% of the surface area. The plans do not include enough information to verify consistency with this standard.
2. Building Design and Architecture (Rooftop Utility Screening) Consistency Review Consideration Factors and Notes
The Applicant has not
submitted sufficient
information to enable the
City to analyze this
standard; therefore the
Project is not consistent
with this standard.
This section of the ODS requires all mechanical equipment to be screened and shall not project above its enclosure. Roof-mounted mechanical equipment shall be screened from public view by a parapet wall, decorative equipment screen, or other architectural treatment.
The point of view for determining visibility shall be five feet above grade at a distance of 200 feet from any point of the structure at ground level.
The plans do not include enough information to verify consistency with this standard.
3. Open Space and Landscape (Useable Outdoor Space)
Consistency Review Consideration Factors and Notes
The Applicant has not
submitted sufficient
information to enable the
City to analyze this
standard; therefore the
Project is not consistent
with this standard.
This section of the ODS requires the project to provide a minimum of 100 square feet of useable open space per dwelling unit and specifies objective standards related to accessibility, unit assignment, dimensions, balconies, slope, landscaping, and amenities of these useable open space areas. The plans do not include enough information to verify consistency with this standard.
4. Lighting (Light and Glare)
Consistency Review Consideration Factors and Notes
Case 3:25-cv-04904-LB Document 60 Filed 08/04/26 Page 335 of 344
4898-1728-1390 v3
The Applicant has not
submitted sufficient
information to enable the
City to analyze this
standard; therefore the
Project is not consistent
with this standard.
This section of the ODS requires exterior lights to have a minimum ground level illumination of 1 foot-candle at doorways and entryways.
Elsewhere, exterior lights are required to have a maximum ground level illumination of ½ foot-candle. Additionally, this section requires all lighting sources to be shielded from view from the public right of way and from neighboring properties and specifies that exterior lights:
• shall produce no indirect light extending 5 ft. beyond a property line
• shall not be placed higher than the height of the principal structure.
• shall have a maximum angle of direct illumination of 60 degrees if placed more than 6 ft high.
• shall be rated for 4500 Kelvins or fewer.
No lighting information was provided. The plans do not include enough information to verify consistency with this standard.
Case 3:25-cv-04904-LB Document 60 Filed 08/04/26 Page 336 of 344
4898-1728-1390 v3
Attachment 2: Housing Division Consistency Review Comments Table 2.1 below evaluates the Project for consistency with the City’s affordable housing requirements (SRMC Section 14.16.030 and Resolution 14890) and includes additional consideration factors and notes for context.
Table 2.1
SRMC Section 14.16.030 and City Council Resolution 14890 Size. The affordable housing units shall be comparable in size to the market-rate units within the residential development project, as measured by net habitable square footage.
For purposes of this provision, “comparable size” means having habitable square footage proportionate to the range of unit sizes provided for market-rate units in the project. (Section C(1) of Resolution 14890)
Consistency Review Consideration Factors and Notes
The Project is not
consistent with this
standard.
The application indicates that one ADU (building 2, unit 1) would be an affordable unit. The average size of market rate units is 2,544 square feet ((8*3,52 + 5*976)/13). At 976 square feet, the affordable unit is significantly smaller than the average size of the market rate units.
Type. The affordable housing units shall possess a distribution of bedroom counts proportionate to that of the market-rate units within the residential development project. (Section C(1) of Resolution 14890)
Consistency Review Consideration Factors and Notes
The Project is not
consistent with this
standard.
The average bedroom count for market rate units is 3.85 bedrooms per unit ((5*8+2*10)/13). The affordable unit contains only 2 bedrooms.
Design and Materials. The exterior and interior design of the affordable housing units shall be of the same design, materials, amenities, quality of finish, and appearance of the other developed units. (Section C(2) of Resolution 14890)
Consistency Review Consideration Factors and Notes
The Applicant has not
submitted sufficient
information to enable the
City to analyze this
standard; therefore the
Project is not consistent
with this standard.
The application does not contain information regarding the materials, amenities, quality of finish, and appearance of the exterior and interior for each of the units, so the City cannot determine at this time whether the Project is consistent with this standard.
Access. The affordable housing units shall have access to the same amenities and common spaces as the market rate units. (Section C(2) of Resolution 14890) Case 3:25-cv-04904-LB Document 60 Filed 08/04/26 Page 337 of 344
4898-1728-1390 v3
Consistency Review Consideration Factors and Notes
The Project is not
consistent with this
standard
The application does not affirmatively indicate that the affordable housing unit will have access to the same amenities (e.g., the pool) and common spaces that the market rate units will have access to, so the City cannot determine at this time whether the Project is consistent with this standard.
Case 3:25-cv-04904-LB Document 60 Filed 08/04/26 Page 338 of 344
4898-1728-1390 v3
Attachment 3: Fire Department Consistency Review Comments Table 3.1
Fire Regulations
Fire Apparatus Access Roads – SRMC Chapter 4. 2022 California Fire Code Section 503, Appendix D, and all applicable National Fire Protection Standards.
Consistency Review Consideration Factors and Notes
The project is not
consistent with this
development regulation.
The current plans do not clearly demonstrate compliance with the provisions of these sections of the code.
Fire Flow for Fire Hydrants and fire sprinkler systems - SRMC Chapter 4. 2022 California Fire Code sections 507, Appendix BB, Appendix C, Appendix CC, and all applicable National Fire Protection Association standards.
Consistency Review Consideration Factors and Notes
The project is not
consistent with this
development regulation.
The current plans do not clearly demonstrate compliance with the provisions of these sections of the code.
Case 3:25-cv-04904-LB Document 60 Filed 08/04/26 Page 339 of 344
4898-1728-1390 v3
Attachment 4: Department of Public Works Review Comments Table 4.1
Chapter 15.06.020 - Utilities and Services
No subdivision of land into two (2) or more lots or parcels for the purpose of development shall be approved by the city unless it is determined that the following utilities and services can be provided:
(a) Water Service. Domestic water service for all new lots or parcels shall be provided by the Marin municipal water district (MMWD).
(b) Wastewater and Sewage Disposal. Wastewater and sewage disposal for all new lots or parcels shall be provided by either the San Rafael sanitation district or the Las Gallinas Valley sanitary district, depending upon the property location. The creation of an individual on-site septic system intended to serve a new lot or parcel shall be prohibited. (c) Gas and Electric Service. Gas and electric service for all new lots or parcels shall be provided by the Pacific Gas & Electric Company (PG & E).
(d) Communication Services. Telephone and cable television service shall be available to all new lots or parcels.
Consistency Review Consideration Factors and Notes
The project is inconsistent with
this standard.
The plans do not indicate that the Project will be served by any of the following utilities: water, wastewater and sewage, gas and electric, communication services.
Section 15.06.050(g) – Hillside Streets; 15.07.030 - Street, driveway and parking standards.
All new streets in hillside areas shall comply with the requirements of Section 15.07.030 (Standards for Hillside Subdivisions) of this title.
No private street leading to a private driveway on a lot shall exceed a grade of eighteen percent (18%).
Consistency Review Consideration Factors and Notes
The Development Application
contains insufficient information
to analyze consistency with this
standard and therefore the
Project is not consistent with
this standard.
The plans show a new private street transversing the 6 Project parcels. The plans do not indicate the grade of the private street.
Section 15.06.070(e) - General design conditions for streets Curve radius. The center line curve radius on all streets and highways shall conform to accepted engineering standards of design and shall be subject to approval by the city engineer.
Consistency Review Consideration Factors and Notes
The Development Application
contains insufficient information
The plans show a new street traversing the 6 Project parcels so it is subject the general design conditions for streets. There is Case 3:25-cv-04904-LB Document 60 Filed 08/04/26 Page 340 of 344
4898-1728-1390 v3
to analyze consistency with this
standard and therefore the
Project is not consistent with
this standard
insufficient curve radius data to verify consistency with this section.
Section 15.06.080 - Sidewalks and walkways
Sidewalks and walkways shall be required along both sides of new public or private streets and incorporated into the right-of-way width requirements specified in Section 15.06.050 of this chapter.
Sidewalks along streets intended for residential use shall be a minimum of four feet (4') in width. All sidewalks and walkways shall be designed to comply with the requirements of the Americans with Disability Act (ADA).
Consistency Review Consideration Factors and Notes
The Project is inconsistent with
this standard.
The plans show a new street traversing the 6 Project parcels. The plans do not depict a sidewalk along either side of the street.
Section 15.06.110 - Grading and drainage
Graded slopes shall not exceed two to one (2:1), unless the city engineer determines that a steeper slope is justified to minimize the amount of grading or to reduce potential tree removal and, where it is determined that the soil and geologic conditions are suitable for and capable of accommodating a steeper slope.
Retaining walls shall not exceed eight feet (8') in height, unless approved by the Planning Commission.
Consistency Review Consideration Factors and Notes
The Development Application
contains insufficient information
to analyze consistency with this
standard and therefore the
Project is not consistent with
this standard
Plans lack sufficient information to determine if whether grading slopes exceed 2:1 or how tall any proposed retaining walls are.
Section 15.06.130 - Undergrounding of utilities
All utility distribution facilities, including but not limited to electric (carrying normal voltage of less than thirty-five thousand (35,000) volts), gas, communication and cable television lines, installed and for the purpose of supplying service to a subdivision creating lots for development, shall be placed underground, subject to specified exceptions.
Consistency Review Consideration Factors and Notes
The Development Application
contains insufficient information
to analyze consistency with this
standard and therefore the
Project is not consistent with
this standard
The plans do not clearly show the proposed utilities serving the project. Therefore, it is impossible to determine whether the required utilities will be underground, as required.
Case 3:25-cv-04904-LB Document 60 Filed 08/04/26 Page 341 of 344
4898-1728-1390 v3
Attachment 5: Courtesy Comments
The following comments do not address consistency with applicable standards, so they were not included in the tables above. However, the City is providing these additional comments to you as a courtesy. Please note the following:
Department of Public Works
1. Per San Rafael Municipal Code Section 9.30.151, where required by the Phase II Stormwater Permit Provision E.12, or where required by the nature and extent of a proposed project and where deemed appropriate by the agency, every applicant shall develop, submit and implement a Stormwater Control Plan (SCP) as described in the section. The Project creates more than 5,000 square feet of impervious area and therefore will be considered a regulated project. You will therefore be required to submit a stormwater control plan.
2. Per San Rafael Municipal Code Section 14.16.170, development applications require geotechnical reports consistent with the geotechnical matrix in the general plan appendices to assess such hazards as potential seismic hazards, liquefaction, landsliding, mudsliding, erosion, sedimentation and settlement and hazardous soils conditions to determine the optimum location for structures, to advise of special structural requirements and to evaluate the feasibility and desirability of a proposed facility in a specific location. In accordance with Section S-2 (Geotechnical Review) and Appendix F of the San Rafael General Plan, you will be required to submit a geotechnical investigation report.
3. The project is required to provide a transportation analysis report in accordance with the San Rafael Transportation Analysis Guidelines3, 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.
4. The 2022 California Residential Code (CRC) SECTION R311- MEANS OF EGRESS applies:
a. R311.1 Means of egress. Dwellings shall be provided with a means of egress in accordance with this section. The means of egress shall provide a continuous and unobstructed path of vertical and horizontal egress travel from all portions of the dwelling to the required egress door without requiring travel through a garage. The required egress door shall open directly into a public right of way or to a yard or court that opens to a public way.
5. The 2022 California Building Code (CBC) SECTION 1029 - EGRESS COURTS applies:
a. 1029.2 Width or capacity. The required capacity of egress courts shall be determined as specified in Section 1005.1, but the minimum width shall be not less than 44 inches (1118mm), except as specified herein. 3 Available at https://www.cityofsanrafael.org/documents/sanrafael-ta-guidelines-feb-2022/ Case 3:25-cv-04904-LB Document 60 Filed 08/04/26 Page 342 of 344
4898-1728-1390 v3
Egress courts serving Group R-3 and U occupancies shall not be less than 36 inches (914mm) in width. The required capacity and width of egress courts shall be unobstructed to a height of 7 feet (2134mm). The width of the egress court shall be not less than the required capacity.
6. The following frontage/off-site improvements may be required to comply with postentitlement building, fire, and other standards:
a. Upgrade Coleman Drive roadway width along project frontage. b. Extend new curb and gutter along the project frontage to match existing curb and gutter ending near the proposed driveway approach. Include a minimum 2’ wide shoulder width from the toe of the hill or wall to the back of the new curb.
c. Install a culvert or concrete valley gutter at the driveway approach to allow uphill water on the roadside to travel past the driveway approach. d. Remove and replace the existing sand bag retaining wall along the project frontage with a new wall to support the proposed driveway and improvements.
e. Install underground storm drain piping and catch basins as necessary to convey uphill water to the existing catch basin at the toe of Parcel 011- 031-049 (south-east project limit). Consider installing a catch basin on the uphill side of the new common driveway approach to limit water conveyed across the driveway approach.
f. Pavement restoration along project frontage. Asphalt grind and overlay shall have a minimum thickness of 2 inches.
7. Mass grading and earthwork operations shall occur between April 15 and October 15 unless approved otherwise by DPW.
8. A construction management plan should be submitted for City review prior to issuance of building permit. The project site is on a steep slope with minimal level area for set up and storage, construction staging will be required to be onsite unless negotiated otherwise with DPW.
9. An encroachment permit and grading permit will be required from the DPW prior to construction.
San Rafael Sanitation District
1. There is currently no public sewer main in Colemen Drive fronting the property. A new sewer main extension will be required from the proposed development to the end of the existing public sewer on the south side of the property at 241 Coleman Drive.
Case 3:25-cv-04904-LB Document 60 Filed 08/04/26 Page 343 of 344 $%&'()*"+',,'-"."/,,)01('*,2"/3
45*)&"/675,"8'9%-, :;:<#;<#=;
$-'),'7> :;:<#;<#=;
?@> /-5'&"36,5'--'A"B)-5'&CD6,5'--'AE05,@%F2)*-)F)'&C%-DG H,),62> H5D*'7
I-)*2)0,5%*"JK> $?L$M?$//?//;H#33N@-++OPQ,A,RISTU2T<S,,?-V)+ X$%&'()*"+',,'-"."/,,)01('*,2"/3X"M52,%-@
K%06('*,"0-'),'7"S@"/-5'&"36,5'--'A"B)-5'&CD6,5'--'AE05,@%F2)*-)F)'&C%-DG :;:<#;<#=;"#"YY>=;>OO"RN"3NI#"JR")77-'22>"YZZC[[CYY=C[
K%06('*,"'()5&'7",%"N50)1"M5*\&'"B(50)1C15*\&'E05,@%F2)*-)F)'&C%-DG"F%-"25D*),6-' :;:<#;<#=;"#"YY>=Y>]O"RN"3NI
^()5&"_5'.'7"S@"N50)1"M5*\&'"B(50)1C15*\&'E05,@%F2)*-)F)'&C%-DG :;:<#;<#=;"#"YY>]]>;Y"RN"3NI#"JR")77-'22>"Y;]C]`C<OC:O] K%06('*,"'#25D*'7"S@"N50)1"M5*\&'"B(50)1C15*\&'E05,@%F2)*-)F)'&C%-DG H5D*),6-'"K),'>":;:<#;<#=;"#"YY>O;>];"RN"3NI"#"I5('"H%6-0'>"2'-_'-#"JR")77-'22>"YZZC[[CYY=C["#"H5D*),6-'"/99')-)*0'"H'&'0,'7>"JN/3^ /D-''('*,"0%(9&','7C
:;:<#;<#=;"#"YY>O;>];"RN"3NI
Case 3:25-cv-04904-LB Document 60 Filed 08/04/26 Page 344 of 344