Press Alt + R to read the document text or Alt + P to download or print.
This document contains no pages.
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning Commission 2025-02-25 Agenda Packet
Planning Commission
Regular Meeting
Tuesday, February 25, 2025 - 7:00 P.M.
AGENDA
Participate In-Person:
San Rafael City Council Chambers
1400 Fifth Avenue, San Rafael, CA 94901
Watch Online:
Watch on Zoom Webinar: https://tinyurl.com/2025-PC-Meeting
Watch on YouTube: http://www.youtube.com/cityofsanrafael
Listen by phone: 1 (669) 444-9171
ID: 894 4903 7326
One Tap Mobile: US: +16694449171,, 89449037326#
This meeting will be held in-person. This meeting is being streamed to YouTube at
www.youtube.com/cityofsanrafael.
How to participate in the meeting:
• You are welcome to come to the meeting and provide public comment in
person. Each speaker will have 3-minutes to provide public comment.
• Submit your comments by email to
PlanningPublicComment@cityofsanrafael.org by 4:00 p.m. the day of the
meeting.
If you experience technical difficulties during the meeting, please contact
PlanningPublicComment@cityofsanrafael.org.
A. CALL TO ORDER
B. RECORDING OF MEMBERS PRESENT AND ABSENT
C. APPROVAL OR REVISION OF ORDER OF AGENDA ITEMS
D. PUBLIC NOTIFICATION OF MEETING PROCEDURES
E. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS FROM THE PUBLIC
Remarks are limited to three minutes per person and may be on anything within the
subject matter jurisdiction of the body. Remarks on non-agenda items will be heard
first, remarks on agenda items will be heard at the time the item is discussed.
F. CONSENT CALENDAR
The Consent Calendar allows the Commission to take action, without discussion, on
Agenda items for which there are no persons present who wish to speak, and no
Commission members who wish to discuss.
2
1. None
G. ACTION ITEMS
1. 131 Valley View Avenue – Appeal to the Planning Commission of the Community
and Economic Development Director’s approval of a request for a reasonable
accommodation to allow specified modifications to the existing residence at 131
Valley View Avenue. APNs: 010-081-18 Habibolah Hastaie and Carol Underwood,
Owner. Appellant: Josh Sullivan & Lisa Dal Gallo.
The project has been determined to be exempt from the requirements of the California
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to Section 15303 of the CEQA Guidelines
(New Construction or Conversion of Small Structures) as the activity in question will
not have a significant effect on the environment.
Project Planner: Renee Nickenig, Associate Planner
renee.nickenig@cityofsanrafael.org and
Margaret Kavanaugh-Lynch, Planning Manager margaret.kavanaugh-
lynch@cityofsanrafael.org
Recommended Action – It is recommended that the San Rafael Planning
Commission receive staff’s report and public input on the Project and approve the
Resolution included in the staff report.
H. DIRECTOR’S REPORT
1. Housing Element Annual Progress Report
Presentation of the Housing Element Annual Progress Report (APR) highlighting
progress on the policies and programs identified in the City’s General Plan and the
City’s progress toward meeting its share of the Regional Housing Need Allocation
(RHNA)
Project Planner: Margaret Kavanaugh-Lynch, Planning Manager
margaret.kavanaugh-lynch@cityofsanrafael.org
Recommended Action – Accept the Housing Element Annual Progress Report for
2024 and direct staff to present the report to City Council for submission to the
California Department of Housing and Community Development
2. Annual Meeting of the Planning Commission 2025
Presentation of the Regular Meeting Schedule for 2025, Selection of the San Rafael
Planning Commission Chair and Vice Chair, and Approval of the San Rafael Planning
Commission Public Hearing Guidelines.
Project Planner: Margaret Kavanaugh-Lynch margaret.kavanaugh-
lynch@cityofsanrafael.org
3
Recommended Action – Adopt the 2025 San Rafael Planning Commission Regular
Meeting Schedule, Elect Chair and Vice Chair, and Approve the San Rafael Planning
Commission Public Hearing Guidelines
I. COMMISSION COMMUNICATION
J. ADJOURNMENT
Any records relating to an agenda item, received by a majority or more of the Commission less than 72
hours before the meeting, shall be available for inspection online. Sign Language interpreters may be
requested by calling (415) 485-3066 (voice), emailing city.clerk@cityofsanrafael.org or using the California
Telecommunications Relay Service by dialing “711”, at least 72 hours in advance of the meeting. Copies
of documents are available in accessible formats upon request.
The Planning Commission will take up no new business after 11:00 p.m. at regularly scheduled meetings.
This shall be interpreted to mean that no agenda item or other business will be discussed or acted upon
after the agenda item under consideration at 11:00 p.m. The Commission may suspend this rule to discuss
and/or act upon any additional agenda item(s) deemed appropriate by a unanimous vote of the members
present. Appeal rights: any person may file an appeal of the Planning Commission's action on agenda items
within five business days (normally 5:00 p.m. on the following Tuesday) and within 10 calendar days of an
action on a subdivision. An appeal letter shall be filed with the City Clerk, along with an appeal fee of $350
(for non-applicants) or a $5,000 deposit (for applicants) made payable to the City of San Rafael and shall
set forth the basis for appeal. There is a $50.00 additional charge for request for continuation of an appeal
by appellant.
1
Community Development Department –
Planning Division
Meeting
Date:
February 25, 2025
Agenda Item:
G.1
Case Number:
PLAN24-174
(AP24-006)
Project
Planner:
Renee Nickenig,
Associate Planner
REPORT TO PLANNING COMMISSION
SUBJECT: 131 Valley View Avenue – Appeal to the Planning Commission of the Community
and Economic Development Director’s approval of a request for a reasonable
accommodation to allow specified modifications to the existing residence at 131
Valley View Avenue.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
On October 17, 2024 the Community and Economic Development Director (Director) approved
a reasonable accommodation request pursuant to San Rafael Municipal Code (SRMC) Section
14.26.060 (Attachment C), approving proposed renovations to a single-family home with
deviations from the otherwise applicable provisions of the City’s zoning code. The Director
determined, using the criteria specified in SRMC Section 14.26.060, that approving the
reasonable accommodation request was necessary to provide the applicant (Applicant), an
individual with a disability, equal access to housing, as required by state and federal law. The
project (Project) that was approved included:
1. Enclosing and expanding the front porch;
2. Adding a bay window at the front of the residence;
3. Enclosing an existing covered porch at the east of the residence;
4. Expanding the bedroom at the northwest (rear) of the residence; and
5. Expanding the existing dining room at the northeast (rear) of the residence with an
attached open, uncovered deck.
An approved request for a reasonable accommodation supplants discretionary land use permits
that might otherwise be necessary as a reasonable accommodation request allows for a
“modification or exception” to “rules, standards and practices for the siting, development and use
of housing or housing-related facilities” that would normally apply (SRMC Section 14.26.020.B).
On October 21, 2024, the City of San Rafael received a timely appeal of the October 17 approval
of the reasonable accommodation request (Attachment D). The appeal challenges staff’s
determination that the reasonable accommodation provides equal access to housing under the
Federal Fair Housing Act and the California Fair Employment and Housing Act and disagrees
that the factors listed in SRMC Chapter 14.26.060 support granting reasonable accommodation
request.
2
Appeals of land use actions are governed by SRMC Chapter 14.28. Appeals based on decisions
made by the Director are heard by the Planning Commission (SRMC Section 14.28.010.A).
During the hearing, the Planning Commission must review the record of the decision (including
this Staff Report) and hear testimony of the appellant, the applicant, and any other interested
party (SRMC Section 14.28.040[A]). Following the appeal hearing, the Planning Commission
must affirm, modify, or reverse the original decision (SRMC Section 14.28.050).
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the Planning Commission:
(1) Convene a public hearing.
(2) Discuss the Staff report, testimony and ask questions of the Staff, Applicant, and Appellant
as needed.
(3) Approve the Resolution attached as Exhibit A, Denying the Appeal in part and approve the
Appeal in part, modifying the Director’s approval of the reasonable accommodation request
to include the amended Project submitted on January 13, 2025 and the Findings found in
Table A.1.
PROPERTY FACTS
Address/Location: 131 Valley View Avenue Parcel Number: 010-081-18
Property Size: 6,745 sf Neighborhood: Central San Rafael
(Sun Valley / Fairhills)
Site Characteristics:
General Plan Designation Zoning District Existing Land-Use
Project Site: Hillside Residential (HR) R20-H Single-Family Residential
North: Public/Quasi-Public (P/QP) R20-H Marin Municipal Water District
Facility
South: HR R20-H Single-Family Residential
East: HR R20-H Single-Family Residential
West: HR R20-H Single-Family Residential
Site Description/Setting:
The subject site is located on the north side of Valley View Avenue. The site is flat on the east
side, with a significant slope at the west side. The site is developed with a single-family residence
with an attached garage and established landscaping. The driveway is paved between the
garage and Valley View Avenue, and there are two poured concrete pads at the north (rear) of
the property.
3
Figure 1 Vicinity Map
The property is flanked by single-family residences on the east and west and abuts a Marin Municipal
Water District site at the north. A visually significant ridgeline, as shown on the Community Design
Map of the City’s General Plan, runs west to east to the immediate north of the property.
Project Description
The Project consists of the following modifications to the existing structure, depicted in Figure 2
below:
1. Enclosing and expanding the front porch;
2. Adding a bay window at the front of the residence;
3. Enclosing an existing covered porch at the east of the residence;
4. Expanding the bedroom at the northwest (rear) of the residence; and
5. Expanding the existing dining room at the northeast (rear) of the residence with an
attached open, uncovered deck.
4
Figure 2 Proposed Main House Floor Plan
The main house floor plan (Figure 2) shows the proposed elements that are part of the Project
highlighted in green, including: (1) front porch enclosure; (2) bay window addition; (3) east porch
enclosure; (4) bedroom addition; and (5) dining room addition and (6) open exterior deck.
1 2
3
4
5
6
KEY
Project
5
Figure 3 Proposed Project Site Plan
The proposed project site plan (Figure 3) shows the additions highlighted in Figure 2, as well as
the addition of an attached Accessory Dwelling Unit (ADU). The attached ADU is subject to
ministerial review and not a part of the approved reasonable accommodation request. In total,
the Project would add approximately 486 square feet of new enclosed space to the residence.
Compliance with Development Standards
As stated previously, the approval of the request for reasonable accommodation supplants the
requirement for all other discretionary land use permits. However, staff notes that the Project as
proposed complies with the following applicable development standards as required by SRMC
Sections 14.04.030 and 14.12.030: the rear setback; maximum height; maximum lot coverage;
maximum height; natural state; and gross building square-footage. The Project as proposed
would not comply with the following applicable development standards as required by SRMC
Sections 14.04.030 and 14.12.030, including: the side setback of the addition and enclosure at
the northeast; the side setback of the addition at the northwest; the expansion of the front porch
KEY
Project
Elements Not part of Project
6
enclosure at the southeast (front); and as new development on an visually significant ridgeline.
If not for the approval of the reasonable accommodation request, this project would otherwise
require a Major Environmental and Design Review and Hillside Exception, pursuant to SRMC
Section 14.12.040.
Correction to Original Project Approval and Subsequent Plan Set
Although not part of the Appeal, staff notes that in the October 17, 2024 approval document, staff
notes three errors were made:
1. Finding Number Two (2) used she/her pronouns. That was not correct.
2. Finding Number Three (3) incorrectly located the dining room expansion at the northwest and
the bedroom expansion at the southwest.
3. Finding Number Four (4) incorrectly stated that the original Project would not increase the
height of the roofline and would not be visible from the public street. However, as shown on
the associated plan set (Attachment C), the Project would increase the roof height and would
be visible from the public street. Staff notes this increase would not exceed the permitted
height limit for the zoning district and would not impact the decision to grant the request.
Following the receipt of the Appeal, the Applicant submitted an amended plan set, Attachment
F. This plan set is consistent with the project proposed in the original plan set in all ways, but
were revised to have no change to the existing overall heights of the residence.
As a part of this hearing, staff is proposing modifications to Findings Two (2) and Three (3) below
to correct the remaining errors. Finding Four (4) is now correct.
DISCUSSION
City staff worked closely with staff from the City Attorney’s office when reviewing the Project and
the reasonable accommodation request. Any decision to grant or deny a reasonable
accommodation request “shall be consistent with the [Federal Fair Housing Act and the California
Fair Employment and Housing Act] and shall be based on consideration of six factors
enumerated in SRMC Section 14.26.060(A). The six factors are to be considered together and
no single factor controls the decision. Not all of the factors must be satisfied in order for a request
to be approved. Staff applied the six factors to the reasonable accommodation request for the
proposed Project in table format, reproduced from the October 17, 2024 approval letter as Table
A below. Staff found that five of the six factors favored granting the reasonable accommodation
request. One factor - whether the requested accommodation has a negative impact on
surrounding properties - weighed against granting the request, though staff noted that impacts
were speculative. Considering the six factors on the whole, the City found that the reasonable
accommodation request was consistent with the Federal Fair Housing Act and California’s Fair
Employment and Housing Act and approved the reasonable accommodation request.
7
Table A: Original Entitlement: Requests for Reasonable Accommodation Findings
(SRMC §14.26.060)
Yes No
(A) Findings. The written decision to grant or deny a request for reasonable accommodation
shall be consistent with the Acts and shall be based on consideration of the following
factors:
1. Whether the housing,
which is the subject of the
request, will be used by an
individual with a disability
under the Acts;
X The applicant has provided documentation
demonstrating that the property owner, who lives in
the home, is an individual with a disability as
defined under the Acts.
2. Whether the request for
reasonable
accommodation is
necessary to make specific
housing available to an
individual with a disability
under the Acts;
X The applicant has demonstrated that the existing
interior and layout of the of the residence is not
suitable for long-term stay for the individual with a
disability as defined under the Acts. If the reasonable
accommodation permit is not granted, the applicant
will be forced to relocate to other housing. The
applicant has demonstrated that the proposed
modifications are necessary to make 131 Valley
View available to herself so that she can continue to
comfortably reside at the property.
3. Whether there is an
alternative accommodation
which may provide an
equivalent level of benefit;
X The design of the proposed project would minimize
the amount of construction work and expense
required to provide the necessary accessibility
upgrades:
• Covering the front porch would create a safe
transition from the front of the property to the
existing entrance.
• Locating the dining room expansion on the
northwest portion of the property would
avoid the need to regrade the land, as a
graded area is already available for
development on northwest portion of the
property.
• The expansion on the southwest portion of
the property will allow for safer mobility
within the existing bedroom.
All together, the proposed design would require only
minimal modifications to the floor plan of the
residence, whereas alternative designs would
8
require major modifications to the home’s layout, at
a high cost to the homeowner. There are no
alternative accommodations which provide an
equivalent level of benefit, taking into account both
utility and cost.
4. Whether the requested
accommodation would
negatively impact
surrounding uses or
properties;
X Concerns have been expressed that the project
might negatively impact surrounding properties due
to the proximity of the project to the main buildings
located on adjacent properties.
While the project will encroach into the required
building setback; it will not expand beyond the
existing east elevation of the home towards the
neighboring property at the northeast, and thereby
does not worsen the separation between the two
main buildings. Further, the project will not increase
the height of the roofline and will not be visible from
the public street.
5. Whether the requested
reasonable
accommodation would
impose an undue financial
or administrative burden on
the city; and
X The fee for the reasonable accommodation permit
has been paid in full to account for staff time and
noticing procedures per SRMC Section 14.26.050.
The City would not incur any additional financial or
administrative burden. Thus, the requested
accommodation would not impose an undue
financial or administrative burden on the City.
6. Whether the requested
reasonable
accommodation would
require a fundamental
alteration in the nature of a
city program or law,
including, but not limited to,
land use and zoning.
X A reasonable accommodation permit to provide
equitable ADA access is permitted per SRMC
Chapter 14.26 and is part of the nature of the City’s
existing land use planning. Granting the request
would not require a fundamental alternation in any
City program.
Though staff determined using the fourth factor that there would be some impacts to surrounding
properties, the analysis highlighted that such impacts would be minor: the Project will encroach into
the required building side setback at the northwest and northeast, but will not expand beyond the
existing west and east elevations of the residence. Likewise, the Project will not exceed the overall
maximum height permitted at the property. Thus, on balance, staff concluded that since five of the
six factors weighed in favor of granting the reasonable accommodation request, and that since the
only factor that weighed against granting the request was only minor, that the reasonable
accommodation request should be granted.
9
Table A.1: Revised Reasonable Accommodation Findings (SRMC §14.26.060) to
correct errors noted in Staff Report
Yes No
(B) Findings. The written decision to grant or deny a request for reasonable accommodation
shall be consistent with the Acts and shall be based on consideration of the following
factors:
1. Whether the housing,
which is the subject of the
request, will be used by an
individual with a disability
under the Acts;
X The Applicant has provided documentation
demonstrating that the property owner, who lives in
the home, is an individual with a disability as
defined under the Acts.
2. Whether the request for
reasonable
accommodation is
necessary to make specific
housing available to an
individual with a disability
under the Acts;
X The Applicant has demonstrated that the existing
interior and layout of the of the residence is not
suitable for long-term stay for the individual with a
disability as defined under the Acts. If the
reasonable accommodation permit is not granted,
the applicant will be forced to relocate to other
housing. The Applicant has demonstrated that the
proposed modifications are necessary to make 131
Valley View available to himself so that he can
continue to comfortably reside at the property.
3. Whether there is an
alternative accommodation
which may provide an
equivalent level of benefit;
X The design of the proposed project would minimize
the amount of construction work and expense
required to provide the necessary accessibility
upgrades:
• Covering the front porch would create a safe
transition from the front of the property to the
existing entrance.
• Locating the dining room expansion on the
northeast portion of the property would avoid
the need to regrade the land, as a graded
area is already available for development on
northeast portion of the property.
• The expansion on the northwest portion of
the property will allow for safer mobility
within the existing bedroom.
All together, the proposed design would require
only minimal modifications to the floor plan of the
residence, whereas alternative designs would
require major modifications to the home’s layout, at
a high cost to the homeowner. There are no
10
alternative accommodations which provide an
equivalent level of benefit, taking into account both
utility and cost.
4. Whether the requested
accommodation would
negatively impact
surrounding uses or
properties;
X Concerns have been expressed that the project
might negatively impact surrounding properties due
to the proximity of the project to the main buildings
located on adjacent properties.
While the project will encroach into the required
building setback; it will not expand beyond the
existing east elevation of the home towards the
neighboring property at the northeast, and thereby
does not worsen the separation between the two
main buildings. Further, the project will not increase
the height of the roofline and will not be visible from
the public street.
5. Whether the requested
reasonable
accommodation would
impose an undue financial
or administrative burden on
the city; and
X The fee for the reasonable accommodation permit
has been paid in full to account for staff time and
noticing procedures per SRMC Section 14.26.050.
The City would not incur any additional financial or
administrative burden. Thus, the requested
accommodation would not impose an undue
financial or administrative burden on the City.
6. Whether the requested
reasonable
accommodation would
require a fundamental
alteration in the nature of a
city program or law,
including, but not limited to,
land use and zoning.
X A reasonable accommodation permit to provide
equitable ADA access is permitted per SRMC
Chapter 14.26 and is part of the nature of the City’s
existing land use planning. Granting the request
would not require a fundamental alternation in any
City program.
Appeal
The appellants (“Appellants”), who live at 127 Valley View Avenue (to the west of 131 Valley View
Avenue), disagree with the City’s determination that the reasonable accommodation request
provides equal housing under the Federal Fair Housing Act and the California Fair Employment and
Housing Act and disagrees with the City’s determination that the factors set forth in San Rafael
Municipal Code Section 14.26.060 support granting the reasonable accommodation request. The
appeal is included as Attachment D. The Appellants also submitted a letter to the City on January
21, 2025 (included as Attachment G), further explaining the reasons for their appeal.
The appeal can be summarized in four claims: (1) that there is no nexus between the disability and
the requested accommodation; (2) that the City failed to investigate potential alternative designs; (3)
that the fire hazard risk posed by the reasonable accommodation is too high; and (4) that the
11
Appellants have been denied due process. These points are outlined below in greater detail, along
with a rebuttal prepared in consultation with staff from the City Attorney’s office:
1) Nexus
In approving the initial project, the City determined that there is a nexus between the disability of the
Applicant for the reasonable accommodation and the requested accommodation. The Appellants
state in the correspondence received that they “do not dispute one occupant of 131 Valley View is
disabled as defined under California and federal law,” but also that “appellants have observed both
owners function independently without mobility aids” during the past four years.
The City has determined through communications with the Applicant that one of the occupants of
131 Valley View is disabled as defined under California law and the ADA. Accordingly, the Applicant
is eligible to apply for a reasonable accommodation under local, state, and federal law.
Appellants correctly point out the following features of disability law:
To prove a reasonable accommodation is necessary, proponents “must show that, but for the
accommodation, they will likely be deprived of the opportunity to enjoy the housing of their
choice." (United States v. California Mobile Home Park, 107 F.3d 1374, 1380-81 (9th Cir.1997).)
This analysis is "highly fact-specific, requiring case-by-case determination." (United States v.
California Mobile Home Park Mgmt. Co., 29 F.3d 1413, 1418 (9th Cir.1994). There must be an
identifiable relationship, or nexus between the requested accommodation and the individual’s
disability. For example, in U.S. v. City of Chicago Heights, 161 F.Supp.2d 819 (N.D. Ill. 2001),
the District Court describes the showing required to establish necessity as follows: "The concept
of necessity requires at a minimum the showing that the desired accommodation will affirmatively
enhance a disabled plaintiff’s quality of life by ameliorating the effects of the disability. Plaintiffs
must show that but for the accommodation, they likely will be denied an equal opportunity to
enjoy the housing of their choice." (Id. at 834 (internal quotes and citations omitted).)
The U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development and the U.S. Department of Justice have
also made clear that if an individual’s disability is known or obvious, and their requested
accommodation or modification is clearly connected to their disability, the law prohibits requests for
additional information regarding the disability.1 In such circumstances, the City cannot require that
an individual disclose a particular diagnosis or provide medical records in connection with a request
for a reasonable accommodation.2 Moreover, most disability-related information is confidential and
cannot be shared with other persons – including Appellants or the public at large – absent a court-
1 Joint Statement of the Department of Housing and Urban Development and the Department of Justice
regarding Reasonable Modifications under the Fair Housing Act, Attachment E, p. 5.
2 U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, FAQs, “What can I require an individual with a
disability to include in a request for a reasonable accommodation or reasonable modification if I am a
housing provider?”, available at
https://www.hud.gov/program_offices/fair_housing_equal_opp/reasonable_accommodations_and_modific
ations/faqs#verification-of-disability
12
issued subpoena requiring disclosure.3 In recognition of this fact, the California Public Records Act
explicitly exempts such records from public disclosure.4
City staff, through detailed conversations with the Applicant, determined that the disability of one of
the residents of 131 Valley View is directly related to the requested accommodation. City staff also
determined that if the reasonable accommodation request were not granted, the disability would
make living in the home untenable in its current state for the long term and therefore deprive the
occupant of the opportunity to enjoy the housing of their choice.
2) Alternative Designs
The City considered alternative project designs and properly concluded that the proposed design is
superior to alternatives. When processing reasonable accommodation requests, the San Rafael
Municipal Code requires the City to analyze “whether there is an alternative accommodation which
may provide an equivalent level of benefit.” (SRMC Ch. 14.26.060(A).) Since “equivalent level of
benefit” is not defined, staff have (consistent with past practice) interpreted this term to include
consideration of potential costs to an applicant for a reasonable accommodation request, potential
costs to members of the public, and potential costs to the City. The notice approving the reasonable
accommodation request balances these considerations by explaining the following:
“The design of the proposed project would minimize the amount of construction work and
expense required to provide the necessary accessibility upgrades:
• Covering the front porch would create a safe transition from the front of the property
to the existing entrance.
• Locating the dining room expansion on the northwest portion of the property would
avoid the need to regrade the land, as a graded area is already available for
development on northwest portion of the property.
• The expansion on the southwest portion of the property will allow for safer mobility
within the existing bedroom.
All together, the proposed design would require only minimal modifications to the floor plan
of the residence, whereas alternative designs would require major modifications to the
home’s layout, at a high cost to the homeowner. There are no alternative accommodations
which provide an equivalent level of benefit, taking into account both utility and cost.”
Nothing in the Municipal Code or any other law requires an applicant for a reasonable
accommodation request to submit, or the City to review, detailed plans depicting project alternatives;
narrative analysis of alternatives is sufficient. Through extensive conversations with the Applicant,
3 Attachment E, p. 5.
4 Government Code § 7927.700 [the California Public Records Act “does not require disclosure of
personnel, medical, or similar files, the disclosure of which would constitute an unwarranted invasion of
personal privacy.”]
13
City staff determined that there is no alternative accommodation which may provide an equivalent
level of benefit, all things considered. The most significant constraining factors here are the current
layout of the existing residence and the state of the existing backyard grading. Appellants take issue
with the proposed expansion of the dining room from the northeast portion of the existing residence.
The existing dining room is located in the northeast portion of the existing residence, close enough
to the kitchen to be useable and accessible to the Applicant, taking into account their disability. The
backyard area adjacent to the existing dining room is already graded, and expansion onto that area
would require no additional grading. Expanding the dining room as proposed would avoid the need
to change the interior layout of the home or the need to grade any portion of the backyard. Locating
the dining room expansion anywhere else on the property would certainly require significant redesign
of the interior of the existing residence and could potentially require new grading in the backyard,
both at a high monetary cost to the Applicant. While alternative designs could comply with the City’s
design standards without the need for a reasonable accommodation request, such designs would
provide little benefit to the City.
As explained below, neither the proposed design nor any alternative design poses any significant
fire hazard, and the City is not aware of (and Appellants have not identified) any other factor related
to the Project affecting neighbors or members of the public. The same considerations are true of
the location of the bedroom expansion. Accordingly, the City justifiably concluded that no alternative
accommodation would provide an equivalent level of benefit as the proposed design of the approved
reasonable accommodation. The same considerations are true of the location of the bedroom
expansion. If the Applicant were required to locate the dining room expansion or bedroom expansion
elsewhere, the Applicant would either need to significantly reconfigure the interior of the house or
regrade the backyard at a significantly higher monetary cost for an equivalent level of mobility benefit
as the proposed design. Alternative designs with a similar monetary cost to the Applicant provide
significantly less mobility benefits as the proposed design. Therefore, analyzing “equivalent level of
benefit” from the applicant’s perspective, there is no alternative design that provides an equivalent
level of benefit.
In terms of potential costs to members of the public, costs include potential loss of views due to
increased height, potential loss of privacy due to increased proximity to neighbors, and potential
increase in fire risk due to increased proximity to neighbors. The proposed design would not increase
the height of the existing structure and would not impact any neighbor’s views; alternative designs
could do no better. The proposed design does not increase the proximity of 131 Valley View to the
neighbor to the west at 127 Valley View, so there would be no potential loss of privacy to those
neighbors. The expanded dining room would increase the proximity of 131 Valley View to the
neighbors to the east at 135 Valley View, but since the proximity would be to 135 Valley View’s
garage rather than a bedroom or bathroom, the potential loss of privacy is minimal. Alternative
designs would provide little or no additional privacy benefits. Finally, as explained below, the City
has not identified any concrete fire risk related to the proposed design. While alternative designs
could potentially be made ultra-fire safe, the proposed design meets the City’s fire safety standards
and does not create significant fire risks for neighbors. Accordingly, the costs of the proposed design
to members of the public is low, and alternative designs would not likely decrease these costs.
The only potential cost to the City is City’s interest in enforcing its normally applicable development
standards. Alternative designs could potentially comply with the City’s standards without the need
for a reasonable accommodation request; however, the City gains little or nothing from requiring
strict compliance with the normally applicable development standards in this case.
14
Considering the potential costs to an applicant, potential costs to members of the public, and
potential costs to the City, the City justifiably concluded that no alternative accommodation would
provide an equivalent level of overall benefit as the proposed design of the approved reasonable
accommodation.
3) Fire Hazard Risk
Appellants claim that the proposed design creates significant fire risks and that the City should have
denied the reasonable accommodation request under California Code of Regulations Section
12179(b)(3), which states that a reasonable accommodation request can be denied if:
The requested accommodation would constitute a direct threat to the health or safety of others
(i.e. a significant risk of bodily harm) or would cause substantial physical damage to the
property of others, and such risks cannot be sufficiently mitigated or eliminated by another
reasonable accommodation [. . .]
The requested reasonable accommodation does not create any fire hazard risk that warranted
denying the request. Critically, 131 Valley View Avenue is not located in either a moderate, high, or
very high fire hazard zone, as indicated by the most recent CAL FIRE maps.5 Moreover, even if 131
Valley View Avenue were located in one of these zones, the California Department of Housing and
Community Development has specified that location in a fire hazard zone is not necessarily a reason
to restrict residential development in such zone.6 Rather, CAL FIRE’s fire hazard maps are intended
to govern building materials used in construction and defining zones of defensibility around
structures, but not intended to restrict housing development.7 Any potential risk to neighboring
properties can be mitigated through the use of fire-resistant building materials and by the creation of
defensible space around structures. Because 131 Valley View is in the Wild Urban Interface, its
owners are already required by law to maintain defensible space around structures on their property,
and they will continue to be required to do so with respect to the construction of the Project approved
by the reasonable accommodation request.
Appellants claim that the City should have denied the reasonable accommodation request under
California Code of Regulations Section 12179(b)(3), which states that a reasonable
accommodation request can be denied if:
The requested accommodation would constitute a direct threat to the health or safety of others
(i.e. a significant risk of bodily harm) or would cause substantial physical damage to the
property of others, and such risks cannot be sufficiently mitigated or eliminated by another
reasonable accommodation [. . .]
Existing fire safety laws and building codes minimize the fire risks associated with the Project, so
there is no basis under which the City could find make this finding.
5 Available at https://experience.arcgis.com/experience/03beab8511814e79a0e4eabf0d3e7247/;
Attachment J.
6 See 2025 ADU Handbook, p. 44, available at https://www.hcd.ca.gov/sites/default/files/docs/policy-and-
research/adu-handbook-update.pdf.
7 Id.
15
4) Due Process
The City has properly complied with all applicable local, state, and federal laws in processing the
reasonable accommodation request that is the subject of this appeal. For example, this Staff Report
was published at least 72 hours before the Planning Commission hearing at which this matter is to
be discussed, as required by state law. (Gov. Code § 54957.5.) Appellants’ belief that the City
“should have issued any supplemental [report] long ago” is unfounded. Legislators and the courts
have determined that 72 hours provides adequate time for members of the public, such as
Appellants, to review staff reports before public hearings.
Ultimately, Staff stands by the analysis provided in Table A and included in the October 17 approval
of the reasonable accommodation request. The previous analysis indicated that granting the
reasonable accommodation request might negatively impact surrounding properties due to the
proximity of the project to the main buildings located on adjacent properties. However, any such
impacts would affect the owner of 135 Valley View Avenue (to the east of the proposed Project), not
Appellants, who own 127 Valley View Avenue (to the west of the proposed Project). The most
significant impact of granting the reasonable accommodation request would be due to the proximity
between the expanded dining room at the northeast of the residence and the existing residence next
door to the east, at 135 Valley View Avenue. Even with this addition, the Project would not expand
beyond the existing east elevation of the existing residence towards the residence at 135 Valley
View Avenue, and would not create any otherwise impermissibly small separation between the
buildings at 131 and 135 Valley View Avenue. Further, the Project would not exceed the permitted
overall height for the zoning district.
Lastly, Staff supports the new plans included as Attachment F and the revised Findings found in
Table A.1 of this staff report as they reduce the height of the project and correct a typographical
error, respectively. Therefore, approving this version of the project is the staff recommendation.
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
The approval of the reasonable accommodation request is categorically exempt from the
provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA, Public Resources Code §21000,
et seq. and California Code of Regulations, §15000, et seq.) pursuant to Section 15301(e)(1) of
the CEQA Guidelines (additions to existing structures that will not result in an increase of more
than 50 percent of the floor area of the structures before the addition, or 2,500 square feet,
whichever is less) and Section 15303 of the CEQA Guidelines (new construction or conversion
of small structures). Furthermore, none of the exceptions found in Government Code §15300.2
apply.
CORRESPONDENCE
Prior to publication of this report, staff has received correspondence from the Appellant, the
Applicant, and an additional neighbor. Opposition to the project includes concerns of the project’s
impact to surrounding properties, including concern for fire safety. Additional information was
provided by the applicant in further support of the project.
16
Correspondences received are attached to this report in the following order:
Attachment G. Statement and exhibits from Appellant received January 21 and 22, 2025.
Attachment H. Comment from neighbor received January 20, 2025; and follow-up items
received January 22, 2025 and February 3, 2025.
Attachment I. Statement and exhibits from Applicant received February 17, 2025.
OPTIONS
The Planning Commission has the following options:
1. Deny the Appeal in part and approve the Appeal in part, modifying the Director’s approval of
the reasonable accommodation request to include the amended Project submitted on
January 13, 2025 (Attachment F) and the Findings found in Table A.1.
2. Deny the Appeal and uphold the Director’s approval of the reasonable accommodation request
in its original form.
3. Grant the Appeal, overturn the Director’s approval of the reasonable accommodation request,
and direct staff to return with a revised Resolution of denial.
4. Continue the appeal to allow the appellant and the applicant to address any of the
Commission’s comments or concerns.
ATTACHMENTS
A. Draft Resolution
B. Draft Conditions
C. Administrative Approval of Reasonable Accommodation Request, dated October 17, 2024
D. Appellant Letter, dated and received October 21, 2024
E. Joint Statement of the Department of Housing and Urban Development and the Department
of Justice regarding Reasonable Modifications under the Fair Housing Act
F. Project Plan Set, received January 13, 2025
G. Statement and exhibits from Appellant received January 21 and 22, 2025
H. Comment from neighbor received January 20, 2025; and follow-up items received January 22,
2025 and February 3, 2025
I. Statement and exhibits from Applicant received February 17, 2025
J. CAL FIRE Hazard Map for 131 Valley View Avenue as of February 14, 2025
17
RESOLUTION NO. 10-
RESOLUTION OF THE SAN RAFAEL PLANNING COMMISSION DENYING THE
APPEAL OF AND UPHOLDING THE ADMINISTRATIVE APPROVAL OF A
REASONABLE ACCOMMODATION REQUEST AT 131 VALLEY VIEW AVENUE
APN: 015-073-10
WHEREAS, on November 7, 2023 Habibolah Hastaie and Carol Underwood
(Applicant) submitted a request for a reasonable accommodation to allow for the
construction of specified additions to the existing residence at 131 Valley View Avenue;
and
WHEREAS, staff determined that the San Rafael Municipal Code allows a
reasonable accommodation request to supplant both a Major Environmental and Design
Review permit and a Hillside Exception, such that approval of a reasonable
accommodation request would be sufficient to allow for he requested additions; and
WHEREAS, the approval of the reasonable accommodation request to allow the
construction of additions to the existing residence is exempt from the requirements of
the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to Section 15301(e)(1) of the
CEQA Guidelines (additions to existing structures that will not result in an increase of
more than 50 percent of the floor area of the structures before the addition, or 2,500
square feet, whichever is less) and Section 15303 of the CEQA Guidelines (new
construction or conversion of small structures); and
WHEREAS, on October 17, 2024, the Community and Economic Development
Director (“Director”) approved the reasonable accommodation request; and
WHEREAS, on October 21, 2024, the City of San Rafael received a timely
appeal of the administrative action approving the reasonable accommodation request;
and
WHEREAS, on January 13, 2025 the Applicant submitted revised project plans;
and
NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, the Planning Commission denies the
Appeal in part and approves the Appeal in part, modifying the Director’s approval of the
Reasonable Accommodation Request RA24-001 for the proposed additions to the
residence at 131 Valley View Avenue to include the revised project plans submitted on
January 13, 2025 subject to the findings and conditions below.
- 2 -
Findings (RA24-001)
A. Reasonable Accommodation
1. Whether the housing, which is the subject of the request, will be used by an
individual with a disability under the Acts:
The Applicant has provided documentation demonstrating that the property
owner, who lives in the home, is an individual with a disability as defined
under the Acts.
2. Whether the request for reasonable accommodation is necessary to make
specific housing available to an individual with a disability under the Acts:
The Applicant has demonstrated that the existing interior and layout of the of
the residence is not suitable for long-term stay for the individual with a
disability as defined under the Acts. If the reasonable accommodation permit
is not granted, the applicant will be forced to relocate to other housing. The
Applicant has demonstrated that the proposed modifications are necessary to
make 131 Valley View available to himself so that he can continue to
comfortably reside at the property.
3. Whether there is an alternative accommodation which may provide an
equivalent level of benefit:
The design of the proposed project would minimize the amount of
construction work and expense required to provide the necessary
accessibility upgrades:
• Covering the front porch would create a safe transition from the front of
the property to the existing entrance.
• Locating the dining room expansion on the northeast portion of the
property would avoid the need to regrade the land, as a graded area is
already available for development on northeast portion of the property.
• The expansion on the northwest portion of the property will allow for
safer mobility within the existing bedroom.
All together, the proposed design would require only minimal modifications to
the floor plan of the residence, whereas alternative designs would require
major modifications to the home’s layout, at a high cost to the homeowner.
There are no alternative accommodations which provide an equivalent level
of benefit, taking into account both utility and cost.
- 3 -
4. Whether the requested accommodation would negatively impact surrounding
uses or properties:
Concerns have been expressed that the project might negatively impact
surrounding properties due to the proximity of the project to the main
buildings located on adjacent properties.
While the project will encroach into the required building setback; it will not
expand beyond the existing east elevation of the home towards the
neighboring property at the northeast, and thereby does not worsen the
separation between the two main buildings. Further, the project will not
increase the height of the roofline and will not be visible from the public
street.
5. Whether the requested reasonable accommodation would impose an undue
financial or administrative burden on the city:
The fee for the reasonable accommodation permit has been paid in full to
account for staff time and noticing procedures per SRMC Section 14.26.050.
The City would not incur any additional financial or administrative burden.
Thus, the requested accommodation would not impose an undue financial or
administrative burden on the City.
6. Whether the requested reasonable accommodation would require a
fundamental alteration in the nature of a city program or law, including, but
not limited to, land use and zoning:
A reasonable accommodation permit to provide equitable ADA access is
permitted per SRMC Chapter 14.26 and is part of the nature of the City’s
existing land use planning. Granting the request would not require a
fundamental alternation in any City program.
Conditions of Approval (RA24-001)
1. Plans and Representations Become Conditions. All information and representations
including the building techniques, materials, elevations and appearance of the project,
as presented for approval on plans, dated January 13, 2025, and on file with the
Community and Economic Development Department, Planning Division, shall be the
same as required for the issuance of a building permit, except as modified by these
conditions of approval. Minor modifications or revisions to the project shall be subject
to review and approval by Planning staff. Modifications deemed not minor by the
Community and Economic Development Director may require review and approval as
an amendment to the Request for a Reasonable Accommodation.
- 4 -
2. Possible Impact of timing of ADU on Project. The Accessory Dwelling Unit (ADU)
shown on the plan set appears to structurally support the proposed addition on the
northwest side of the project. If the ADU is not included in the plans submitted for
building permit review, the Planning Division may require amended support of the
project in a way that is generally consistent with the approved project plans.
3. Conditions Shall be Printed on Plans. The conditions of this permit shall be printed on
the second sheet of each plan set submitted for a building permit pursuant to this
permit, under the title ‘Request for Reasonable Accommodation Conditions’.
Additional sheets may also be used if the second sheet is not of sufficient size to list
all of the conditions. The sheet(s) containing the conditions shall be of the same size
as those sheets containing the construction drawings; 8-1/2” by 11” sheets are not
acceptable.
4. Applicant Responsible for Compliance with Conditions. The applicant shall ensure
compliance with all of the following conditions, including submittal to the project
planner of required approval signatures at the times specified. Failure to comply with
any condition may result in construction being stopped, issuance of a citation, and/or
modification or revocation of this permit.
5. Subject to All Applicable Laws and Regulations. The approved use and/or
construction is subject to, and shall comply with, all applicable City Ordinances and
laws and regulations of other governmental agencies. Prior to construction, the
applicant shall identify and secure all applicable permits from the Building Division,
Department of Public Works, the Fire Department and other affected City divisions
and departments.
6. Permit Validity. This Permit shall become effective on March 5, 2025 and shall be
valid for a period of two (2) years from the date of final approval, or March 5, 2027,
and shall become null and void if a building permit is not issued or a time extension
granted by March 5, 2027. A permit for the construction of a building or structure is
deemed exercised when a valid City building permit, if required, is issued, and
construction has lawfully commenced.
7. Construction Hours: Consistent with the City of San Rafael Municipal Code Section
8.13.050.A, construction hours shall be limited to 7:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. Monday
through Friday and 9:00 a.m to 6:00 p.m. on Saturdays. Construction shall not be
permitted on Sundays or City-observed holidays. Construction activities shall include
delivery of materials, hauling materials off-site; startup of construction equipment
engines, arrival of construction workers, paying of radios and other noises caused by
equipment and/or construction workers arriving at, or working on, the site.
8. Landscaping. Landscaping and irrigation must meet the Marin Municipal Water
District's (MMWD) water conservation rules and regulations. All existing landscaping
damaged during construction shall be replaced. All landscaping shall be maintained
- 5 -
in a healthy and thriving condition, free of weeds and debris. Any dying or dead
landscaping shall be replaced in a timely fashion. No part of the existing landscaping
shall be removed, unless their removal has been reviewed and approved by the
Planning Division.
9. Exterior Lighting. All exterior lighting shall be energy efficient where feasible; and
shielded and directed downward and away from property lines to prevent excessive
glare beyond the subject property (per SRMC Section 14.16.227).
The foregoing Resolution was adopted at the regular City of San Rafael Planning
Commission meeting held on the 25th day of February, 2025.
Moved by Commissioner _____________ and seconded by Commissioner
________________.
AYES: COMMISSIONERS
NOES: COMMISSIONERS
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS
SAN RAFAEL PLANNING COMMISSION
ATTEST: BY:
Margaret Kavanaugh-Lynch, Secretary Chair
ATTACHMENT:
Kate Colin, Mayor • Maribeth Bushey, Vice Mayor • Rachel Kertz, Councilmember • Maika Llorens Gulati, Councilmember • Eli Hill, Councilmember
October 17, 2024
Habibolah Hastaie & Carol Underwood
131 Valley View Ave
San Rafael, CA 94901
301-919-9367
Via Email: hhastaie@gmail.com
Re: PLAN23-151 - Administrative Action to Approve Project;
131 Valley View (APN: 010-081-18)
To Habibolah Hastaie & Carol Underwood:
The City of San Rafael has received the re-submittal of your application for several
improvements to the existing residence at 131 Valley View Avenue. The application
includes additions at the front and rear of the residence, which as shown would
require an exception to the hillside property development standards pursuant San
Rafael Municipal Code (SRMC) Section 14.12.040, but have requested to be
waived as a request for reasonable accommodation pursuant to SRMC Chapter
14.26. This letter is to advise you that staff has approved the project based on the
findings and subject to the conditions outlined in the attached document.
Please note that this action is subject to subject to a five working day appeal period,
pursuant to SRMC Chapter 14.28, which expires on Thursday, October 24, 2024 at
5:00 pm. Additionally, project conditions of approval must be satisfied with
construction permits and/or other required approvals or actions to implement the
project.
Should you have any immediate questions please do not hesitate to contact me at
(415)485-3397 or Renee.Nickenig@cityofsanrafael.org.
Sincerely,
Renee Nickenig, Associate Planner
CITY OF SAN RAFAEL
ATTACHMENTS
1.Findings and Conditions
2.Project Plans
cc: Application Address File
Request for Reasonable Accommodation
Project No. RA24-001 (PLAN23-151)
Address: 131 Valley View
Zoning District: Residential (R20-H)
Type of Use: Single-Family Residential – Hillside Development Overlay District
Approved: Yes Effective Date: 10/25/2024
Signature: 10/17/2024
Project Description
A Reasonable Accommodation request has been submitted pursuant to San Rafael Municipal Code
(SRMC) Section 14.26.060 to accommodate the proposed project. This permit supplants other
discretionary land use permits, including a Major Environmental and Design Review and Hillside
Exception, pursuant to SRMC Section 14.12.040.
The proposed project includes:
1.the enclosure and expansion of the front porch;
2.the addition of a bay window at the front of the residence; the enclosure of an
existing covered porch at the east;
3.the expansion of the bedroom at the northwest (rear) of the residence; and
4.the expansion of the existing dining room at the southwest (rear) of the residence.
The project plans submitted also include an Accessory Dwelling Unit (ADU). The ADU will be
reviewed as a ministerial permit and not as part of the Reasonable Accommodation request.
Staff notes that the project is not compliant with San Rafael Municipal Code (SRMC) Section
14.12.030, as the additions at the northeast and east of the residence will encroach into the required
setbacks and the overall project will result in additional development on a visually significant
ridgeline. However, a Reasonable Accommodation request has been submitted proposing an
exception to these standards, subject to the findings listed below.
CEQA Finding
Yes No
The project is categorically
exempt from the provisions of
the California Environmental
Quality Act (CEQA) and none
of the exceptions of Section
15300.2 apply.
X The project has been determined to be exempt from
the provisions of CEQA pursuant to CEQA Guidelines
Section 15303 - New Construction or Conversion of
Small Structures.
Page 2 of 5
Request for Reasonable Accommodation Findings (SRMC §14.26.060)
Yes No
Findings. The written decision to grant or deny a request for reasonable accommodation shall
be consistent with the Acts and shall be based on consideration of the following factors:
1. Whether the housing,
which is the subject of the
request, will be used by an
individual with a disability
under the Acts;
X The applicant has provided documentation
demonstrating that the property owner, who lives in
the home, is an individual with a disability as defined
under the Acts.
2. Whether the request for
reasonable accommodation
is necessary to make
specific housing available to
an individual with a disability
under the Acts;
X The applicant has demonstrated that the existing
interior and layout of the of the residence is not
suitable for long-term stay for the individual with a
disability as defined under the Acts. If the reasonable
accommodation permit is not granted, the applicant
will be forced to relocate to other housing. The
applicant has demonstrated that the proposed
modifications are necessary to make 131 Valley View
available to herself so that she can continue to
comfortably reside at the property.
3. Whether there is an
alternative accommodation
which may provide an
equivalent level of benefit;
X The design of the proposed project would minimize
the amount of construction work and expense
required to provide the necessary accessibility
upgrades:
• Covering the front porch would create a safe
transition from the front of the property to the
existing entrance.
• Locating the dining room expansion on the
northwest portion of the property would avoid
the need to regrade the land, as a graded
area is already available for development on
northwest portion of the property.
• The expansion on the southwest portion of
the property will allow for safer mobility within
the existing bedroom.
All together, the proposed design would require only
minimal modifications to the floor plan of the
residence, whereas alternative designs would
Request for Reasonable Accommodation
Project No. RA24-001 (PLAN23-151)
require major modifications to the home’s layout, at
a high cost to the homeowner. There are no
alternative accommodations which provide an
equivalent level of benefit, taking into account both
utility and cost.
4. Whether the requested
accommodation would
negatively impact
surrounding uses or
properties;
X Concerns have been expressed that the project might
negatively impact surrounding properties due to the
proximity of the project to the main buildings located
on adjacent properties.
While the project will encroach into the required
building setback; it will not expand beyond the
existing east elevation of the home towards the
neighboring property at the northeast, and thereby
does not worsen the separation between the two
main buildings. Further, the project will not increase
the height of the roofline and will not be visible from
the public street.
5. Whether the requested
reasonable accommodation
would impose an undue
financial or administrative
burden on the city; and
X The fee for the reasonable accommodation permit
has been paid in full to account for staff time and
noticing procedures per SRMC Section 14.26.050.
The City would not incur any additional financial or
administrative burden. Thus, the requested
accommodation would not impose an undue financial
or administrative burden on the City.
6. Whether the requested
reasonable accommodation
would require a
fundamental alteration in
the nature of a city program
or law, including, but not
limited to, land use and
zoning.
X A reasonable accommodation permit to provide
equitable ADA access is permitted per SRMC
Chapter 14.26 and is part of the nature of the City’s
existing land use planning. Granting the request
would not require a fundamental alternation in any
City program.
The Federal Fair Housing Act of and California’s Fair Employment and Housing Act impose
an affirmative duty on local governments to make reasonable accommodation in their land
use and zoning regulations and practices when such accommodation may be necessary to
afford individuals with disabilities an equal opportunity to housing. Per SRMC Section
14.26.060(A), the written decision to grant or deny a request for reasonable accommodation
shall be consistent with the Federal Fair Housing Act and the California Fair Employment and
Housing Act and shall be based on consideration of the factors above. No single factor is
Page 4 of 5
dispositive in making a decision on a reasonable accommodation request; rather, the factors
are considered all together. Here, five of the six factors weigh in favor of granting the
reasonable accommodation request. The only factor that weighs against granting the request
is whether the requested accommodation has a negative impact on surrounding properties.
While neighbors have expressed their concern that the additions would negatively impact
their properties, the setback between the two main buildings is not decreased or worsened.
Further, as conditioned, the project will be reviewed by the proper departments to ensure safe
construction. Accordingly, the City finds that the impacts would be minimal. Considering these
factors on the whole, the City finds that, consistent with the Federal Fair Housing Act and
California’s Fair Employment and Housing Act, the reasonable accommodation request
must be approved.
Public Notice
Pursuant to SRMC Section 14.26.050, notice was mailed to the owners of record of all
properties that are immediately adjacent to the subject property fifteen (15) days prior to the
rendering of this decision. Two requests for information on the project were received and staff
met with a set of concerned neighbors. No no additional comments have been shared with
the city as of the date of the creation of this document.
Planning Division Conditions of Approval
1. Plans and Representations Become Conditions. All information and representations
including the building techniques, materials, elevations and appearance of the project, as
presented for approval on plans, dated March 15, 2024, and on file with the Community
and Economic Development Department, Planning Division, shall be the same as
required for the issuance of a building permit, except as modified by these conditions of
approval. Minor modifications or revisions to the project shall be subject to review and
approval by Planning staff. Modifications deemed not minor by the Community and
Economic Development Director may require review and approval as an amendment to
the Request for a Reasonable Accommodation.
2. Possible Impact of timing of ADU on Project. The ADU shown on the plan set appears to
structurally support the proposed addition on the northwest side of the project. If the ADU
is not included in the plans submitted for building permit review, the Planning Division may
require amended support of the project in a way that is generally consistent with the
approved project plans.
3. Conditions Shall be Printed on Plans. The conditions of this Permit shall be printed on the
second sheet of each plan set submitted for a building permit pursuant to this permit,
under the title ‘Request for Reasonable Accommodation Conditions’. Additional sheets
may also be used if the second sheet is not of sufficient size to list all of the conditions.
The sheet(s) containing the conditions shall be of the same size as those sheets
containing the construction drawings; 8-1/2” by 11” sheets are not acceptable.
4. Applicant Responsible for Compliance with Conditions. The applicant shall ensure
compliance with all of the following conditions, including submittal to the project planner
Request for Reasonable Accommodation
Project No. RA24-001 (PLAN23-151)
of required approval signatures at the times specified. Failure to comply with any condition
may result in construction being stopped, issuance of a citation, and/or modification or
revocation of this permit.
5. Subject to All Applicable Laws and Regulations. The approved use and/or construction
is subject to, and shall comply with, all applicable City Ordinances and laws and
regulations of other governmental agencies. Prior to construction, the applicant shall
identify and secure all applicable permits from the Building Division, Public Works
Department and other affected City divisions and departments.
6. Permit Validity. This Permit shall become effective on October 25, 2024 and shall be valid
for a period of two (2) years from the date of final approval, or October 25, 2026, and
shall become null and void if a building permit is not issued or a time extension granted
by October 25, 2026. A permit for the construction of a building or structure is deemed
exercised when a valid City building permit, if required, is issued, and construction has
lawfully commenced.
7. Construction Hours: Consistent with the City of San Rafael Municipal Code Section
8.13.050.A, construction hours shall be limited to 7:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. Monday through
Friday and 9:00 a.m to 6:00 p.m. on Saturdays. Construction shall not be permitted on
Sundays or City-observed holidays. Construction activities shall include delivery of
materials, hauling materials off-site; startup of construction equipment engines, arrival of
construction workers, paying of radios and other noises caused by equipment and/or
construction workers arriving at, or working on, the site.
8. Landscaping. Landscaping and irrigation must meet the Marin Municipal Water District's
(MMWD) water conservation rules and regulations. All existing landscaping damaged
during construction shall be replaced. All landscaping shall be maintained in a healthy and
thriving condition, free of weeds and debris. Any dying or dead landscaping shall be
replaced in a timely fashion. No part of the existing landscaping shall be removed, unless
their removal has been reviewed and approved by the Planning Division.
9. Exterior Lighting. All exterior lighting shall be energy efficient where feasible; and shielded
and directed downward and away from property lines to prevent excessive glare beyond
the subject property (per SRMC Section 14.16.227).
ADDITION & NEW
ATTACHED ADU
PROJECT SITE
DRAWING FILE #
OF SHEETS
SHEET
SCALE
DATE
CHECKED BY
DRAWN BY
DESIGN BY
HORIZ:
VERT:
DA
T
E
M
A
R
K
D
E
S
C
R
I
P
T
I
O
N
AS SHOWN
AS SHOWN
AD
D
I
T
I
O
N
A
N
D
A
T
T
A
C
H
E
D
A
D
U
13
1
V
a
l
l
e
y
V
i
e
w
A
v
e
.
SA
N
R
A
F
A
E
L
,
C
A
9
4
9
0
1
03.15.24
RA24-001 (PLAN23-151)
October 17, 2024
Renee Nickenig, Associate Planner
*
* ADU SHOWN IS NOT INCLUDED IN APPROVAL
Δ
Δ
EXISTING BUILDING
ADDITION
NEW ATTACHED ADU
PORCH CONVERSION
DRAWING FILE #
OF SHEETS
SHEET
SCALE
DATE
CHECKED BY
DRAWN BY
DESIGN BY
HORIZ:
VERT:
DA
T
E
M
A
R
K
D
E
S
C
R
I
P
T
I
O
N
AS SHOWN
AS SHOWN
AD
D
I
T
I
O
N
A
N
D
A
T
T
A
C
H
E
D
A
D
U
13
1
V
a
l
l
e
y
V
i
e
w
A
v
e
.
SA
N
R
A
F
A
E
L
,
C
A
9
4
9
0
1
03.15.24
CITY OF SAN RAFAEL - PLANNING DIVISION
APPROVED w/ Conditions
DEMO WALL
1
A
B
A
B
2 3
1 2 3
EXISTING WALL
EXISTING UPPER FLOOR PLAN
SCALE: 1/4" = 1'
DRAWING FILE #
OF SHEETS
SHEET
SCALE
DATE
CHECKED BY
DRAWN BY
DESIGN BY
HORIZ:
VERT:
DA
T
E
M
A
R
K
D
E
S
C
R
I
P
T
I
O
N
AS SHOWN
AS SHOWN
AD
D
I
T
I
O
N
A
N
D
A
T
T
A
C
H
E
D
A
D
U
13
1
V
a
l
l
e
y
V
i
e
w
A
v
e
.
SA
N
R
A
F
A
E
L
,
C
A
9
4
9
0
1
03.15.24
EXISTING LOWER FLOOR PLAN (GARAGE)
SCALE: 1/4" = 1'
CITY OF SAN RAFAEL - PLANNING DIVISION
APPROVED w/ Conditions
EXISTING WALL
$
GFCI
NEW WALL
REF.
NEW ATTACHED ADU
(A= 702 SQ.FT.)
1
A
B
2 3
PROPOSED ATTACHED ADU FLOOR PLAN
SCALE: 1/4" = 1'
SEE SHEET A-6 FOR PLAN NOTES
DRAWING FILE #
OF SHEETS
SHEET
SCALE
DATE
CHECKED BY
DRAWN BY
DESIGN BY
HORIZ:
VERT:
DA
T
E
M
A
R
K
D
E
S
C
R
I
P
T
I
O
N
AS SHOWN
AS SHOWN
AD
D
I
T
I
O
N
A
N
D
A
T
T
A
C
H
E
D
A
D
U
13
1
V
a
l
l
e
y
V
i
e
w
A
v
e
.
SA
N
R
A
F
A
E
L
,
C
A
9
4
9
0
1
03.15.24
CITY OF SAN RAFAEL - PLANNING DIVISION
APPROVED w/ Conditions
(STORAGE
/LAUNDRY)
EXISTING WALL
1
A
B
$
GFCI
NEW WALL
PORCH CONVERSION = 63 SQ.FT.
A
ADDITION = 407 SQ.FT.
SEE SHEET A-8 FOR PLAN NOTES
DRAWING FILE #
OF SHEETS
SHEET
SCALE
DATE
CHECKED BY
DRAWN BY
DESIGN BY
HORIZ:
VERT:
DA
T
E
M
A
R
K
D
E
S
C
R
I
P
T
I
O
N
AS SHOWN
AS SHOWN
AD
D
I
T
I
O
N
A
N
D
A
T
T
A
C
H
E
D
A
D
U
13
1
V
a
l
l
e
y
V
i
e
w
A
v
e
.
SA
N
R
A
F
A
E
L
,
C
A
9
4
9
0
1
03.15.24
PROPOSED MAIN HOUSE FLOOR PLAN
CITY OF SAN RAFAEL - PLANNING DIVISION
APPROVED w/ Conditions
EXISTING FRONT ELEVATION (SOUTH)
DRAWING FILE #
OF SHEETS
SHEET
SCALE
DATE
CHECKED BY
DRAWN BY
DESIGN BY
HORIZ:
VERT:
DA
T
E
M
A
R
K
D
E
S
C
R
I
P
T
I
O
N
AS SHOWN
AS SHOWN
AD
D
I
T
I
O
N
A
N
D
A
T
T
A
C
H
E
D
A
D
U
13
1
V
a
l
l
e
y
V
i
e
w
A
v
e
.
SA
N
R
A
F
A
E
L
,
C
A
9
4
9
0
1
03.15.24
EXISTING REAR ELEVATION (NORTH)
EXISTING RIGHT ELEVATION (EAST)
EXISTING LEFT ELEVATION (WEST)
CITY OF SAN RAFAEL - PLANNING DIVISION
APPROVED w/ Conditions
NEW DECK
DRAWING FILE #
OF SHEETS
SHEET
SCALE
DATE
CHECKED BY
DRAWN BY
DESIGN BY
HORIZ:
VERT:
DA
T
E
M
A
R
K
D
E
S
C
R
I
P
T
I
O
N
AS SHOWN
AS SHOWN
AD
D
I
T
I
O
N
A
N
D
A
T
T
A
C
H
E
D
A
D
U
13
1
V
a
l
l
e
y
V
i
e
w
A
v
e
.
SA
N
R
A
F
A
E
L
,
C
A
9
4
9
0
1
03.15.24
PROPOSED FRONT ELEVATION (SOUTH)
PROPOSED REAR ELEVATION (NORTH)
CITY OF SAN RAFAEL - PLANNING DIVISION
APPROVED w/ Conditions
DRAWING FILE #
OF SHEETS
SHEET
SCALE
DATE
CHECKED BY
DRAWN BY
DESIGN BY
HORIZ:
VERT:
DA
T
E
M
A
R
K
D
E
S
C
R
I
P
T
I
O
N
AS SHOWN
AS SHOWN
AD
D
I
T
I
O
N
A
N
D
A
T
T
A
C
H
E
D
A
D
U
13
1
V
a
l
l
e
y
V
i
e
w
A
v
e
.
SA
N
R
A
F
A
E
L
,
C
A
9
4
9
0
1
03.15.24
PROPOSED RIGHT ELEVATION (EAST)
PROPOSED LEFT ELEVATION (WEST)
CITY OF SAN RAFAEL - PLANNING DIVISION
APPROVED w/ Conditions
EXTERIOR WALL GAPS: annular spaces around pipes, electric cables, conduits or openiningsin sole/bottom plates at exterior walls shall be closed with cement mortar, concrete masonry or a
similar method acceptable to the enforcing agency to prevent passage of rodents.
LAUNDRY:
a. conductor wires with an installed neutral and a four-prong outlet are required for dryers
and cooking units.
b. provide one minimum seperate 20 amp circuit to laundry appliances.
c. vent dryer w/smooth metal duct to ext. w/backdraft damper.
duct to be 4" min. dia.; 14' max length w/2 elbowsprovide one minimum seperate 20 amp circuit to laundry appliances.
d. termination of all environmental air ducts shall be a minimum of 3 feet from property linesor openings into the building (i.e. dryers, bath and utility fans etc. must be 3 feet away from
doors, windows, opening skylights or attic vents)
e. laundry room lighting: all lights shall be fluorescent or controlled by an occupant sensor.
f. installation instuctions for all listed equipment shall be provided to the field inspector at time ofinspection.
g. provide a 220 volt gfi electrical receptacle
h. where a closet is designed for the installation of clothes dryer, an opening of not less than 100
square inches for makeup air shall be provided in the door.
SMOKE DETECTORS: new 110v smoke detectors (with battery backup) which are
audible in all sleeping areas & at the following locations: 1. hallways leading to bedrooms;2. above tops of stairs; 3. at least one every level and any area where ceiling height ismore than 24" above hallway ceiling leading to sleeping room.
all smoke detectors are to be interconnected per 2022 CRC R-314.4 (activation of one
alarm will activate all of the alarms in the individual unit & alarm will be clearly audible in all
bedrooms over background noise levels with all intervening doors closed)
GUARD RAILS:guardrail req'd at walking surface 30" or more above grade. guardrailheight shall be min. 42" high with intermediate rails such that 4" sphere shall not pass
through. guardrail & connection shall be capable of resisting 20 plf horiz. load
perpendicular to top rail and intermediate rails, panel filters and their connections shall be
capable of withstanding a load of at least 25 pounds per square foot applied horizontally atright angles ofver the entire tributary area, including openings and spaces between rails.
ATTIC ACCESS PANEL: R807.1: 22"x30" min. panel (size larger to accomodate fau
as req'd) located in hallway or other readily accessible location. if FAU in attic, provide 30"
min deep platform in front of firebox & lighting outlet switched at access door near furnace.
PRESSURE TREATED WOOD: to be used for wood in contact w/earth orembedded in concrete or masonry. 6" min. clear from grade to framing
LANDINGS: Provide 36" deep landing outside all exterior doors (not more than 7-3/4"lower than threshold for in-swinging doors and not more than 1/2" lower than threshold for
outswinging doors; min. 1/4" slope for weather exposed landings; balconies and roof deckssealed underneath
DOOR TO GARAGE:door between garage & house to be self-closing; tight-fitting
solid wood door 1-3/8" thick or approved 20 min. fire-rated door
1-HR WALL BETWEEN GARAGE & LIVING SPACE: 5/8" type x gyp. bd garage
side; 2x6 wd studs @ 16" o.c. w/R-19 batt insul; 1/2" gyp bd @ house side. 1-hr clg
btween garage & house: 2 layers 5
8" type X gyp. bd. garage side (fasten per CBC Table 7-Citem 21-1.1)
Fire separation shall extend through ceiling to the underside of roof sheathing.
HOSE BIBS:provide a non-removable backflow prevention device on all new exterior
hose bibs, and lawn sprinkler/irrigation systems. All hose bibs must have approved
anti-siphon device
SLOPE OF GRADE: The grade shall fall a minimum of 6 inches within the first 10 feet (5%).where
lot lines prohibit 6" of fall within 10', drains or swales shall be constructed to ensure drainage away
from the structure.
WATERPROOF/GFCI PROTECTED OUTLETS: at exterior at front and rear of
dwelling having access to grade and at all balconies; decks; and porches greater than 20
SF
WATER HEATER:a. seismic anchorage of water heater include 3 anchors or straps at points within the to
upper and lower one-third of its vertical dimension-the lower anchor/strap located tomaintain a minimum distance of 4 inches above the controls
b. pressure relief valve with drain a minimum distance of 4 inches above the controlsc provide 24 inch minimum wide door to water heater compartment; min 30" x 30"
workspace by fireboxd. dwh location prohibited in bdrm; bathrm; clothes clst; or area open to same except direct
vent appliance
e. if located over framing; requires watertight pan w/1" drain
f. externally wrapped with min. R-12 insulation
ATTIC VENTILATION: vent 1 s.f./150 s.f. of attic area or 1 s.f./300 s.f. if >50% ofventing is located above mid-point of attic per 2022 CRC.
CRAWLSPACE VENTILATION: vent 1 s.f./150 s.f. of underfloor area: U.O.N., provide
painted 6"x16" G.S.M. vents as close to corners as possible and allowing cross-ventilation.
Vents shall be covered with 14" wire mesh
UNDER-FLOOR CLEARANCE: provide min. 18" clear to exposed ground in
crawlspaces from joists or structural wood floors or 12" to wood girders. Otherwise, such
wood framing shall be pressure-treated or have natural resistance to decay.
CRAWLSPACE ACCESS: Provide min. 18"x24" crawlspace access panel. Ventilation 1 s.f./150 s.f. of crawl space area.
ADDRESS NUMBERS: Show location of address numbers on building elevations
clearly visible from adjacent access street or road. numbers to be min. 4" high with min.
stroke with of 1/2" and shall contrast with the background
ARC-FAULT CIRCUIT INTERRUPTER: at all branch circuits that supply 120volt, single-phase, 15 and 20 ampere receptacle outlets installed in all dwelling unit rooms
and kitchens, except bathrooms and garages. CEC 210.12
TOILET:max.1.28 gal. per flush; min. 30" width clearance; min 24" front clearance;fixture centered min 15" from side; caulk & seal fixture where it meets floor.
STAIRS: conform to
a. 114"-2" diameter handrail mounted 34 to 38in. above the tread nosing. required at allstairs with 4 or more risers)-return at ends
b. handrails shall be mounted so that the completed rail and supporting structure are
capable of withstanding a load of at least 200 pounds applied in any direction at any point
on the rail. cbc-table 16-b, foot note 9.c. headroom min. 6'8" abv stair treadsd. handrail projection max. 3.5" into req'd stair width. stringers and other
projections are limited to 1-1/2" projection each side.e. rise & run of stairs (max. rise 7-3/4"; min. run 10")
f. handrail required at stairs with two or more risers; handrail both sides required at ext stairs; handrail at one side allowed at int. stairsg. at ext. stairs; handrails to extend 12" horiz at top and extend one tread
length at bottom of run & return to adj. wall or post
EGRESS WINDOW: 5.7 sq. ft. min. (5 sq. ft. min. allowable at ground level); 20" wideby 24" high; max. 44" to finished sill' opens directly to public way; yard or court that opensto a public way
SAFETY (TEMPERED) GLAZING: at: (1) hazardous locations-windows adjacentto: tubs, showers, and tub/showers (2) adjacent to and within 24 inches of either edge of
doors (3) glazing less than 60" above walking surface at stairways or landings (4) windows
within 5' horiz. from tub/shower unless btm of glazing >60" abv. standing surface of
tub/shower.
CARBON MONOXIDE ALARMS: (Sec:R315) new 110v carbon monoxide alarm
(with battery backup) installed in each bedroom, and outside each area adjacent to asleeping area; each story of the building; and in any basement
SHOWER/TUB: • showerhead 1.8 gal. per min. max.a. shower stalls shall be a minimum finished interior of 1,024 square inches, be capable of
encompassing a 30" diameter circle, and any doors shall swing out of the enclosure have a
clear opening of 22" minimum. (cpc 411.6 and 411.7)
b. glazing in any portion of the shower, bathtub, or hydro-massage tub enclosure shall besafety glazing (i.e. tempered glass) when the bottom edge of the glazing is less than 50"
above the standing surface of the unit. (cbc 2406.3 and crc r308.4)c. shower stalls and bathtubs with shower heads installed, shall have walls finished with a
non-absorbent surface for a minimum of 6' above the floor.
d. any new or replaced mixing valve in a shower (including over a tub) shall be pressure
balancing set at a maximum 120° f. any new or replaced water-filler valve in
bathtubs/whirlpools shall have a temperature limiting device set at a maximum of 120° e.
the water heater thermostat cannot be used to meet the these provisions. (cpc 414.0 and
418.0)f. hydro-massage tubs (i.e. jacuzzi tubs) shall have motor access, a gfci protected
dedicated circuit, and be ul listed. all metal cables, fittings, piping, or other metal surfaces,
within 5' of the inside wall of the hyrdo-massage tub shall be properly bonded.hydro-massage tubs shall be bonded
g.materials used as backers for wall tile in tub and shower areas and wall panels inshower areas shall be glass
mat gypsum panel, fiber-reinforced gypsum panels,non-asbestos fiber-cement backer board, or non-asbestos
fiber-cement reinforced cementitious backer units installed in accordance with manufacturers'
recommendations. [r702.4.2]
h.water-resistant gypsum board shall not be installed over a class i or ii vaporretarder in a shower or tub
compartment. [r702.3.7] water resistant gypsumbacking board shall not be used where there will be direct
exposure to water, or inareas subject to continuous high humidity. [r702.3.7.1]
BATHROOM:
a. all receptacles shall be gfci protected & tamper resistant. new/additional outlets shall
have a dedicated 20-amp circuit. (cec 406.11, 210.8, 210.11)
b. provide energy star compliant mechanical ventilation system capable of providing 5 air
changes/hr-mechanical , 50 cfm minimum; exhaust fans are required in all bathrooms,
even if an operable window is installed. exhaust fans and lighting shall have separatecontrol switches (even if a combination unit is installed). the exhaust fan may need to be
supplied by a gfi protected circuit based on the manufacturer's requirements, and shall becontrol with an accesible humidistat ( CGBSC Section 4.506.1)
c. termination of all environmental air ducts shall be a minimum of 3 feet from property lines
or openings into the building (i.e. dryers, bath and utility fans etc. must be 3 feet away from
doors, windows, opening skylights or attic vents) with dampers.
d. lighting fixtures located within 3' horizontally and 8' vertically of the bathtub rim orshower stall threshold shall be listed for a damp location, or listed for wet locations where
subject to shower spray. (cec 410.10)
e. Lighting shall be high efficiency fixtures (e.g. fluorescent, led). At least one luminaire
shall be controlled with an occupant sensor with controls that do not allow the fixtures to be
automatically turned on or allow the fixture to be always on
f. maximum flow for bathroom faucet to be 1.20 gallon/minute
g.materials used as backers for wall tile in tub and shower areas and wall panels inshower areas shall be glass
mat gypsum panel, fiber-reinforced gypsum panels,non-asbestos fiber-cement backer board, or non-asbestos
fiber-cement reinforced cementitious backer units installed in accordance with manufacturers'
recommendations. [r702.4.2]h.water-resistant gypsum board shall not be installed over a class i or ii vaporretarder in a shower or tub
compartment. [r702.3.7] water resistant gypsumbacking board shall not be used where there will be direct
exposure to water, or inareas subject to continuous high humidity. [r702.3.7.1]
KITCHEN:
a. conductor wires with an installed neutral and a four-prong outlet are required for dryersand cooking units.
b. provide two separate 20amp circuits for kitchen small appliances, with no other outlets
on the circuits.
c. termination of all environmental air ducts shall be a minimum of 3 feet from property lines
or openings into the building (i.e. dryers, bath and utility fans etc. must be 3 feet away fromdoors, windows, opening skylights or attic vents)
d. kitchen lighting: all permanently installed lighting shall be high efficacy.
e. installation instuctions for all listed equipment shall be provided to the field inspector attime of inspection.f. gfci protection at all receptacles serving kitchen counter tops; receptacles within 6 feet
of a wet bar sink; at each kitchen and dining area counter space wider than 12 inches.locate so that no point along the counter wall is over 24" from a receptacle. all receptaclesto be tamper resistant
g. maximum flow for kitchen faucet to be 1.8 gallon/minute
h. all under cabinet lighting must be switched separately from other lighting in the home.
i.electric range in a dwelling under 750 square feet, the hood capacity must be 160 cfm, or a 65 % capture
efficiency. the gas-powered range hood in a dwelling under 750 square feet, the hood capacity must be 280
cfm, or an 85 % capture efficiency (ce). [cenc table150.0-g, cenc 150.0(o)g.1]
CLOSETS: Lighting in clothes closet shall be fully glass enclosed or flourescent fixture.
HOT WATER PIPING: Minimum 1" thick pipe insulation shall be installed on all accesible hotwater piping.
OUTDOOR LIGHTING: Outdoor lighting permanently mounted to a dwelling or other buildingson the same parcel shall be high efficacy and be controlled by onf of the following combinations:a.photocell and motion sensorb.photocell and time switchc.astronomical time clock
d.EMCS with features of astronomical time clock, does not allow the luminarie to be ON during the
day, and may be programmed to automatically turn lighting off at night.
MEMBRANE PENETRATIONS: Membrane penetrations of fire-resistance assemblies
shall comply with 2022 CBC section 714.3.2
Membrane penetrations of fire resistance rated assemblies shall be protected by and
approved penetration firestop system.Exceptions.
A. Membrane penetration of fire resistance rated walls by steel electrical boxes that do not
exceed 16 square inches in area provided that the aggregate area of the openings through
the membrane does not exceed 100 square inches in any 100 square feet of wall area.
such boxes on opposite sides of the wall shall be separated by on of the following:
-By a horizontal distance of not less than 24" where the wall is constructed withindividual non communicating stud cavities.-By solid fireblocking
-By protecting both boxes with approved listed putty pads.
B. Membrane penetrations of fire resistance rated walls by listed electrical boxes provided
that the boxes have been tested for use in fire resistance rated assemblies and are
installed in accordance with the instruction included in the listing. Such boxes on opposite
sides of the wall shall be separated by on of the following:-By the horizontal distance specified in the listing of the electrical boxes.
-By solid fireblocking.-By protecting both boxes with listed putty pads.
INDOOR LIGHTING: Indoor lighting for new homes and remodels must be high efficacy. Thedefinition of "high efficacy luminaires" includes all light sources identified as "efficient" under the
2016 Standards. This includes linear flourescent; pin based compact flourescent, GU-24 baseCFL, HID, and induction. High efficacy products include any luminaire that contains aJA8-compliant lamp or other light source. In other words, any luminaire can qualigy as high
efficacy as long as it meets with the requirements of Section 150.0(k) and Joint Appendix JA8.
WATER EFFICIENT PLUMBING FIXTURES
FIRE STOPPING VENT TO BE PROVIDED, TYP. BRAND : brandguard or approved equal per
r337.6 (see note #6 in fire high severity zone requirements section on sheet a5.1
STORAGE UNDER STAIRS: Provide 5
8" type x gyp bd under stairs at storage area,typ.
MOISTURE BARRIER: Vapor retarder shall be a 6-mil polyethylene or approved vapor retarder
with joints lapped not less than 6 inches shallbe placed between the concrete floor slab and prepared 4 inch thick subgrade consisting of gravel, crushedstone or crushed concrete (crc r506.2.3). exception: subgrade is not required when the soil condition is ofsilty sand, sand-silt mixture (crc table r405.1).
approvable methods:
1.icc esr#1413 – redgard waterproofing and crack prevention membrane,
ccure pro-red waterproofing membrane 963, cbp 232 waterproofing andantifracture membrane, and jambo waterproofing membrane
2.icc esr #2417 – laticrete hydro ban
3.icc esr #2785 – polycoat-aquatight and flexideck
4. icc esr#3474 – mapelastic aquadefense waterproofing membrane
HVAC CONDENSER:
a.where equipment or appliances that require service are located on a roof with a 4:12or steeper
slope, a level platform not less than 30"x30" must be provided at theservice side. [cmc 304.2]
b.if in the attic, please note that a permanent 120-volt receptacle outlet and a lightingfixture shall be
installed near the appliance. [cmc 304.4]
c.if in the garage, please provide protection for the appliance or elevate the unit so it isout of the
normal path of vehicles. [cmc 305.1.1]
d.if outdoors, a compressor or portion of acondensing unit supported from the ground shall rest of a
concrete or other approvedbase extending not less than 3 inches above the adjoining ground level.
[cmc1105.2]
e.outdoor condensing units shall have a clearance of at least 5 feet from the outlet of any dryer vent.
[cenc 150.0(h)3a]
WINDOWS REQUIREMENTS
ALL
M.E.P. GENERAL NOTESHOUSE VENTILATION: The exhaust fan in the house are required to remain on all
times the building is occupied but can have an overirde control like a typical manual wallswitch to turn fan off when necessary with the following:
a.Whole house fans shall have a maximum of 1.0 sone sound rating, with a minum
100 cfm. HVAC contractor to provide and calculate system requirements.
b.On the wall above switch, a label is required that states someting like "ventilation
control" or "Operate Exhaust Fan when home is occupied"
c.Whole house fans shall have insulated louvers or covers which close when the fanis off. Covers or louvers shall have a minimum insulation value of R4.2.
d.Identify the exhaust or supply fans that are part of the mechanical ventilation systemprovides the appropriate ventilation rate.
e.fan switch shall have a label reading the following: "this switch controls the indoor air quality
ventilation for the home. leave it on unless the outdoor air quality is very poor."
GRAB BAR REINFORCEMENT AT BATHROOMS:
At least one bathroom shall be provided with grab bar reinforcement for thewater closet, bathtub, andshower. Reinforcement shall be 2x8 nominal lumber. Reinforcement shall be locatedbetween 32" and39-1/4" above the finished floor. Water closet reinforcement shall be installed on both side wallsof thefixture, or one side wall and the back wall. Where the water closet is not placed adjacent to a side wallcapable of accommodating a grab bar, the bathroom shall have provisions for installation offloor-mounted,foldaway or similar alternate grab bar reinforcements. Shower reinforcement shall becontinuous where wall framing is provided. Bathtub and combination bathtub/shower reinforcementshall be continuous on each end of the bathtub and the back wall. Additionally, back wall reinforcementfor a lower grab bar shall be provided with the bottom edge located no more than 6" above the bathtubrim. (crcr327.1.1)
DRAWING FILE #
OF SHEETS
SHEET
SCALE
DATE
CHECKED BY
DRAWN BY
DESIGN BY
HORIZ:
VERT:
DA
T
E
M
A
R
K
D
E
S
C
R
I
P
T
I
O
N
AS SHOWN
AS SHOWN
AD
D
I
T
I
O
N
A
N
D
A
T
T
A
C
H
E
D
A
D
U
13
1
V
a
l
l
e
y
V
i
e
w
A
v
e
.
SA
N
R
A
F
A
E
L
,
C
A
9
4
9
0
1
03.15.24
CITY OF SAN RAFAEL - PLANNING DIVISION
APPROVED w/ Conditions
PROPOSED ROOF PLAN
DRAWING FILE #
OF SHEETS
SHEET
SCALE
DATE
CHECKED BY
DRAWN BY
DESIGN BY
HORIZ:
VERT:
DA
T
E
MA
R
K
DE
S
C
R
I
P
T
I
O
N
AS SHOWN
AS SHOWN
AD
D
I
T
I
O
N
A
N
D
A
T
T
A
C
H
E
D
A
D
U
13
1
V
a
l
l
e
y
V
i
e
w
A
v
e
.
SA
N
R
A
F
A
E
L
,
C
A
9
4
9
0
1
03.15.24
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
CIVIL RIGHTS DIVISION
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT
OFFICE OF FAIR HOUSING AND EQUAL OPPORTUNITY
Washington, D.C.
March 5, 2008
JOINT STATEMENT OF
THE DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT
AND THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
REASONABLE MODIFICATIONS UNDER THE
FAIR HOUSING ACT
Introduction
The Department of Justice (“DOJ”) and the Department of Housing and Urban
Development (“HUD”) are jointly responsible for enforcing the federal Fair Housing Act1 (the
“Act”), which prohibits discrimination in housing on the basis of race, color, religion, sex,
national origin, familial status, and disability.2 One type of disability discrimination prohibited
by the Act is a refusal to permit, at the expense of the person with a disability, reasonable
modifications of existing premises occupied or to be occupied by such person if such
modifications may be necessary to afford such person full enjoyment of the premises.3 HUD and
DOJ frequently respond to complaints alleging that housing providers have violated the Act by
refusing reasonable modifications to persons with disabilities. This Statement provides technical
assistance regarding the rights and obligations of persons with disabilities and housing providers
under the Act relating to reasonable modifications.4
1 The Fair Housing Act is codified at 42 U.S.C. §§ 3601-3619.
2 The Act uses the term “handicap” instead of “disability.” Both terms have the same legal
meaning. See Bragdon v. Abbott, 524 U.S. 624, 631 (1998) (noting that the definition of
“disability” in the Americans with Disabilities Act is drawn almost verbatim “from the definition
of ‘handicap’ contained in the Fair Housing Amendments Act of 1988”). This document uses
the term “disability,” which is more generally accepted.
3 42 U.S.C. § 3604(f)(3)(A).
4 This Statement does not address the principles relating to reasonable accommodations. For
further information see the Joint Statement of the Department of Housing and Urban
This Statement is not intended to provide specific guidance regarding the Act’s design and
construction requirements for multifamily dwellings built for first occupancy after March 13,
1991. Some of the reasonable modifications discussed in this Statement are features of
accessible design that are required for covered multifamily dwellings pursuant to the Act’s
design and construction requirements. As a result, people involved in the design and
construction of multifamily dwellings are advised to consult the Act at 42 U.S.C. § 3604(f)(3)(c),
the implementing regulations at 24 C.F.R. § 100.205, the Fair Housing Accessibility Guidelines,
and the Fair Housing Act Design Manual. All of these are available on HUD’s website at
www.hud.gov/offices/fheo/disabilities/index.cfm. Additional technical guidance on the design
and construction requirements can also be found on HUD’s website and the Fair Housing
Accessibility FIRST website at: http://www.fairhousingfirst.org.
Questions and Answers
1. What types of discrimination against persons with disabilities does the Act prohibit?
The Act prohibits housing providers from discriminating against housing applicants or
residents because of their disability or the disability of anyone associated with them and from
treating persons with disabilities less favorably than others because of their disability. The Act
makes it unlawful for any person to refuse “to permit, at the expense of the [disabled] person,
reasonable modifications of existing premises occupied or to be occupied by such person if such
modifications may be necessary to afford such person full enjoyment of the premises, except
that, in the case of a rental, the landlord may where it is reasonable to do so condition permission
for a modification on the renter agreeing to restore the interior of the premises to the condition
that existed before the modification, reasonable wear and tear excepted.”5 The Act also makes it
unlawful for any person to refuse “to make reasonable accommodations in rules, policies,
practices, or services, when such accommodations may be necessary to afford ... person(s) [with
disabilities] equal opportunity to use and enjoy a dwelling.” The Act also prohibits housing
providers from refusing residency to persons with disabilities, or, with some narrow exceptions6,
Development and the Department of Justice: Reasonable Accommodations Under the Fair
Housing Act, dated May 17, 2004. This Joint Statement is available at
www.hud.gov/offices/fheo/disabilities/index.cfm and
http://www.usdoj.gov/crt/housing/jointstatement_ra.htm. See also 42 U.S.C. § 3604(f)(3)(B).
This Statement also does not discuss in depth the obligations of housing providers who are
recipients of federal financial assistance to make and pay for structural changes to units and
common and public areas that are needed as a reasonable accommodation for a person’s
disability. See Question 31.
5 42 U.S.C. § 3604(f)(3)(A). HUD regulations pertaining to reasonable modifications may be
found at 24 C.F.R. § 100.203.
6 The Act contemplates certain limits to the receipt of reasonable accommodations or reasonable
modifications. For example, a tenant may be required to deposit money into an interest bearing
2
placing conditions on their residency, because those persons may require reasonable
modifications or reasonable accommodations.
2. What is a reasonable modification under the Fair Housing Act?
A reasonable modification is a structural change made to existing premises, occupied or
to be occupied by a person with a disability, in order to afford such person full enjoyment of the
premises. Reasonable modifications can include structural changes to interiors and exteriors of
dwellings and to common and public use areas. A request for a reasonable modification may be
made at any time during the tenancy. The Act makes it unlawful for a housing provider or
homeowners’ association to refuse to allow a reasonable modification to the premises when such
a modification may be necessary to afford persons with disabilities full enjoyment of the
premises.
To show that a requested modification may be necessary, there must be an identifiable
relationship, or nexus, between the requested modification and the individual’s disability.
Further, the modification must be “reasonable.” Examples of modifications that typically are
reasonable include widening doorways to make rooms more accessible for persons in
wheelchairs; installing grab bars in bathrooms; lowering kitchen cabinets to a height suitable for
persons in wheelchairs; adding a ramp to make a primary entrance accessible for persons in
wheelchairs; or altering a walkway to provide access to a public or common use area. These
examples of reasonable modifications are not exhaustive.
3. Who is responsible for the expense of making a reasonable modification?
The Fair Housing Act provides that while the housing provider must permit the
modification, the tenant is responsible for paying the cost of the modification.
4. Who qualifies as a person with a disability under the Act?
The Act defines a person with a disability to include (1) individuals with a physical or
mental impairment that substantially limits one or more major life activities; (2) individuals who
are regarded as having such an impairment; and (3) individuals with a record of such an
impairment.
The term “physical or mental impairment” includes, but is not limited to, such diseases
and conditions as orthopedic, visual, speech and hearing impairments, cerebral palsy, autism,
epilepsy, muscular dystrophy, multiple sclerosis, cancer, heart disease, diabetes, Human
Immunodeficiency Virus infection, mental retardation, emotional illness, drug addiction (other
account to ensure that funds are available to restore the interior of a dwelling to its previous
state. See, e.g., Question 21 below. A reasonable accommodation can be conditioned on meeting
reasonable safety requirements, such as requiring persons who use motorized wheelchairs to
operate them in a manner that does not pose a risk to the safety of others or cause damage to
other persons’ property. See Joint Statement on Reasonable Accommodations, Question 11.
3
than addiction caused by current, illegal use of a controlled substance) and alcoholism.
The term “substantially limits” suggests that the limitation is “significant” or “to a large
degree.”
The term “major life activity” means those activities that are of central importance to
daily life, such as seeing, hearing, walking, breathing, performing manual tasks, caring for one’s
self, learning, and speaking. This list of major life activities is not exhaustive.
5. Who is entitled to a reasonable modification under the Fair Housing Act?
Persons who meet the Fair Housing Act’s definition of “person with a disability” may be
entitled to a reasonable modification under the Act. However, there must be an identifiable
relationship, or nexus, between the requested modification and the individual’s disability. If no
such nexus exists, then the housing provider may refuse to allow the requested modification.
Example 1: A tenant, whose arthritis impairs the use of her hands and causes her
substantial difficulty in using the doorknobs in her apartment, wishes to replace the doorknobs
with levers. Since there is a relationship between the tenant’s disability and the requested
modification and the modification is reasonable, the housing provider must allow her to make the
modification at the tenant’s expense.
Example 2: A homeowner with a mobility disability asks the condo association to
permit him to change his roofing from shaker shingles to clay tiles and fiberglass shingles
because he alleges that the shingles are less fireproof and put him at greater risk during a fire.
There is no evidence that the shingles permitted by the homeowner’s association provide
inadequate fire protection and the person with the disability has not identified a nexus between
his disability and the need for clay tiles and fiberglass shingles. The homeowner’s association is
not required to permit the homeowner’s modification because the homeowner’s request is not
reasonable and there is no nexus between the request and the disability.
6. If a disability is not obvious, what kinds of information may a housing provider
request from the person with a disability in support of a requested reasonable
modification?
A housing provider may not ordinarily inquire as to the nature and severity of an
individual’s disability. However, in response to a request for a reasonable modification, a
housing provider may request reliable disability-related information that (1) is necessary to
verify that the person meets the Act’s definition of disability (i.e., has a physical or mental
impairment that substantially limits one or more major life activities), (2) describes the needed
modification, and (3) shows the relationship between the person’s disability and the need for the
requested modification. Depending on the individual’s circumstances, information verifying that
the person meets the Act’s definition of disability can usually be provided by the individual
herself (e.g., proof that an individual under 65 years of age receives Supplemental Security
4
Income or Social Security Disability Insurance benefits8 or a credible statement by the
individual). A doctor or other medical professional, a peer support group, a non-medical service
agency, or a reliable third party who is in a position to know about the individual’s disability
may also provide verification of a disability. In most cases, an individual’s medical records or
detailed information about the nature of a person’s disability is not necessary for this inquiry.
Once a housing provider has established that a person meets the Act’s definition of
disability, the provider’s request for documentation should seek only the information that is
necessary to evaluate if the reasonable modification is needed because of a disability. Such
information must be kept confidential and must not be shared with other persons unless they
need the information to make or assess a decision to grant or deny a reasonable modification
request or unless disclosure is required by law (e.g., a court-issued subpoena requiring
disclosure).
7. What kinds of information, if any, may a housing provider request from a person
with an obvious or known disability who is requesting a reasonable modification?
A housing provider is entitled to obtain information that is necessary to evaluate whether
a requested reasonable modification may be necessary because of a disability. If a person’s
disability is obvious, or otherwise known to the housing provider, and if the need for the
requested modification is also readily apparent or known, then the provider may not request any
additional information about the requester’s disability or the disability-related need for the
modification.
If the requester’s disability is known or readily apparent to the provider, but the need for
the modification is not readily apparent or known, the provider may request only information
that is necessary to evaluate the disability-related need for the modification.
Example 1: An applicant with an obvious mobility impairment who uses a motorized
scooter to move around asks the housing provider to permit her to install a ramp at the entrance
of the apartment building. Since the physical disability (i.e., difficulty walking) and the
disability-related need for the requested modification are both readily apparent, the provider may
not require the applicant to provide any additional information about her disability or the need
for the requested modification.
8 Persons who meet the definition of disability for purposes of receiving Supplemental Security
Income (“SSI”) or Social Security Disability Income (“SSDI”) benefits in most cases meet the
definition of a disability under the Fair Housing Act, although the converse may not be true.
See, e.g., Cleveland v. Policy Management Systems Corp, 526 U.S. 795, 797 (1999) (noting that
SSDI provides benefits to a person with a disability so severe that she is unable to do her
previous work and cannot engage in any other kind of substantial gainful work whereas a person
pursuing an action for disability discrimination under the Americans with Disabilities Act may
state a claim that “with a reasonable accommodation” she could perform the essential functions
of the job).
5
Example 2: A deaf tenant asks his housing provider to allow him to install extra
electrical lines and a cable line so the tenant can use computer equipment that helps him
communicate with others. If the tenant’s disability is known, the housing provider may not
require him to document his disability; however, since the need for the electrical and cable lines
may not be apparent, the housing provider may request information that is necessary to support
the disability-related need for the requested modification.
8. Who must comply with the Fair Housing Act’s reasonable modification
requirements?
Any person or entity engaging in prohibited conduct – i.e., refusing to allow an
individual to make reasonable modifications when such modifications may be necessary to
afford a person with a disability full enjoyment of the premises – may be held liable unless they
fall within an exception to the Act’s coverage. Courts have applied the Act to individuals,
corporations, associations and others involved in the provision of housing and residential
lending, including property owners, housing managers, homeowners and condominium
associations, lenders, real estate agents, and brokerage services. Courts have also applied the
Act to state and local governments, most often in the context of exclusionary zoning or other
land-use decisions. See, e.g., City of Edmonds v. Oxford House, Inc., 514 U.S. 725, 729 (1995);
Project Life v. Glendening, 139 F. Supp. 2d 703, 710 (D. Md. 2001), aff’d, 2002 WL 2012545
(4th Cir. 2002).
9. What is the difference between a reasonable accommodation and a reasonable
modification under the Fair Housing Act?9
Under the Fair Housing Act, a reasonable modification is a structural change made to the
premises whereas a reasonable accommodation is a change, exception, or adjustment to a rule,
policy, practice, or service. A person with a disability may need either a reasonable
accommodation or a reasonable modification, or both, in order to have an equal opportunity to
use and enjoy a dwelling, including public and common use spaces. Generally, under the Fair
Housing Act, the housing provider is responsible for the costs associated with a reasonable
accommodation unless it is an undue financial and administrative burden, while the tenant or
someone acting on the tenant’s behalf, is responsible for costs associated with a reasonable
modification. See Reasonable Accommodation Statement, Questions 7 and 8.
Example 1: Because of a mobility disability, a tenant wants to install grab bars in the
bathroom. This is a reasonable modification and must be permitted at the tenant’s expense.
9 Housing providers that receive federal financial assistance are also subject to the requirements
of Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of l973. 29 U.S.C. § 794. Section 504, and its
implementing regulations at 24 C.F.R. Part 8, prohibit discrimination based on disability, and
obligate housing providers to make and pay for structural changes to facilities, if needed as a
reasonable accommodation for applicants and tenants with disabilities, unless doing so poses an
undue financial and administrative burden. See Question 31.
6
Example 2: Because of a hearing disability, a tenant wishes to install a peephole in her
door so she can see who is at the door before she opens it. This is a reasonable modification and
must be permitted at the tenant’s expense.
Example 3: Because of a mobility disability, a tenant wants to install a ramp outside the
building in a common area. This is a reasonable modification and must be permitted at the
tenant’s expense. See also Questions 19, 20 and 21.
Example 4: Because of a vision disability, a tenant requests permission to have a guide
dog reside with her in her apartment. The housing provider has a “no-pets” policy. This is a
request for a reasonable accommodation, and the housing provider must grant the
accommodation.
10. Are reasonable modifications restricted to the interior of a dwelling?
No. Reasonable modifications are not limited to the interior of a dwelling. Reasonable
modifications may also be made to public and common use areas such as widening entrances to
fitness centers or laundry rooms, or for changes to exteriors of dwelling units such as installing a
ramp at the entrance to a dwelling.
11. Is a request for a parking space because of a physical disability a reasonable
accommodation or a reasonable modification?
Courts have treated requests for parking spaces as requests for a reasonable
accommodation and have placed the responsibility for providing the parking space on the
housing provider, even if provision of an accessible or assigned parking space results in some
cost to the provider. For example, courts have required a housing provider to provide an
assigned space even though the housing provider had a policy of not assigning parking spaces or
had a waiting list for available parking. However, housing providers may not require persons
with disabilities to pay extra fees as a condition of receiving accessible parking spaces.
Providing a parking accommodation could include creating signage, repainting markings,
redistributing spaces, or creating curb cuts. This list is not exhaustive.
12. What if the structural changes being requested by the tenant or applicant are in a
building that is subject to the design and construction requirements of the Fair Housing
Act and the requested structural changes are a feature of accessible design that should
have already existed in the unit or common area, e.g., doorways wide enough to
accommodate a wheelchair, or an accessible entryway to a unit.
7
The Fair Housing Act provides that covered multifamily dwellings built for first
occupancy after March 13, 1991, shall be designed and constructed to meet certain minimum
accessibility and adaptability standards. If any of the structural changes needed by the tenant are
ones that should have been included in the unit or public and common use area when constructed
then the housing provider may be responsible for providing and paying for those requested
structural changes. However, if the requested structural changes are not a feature of accessible
design that should have already existed in the building pursuant to the design and construction
requirements under the Act, then the tenant is responsible for paying for the cost of the structural
changes as a reasonable modification.
Although the design and construction provisions only apply to certain multifamily
dwellings built for first occupancy since 1991, a tenant may request reasonable modifications to
housing built prior to that date. In such cases, the housing provider must allow the
modifications, and the tenant is responsible for paying for the costs under the Fair Housing Act.
For a discussion of the design and construction requirements of the Act, and their
applicability, see HUD’s website at: www.hud.gov/offices/fheo/disabilities/index.cfm and the
Fair Housing Accessibility FIRST website at: http://www.fairhousingfirst.org.
Example 1: A tenant with a disability who uses a wheelchair resides in a ground floor
apartment in a non-elevator building that was built in 1995. Buildings built for first occupancy
after March 13, 1991 are covered by the design and construction requirements of the Fair
Housing Act. Because the building is a non-elevator building, all ground floor units must meet
the minimum accessibility requirements of the Act. The doors in the apartment are not wide
enough for passage using a wheelchair in violation of the design and construction requirements
but can be made so through retrofitting. Under these circumstances, one federal court has held
that the tenant may have a potential claim against the housing provider.
Example 2: A tenant with a disability resides in an apartment in a building that was built
in 1987. The doors in the unit are not wide enough for passage using a wheelchair but can be
made so through retrofitting. If the tenant meets the other requirements for obtaining a
modification, the tenant may widen the doorways, at her own expense.
Example 3: A tenant with a disability resides in an apartment in a building that was built
in 1993 in compliance with the design and construction requirements of the Fair Housing Act.
The tenant wants to install grab bars in the bathroom because of her disability. Provided that the
tenant meets the other requirements for obtaining a modification, the tenant may install the grab
bars at her own expense.
13. Who is responsible for expenses associated with a reasonable modification, e.g., for
upkeep or maintenance?
The tenant is responsible for upkeep and maintenance of a modification that is used
exclusively by her. If a modification is made to a common area that is normally maintained by
the housing provider, then the housing provider is responsible for the upkeep and maintenance of
the modification. If a modification is made to a common area that is not normally maintained by
8
the housing provider, then the housing provider has no responsibility under the Fair Housing Act
to maintain the modification.
Example 1: Because of a mobility disability, a tenant, at her own expense, installs a lift
inside her unit to allow her access to a second story. She is required to maintain the lift at her
expense because it is not in a common area.
Example 2: Because of a mobility disability, a tenant installs a ramp in the lobby of a
multifamily building at her own expense. The ramp is used by other tenants and the public as
well as the tenant with the disability. The housing provider is responsible for maintaining the
ramp.
Example 3: A tenant leases a detached, single-family home. Because of a mobility
disability, the tenant installs a ramp at the outside entrance to the home. The housing provider
provides no snow removal services, and the lease agreement specifically states that snow
removal is the responsibility of the individual tenant. Under these circumstances, the housing
provider has no responsibility under the Fair Housing Act to remove snow on the tenant’s ramp.
However, if the housing provider normally provides snow removal for the outside of the building
and the common areas, the housing provider is responsible for removing the snow from the ramp
as well.
14. In addition to current residents, are prospective tenants and buyers of housing
protected by the reasonable modification provisions of the Fair Housing Act?
Yes. A person may make a request for a reasonable modification at any time. An
individual may request a reasonable modification of the dwelling at the time that the potential
tenancy or purchase is discussed. Under the Act, a housing provider cannot deny or restrict
access to housing because a request for a reasonable modification is made. Such conduct would
constitute discrimination. The modification does not have to be made, however, unless it is
reasonable. See Questions 2, 16, 21 and 23.
15. When and how should an individual request permission to make a modification?
Under the Act, a resident or an applicant for housing makes a reasonable modification
request whenever she makes clear to the housing provider that she is requesting permission to
make a structural change to the premises because of her disability. She should explain that she
has a disability, if not readily apparent or not known to the housing provider, the type of
modification she is requesting, and the relationship between the requested modification and her
disability.
An applicant or resident is not entitled to receive a reasonable modification unless she
requests one. However, the Fair Housing Act does not require that a request be made in a
particular manner or at a particular time. A person with a disability need not personally make
the reasonable modification request; the request can be made by a family member or someone
else who is acting on her behalf. An individual making a reasonable modification request does
9
not need to mention the Act or use the words “reasonable modification.” However, the requester
must make the request in a manner that a reasonable person would understand to be a request for
permission to make a structural change because of a disability.
Although a reasonable modification request can be made orally or in writing, it is usually
helpful for both the resident and the housing provider if the request is made in writing. This will
help prevent misunderstandings regarding what is being requested, or whether the request was
made. To facilitate the processing and consideration of the request, residents or prospective
residents may wish to check with a housing provider in advance to determine if the provider has
a preference regarding the manner in which the request is made. However, housing providers
must give appropriate consideration to reasonable modification requests even if the requester
makes the request orally or does not use the provider's preferred forms or procedures for making
such requests.
16. Does a person with a disability have to have the housing provider’s approval before
making a reasonable modification to the dwelling?
Yes. A person with a disability must have the housing provider’s approval before
making the modification. However, if the person with a disability meets the requirements under
the Act for a reasonable modification and provides the relevant documents and assurances, the
housing provider cannot deny the request.
17. What if the housing provider fails to act promptly on a reasonable modification
request?
A provider has an obligation to provide prompt responses to a reasonable modification
request. An undue delay in responding to a reasonable modification request may be deemed a
failure to permit a reasonable modification.
18. What if the housing provider proposes that the tenant move to a different unit in
lieu of making a proposed modification?
The housing provider cannot insist that a tenant move to a different unit in lieu of
allowing the tenant to make a modification that complies with the requirements for reasonable
modifications. See Questions 2, 21 and 23. Housing providers should be aware that persons
with disabilities typically have the most accurate knowledge regarding the functional limitations
posed by their disability.
Example: As a result of a mobility disability, a tenant requests that he be permitted, at
his expense, to install a ramp so that he can access his apartment using his motorized wheelchair.
The existing entrance to his dwelling is not wheelchair accessible because the route to the front
door requires going up a step. The housing provider proposes that in lieu of installing the ramp,
the tenant move to a different unit in the building. The tenant is not obligated to accept the
alternative proposed by the housing provider, as his request to modify his unit is reasonable and
must be approved.
10
19. What if the housing provider wants an alternative modification or alternative
design for the proposed modification that does not cost more but that the housing provider
considers more aesthetically pleasing?
In general, the housing provider cannot insist on an alternative modification or an
alternative design if the tenant complies with the requirements for reasonable modifications. See
Questions 2, 21 and 23. If the modification is to the interior of the unit and must be restored to
its original condition when the tenant moves out, then the housing provider cannot require that
its design be used instead of the tenant’s design. However, if the modification is to a common
area or an aspect of the interior of the unit that would not have to be restored because it would
not be reasonable to do so, and if the housing provider’s proposed design imposes no additional
costs and still meets the tenant’s needs, then the modification should be done in accordance with
the housing provider’s design. See Question 24 for a discussion of the restoration requirements.
Example 1: As a result of a mobility disability, a tenant requests that he be permitted, at
his expense, to install a ramp so that he can access his apartment using his motorized wheelchair.
The existing entrance to his dwelling is not wheelchair accessible because the route to the front
door requires going up a step. The housing provider proposes an alternative design for a ramp
but the alternative design costs more and does not meet the tenant’s needs. The tenant is not
obligated to accept the alternative modification, as his request to modify his unit is reasonable
and must be approved.
Example 2: As a result of a mobility disability, a tenant requests permission to widen a
doorway to allow passage with her wheelchair. All of the doorways in the unit are trimmed with
a decorative trim molding that does not cost any more than the standard trim molding. Because
in usual circumstances it would not be reasonable to require that the doorway be restored at the
end of the tenancy, the tenant should use the decorative trim when he widens the doorway.
20. What if the housing provider wants a more costly design for the requested
modification?
If the housing provider wishes a modification to be made with more costly materials, in
order to satisfy the landlord’s aesthetic standards, the tenant must agree only if the housing
provider pays those additional costs. Further, as discussed in Questions 21 and 23 below,
housing providers may require that the tenant obtain all necessary building permits and may
require that the work be performed in a workmanlike manner. If the housing provider requires
more costly materials be used to satisfy her workmanship preferences beyond the requirements
of the applicable local codes, the tenant must agree only if the housing provider pays for those
additional costs as well. In such a case, however, the housing provider’s design must still meet
the tenant’s needs.
21. What types of documents and assurances may a housing provider require regarding
the modification before granting the reasonable modification?
11
A housing provider may require that a request for a reasonable modification include a
description of the proposed modification both before changes are made to the dwelling and
before granting the modification. A description of the modification to be made may be provided
to a housing provider either orally or in writing depending on the extent and nature of the
proposed modification. A housing provider may also require that the tenant obtain any building
permits needed to make the modifications, and that the work be performed in a workmanlike
manner.
The regulations implementing the Fair Housing Act state that housing providers
generally cannot impose conditions on a proposed reasonable modification. For example, a
housing provider cannot require that the tenant obtain additional insurance or increase the
security deposit as a condition that must be met before the modification will be allowed.
However, the Preamble to the Final Regulations also indicates that there are some conditions that
can be placed on a tenant requesting a reasonable modification. For example, in certain limited
and narrow circumstances, a housing provider may require that the tenant deposit money into an
interest bearing account to ensure that funds are available to restore the interior of a dwelling to
its previous state, ordinary wear and tear excepted. Imposing conditions not contemplated by the
Fair Housing Act and its implementing regulations may be the same as an illegal refusal to
permit the modification.
22. May a housing provider or homeowner’s association condition approval of the
requested modification on the requester obtaining special liability insurance?
No. Imposition of such a requirement would constitute a violation of the Fair Housing
Act.
Example: Because of a mobility disability, a tenant wants to install a ramp outside his
unit. The housing provider informs the tenant that the ramp may be installed, but only after the
tenant obtains separate liability insurance for the ramp out of concern for the housing provider’s
potential liability. The housing provider may not impose a requirement of liability insurance as a
condition of approval of the ramp.
23. Once the housing provider has agreed to a reasonable modification, may she insist
that a particular contractor be used to perform the work?
No. The housing provider cannot insist that a particular contractor do the work. The
housing provider may only require that whoever does the work is reasonably able to complete
the work in a workmanlike manner and obtain all necessary building permits.
24. If a person with a disability has made reasonable modifications to the interior of the
dwelling, must she restore all of them when she moves out?
The tenant is obligated to restore those portions of the interior of the dwelling to their
previous condition only where “it is reasonable to do so” and where the housing provider has
requested the restoration. The tenant is not responsible for expenses associated with reasonable
12
wear and tear. In general, if the modifications do not affect the housing provider’s or subsequent
tenant’s use or enjoyment of the premises, the tenant cannot be required to restore the
modifications to their prior state. A housing provider may choose to keep the modifications in
place at the end of the tenancy. See also Question 28.
Example 1: Because the tenant uses a wheelchair, she obtained permission from her
housing provider to remove the base cabinets and lower the kitchen sink to provide for greater
accessibility. It is reasonable for the housing provider to ask the tenant to replace the cabinets
and raise the sink back to its original height.
Example 2: Because of a mobility disability, a tenant obtained approval from the
housing provider to install grab bars in the bathroom. As part of the installation, the contractor
had to construct reinforcements on the underside of the wall. These reinforcements are not
visible and do not detract from the use of the apartment. It is reasonable for the housing provider
to require the tenant to remove the grab bars, but it is not reasonable for the housing provider to
require the tenant to remove the reinforcements.
Example 3: Because of a mobility disability, a tenant obtained approval from the
housing provider to widen doorways to allow him to maneuver in his wheelchair. In usual
circumstances, it is not reasonable for the housing provider to require him to restore the
doorways to their prior width.
25. Of the reasonable modifications made to the interior of a dwelling that must be
restored, must the person with a disability pay to make those restorations when she moves
out?
Yes. Reasonable restorations of the dwelling required as a result of modifications made
to the interior of the dwelling must be paid for by the tenant unless the next occupant of the
dwelling wants to retain the reasonable modifications and where it is reasonable to do so, the
next occupant is willing to establish a new interest bearing escrow account. The subsequent
tenant would have to restore the modifications to the prior condition at the end of his tenancy if it
is reasonable to do so and if requested by the housing provider. See also Question 24.
26. If a person with a disability has made a reasonable modification to the exterior of
the dwelling, or a common area, must she restore it to its original condition when she
moves out?
No. The Fair Housing Act expressly provides that housing providers may only require
restoration of modifications made to interiors of the dwelling at the end of the tenancy.
Reasonable modifications such as ramps to the front door of the dwelling or modifications made
to laundry rooms or building entrances are not required to be restored.
27. May a housing provider increase or require a person with a disability to pay a
security deposit if she requests a reasonable modification?
13
No. The housing provider may not require an increased security deposit as the result of a
request for a reasonable modification, nor may a housing provider require a tenant to pay a
security deposit when one is not customarily required. However, a housing provider may be able
to take other steps to ensure that money will be available to pay for restoration of the interior of
the premises at the end of the tenancy. See Questions 21 and 28.
28. May a housing provider take other steps to ensure that money will be available to
pay for restoration of the interior of the premises at the end of the tenancy?
Where it is necessary in order to ensure with reasonable certainty that funds will be
available to pay for the restorations at the end of the tenancy, the housing provider may negotiate
with the tenant as part of a restoration agreement a provision that requires the tenant to make
payments into an interest-bearing escrow account. A housing provider may not routinely require
that tenants place money in escrow accounts when a modification is sought. Both the amount
and the terms of the escrow payment are subject to negotiation between the housing provider and
the tenant.
Simply because an individual has a disability does not mean that she is less creditworthy
than an individual without a disability. The decision to require that money be placed in an
escrow account should be based on the following factors: 1) the extent and nature of the
proposed modifications; 2) the expected duration of the lease; 3) the credit and tenancy history
of the individual tenant; and 4) other information that may bear on the risk to the housing
provider that the premises will not be restored.
If the housing provider decides to require payment into an escrow account, the amount of
money to be placed in the account cannot exceed the cost of restoring the modifications, and the
period of time during which the tenant makes payment into the escrow account must be
reasonable. Although a housing provider may require that funds be placed in escrow, it does not
automatically mean that the full amount of money needed to make the future restorations can be
required to be paid at the time that the modifications are sought. In addition, it is important to
note that interest from the account accrues to the benefit of the tenant. If an escrow account is
established, and the housing provider later decides not to have the unit restored, then all funds in
the account, including the interest, must be promptly returned to the tenant.
Example 1: Because of a mobility disability, a tenant requests a reasonable
modification. The modification includes installation of grab bars in the bathroom. The tenant
has an excellent credit history and has lived in the apartment for five years before becoming
disabled. Under these circumstances, it may not be reasonable to require payment into an
escrow account.
Example 2: Because of a mobility disability, a new tenant with a poor credit history
wants to lower the kitchen cabinets to a more accessible height. It may be reasonable for the
housing provider to require payment into an interest bearing escrow account to ensure that funds
are available for restoration.
14
Example 3: A housing provider requires all tenants with disabilities to pay a set sum
into an interest bearing escrow account before approving any request for a reasonable
modification. The amount required by the housing provider has no relationship to the actual cost
of the restoration. This type of requirement violates the Fair Housing Act.
29. What if a person with a disability moves into a rental unit and wants the carpet
taken up because her wheelchair does not move easily across carpeting? Is that a
reasonable accommodation or modification?
Depending on the circumstances, removal of carpeting may be either a reasonable
accommodation or a reasonable modification.
Example 1: If the housing provider has a practice of not permitting a tenant to change
flooring in a unit and there is a smooth, finished floor underneath the carpeting, generally,
allowing the tenant to remove the carpet would be a reasonable accommodation.
Example 2: If there is no finished flooring underneath the carpeting, generally,
removing the carpeting and installing a finished floor would be a reasonable modification that
would have to be done at the tenant’s expense. If the finished floor installed by the tenant does
not affect the housing provider’s or subsequent tenant’s use or enjoyment of the premises, the
tenant would not have to restore the carpeting at the conclusion of the tenancy. See Questions 24
and 25.
Example 3: If the housing provider has a practice of replacing the carpeting before a
new tenant moves in, and there is an existing smooth, finished floor underneath, then it would be
a reasonable accommodation of his normal practice of installing new carpeting for the housing
provider to just take up the old carpeting and wait until the tenant with a mobility disability
moves out to put new carpeting down.
30. Who is responsible for paying for the costs of structural changes to a dwelling unit
that has not yet been constructed if a purchaser with a disability needs different or
additional features to make the unit meet her disability-related needs?
If the dwelling unit is not subject to the design and construction requirements (i.e., a
detached single family home or a multi-story townhouse without an elevator), then the purchaser
is responsible for the additional costs associated with the structural changes. The purchaser is
responsible for any additional cost that the structural changes might create over and above what
the original design would have cost.
If the unit being purchased is subject to the design and construction requirements of the
Fair Housing Act, then all costs associated with incorporating the features required by the Act
are borne by the builder. If a purchaser with a disability needs different or additional features
added to a unit under construction or about to be constructed beyond those already required by
the Act, and it would cost the builder more to provide the requested features, the structural
changes would be considered a reasonable modification and the additional costs would have to
15
be borne by the purchaser. The purchaser is responsible for any additional cost that the
structural changes might create over and above what the original design would have cost.
Example 1: A buyer with a mobility disability is purchasing a single family dwelling
under construction and asks for a bathroom sink with a floorless base cabinet with retractable
doors that allows the buyer to position his wheelchair under the sink. If the cabinet costs more
than the standard vanity cabinet provided by the builder, the buyer is responsible for the
additional cost, not the full cost of the requested cabinet. If, however, the alternative cabinet
requested by the buyer costs less than or the same as the one normally provided by the builder,
and the installation costs are also the same or less, then the builder should install the requested
cabinet without any additional cost to the buyer.
Example 2: A buyer with a mobility disability is purchasing a ground floor unit in a
detached townhouse that is designed with a concrete step at the front door. The buyer requests
that the builder grade the entrance to eliminate the need for the step. If the cost of providing the
at-grade entrance is no greater than the cost of building the concrete step, then the builder would
have to provide the at-grade entrance without additional charge to the purchaser.
Example 3: A buyer with a mobility disability is purchasing a unit that is subject to the
design and construction requirements of the Fair Housing Act. The buyer wishes to have grab
bars installed in the unit as a reasonable modification to the bathroom. The builder is
responsible for installing and paying for the wall reinforcements for the grab bars because these
reinforcements are required under the design and construction provisions of the Act. The buyer
is responsible for the costs of installing and paying for the grab bars.
31. Are the rules the same if a person with a disability lives in housing that receives
federal financial assistance and the needed structural changes to the unit or common area
are the result of the tenant having a disability?
Housing that receives federal financial assistance is covered by both the Fair Housing
Act and Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973. Under regulations implementing Section
504, structural changes needed by an applicant or resident with a disability in housing receiving
federal financial assistance are considered reasonable accommodations. They must be paid for
by the housing provider unless providing them would be an undue financial and administrative
burden or a fundamental alteration of the program or unless the housing provider can
accommodate the individual’s needs through other means. Housing that receives federal
financial assistance and that is provided by state or local entities may also be covered by Title II
of the Americans with Disabilities Act.
Example 1: A tenant who uses a wheelchair and who lives in privately owned housing
needs a roll-in shower in order to bathe independently. Under the Fair Housing Act the tenant
would be responsible for the costs of installing the roll-in shower as a reasonable modification to
his unit.
16
Example 2: A tenant who uses a wheelchair and who lives in housing that receives
federal financial assistance needs a roll-in shower in order to bathe independently. Under
Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, the housing provider would be obligated to pay
for and install the roll-in shower as a reasonable accommodation to the tenant unless doing so
was an undue financial and administrative burden or unless the housing provider could meet the
tenant’s disability-related needs by transferring the tenant to another appropriate unit that
contains a roll-in shower.
HUD has provided more detailed information about Section 504’s requirements. See
www.hud.gov/offices/fheo/disabilities/sect504.cfm.
32. If a person believes that she has been unlawfully denied a reasonable modification,
what should that person do if she wants to challenge that denial under the Act?
When a person with a disability believes that she has been subjected to a discriminatory
housing practice, including a provider’s wrongful denial of a request for a reasonable
modification, she may file a complaint with HUD within one year after the alleged denial or may
file a lawsuit in federal district court within two years of the alleged denial. If a complaint is
filed, HUD will investigate the complaint at no cost to the person with a disability.
There are several ways that a person may file a complaint with HUD:
• By placing a toll-free call to 1-800-669-9777 or TTY 1-800-927-9275;
• By completing the “on-line” complaint form available on the HUD internet
site: http://www.hud.gov; or
• By mailing a completed complaint form or letter to:
Office of Fair Housing and Equal Opportunity
Department of Housing & Urban Development
451 Seventh Street, S.W., Room 5204
Washington, DC 20410-2000
Upon request, HUD will provide printed materials in alternate formats (large print, audio
tapes, or Braille) and provide complainants with assistance in reading and completing forms.
The Civil Rights Division of the Justice Department brings lawsuits in federal courts
across the country to end discriminatory practices and to seek monetary and other relief for
individuals whose rights under the Fair Housing Act have been violated. The Civil Rights
Division initiates lawsuits when it has reason to believe that a person or entity is involved in a
“pattern or practice” of discrimination or when there has been a denial of rights to a group of
persons that raises an issue of general public importance. The Division also participates as
amicus curiae in federal court cases that raise important legal questions involving the application
17
and/or interpretation of the Act. To alert the Justice Department to matters involving a pattern or
practice of discrimination, matters involving the denial of rights to groups of persons, or lawsuits
raising issues that may be appropriate for amicus participation, contact:
U.S. Department of Justice
Civil Rights Division
Housing and Civil Enforcement Section – G St.
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W.
Washington, DC 20530
For more information on the types of housing discrimination cases handled by the Civil
Rights Division, please refer to the Housing and Civil Enforcement Section’s website at
http://www.usdoj.gov/crt/housing/hcehome.html.
A HUD or Department of Justice decision not to proceed with a Fair Housing Act matter
does not foreclose private plaintiffs from pursuing a private lawsuit. However, litigation can be
an expensive, time-consuming, and uncertain process for all parties. HUD and the Department
of Justice encourage parties to Fair Housing Act disputes to explore all reasonable alternatives to
litigation, including alternative dispute resolution procedures, such as mediation. HUD attempts
to conciliate all Fair Housing Act complaints. In addition, it is the Department of Justice’s
policy to offer prospective defendants the opportunity to engage in pre-suit settlement
negotiations, except in the most unusual circumstances.
18
ADDITION & NEW
ATTACHED ADU
PROJECT SITE
DRAWING FILE #
OF SHEETS
SHEET
SCALE
DATE
CHECKED BY
DRAWN BY
DESIGN BY
HORIZ:
VERT:
DA
T
E
MA
R
K
DE
S
C
R
I
P
T
I
O
N
AS SHOWN
AS SHOWN
AD
D
I
T
I
O
N
A
N
D
A
T
T
A
C
H
E
D
A
D
U
13
1
V
a
l
l
e
y
V
i
e
w
A
v
e
.
SA
N
R
A
F
A
E
L
,
C
A
9
4
9
0
1
01.13.25
Δ
Δ
EXISTING BUILDING
ADDITION
NEW ATTACHED ADU
PORCH CONVERSION
DRAWING FILE #
OF SHEETS
SHEET
SCALE
DATE
CHECKED BY
DRAWN BY
DESIGN BY
HORIZ:
VERT:
DA
T
E
MA
R
K
DE
S
C
R
I
P
T
I
O
N
AS SHOWN
AS SHOWN
AD
D
I
T
I
O
N
A
N
D
A
T
T
A
C
H
E
D
A
D
U
13
1
V
a
l
l
e
y
V
i
e
w
A
v
e
.
SA
N
R
A
F
A
E
L
,
C
A
9
4
9
0
1
01.13.25
DEMO WALL
1
A
B
A
B
2 3
1 2 3
EXISTING WALL
EXISTING UPPER FLOOR PLAN
SCALE: 1/4" = 1'
DRAWING FILE #
OF SHEETS
SHEET
SCALE
DATE
CHECKED BY
DRAWN BY
DESIGN BY
HORIZ:
VERT:
DA
T
E
MA
R
K
DE
S
C
R
I
P
T
I
O
N
AS SHOWN
AS SHOWN
AD
D
I
T
I
O
N
A
N
D
A
T
T
A
C
H
E
D
A
D
U
13
1
V
a
l
l
e
y
V
i
e
w
A
v
e
.
SA
N
R
A
F
A
E
L
,
C
A
9
4
9
0
1
01.13.25
EXISTING LOWER FLOOR PLAN (GARAGE)
SCALE: 1/4" = 1'
EXISTING WALL
$
GFCI
NEW WALL
REF.
NEW ATTACHED ADU
(A= 702 SQ.FT.)
1
A
B
2 3
PROPOSED ATTACHED ADU FLOOR PLAN
SCALE: 1/4" = 1'
SEE SHEET A-6 FOR PLAN NOTES
DRAWING FILE #
OF SHEETS
SHEET
SCALE
DATE
CHECKED BY
DRAWN BY
DESIGN BY
HORIZ:
VERT:
DA
T
E
MA
R
K
DE
S
C
R
I
P
T
I
O
N
AS SHOWN
AS SHOWN
AD
D
I
T
I
O
N
A
N
D
A
T
T
A
C
H
E
D
A
D
U
13
1
V
a
l
l
e
y
V
i
e
w
A
v
e
.
SA
N
R
A
F
A
E
L
,
C
A
9
4
9
0
1
01.13.25
(STORAGE
/LAUNDRY)
EXISTING WALL
1
A
B
$
GFCI
NEW WALL
PORCH CONVERSION = 63 SQ.FT.
A
ADDITION = 407 SQ.FT.
SEE SHEET A-8 FOR PLAN NOTES
DRAWING FILE #
OF SHEETS
SHEET
SCALE
DATE
CHECKED BY
DRAWN BY
DESIGN BY
HORIZ:
VERT:
DA
T
E
MA
R
K
DE
S
C
R
I
P
T
I
O
N
AS SHOWN
AS SHOWN
AD
D
I
T
I
O
N
A
N
D
A
T
T
A
C
H
E
D
A
D
U
13
1
V
a
l
l
e
y
V
i
e
w
A
v
e
.
SA
N
R
A
F
A
E
L
,
C
A
9
4
9
0
1
01.13.25
PROPOSED MAIN HOUSE FLOOR PLAN
EXISTING FRONT ELEVATION (SOUTH)
DRAWING FILE #
OF SHEETS
SHEET
SCALE
DATE
CHECKED BY
DRAWN BY
DESIGN BY
HORIZ:
VERT:
DA
T
E
MA
R
K
DE
S
C
R
I
P
T
I
O
N
AS SHOWN
AS SHOWN
AD
D
I
T
I
O
N
A
N
D
A
T
T
A
C
H
E
D
A
D
U
13
1
V
a
l
l
e
y
V
i
e
w
A
v
e
.
SA
N
R
A
F
A
E
L
,
C
A
9
4
9
0
1
01.13.25
EXISTING REAR ELEVATION (NORTH)
EXISTING RIGHT ELEVATION (EAST)
EXISTING LEFT ELEVATION (WEST)
NEW DECK
DRAWING FILE #
OF SHEETS
SHEET
SCALE
DATE
CHECKED BY
DRAWN BY
DESIGN BY
HORIZ:
VERT:
DA
T
E
MA
R
K
DE
S
C
R
I
P
T
I
O
N
AS SHOWN
AS SHOWN
AD
D
I
T
I
O
N
A
N
D
A
T
T
A
C
H
E
D
A
D
U
13
1
V
a
l
l
e
y
V
i
e
w
A
v
e
.
SA
N
R
A
F
A
E
L
,
C
A
9
4
9
0
1
01.13.25
PROPOSED FRONT ELEVATION (SOUTH)
PROPOSED REAR ELEVATION (NORTH)
DRAWING FILE #
OF SHEETS
SHEET
SCALE
DATE
CHECKED BY
DRAWN BY
DESIGN BY
HORIZ:
VERT:
DA
T
E
MA
R
K
DE
S
C
R
I
P
T
I
O
N
AS SHOWN
AS SHOWN
AD
D
I
T
I
O
N
A
N
D
A
T
T
A
C
H
E
D
A
D
U
13
1
V
a
l
l
e
y
V
i
e
w
A
v
e
.
SA
N
R
A
F
A
E
L
,
C
A
9
4
9
0
1
01.13.25
PROPOSED RIGHT ELEVATION (EAST)
PROPOSED LEFT ELEVATION (WEST)
EXTERIOR WALL GAPS: annular spaces around pipes, electric cables, conduits or openinings
in sole/bottom plates at exterior walls shall be closed with cement mortar, concrete masonry or a
similar method acceptable to the enforcing agency to prevent passage of rodents.
LAUNDRY:
a. conductor wires with an installed neutral and a four-prong outlet are required for dryers
and cooking units.
b. provide one minimum seperate 20 amp circuit to laundry appliances.
c. vent dryer w/smooth metal duct to ext. w/backdraft damper.
duct to be 4" min. dia.; 14' max length w/2 elbows
provide one minimum seperate 20 amp circuit to laundry appliances.
d. termination of all environmental air ducts shall be a minimum of 3 feet from property lines
or openings into the building (i.e. dryers, bath and utility fans etc. must be 3 feet away from
doors, windows, opening skylights or attic vents)
e. laundry room lighting: all lights shall be fluorescent or controlled by an occupant sensor.
f. installation instuctions for all listed equipment shall be provided to the field inspector at time of
inspection.
g. provide a 220 volt gfi electrical receptacle
h. where a closet is designed for the installation of clothes dryer, an opening of not less than 100
square inches for makeup air shall be provided in the door.
SMOKE DETECTORS: new 110v smoke detectors (with battery backup) which are
audible in all sleeping areas & at the following locations: 1. hallways leading to bedrooms;
2. above tops of stairs; 3. at least one every level and any area where ceiling height is
more than 24" above hallway ceiling leading to sleeping room.
all smoke detectors are to be interconnected per 2022 CRC R-314.4 (activation of one
alarm will activate all of the alarms in the individual unit & alarm will be clearly audible in all
bedrooms over background noise levels with all intervening doors closed)
GUARD RAILS:guardrail req'd at walking surface 30" or more above grade. guardrail
height shall be min. 42" high with intermediate rails such that 4" sphere shall not pass
through. guardrail & connection shall be capable of resisting 20 plf horiz. load
perpendicular to top rail and intermediate rails, panel filters and their connections shall be
capable of withstanding a load of at least 25 pounds per square foot applied horizontally at
right angles ofver the entire tributary area, including openings and spaces between rails.
ATTIC ACCESS PANEL: R807.1: 22"x30" min. panel (size larger to accomodate fau
as req'd) located in hallway or other readily accessible location. if FAU in attic, provide 30"
min deep platform in front of firebox & lighting outlet switched at access door near furnace.
PRESSURE TREATED WOOD: to be used for wood in contact w/earth or
embedded in concrete or masonry. 6" min. clear from grade to framing
LANDINGS: Provide 36" deep landing outside all exterior doors (not more than 7-3/4"
lower than threshold for in-swinging doors and not more than 1/2" lower than threshold for
outswinging doors; min. 1/4" slope for weather exposed landings; balconies and roof decks
sealed underneath
DOOR TO GARAGE:door between garage & house to be self-closing; tight-fitting
solid wood door 1-3/8" thick or approved 20 min. fire-rated door
1-HR WALL BETWEEN GARAGE & LIVING SPACE: 5/8" type x gyp. bd garage
side; 2x6 wd studs @ 16" o.c. w/R-19 batt insul; 1/2" gyp bd @ house side. 1-hr clg
btween garage & house: 2 layers 5
8" type X gyp. bd. garage side (fasten per CBC Table 7-C
item 21-1.1)
Fire separation shall extend through ceiling to the underside of roof sheathing.
HOSE BIBS:provide a non-removable backflow prevention device on all new exterior
hose bibs, and lawn sprinkler/irrigation systems. All hose bibs must have approved
anti-siphon device
SLOPE OF GRADE: The grade shall fall a minimum of 6 inches within the first 10 feet (5%).where
lot lines prohibit 6" of fall within 10', drains or swales shall be constructed to ensure drainage away
from the structure.
WATERPROOF/GFCI PROTECTED OUTLETS: at exterior at front and rear of
dwelling having access to grade and at all balconies; decks; and porches greater than 20
SF
WATER HEATER:
a. seismic anchorage of water heater include 3 anchors or straps at points within the to
upper and lower one-third of its vertical dimension-the lower anchor/strap located to
maintain a minimum distance of 4 inches above the controls
b. pressure relief valve with drain a minimum distance of 4 inches above the controls
c provide 24 inch minimum wide door to water heater compartment; min 30" x 30"
workspace by firebox
d. dwh location prohibited in bdrm; bathrm; clothes clst; or area open to same except direct
vent appliance
e. if located over framing; requires watertight pan w/1" drain
f. externally wrapped with min. R-12 insulation
ATTIC VENTILATION: vent 1 s.f./150 s.f. of attic area or 1 s.f./300 s.f. if >50% of
venting is located above mid-point of attic per 2022 CRC.
CRAWLSPACE VENTILATION: vent 1 s.f./150 s.f. of underfloor area: U.O.N., provide
painted 6"x16" G.S.M. vents as close to corners as possible and allowing cross-ventilation.
Vents shall be covered with 1 4" wire mesh
UNDER-FLOOR CLEARANCE: provide min. 18" clear to exposed ground in
crawlspaces from joists or structural wood floors or 12" to wood girders. Otherwise, such
wood framing shall be pressure-treated or have natural resistance to decay.
CRAWLSPACE ACCESS: Provide min. 18"x24" crawlspace access panel.
Ventilation 1 s.f./150 s.f. of crawl space area.
ADDRESS NUMBERS: Show location of address numbers on building elevations
clearly visible from adjacent access street or road. numbers to be min. 4" high with min.
stroke with of 1/2" and shall contrast with the background
ARC-FAULT CIRCUIT INTERRUPTER: at all branch circuits that supply 120
volt, single-phase, 15 and 20 ampere receptacle outlets installed in all dwelling unit rooms
and kitchens, except bathrooms and garages. CEC 210.12
TOILET:max.1.28 gal. per flush; min. 30" width clearance; min 24" front clearance;
fixture centered min 15" from side; caulk & seal fixture where it meets floor.
STAIRS: conform to
a. 11 4"-2" diameter handrail mounted 34 to 38in. above the tread nosing. required at allstairs with 4 or more risers)-return at ends
b. handrails shall be mounted so that the completed rail and supporting structure are
capable of withstanding a load of at least 200 pounds applied in any direction at any point
on the rail. cbc-table 16-b, foot note 9.
c. headroom min. 6'8" abv stair treads
d. handrail projection max. 3.5" into req'd stair width. stringers and other
projections are limited to 1-1/2" projection each side.
e. rise & run of stairs (max. rise 7-3/4"; min. run 10")
f. handrail required at stairs with two or more risers; handrail both sides
required at ext stairs; handrail at one side allowed at int. stairs
g. at ext. stairs; handrails to extend 12" horiz at top and extend one tread
length at bottom of run & return to adj. wall or post
EGRESS WINDOW: 5.7 sq. ft. min. (5 sq. ft. min. allowable at ground level); 20" wide
by 24" high; max. 44" to finished sill' opens directly to public way; yard or court that opens
to a public way
SAFETY (TEMPERED) GLAZING: at: (1) hazardous locations-windows adjacent
to: tubs, showers, and tub/showers (2) adjacent to and within 24 inches of either edge of
doors (3) glazing less than 60" above walking surface at stairways or landings (4) windows
within 5' horiz. from tub/shower unless btm of glazing >60" abv. standing surface of
tub/shower.
CARBON MONOXIDE ALARMS: (Sec:R315) new 110v carbon monoxide alarm
(with battery backup) installed in each bedroom, and outside each area adjacent to a
sleeping area; each story of the building; and in any basement
SHOWER/TUB: • showerhead 1.8 gal. per min. max.
a. shower stalls shall be a minimum finished interior of 1,024 square inches, be capable of
encompassing a 30" diameter circle, and any doors shall swing out of the enclosure have a
clear opening of 22" minimum. (cpc 411.6 and 411.7)
b. glazing in any portion of the shower, bathtub, or hydro-massage tub enclosure shall be
safety glazing (i.e. tempered glass) when the bottom edge of the glazing is less than 50"
above the standing surface of the unit. (cbc 2406.3 and crc r308.4)
c. shower stalls and bathtubs with shower heads installed, shall have walls finished with a
non-absorbent surface for a minimum of 6' above the floor.
d. any new or replaced mixing valve in a shower (including over a tub) shall be pressure
balancing set at a maximum 120° f. any new or replaced water-filler valve in
bathtubs/whirlpools shall have a temperature limiting device set at a maximum of 120° e.
the water heater thermostat cannot be used to meet the these provisions. (cpc 414.0 and
418.0)
f. hydro-massage tubs (i.e. jacuzzi tubs) shall have motor access, a gfci protected
dedicated circuit, and be ul listed. all metal cables, fittings, piping, or other metal surfaces,
within 5' of the inside wall of the hyrdo-massage tub shall be properly bonded.
hydro-massage tubs shall be bonded
g.materials used as backers for wall tile in tub and shower areas and wall panels inshower areas shall be glass
mat gypsum panel, fiber-reinforced gypsum panels,non-asbestos fiber-cement backer board, or non-asbestos
fiber-cement reinforced cementitious backer units installed in accordance with manufacturers'
recommendations. [r702.4.2]
h.water-resistant gypsum board shall not be installed over a class i or ii vaporretarder in a shower or tub
compartment. [r702.3.7] water resistant gypsumbacking board shall not be used where there will be direct
exposure to water, or inareas subject to continuous high humidity. [r702.3.7.1]
BATHROOM:
a. all receptacles shall be gfci protected & tamper resistant. new/additional outlets shall
have a dedicated 20-amp circuit. (cec 406.11, 210.8, 210.11)
b. provide energy star compliant mechanical ventilation system capable of providing 5 air
changes/hr-mechanical , 50 cfm minimum; exhaust fans are required in all bathrooms,
even if an operable window is installed. exhaust fans and lighting shall have separate
control switches (even if a combination unit is installed). the exhaust fan may need to be
supplied by a gfi protected circuit based on the manufacturer's requirements, and shall be
control with an accesible humidistat ( CGBSC Section 4.506.1)
c. termination of all environmental air ducts shall be a minimum of 3 feet from property lines
or openings into the building (i.e. dryers, bath and utility fans etc. must be 3 feet away from
doors, windows, opening skylights or attic vents) with dampers.
d. lighting fixtures located within 3' horizontally and 8' vertically of the bathtub rim or
shower stall threshold shall be listed for a damp location, or listed for wet locations where
subject to shower spray. (cec 410.10)
e. Lighting shall be high efficiency fixtures (e.g. fluorescent, led). At least one luminaire
shall be controlled with an occupant sensor with controls that do not allow the fixtures to be
automatically turned on or allow the fixture to be always on
f. maximum flow for bathroom faucet to be 1.20 gallon/minute
g.materials used as backers for wall tile in tub and shower areas and wall panels inshower areas shall be glass
mat gypsum panel, fiber-reinforced gypsum panels,non-asbestos fiber-cement backer board, or non-asbestos
fiber-cement reinforced cementitious backer units installed in accordance with manufacturers'
recommendations. [r702.4.2]
h.water-resistant gypsum board shall not be installed over a class i or ii vaporretarder in a shower or tub
compartment. [r702.3.7] water resistant gypsumbacking board shall not be used where there will be direct
exposure to water, or inareas subject to continuous high humidity. [r702.3.7.1]
KITCHEN:
a. conductor wires with an installed neutral and a four-prong outlet are required for dryers
and cooking units.
b. provide two separate 20amp circuits for kitchen small appliances, with no other outlets
on the circuits.
c. termination of all environmental air ducts shall be a minimum of 3 feet from property lines
or openings into the building (i.e. dryers, bath and utility fans etc. must be 3 feet away from
doors, windows, opening skylights or attic vents)
d. kitchen lighting: all permanently installed lighting shall be high efficacy.
e. installation instuctions for all listed equipment shall be provided to the field inspector at
time of inspection.
f. gfci protection at all receptacles serving kitchen counter tops; receptacles within 6 feet
of a wet bar sink; at each kitchen and dining area counter space wider than 12 inches.
locate so that no point along the counter wall is over 24" from a receptacle. all receptacles
to be tamper resistant
g. maximum flow for kitchen faucet to be 1.8 gallon/minute
h. all under cabinet lighting must be switched separately from other lighting in the home.
i.electric range in a dwelling under 750 square feet, the hood capacity must be 160 cfm, or a 65 % capture
efficiency. the gas-powered range hood in a dwelling under 750 square feet, the hood capacity must be 280
cfm, or an 85 % capture efficiency (ce). [cenc table150.0-g, cenc 150.0(o)g.1]
CLOSETS: Lighting in clothes closet shall be fully glass enclosed or flourescent fixture.
HOT WATER PIPING: Minimum 1" thick pipe insulation shall be installed on all accesible hot
water piping.
OUTDOOR LIGHTING: Outdoor lighting permanently mounted to a dwelling or other buildings
on the same parcel shall be high efficacy and be controlled by onf of the following combinations:
a.photocell and motion sensor
b.photocell and time switch
c.astronomical time clock
d.EMCS with features of astronomical time clock, does not allow the luminarie to be ON during the
day, and may be programmed to automatically turn lighting off at night.
MEMBRANE PENETRATIONS: Membrane penetrations of fire-resistance assemblies
shall comply with 2022 CBC section 714.3.2
Membrane penetrations of fire resistance rated assemblies shall be protected by and
approved penetration firestop system.
Exceptions.
A. Membrane penetration of fire resistance rated walls by steel electrical boxes that do not
exceed 16 square inches in area provided that the aggregate area of the openings through
the membrane does not exceed 100 square inches in any 100 square feet of wall area.
such boxes on opposite sides of the wall shall be separated by on of the following:
-By a horizontal distance of not less than 24" where the wall is constructed with
individual non communicating stud cavities.
-By solid fireblocking
-By protecting both boxes with approved listed putty pads.
B. Membrane penetrations of fire resistance rated walls by listed electrical boxes provided
that the boxes have been tested for use in fire resistance rated assemblies and are
installed in accordance with the instruction included in the listing. Such boxes on opposite
sides of the wall shall be separated by on of the following:
-By the horizontal distance specified in the listing of the electrical boxes.
-By solid fireblocking.
-By protecting both boxes with listed putty pads.
INDOOR LIGHTING: Indoor lighting for new homes and remodels must be high efficacy. The
definition of "high efficacy luminaires" includes all light sources identified as "efficient" under the
2016 Standards. This includes linear flourescent; pin based compact flourescent, GU-24 base
CFL, HID, and induction. High efficacy products include any luminaire that contains a
JA8-compliant lamp or other light source. In other words, any luminaire can qualigy as high
efficacy as long as it meets with the requirements of Section 150.0(k) and Joint Appendix JA8.
WATER EFFICIENT PLUMBING FIXTURES
FIRE STOPPING VENT TO BE PROVIDED, TYP. BRAND : brandguard or approved equal per
r337.6 (see note #6 in fire high severity zone requirements section on sheet a5.1
STORAGE UNDER STAIRS: Provide 5
8" type x gyp bd under stairs at storage area,
typ.
MOISTURE BARRIER: Vapor retarder shall be a 6-mil polyethylene or approved vapor retarder
with joints lapped not less than 6 inches shall
be placed between the concrete floor slab and prepared 4 inch thick subgrade consisting of gravel, crushed
stone or crushed concrete (crc r506.2.3). exception: subgrade is not required when the soil condition is of
silty sand, sand-silt mixture (crc table r405.1).
approvable methods:
1.icc esr#1413 – redgard waterproofing and crack prevention membrane,
ccure pro-red waterproofing membrane 963, cbp 232 waterproofing and
antifracture membrane, and jambo waterproofing membrane
2.icc esr #2417 – laticrete hydro ban
3.icc esr #2785 – polycoat-aquatight and flexideck
4. icc esr#3474 – mapelastic aquadefense waterproofing membrane
HVAC CONDENSER:
a.where equipment or appliances that require service are located on a roof with a 4:12or steeper
slope, a level platform not less than 30"x30" must be provided at theservice side. [cmc 304.2]
b.if in the attic, please note that a permanent 120-volt receptacle outlet and a lightingfixture shall be
installed near the appliance. [cmc 304.4]
c.if in the garage, please provide protection for the appliance or elevate the unit so it isout of the
normal path of vehicles. [cmc 305.1.1]
d.if outdoors, a compressor or portion of acondensing unit supported from the ground shall rest of a
concrete or other approvedbase extending not less than 3 inches above the adjoining ground level.
[cmc1105.2]
e.outdoor condensing units shall have a clearance of at least 5 feet from the outlet of any dryer vent.
[cenc 150.0(h)3a]
WINDOWS REQUIREMENTS
ALL
M.E.P. GENERAL NOTESHOUSE VENTILATION: The exhaust fan in the house are required to remain on all
times the building is occupied but can have an overirde control like a typical manual wall
switch to turn fan off when necessary with the following:
a.Whole house fans shall have a maximum of 1.0 sone sound rating, with a minum
100 cfm. HVAC contractor to provide and calculate system requirements.
b.On the wall above switch, a label is required that states someting like "ventilation
control" or "Operate Exhaust Fan when home is occupied"
c.Whole house fans shall have insulated louvers or covers which close when the fan
is off. Covers or louvers shall have a minimum insulation value of R4.2.
d.Identify the exhaust or supply fans that are part of the mechanical ventilation system
provides the appropriate ventilation rate.
e.fan switch shall have a label reading the following: "this switch controls the indoor air quality
ventilation for the home. leave it on unless the outdoor air quality is very poor."
GRAB BAR REINFORCEMENT AT BATHROOMS:
At least one bathroom shall be provided with grab bar reinforcement for thewater closet, bathtub, and
shower. Reinforcement shall be 2x8 nominal lumber. Reinforcement shall be locatedbetween 32" and
39-1/4" above the finished floor. Water closet reinforcement shall be installed on both side wallsof the
fixture, or one side wall and the back wall. Where the water closet is not placed adjacent to a side wall
capable of accommodating a grab bar, the bathroom shall have provisions for installation of
floor-mounted,foldaway or similar alternate grab bar reinforcements. Shower reinforcement shall be
continuous where wall framing is provided. Bathtub and combination bathtub/shower reinforcement
shall be continuous on each end of the bathtub and the back wall. Additionally, back wall reinforcement
for a lower grab bar shall be provided with the bottom edge located no more than 6" above the bathtub
rim. (crcr327.1.1)
DRAWING FILE #
OF SHEETS
SHEET
SCALE
DATE
CHECKED BY
DRAWN BY
DESIGN BY
HORIZ:
VERT:
DA
T
E
MA
R
K
DE
S
C
R
I
P
T
I
O
N
AS SHOWN
AS SHOWN
AD
D
I
T
I
O
N
A
N
D
A
T
T
A
C
H
E
D
A
D
U
13
1
V
a
l
l
e
y
V
i
e
w
A
v
e
.
SA
N
R
A
F
A
E
L
,
C
A
9
4
9
0
1
01.13.25
PROPOSED ROOF PLAN
DRAWING FILE #
OF SHEETS
SHEET
SCALE
DATE
CHECKED BY
DRAWN BY
DESIGN BY
HORIZ:
VERT:
DA
T
E
MA
R
K
DE
S
C
R
I
P
T
I
O
N
AS SHOWN
AS SHOWN
AD
D
I
T
I
O
N
A
N
D
A
T
T
A
C
H
E
D
A
D
U
13
1
V
a
l
l
e
y
V
i
e
w
A
v
e
.
SA
N
R
A
F
A
E
L
,
C
A
9
4
9
0
1
01.13.25
WATER
LEGEND
EXISTING SEWER
NEW SEWER
VALLEY VIEW Ave.
DRAWING FILE #
OF SHEETS
SHEET
SCALE
DATE
CHECKED BY
DRAWN BY
DESIGN BY
HORIZ:
VERT:
DA
T
E
MA
R
K
DE
S
C
R
I
P
T
I
O
N
AS SHOWN
AS SHOWN
AD
D
I
T
I
O
N
A
N
D
A
T
T
A
C
H
E
D
A
D
U
13
1
V
a
l
l
e
y
V
i
e
w
A
v
e
.
SA
N
R
A
F
A
E
L
,
C
A
9
4
9
0
1
01.13.25
Outlook
Re: 131 Valley View reasonable accomodation appeal
From Josh Sullivan <joshsullivan6@yahoo.com>
Date Wed 1/22/2025 8:12 AM
To Margaret Kavanaugh-Lynch <margaret.kavanaugh-lynch@cityofsanrafael.org>; Renee Nickenig
<renee.nickenig@cityofsanrafael.org>; planningpubliccomment@cityofsanrafael.ord
<planningpubliccomment@cityofsanrafael.ord>
Cc Lisa Dal Gallo <ldalgallo@hansonbridgett.com>
On Tuesday, January 21, 2025 at 09:32:35 PM PST, Josh Sullivan <joshsullivan6@yahoo.com> wrote:
Introduction
The Planning Commission should grant this appeal of the October 17 approval of 131 Valley View Avenue’s owners’
reasonable accommodation request. 131 Valley View owners’ seek to set aside zoning laws so that they could add
multiple improvements to the rear of their home, but they have not established a link between the presumed disability
and their claimed need to disregard the City’s hillside development standards.
In addition, the Planning Department does not appear to have explored potentially alternative construction locations that
do not violate the hillside development standards with 131 Valley View’s owners, and it appears to have ignored the
wildfire-related threats to neighbors’ health, safety, and property threat that will be created by adding more than one
thousand square feet of new construction in the backyard of a home on a non-conforming lot that is already perilously
close to the neighboring homes.
Relevant Facts
131 Valley View Avenue is a nearly 1400 square foot, one level home that was built in 1958. 131 Valley View has 3
bedrooms and 2 bathrooms and is on a 6745 square foot, non-conforming lot in the Fairhills neighborhood, which is
zoned R20 Hillside. The owners of 131 Valley View have resided in the home for approximately 4 years. During this
period, appellants have observed both owners function independently without mobility aids. However, appellants do not
dispute one occupant of 131 Valley View is disabled as defined under California and federal law based on the
information they currently possess.
127 Valley View is also on a non-conforming lot because the original owners of 127 Valley View and 131 Valley View
split a standard-sized Fairhills lot in half before the homes were built in the 1950s. Consequently, 127 Valley View’s
property line is as close as 6 feet from 131 Valley View’s attached garage.
131 Valley View and the immediately neighboring homes at 127 Valley View and 135 Valley View back up to Marin
Municipal Water District’s Los Ranchitos Water Tank, and all area homes are within the Wildlife Urban Interface, a
transition zone between wildland and human development that is prone to wildfires.
To provide additional information and context to the photos and drawings that are part of the record, appellants submit
and identify the following photos:
Appellants’ 1 – Photo of 127 Valley View with 135 Valley View in the background
Appellants’ 2 – Photo depicting proximity of 131 Valley View’s garage to 127 Valley View’s structure
Appellants’ 3 - Photo depicting 131 Valley View’s back yard with 135 Valley View in the background
Appellants’ 4 – Another photo depicting proximity of 131 Valley View’s garage to 127 Valley View’s structure
Appellants’ 5 – Close-up photo of 131 Valley View’s garage exterior wall relative to fence between lots
Appellants’ 6 – Another close-up photo of 131 Valley View’s garage exterior wall relative to fence between lots
The threats wildfires pose to the residents of Valley View Avenue and the immediately surrounding areas is clear and
well documented. For example, a January 2023 Marin Independent Journal article highlights the release of a statewide
interactive map that documents the ever-growing wildfire threat to Marin’s unincorporated areas like Los Ranchitos.
(www.marinij.com/2023/01/02/marins-riskiest-fire-zones-expand-in-state-map/;
marincounty.maps.arcgis.com/apps/webappviewer/index.html?id=688f506cfb144067826bb35a062b0f0a)
The article contains prescient quotes considering the recent devastating fires in Los Angeles County: “’What we’re
seeing here is no surprise,’ Marin County fire Chief Jason Weber said. ‘Based on the fire seasons the last 10 years or so,
we know fire is spreading more rapidly and with greater intensity. The proposed maps are a more accurate
representation of what we’ve been experiencing.”
Adding more than 1000 square feet of construction to 131 Valley View’s back yard along two non-conforming lot lines
will undeniably add density to an area with a documented fire risk, and relevant literature on the subject, including a
study published in Fire Ecology that analyzes the Camp Fire and other recent wildfires in California, confirms
increasing housing density next to wildlands is a recipe for disaster because density becomes a detriment once a wildfire
starts and begins to spread. (See https://fireecology.springeropen.com/articles/10.1186/s42408-021-00117-0)
If the Planning Commission affirms the request for reasonable accommodation, the planned construction at 131 Valley
View will effectively create a single uninterrupted structure that will run from 127 Valley View to 135 Valley View. The
Planning Commission can avoid creating a direct threat to the area’s residents and their property by performing a
comprehensive analysis and denying the reasonable accommodation request to the extent it permits construction in the
backyard of 131 Valley View in violation of the hillside development standards.
The Deficient Reasonable Accommodation Analysis:
Appellants object to the October 17 reasonable accommodation approval on three grounds. First, the owners of 131
Valley View have not established the required nexus between the reported disability and the claimed need to set aside
zoning laws to perform proposed den and bedroom additions. Second, the approval dismisses alternative locations for
the proposed backyard additions without providing any meaningful analysis. Finally, the approval appears to ignore
California Code of Regulations Section 12179 and the patently obvious fire risk that poses a direct threat to the health
and safety of the area’s residents.
1) There Is No Nexus
To prove a reasonable accommodation is necessary, proponents “must show that, but for the accommodation, they will
likely be deprived of the opportunity to enjoy the housing of their choice." (United States v. California Mobile Home
Park, 107 F.3d 1374, 1380-81 (9th Cir.1997).) This analysis is "highly fact-specific, requiring case-by-case
determination." (United States v. California Mobile Home Park Mgmt. Co., 29 F.3d 1413, 1418 (9th Cir.1994).)
There must be an identifiable relationship, or nexus between the requested accommodation and the individual’s
disability. For example, in U.S. v. City of Chicago Heights, 161 F.Supp.2d 819 (N.D. Ill. 2001), the District Court
describes the showing required to establish necessity as follows: "The concept of necessity requires at a minimum the
showing that the desired accommodation will affirmatively enhance a disabled plaintiff ’s quality of life by ameliorating
the effects of the disability. Plaintiffs must show that but for the accommodation, they likely will be denied an equal
opportunity to enjoy the housing of their choice." (Id. at 834 (internal quotes and citations omitted).)
Howard v. HMK Holdings LLC, 98 F.3d 1185 (9th Cir. 2021) does not involve zoning laws but is instructive. In Howard,
a landlord served a 60-day notice terminating tenancy after a disabled month-to-month tenant rejected its offer of a one-
year lease at a higher rent. Citing his disability, the tenant requested a reasonable accommodation of 6 months to move
because he intended to move to Florida and did not want to move twice. The District Court held the landlord properly
rejected the reasonable accommodation request, and the 9th Circuit affirmed and observed nothing about the disability
prevented an earlier move-out and nothing about its denial prevented the tenant from enjoying the same right to housing
as any other tenant who refused to sign a new lease.
Howard v. City of Beavercreek, 108 F.Supp.2d 866 (S.D.Ohio 2000) also illustrates why there has been no showing of
necessity in this case. In Howard, a man who suffered from post-traumatic stress disorder requested a variance to erect a
fence which exceeded the city’s height limit to block his neighbor’s view onto his property. The city denied the variance
and the man sued claiming the city failed to reasonably accommodate his disability. The District Court held the height
variance for the fence was not a necessary accommodation because the plaintiff had lived in his home for 15 years
without the fence and only stated that he might be forced to move from his home if he could not build the fence.
The same is true here because the owners of 131 Valley View have not demonstrated how complying with San Rafael’s
zoning laws denies them with the equal opportunity to enjoy the housing of their choice. They simply must reconfigure
the construction to comply with applicable zoning law’s setback requirements. While appellants contend the proposed
300 square foot den expansion is unrelated to the claimed disability, if 131 Valley View’s owners move the proposed den
to another location in the front or rear of their home, they can enjoy the same quality of life and the same additional
square feet while complying with the City’s hillside development standards.
2) There Was No Exploration of Alternative Backyard Sites
The Planning Department’s October17 reasonable accommodation approval summarily rejects potential alternative
backyard sites that “may provide an equivalent level of benefit” (Page 2, Paragraph 3) without even identifying let alone
analyzing the relative viability of those alternative locations. Instead, the Planning Department states the planned 300
square foot dining room/den expansion is superior to the alternatives it has not discussed because 131 Valley View’s
owners will not have to regrade their backyard if the addition is built on an existing slab. Similarly, without providing
any analysis or discussing potential alternatives, the Planning Department concludes the main bedroom expansion “will
allow for safer mobility within the bedroom.” (Page 2, Paragraph 3.)
Appellants acknowledge the Planning Department must respect the applicant’s privacy rights when it issues a public
report that discusses a reasonable accommodation request. Because there is nothing private about evaluating potential
alternative construction locations that do not involve the claimed disability or reasonable accommodation process,
appellants can only conclude the Planning Department did not perform such evaluation work in this case.
The Planning Commission should grant this appeal because the Planning Department’s failure to require a more robust
inquiry into alternative backyard construction sites and cursory rejection of unaddressed alternate sites confirms the
Planning Department’s opinions lack factual foundation and are unsupported.
3) The Approval Ignores CCR 12179’s Public Safety Exception
While San Rafael’s reasonable accommodation laws (SMRC 14.26.060 et seq.) are modeled on California Code of
Regulations Section 12176 et seq., San Rafael Municipal Code lacks a complete analog for California Code of
Regulations Section 12179 – Denial of Reasonable Accommodation or Reasonable Modification.
Section 12179 states a reasonable accommodation may be denied if it “constitute[s] a direct threat to the health or safety
of others (i.e. a significant risk of bodily harm) or would cause substantial physical damage to the property of others,
and such risks cannot be sufficiently mitigated or eliminated by another reasonable accommodation. . .”
The Planning Department’s October 17 approval is silent with respect to the obvious fire hazards posed by adding more
than 1000 square feet of construction along the 127 Valley View’s and 135 Valley View’s property lines. These risks
could be potentially mitigated by moving the locations of the den and bedroom additions away from the property lines.
Because California and Federal reasonable accommodation and disability laws do not support their claim, the Planning
Commission should direct the owners of 131 Valley View change their plans with respect to the scope and location of
their planned backyard additions.
Just as the Planning Department’s failed to contemplate and discuss alternative construction locations, the Planning
Department also failed to analyze and address the nature, duration, and severity of the potential wildfire risks, the
likelihood that fire-related injury or property damage will occur; the likely cancellation of 127, 131, and 135 Valley
View’s homeowners’ insurance, or the availability of alternatives that mitigate the danger associated with the proposed
backyard construction at 131 Valley View.
By ignoring the wildfire threat posed by the planned construction in the backyard of 131 Valley View, the Planning
Department ignores the City’s fundamental interest in wildfire mitigation. The City of San Rafael has a strong interest in
enforcing its zoning laws in a manner that minimizes the danger to life and property posed by wildfire, especially when
those zoning laws can be enforced in a non-discriminatory manner. Therefore, the Planning Commission should reject
the Planning Department’s deficient reasonable accommodation approval, apply Section 12179 in its entirety, and grant
this appeal.
4) Denial of Due Process
Appellants have objected in writing to the scheduled January 28 appeal hearing because the Planning Department has
informed them it is issuing a supplemental report likely on January 24 that addresses the appeal and 131 Valley View’s
“good faith” offer to lower an unidentified roof line.
Appellants reproduce email correspondence with the Planning Department below, believe a supplemental report is
procedurally improper and unnecessary during the appeal process, and contend the Planning Department should have
issued any supplemental long ago given the multiple continuances of this appeal at the owners of 131 Valley View’s
request.
/ / /
Margaret Kavanaugh-Lynch
From:margaret.kavanaugh-lynch@cityofsanrafael.org
To:Josh Sullivan
Thu, Jan 16 at 6:05 PM
Hello-
I am on vacation from January 16th to January 27th. I will reply to your inquires when I return.
If your need is urgent, please contact Micah Hinkle, Community and Economic Development Director:
micah.hinkle@cityofsanrafael.org
If you have questions about the Planning Commission packet, please contact the project planner for both development
projects, Renee Nickenig, Associate Planner: renee.nickenig@cityofsanrafael.org
Thank you,
Margaret Kavanaugh-Lynch (she/her) | City of San Rafael
Planning Manager, Community and Economic Development Department
Renee Nickenig
From:renee.nickenig@cityofsanrafael.org
To:Josh Sullivan
Thu, Jan 16 at 6:05 PM
Thank you for your message. I will be out of the office until Tuesday, January 21st, and will respond to your message as
soon as possible after my return.
Renee Nickenig | City of San Rafael
Associate Planner, Community & Economic Development Department
1400 5th Avenue, 3rd floor
San Rafael, CA 94901
415-485-3397
/ / /
Josh Sullivan
From:joshsullivan6@yahoo.com
To:Margaret Kavanaugh-Lynch
Cc:Renee Nickenig,Lisa Dal Gallo
Thu, Jan 16 at 6:05 PM
Ms. Kavanaugh-Lynch -
My wife Lisa Dal Gallo and I appreciate your involvement in our appeal and January 15 email citing Chapter 14.28 et
seq. of the municipal code.
We too have read it and filed a timely appeal. We also note there is no language in Chapter 14.28 that contemplates let
alone authorizes the submission of a supplemental report based on a modified reasonable accomodation request.
In fact. Section 14.28.050 states: "After the hearing, the appellate body shall affirm, modify or reverse the original
decision. Written notice of the decision shall be mailed to the applicant and to the appellant.(emphases added)"
The link in your email below leads to Section 14.28 et seq. - not your department's original report recommending 131
Valley View Ave.'s reasonable accomodation request. Please forward that report to us as you claim to have done on
Tuesday.
Please also forward all communications between your department and our neighbors 131 Valley View Ave. and/or their
design professionals, as well as all blue prints, plans, as builts etc. that reflect or referece the "good faith" roof
modifications our neighbors have proposed since we appealed the original decision.
By reporting your intent to generate a new report based on new facts, you have improperly created a moving target that
is patently contary to the San Rafael code section you cited.
Finally, as I stated on Tuesday, publishing your department's new report on the Friday before a Tuesday hearing - 3 days
after the public written comment period has closed - sandbags and prejudices interested parties like us.
Because we are not confident you will promptly respond to our document request, we renew our request for a
continuance of the hearing.
Josh Sullivan
On Tuesday, January 14, 2025 at 05:22:39 PM PST, Margaret Kavanaugh-Lynch <margaret.kavanaugh-
lynch@cityofsanrafael.org> wrote:
Hello Mr. Sullivan-
The San Rafael Municipal Code outlines the steps that staff must take when a decision is appealed. Chapter
14.28 requires us to bring an appeal of the Director ’s decision to the Planning Commission and set it for a public
hearing. We are required to write a staff report that sets out the project, the decision of the Director, as well as the appeal
received and present that to the Commission. Based on their independent judgement, they are free to either uphold the
decision of the Director or overturn it, by making new findings relevant to the project. The findings for the Reasonable
Accommodation permit are found here. They were the basis of the Director ’s decision and they will be the basis of the
Planning Commission’s decision as well.
At the hearing, you are welcome to speak as the appellant. It is customary to allow 10 minutes in the hearing for you to
make a presentation. Beyond that time, you are also welcome to answer any questions asked by the Commissioners. The
property owner will be offered 10 minutes to rebut the appeal as well. I understand that they have lowered the roof
height of the project as a good faith effort and that will be included in the staff report. After that, any member of the
community may also testify regarding this appeal. Then the Chair of the Planning Commission will close the public
hearing and the Commission will deliberate on the project and finally they will call for a motion and take action. They
have a list of options before them and those details are included in the staff report. Renee will send you the report when
it is released to the public and the Planning Commissioners, typically the Friday before the hearing.
If you want to make a presentation at the hearing using PowerPoint, please send it to me by noon on January 27th so that
I can ensure it is loaded and ready on Tuesday night.
Lastly, please know that any decision of the Planning Commission can be appealed to the City Council.
I hope this helps to explain the process of appeals and answers your questions. Please let me know if you have any other
concerns.
Sincerely,
Margaret Kavanaugh-Lynch (she/her) | City of San Rafael
Planning Manager, Community Development Department
1400 5th Avenue
San Rafael, CA 94901
(415) 485-3095
/ / /
Josh Sullivan
From:joshsullivan6@yahoo.com
To:Renee Nickenig
Cc:Lisa Dal Gallo
Tue, Jan 14 at 10:04 AM
Renee -
Thanks for confirming the appeal is scheduled to be heard on the 28th.
Why is a new staff report being issued?
A new report seems unnecessary in the context of an appeal and suggests our neighbors have modified the reasonable
accommodation request one more time.
We are also concerned by the timing of the release of the new staff report because next Tuesday is the deadline to submit
a written statement in support of our appeal.
The city had plenty of time to issue a timely new staff report because the appeal hearing has been continued twice at our
neighbors’ request. The timing of the new report suggests the city is comfortable with denying us and potentially others
due process while it facilitates our neighbors’ planned construction.
We request a continuance of the appeal hearing if the city issues the new report without giving us the opportunity to
address it in writing.
Josh
On Jan 13, 2025, at 12:37 PM, Renee Nickenig <Renee.Nickenig@cityofsanrafael.org> wrote:
Hello Josh,
Yes - the project is scheduled for the 28th. Noticing will be posted and go out in the mail today.
The staff report will be published next week, but please let me know if you have any questions in the meantime.
Thank you,
Renee
Renee Nickenig | City of San Rafael
Associate Planner, Community & Economic Development Department
1400 5th Avenue, 3rd floor
San Rafael, CA 94901
415-485-3397
<Outlook-ekz31opu.png>
From: Josh Sullivan <joshsullivan6@yahoo.com>
Sent: Monday, January 13, 2025 7:45 AM
To: Renee Nickenig <Renee.Nickenig@cityofsanrafael.org>
Cc: Lisa Dal Gallo <ldalgallo@hansonbridgett.com>
Subject: 131 Valley View Ave.
Renee -
Please confirm the planning commission will hear the appeal on 131 Valley View’s reasonable accommodation request
on the 28th.
Josh
Conclusion
There is no clear connection between the owners of 131 Valley View’s request for a reasonable accommodation and the
claimed disability. The City of San Rafael does not have to set aside its zoning laws so that 131 Valley View’s owners
can expand their home where they chose to, regardless of the risks they create. Because the proposed backyard
construction projects are contrary to reasonable accommodation law, the Planning Commission should grant this appeal.
Outlook
RE: 131 Valley View Ave - Appeal
From Margaret Kavanaugh-Lynch <Margaret.Kavanaugh-Lynch@cityofsanrafael.org>
Date Tue 2/4/2025 8:51 AM
To Scott Mccrea <sjmccreas@aol.com>
Cc Renee Nickenig <Renee.Nickenig@cityofsanrafael.org>
Hello Scott-
We will include this email and photo in the Correspondence section of the staff report.
Sincerely,
Margaret Kavanaugh-Lynch (she/her) | City of San Rafael
Planning Manager, Community Development Department
1400 5th Avenue
San Rafael, CA 94901
(415) 485-3095
From: Sco Mccrea <sjmccreas@aol.com>
Sent: Monday, February 3, 2025 11:23 AM
To: Margaret Kavanaugh-Lynch <Margaret.Kavanaugh-Lynch@cityofsanrafael.org>
Cc: Renee Nickenig <renee.nickenig@cityofsanrafael.org>
Subject: 131 Valley View Ave - Appeal
Margaret: could we please also include this aerial screen shot from Google Maps in the meeting packet? It’s a good bird’s-eye view of our locations and provides
a helpful perspective.
Scott
Outlook
RE: 131 Valley View Ave - Appeal
From Margaret Kavanaugh-Lynch <Margaret.Kavanaugh-Lynch@cityofsanrafael.org>
Date Wed 1/29/2025 2:37 PM
To Scott Mccrea <sjmccreas@aol.com>
Cc Renee Nickenig <Renee.Nickenig@cityofsanrafael.org>
Hello Scott-
Yes, we received both emails and they will be included in the PC packet in which the appeal is included.
Sincerely,
Margaret Kavanaugh-Lynch (she/her) | City of San Rafael
Planning Manager, Community Development Department
1400 5th Avenue
San Rafael, CA 94901
(415) 485-3095
From: Sco Mccrea <sjmccreas@aol.com>
Sent: Wednesday, January 29, 2025 2:27 PM
To: Margaret Kavanaugh-Lynch <Margaret.Kavanaugh-Lynch@cityofsanrafael.org>
Cc: Renee Nickenig <renee.nickenig@cityofsanrafael.org>
Subject: Fwd: 131 Valley View Ave - Appeal
Margaret: Thanks for your email yesterday regarding the new February date for the
Commission meeting. I wanted to check if you also received my earlier email below and confirm
it will also be included with my comments in the packet.
Begin forwarded message:
From: Scott Mccrea <sjmccreas@aol.com>
Date: January 22, 2025 at 11:11:46 AM PST
To: PlanningPublicComment@cityofsanrafael.org
Cc: Margaret.Kavanaugh-Lynch@cityofsanrafael.org
Subject: 131 Valley View Ave - Appeal
My home at 135 is directly above the water tank. Subject project address 131 is to the
immediate right of 135. 127 is to the right of 131 (Dal Gallo residence). Please add to my
previous submission. This may help to visualize our WUI location. Thanks.
Scott McCrea
135 Valley View Ave
San Rafael, CA
Outlook
RE: 131 Valley View Ave - Appeal
From Planning Public Comment <PlanningPublicComment@cityofsanrafael.org>
Date Tue 1/28/2025 5:29 PM
To Scott Mccrea <sjmccreas@aol.com>
Cc Renee Nickenig <Renee.Nickenig@cityofsanrafael.org>
Hello Mr. Mccrea-
Thank you for your comment. This item as been postponed from tonight's Planning Commission meeting
at the request of the appellant. The new tentative date is February 25th. We will send out new notices to
inform the community and we will include your comments in the packet for that meeting.
Sincerely,
Margaret Kavanaugh-Lynch (she/her) | City of San Rafael
Planning Manager, Community Development Department
1400 5th Avenue
San Rafael, CA 94901
(415) 485-3095
-----Original Message-----
From: Scott Mccrea <sjmccreas@aol.com>
Sent: Monday, January 20, 2025 4:36 PM
To: Planning Public Comment <PlanningPublicComment@cityofsanrafael.org>
Cc: Margaret Kavanaugh-Lynch <Margaret.Kavanaugh-Lynch@cityofsanrafael.org>
Subject: 131 Valley View Ave - Appeal
We are adjacent neighbors of the subject address. I received the Appeal notice and am responding.
In an earlier correspondence to Renee I relayed my concern about the continued availability of fire
insurance were the project installed. We lost our fire insurance as well as did other neighbors over the
past few years due to the increased incidence of wild fires in California prompting carriers to exit the
state. We were finally able to find another carrier after great effort and increased expense. We’re in the
WUI and are nestled in a large and dense forest of trees. These woods contain sizable open space of
dozens of acres, most being inaccessible due to their sharp slope. I relayed my insurance concern before
the LA disaster.
Do the recent SoCal events affect the City’s underwriting standards for WUI new construction? The 131
project appears to increase the current property’s living space size by two-thirds according to the plans
I’ve received. The scale of additions show encroachments into required setbacks for both my home and
that of our neighbor on the other side of 131. That is a lot of new density of flammable material to fuel a
fire. In the thirty years we’ve resided here, we’ve had some experience observing this: some twenty years
ago firefighting aircraft flew repeated sorties over the eucalyptus grove at the end of Ridgewood Drive,
barely a quarter of a mile from our home. Again, just last year we watched the same aerial attack on a
wildfire above Lucas Valley Road a little more than a mile from here. Finally, plans also show no provision
for additional cars of new tenants. This aggravates an already dangerous situation for all our local
community since we are located on a narrow and very steep cul-de-sac.
My sensitivity on this is triggered by our efforts to harden our property against wildfires. I’ve been
working with CalFire for some time in meeting their fire mitigation requirements. We’ve cleared massive
juniper bushes and their roots, removed trees of all kinds and replaced windows upstairs and down with
fire resistant, tempered multi-pane glass. We’re not done yet. Our efforts and associated expenses of
many thousands of dollars are on file with CalFire. New construction here doesn’t seem compatible with
all our mitigation efforts.
Scott McCrea
135 Valley View Ave
San Rafael, CA 94901
415-254-3928
Outlook
Re: Continuing Hearing for 131 Valley View Appeal
From Carol Underwood <carolunderwood1@gmail.com>
Date Mon 2/17/2025 7:50 PM
To Renee Nickenig <Renee.Nickenig@cityofsanrafael.org>
Cc Hastaie <hhastaie@gmail.com>
3 attachments (1 MB)
Response to appeal.Reasonable Accommodation Application 131 Valley View Ave.February.17.2025.docx; Figure 1. Proposed
floorplan.jpg; Figure 2. Distance btw 127 & 131 & 135 Valley View.details copy.jpg;
Dear Renee,
Thank you for the opportunity to provide a formal response to the appeal. Please find our response
attached together with figures 1 & 2, which are mentioned in our response.
Please let me know if you need any additional information.
Best regards,
Carol
Reasonable Accommodation Application 131 Valley View Ave, San Rafael, CA 94901
This application is for reasonable accommodation (see Figure 1). The total proposed additions
to the back of the house total less than 350 sq ft beyond the current roofline. The total
additional square footage proposed in this application, including the two enclosed porches and
extended front window area, is approximately 500 sq ft. The appellants’ claim or implication
that this application proposes to add an additional 1,000 sq ft is false and misleading.
Non-conforming lot
“Non-conforming lot” refers to the fact that the original lot was divided, so the lots for 127 and
131 Valley View are about half the size of other lots in this area and are non -conforming with
respect to the zoning regulations for this specific section of San Rafael.
Objections to proposed additions to northwest/back side of residence
1.Dining room addition (18 ft deep by 14.5 ft wide=261 sq ft).
•With the proposed addition, the distance between 131 and 135 Valley View will be
about 20 ft as the crow flies (see Figure 2), so does not create a “density issue” with
respect to space.
2.Primary bedroom/bath extension (4ft x 21 ft = 84 sq ft).
•This very modest proposed extension of a mere 4 feet beyond the existing back wall is
reasonable and clearly necessary to make it feasible for Habib to move safely in the
bedroom and bathroom given his mobility disability.
•The back, northwest edge of 131 is currently 20 ft from 127 Valley View as the crow
flies. With the 4-foot extension, the residence edge of 131 will be 21 ft from the
residence at 127 Valley View (due to the angle of the building at 127 Valley View), as
shown in Figure 2. In short, the two structures will not be brought closer together by
adding this modest extension.
Clearly, the claims regarding any additional fire hazard are not applicable and were already
taken into consideration by the Planning Department.
Since there were no objections to enclosing the two porch areas, this response does not
address those matters.
Hillside restrictions
Another issue that the appeal raises is the question of whether the addition can be seen from
public streets. As documented, the additions to back of the house will not be visible from public
streets or thoroughfares.
Another aim is that construction “minimizes the impact of hillside development and grading,”
which the proposed project clearly does as the addition on the northeast side will be built
where there is a 10”-12” deep slab in place so will not require additional grading. Moreover, the
slab is flat, and the proposed structure will not be built on the slope of the hill.
Establishment of ADA-recognized disability
Habib Hastaie contracted polio as an infant, which caused atrophy and nerve damage to his left
leg. Several decades ago, Habib was diagnosed with post-polio syndrome, an ADA-recognized
disability that is permanent and leads to new and worsening symptoms over time. These
symptoms include, but are not limited to, muscle and joint weakness, susceptibility to falls,
fatigue, and pain.
As described in the original reasonable accommodation application, the additional space is
necessary for him to maneuver safely with mobility aids (custom-made leg brace, cane, walker,
etc.), which are required to prevent falls and loss of balance. This has been documented in
multiple medical reports that we have discussed with the Planning Department in the past and
will make available upon request.
Minor point
The assertion regarding “the multiple continuances of this appeal at the owners of 131 Valley
View’s request,” is inaccurate. The only hearing we were unable to attend was scheduled for
December 10, 2024, when one of us was on a work-related international trip.
Thank you for your consideration.
CAL FIRE Hazard Map for 131 Valley View Avenue as of February 14, 2025
1
BACKGROUND
Government Code section 65400 requires that each city, county prepare an annual progress
report (APR) on the status of the housing element of its General Plan and progress in its
implementation, using forms and definitions adopted by the California Department of Housing and
Community Development (HCD). A copy of the report must be submitted to both the Governor’s
Office of Planning and Research (OPR) and the State Department of Housing and Community
Development (HCD) by April 1st for the previous calendar year (January 1-December 31). This
staff report summarizes the City’s progress in implementing the City’s Housing Element during
the 2024 calendar year and includes data on the City’s progress towards meeting its share of
RHNA, including data on all housing development applications, entitlements, building permits,
and completions.
RECOMMENDATION
It is recommended that the Planning Commission take the following action:
• Accept the Housing Element Annual Progress Report for 2024 and direct staff to present
the report to City Council for submission to the California Department of Housing and
Community Development.
ANALYSIS
All cities in California are required to prepare and adopt a General Plan. The purpose of this
document is to identify policies and programs addressing the development and redevelopment of
land, preservation of parks and open spaces, provision of housing for current and future residents,
conservation of natural resources, improvement of the circulation and transportation system,
control of noise, and protection of life and property from hazards. The City of San Rafael adopted
General Plan 2040 in August 2021.
Government Code section 65400 requires that each city, county, or city and county, prepare an
APR on the status of the Housing Element of its General Plan and progress in its implementation,
using forms and definitions adopted by the California Department of Housing and Community
Development (HCD) Prior to submitting the APR to City Council, the Planning Commission may
make recommendations to the City Council regarding reasonable and practical means for
implementing the General Plan.
Community and Economic Development Department –
Planning Division
Meeting Date:
February 25, 2025
Agenda Item:
H.1
Project Planner:
Margaret Kavanaugh-Lynch,
Planning Manager
REPORT TO PLANNING COMMISSION
SUBJECT: Presentation of the Housing Element Annual Progress Report (APR)
highlighting progress on the policies and programs identified in the City’s
General Plan and the City’s progress toward meeting its share of the Regional
Housing Need Allocation (RHNA)
2
There is no standardized format for the preparation of the APR. This year, staff has decided to
provide an overview of general accomplishments in the last year in terms of General Plan goals
in addition to required information related to the Housing Element of its General Plan forms and
definitions adopted by the California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD).
however OPR recommends developing an APR that is useful to the jurisdiction. Please see
Attachment 1.
Housing Element Annual Progress Report
State law requires that all cities and counties in California have a compliant Housing Element as
part of their General Plan. Government Code Section 65400 includes specific requirements for
preparing a Housing Element Annual Progress Report (HE APR). The HE APR is reported on a
form prescribed by HCD. This report includes the City’s progress towards implementing the
Housing Element and meeting its share of RHNA, including data on all housing development
applications, entitlements, building permits, and completions. The HE APR contains fourteen (14)
tables; for the 2024 reporting period, San Rafael has applicable data to report in five of the tables,
briefly described below.
1. Table A – Housing Development Applications Submitted. Table A includes data on
housing units and developments for which an application was determined complete
between January 1 and December 31 of the reporting year. In table A, an “application” is
a formal submittal of a housing development for approval. This includes, but is not limited
to, developments that involve no discretionary approvals and projects that involve both
discretionary and nondiscretionary approvals.
2. Table A2 – Annual Building Activity Report Summary – New Construction, Entitled,
Permits and Completed Units. Table A2 requires information for very low, low, moderate,
and above-moderate income housing affordability categories and for mixed-income
projects. This Table includes data on all net new housing units and developments that
have received any one of the following:
• An entitlement
• A building permit
• A certificate of occupancy or other forms of readiness issued during the reporting
year
3. Table B – Regional Housing Needs Allocation Progress – Permitted Units Issued by
Affordability. Table B is a summary of prior permitting activity in the current planning cycle,
including permitting activity for the calendar year being reported
4. Table D – Program Implementation Status Pursuant to Government Code Section 65583.
Table D includes the status/progress of housing element program and policy
implementation for all programs described in the housing element.
5. Summary Table. The Summary Table automatically tallies the data from several of the
tables listed above. The summary data focuses on the total of all permits issued and all
applications submitted and approved for the 2023 reporting period.
All other tables are blank in the attached report because the City of San Rafael did not have any
relevant activity to report.
3
Table 1: Summary Table of Calendar Year 2024 Housing Applications in San Rafael
Housing Applications Summary
Total Housing Applications Submitted: 31
Number of Proposed Units in All Applications Received: 440
Total Housing Units Approved: 227
Total Housing Units Disapproved: 0
Proposed housing units that have not been approved or disapproved are currently under review.
Table 2: Summary Table of Calendar Year 2023 Housing Units: Entitled, Permitted, &
Completed
Units by Structure Type Entitled Permitted Completed
SFA 0 0 0
SFD
2 to 4 0
5+ 200
ADU
Mobile Home 0 0 0
Total 200
4
Table 3: Regional Housing Needs Allocation Progress
Income Level
RHNA
Allocation
by Income
Level
Projection
Period –
06/30/2022-
01/30/2023
2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031
Total Units to
Date (all
years)
Total
Remaining
RHNA by
Income
Level
Very Low
Deed
Restricted 857
- 40 - - - - - - - -
40 817 Non-Deed
Restricted - - - - - - - - - -
Low
Deed
Restricted 492
1 - - - - - - - - -
28 464 Non-Deed
Restricted 14 13 - - - - - - - -
Moderate
Deed
Restricted 521
- - - - - - - - - -
- 521 Non-Deed
Restricted - - - - - - - - - -
Above
Moderate 1,350 14 56 - - - - - - - - 70 1,280
Total RHNA 3,220
Total Units 29 109 - - - - - - - 138 3,082
Progress toward extremely low-income housing need, as determined pursuant to Government Code 65583(a)(1).
Extremely Low-Income Units 40 - - - - - - - - 40 389
5
Housing Element Program Implementation
As reported in Table D, there are more than 43 programs to streamline housing development
within the City, provide housing protections to vulnerable communities, reduce homelessness,
combat discrimination, and increase housing choice.
ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION
As required by State law (California Environmental Quality Act), review and action on the APR
must be reviewed to determine if it is subject to environmental review. As the APR is an
informational report, it will have no physical impact on the environment. The APR is classified as
a planning study, which qualifies for a Statutory Exemption from the provisions of the CEQA
Guidelines under 14 CRR Section 15262.
OPTIONS
The Planning Commission has the following options:
1. A Accept the Housing Element Annual Progress Report for 2024 and direct staff to
present the report to City Council for submission to the California Department of Housing
and Community Development.
2. Direct staff to include more or revised information in the report to City Council.
3. Take no action.
ATTACHMENTS
1. Housing Element Annual Progress Report for 2024
1
FEBRUARY 25, 202 5
City of San Rafael
Housing Element
Annual Progress
Report 2024
2
Introduction
Government Code section 65400 requires that each city, county prepare an annual progress
report (APR) on the status of the housing element of its General Plan and progress in its
implementation, using forms and definitions adopted by the California Department of Housing
and Community Development (HCD). A copy of the report must be submitted to both the
Governor’s Office of Planning and Research (OPR) and the State Department of Housing and
Community Development (HCD) by April 1st for the previous calendar year (January 1-
December 31). This staff report summarizes the City’s progress in implementing the City’s
Housing Element during the 2024 calendar year and includes data on the City’s progress
towards meeting its share of RHNA, including data on all housing development applications,
entitlements, building permits, and completions.
Table of Contents
Housing Element Annual Progress Report City Council Acceptance ............................. 3
Progress Updates for Selected General Plan policies for calendar year 2024 ............... 5
Housing Element APR 2024 ......................................................................................... 7
3
General Plan Annual Progress Report
City Council Acceptance
On March 3, 2025, the San Rafael City Council received and accepted the Housing
Element Annual Progress Report 2024. A copy of the Agenda is available from the City
Clerk, at City Hall, 1400 Fifth Avenue, or at 415-485-3066. The Agenda is also available
online through the City of San Rafael’s Public Records Portal.
4
Progress Updates for Selected General
Plan Policies
On August 2, 2021, the San Rafael City Council adopted General Plan 2040 and the Downtown
Precise Plan. First initiated in 2017, the update of the San Rafael General Plan 2020 was
necessary to respond to new issues, priorities, forecasts, state laws, and to incorporate recent
City plans and programs. Below is a list of progress updates for selected General Plan policies
for calendar year 2024:
Land Use
After several years of discussion and input, the City Council amended Titles 2, 14 and 15 of the
San Rafael Municipal Code to eliminate the Design Review Board and transfer existing duties
of the Design Review Board to other decisionmakers.
In Title 14, the modifications capture 37 references to the Design Review Board and either
remove them entirely as the advisory role of the Board is no longer needed; or replace them
with either the Planning Commission or the Community and Economic Development Director
as the review authority. Staff notes that in most cases, the Board served an advisory role to a
previously identified decisionmaker. The expanded composition of Planning Commission with
design professionals would have the design expertise to support Planning Commission
decisions and the Community and Economic Development Director would be able to bring in
design consultants if there is a need to augment staff expertise related to Director reviews.
Chapter 14.25 (Environmental Design Review) is the portion of Title 14 where the most
modifications are needed. Like other parts of the Title, the advisory role of the Board was
removed in several instances, while the final decisionmaker (Planning Commission/Director)
were left intact. However, there are two significant changes to bring to the Commission’s
attention: The Conceptual Review portion of the Major Environmental Design Review permit
and the Streamlined Review of Certain Residential Projects will both removed in their entirety.
With the proposed expansion of the Planning Commission, the need to hold a preliminary
design consultation or joint study session is no longer needed.
The Planning Commission was also restructured with five of the commissioners having
expertise in planning, zoning and land use, and four having expertise in design. This structure
creates a well-balanced review authority of seven professionals (with two alternates) with
5
expertise in land use, zoning, planning, and design, with two of the seven, and both alternates,
being architects or design professionals. The goal of the proposed Planning Commission would
be to create a review authority that has a deep understanding in both land use policy and
design.
Conservation & Climate Change
1. SRMC Title 18 “Protection of Flood Hazard Areas” amendment (CC 7/15/24) to comply
with DWR requirements (GP Program C-1.6B)
Community Design & Preservation
• Albert J. Boro Community Center Mural Project
Equity, Diversity, and Innovation
1. Completion of the Grand Ave Cycle Track project (CC 8/19/24) which bridges the gap
the Bay Trail and enhances connectivity between the Canal Neighborhood and
Downtown (Program EDI-2.1A)
Funding
• Received TDA funding – 2/5/2024
o $38k and $25k for Crosswalk Safety and Francisco Blvd mid-block
• Continue to receive funding from TAM/MTC – Measure A, AA and B. RMRA funds.
Community Services and Infrastructure
• Rotary Manor NOC – 2/20/2024
• Sun Valley NOC– 3/18/2024
• Third Street Safety and Rehab NOC – 7/15/2024
• Grand Ave Cycle Track NOC – 8/19/2024
• Downtown Library Contractor Award – 9/16/2024
• FY24-25 CIP and DPW work plan (Program CSI-4.1A)
o https://storage.googleapis.com/proudcity/sanrafaelca/2024/06/4.0-CIP-
FY2024-25-to-FY2026-27-Related-Work-Plan-compressed.pdf
o https://storage.googleapis.com/proudcity/sanrafaelca/2024/07/8_San-Rafael-
Work-Plan-revisions-6.06.pdf
Mobility Element
• Adopted LRSP – 4/2/2024
o The LRSP aims to align each agencies with the principles of Vision Zero and
ensure eligibility for competitive grant programs that required an adopted LRSP
6
• Caltrans Freitas Roundabout coordination – 8/19/2024
Climate & Sustainability
Sustainability has submitted its EV Fleet Transition application to PG&E, which was accepted,
and is now in the design phase with PG&E in support of our Climate & Sustainability element,
Program C-4.1E.
Community Design and Preservation
In support of Program CDP-3.5C, Public Works completed its initial phase of tree inventory
work, collecting the location and some attribute data on over 22k trees within 15 feet of a
roadway. This data will be added to the City’s asset management system to be built upon, as
well as made available to the public for additional work in support of the City’s tree policy
work.
Community Services and Infrastructure
Finally, Public Works has made progress on its asset management implementation with its
consultant and is on schedule to roll it out for use in support of a citywide work order process
and facility assessment work that in support of Program CSI-4.2A.
Safety and Resilience
The Fire Department reports the following highlights for the year:
1. Staffing & Resource Deployment Study – in process.
2. EMS Study – Completed.
3. Station 54 and 55 - Completed
4. MJLHMP update- Completed
5. 38-Point Wildfire Prevention Plan- Ongoing
6. OES Strategic Plan- started 2024- completed 2025
7. Earthquake Playbook- started 2024- completed 2025
8. Wildfire Playbook- Completed 2024
7
Housing Element APR 2024
State law requires that all cities and counties in California have a compliant Housing Element
as part of their General Plan. San Rafael’s 2023-2031 Housing Element was adopted by the City
Council on May 15, 2023 and certified by the State of California on June 22, 2023. Government
Code Section 65400 includes specific requirements for preparing a Housing Element Annual
Progress Report. The APR is reported on a form prescribed by Housing and Community
Development. This report includes the City’s progress towards implementing the Housing
Element and meeting its share of Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA), including data on
all housing development applications, entitlements, building permits, and completions.
8
Jurisdiction San Rafael ANNUAL ELEMENT PROGRESS REPORT Note: "+" indicates an optional field
Reporting Year 2024
(Jan. 1 - Dec.
31)Housing Element Implementation
Planning
Period 6th Cycle 01/31/2023 - 01/31/2031
A_1_Prior A_1_Current A_1_Address A_1_Name A_1_ID A_2_Unit A_3_Tenure A_4_Date A_5_vLowDeed A_5_vLowNone A_5_LowDeed A_5_LowNone A_5_ModDeed A_5_ModNone A_5_Above A_6_Total A_7_Total A_8_Total A_9_Stream A_11_DB
Date
Application
Submitted
Total
Approved
Units by
Project
Total
Disapproved
Units by
Project
Streamlining
2 3 4 6 7 8 9
Prior APN+Current APN Street Address Project Name+
Local
Jurisdiction
Tracking ID
Unit Category
(SFA,SFD,2 to
4,5+,ADU,MH)
Tenure
R=Renter
O=Owner
Date
Application
Submitted
(see
instructions)
Very Low-
Income
Deed
Restricted
Very Low-
Income
Non Deed
Restricted
Low-
Income
Deed
Restricted
Low-Income
Non Deed
Restricted
Moderate-
Income Deed
Restricted
Moderate-
Income
Non Deed
Restricted
Above
Moderate-
Income
Total
PROPOSED
Units by
Project
Total
APPROVED
Units by
project
Total
DISAPPROVE
D Units by
Project
Please select
state
streamlining
provision/s the
application was
submitted
pursuant to.
Did the
housing
development
application
seek
incentives or
concessions
pursuant to
Government
Code section
65915?
Summary Row: Start Data Entry Below 0 0 0 18 0 2 420 440 227 0
1115411
1115411
4 CULLODEN
PARK RD B2402-076 ADU R
2/20/2024
1 1 1 0 NONE No
18514310 18514310 9 ROBINHOOD
DR B2402-123
ADU R
2/28/2024
1 1 1 0 NONE No
1311104 1311104 224
WOODLAND
AVE C
B2401-124
ADU R
1/24/2024
1 1 1 0 NONE No
01528125 01528125 12 AQUINAS
DR B2403-065 ADU R
3/14/2024
1 1 1 0 NONE No
1407121 1407121 128 MISSION
AVE B2406-017
ADU R
6/3/2024
1 1 1 0 NONE No
17814214 17814214 711 BAMBOO
TER B2404-172 ADU R
4/24/2024
1 1 1 0 NONE No
17813124 17813124 346 HOLLY DR B2404-104 ADU R
4/15/2024
1 1 1 0 NONE No
1223101 1223101 240 C ST B2404-053 ADU R 4/5/2024 1 1 1 0 NONE No
1010107 1010107 39 RUSTIC
WAY B2404-095 ADU R
4/12/2024
1 1 1 0 NONE No
1018109 1018109 135 FORBES
AVE B2406-089 ADU R
6/12/2024
1 1 1 0 NONE No
17802813 17802813 710 PENNY
ROYAL LN B2407-041 ADU R
7/8/2024
1 1 1 0 NONE No
16517137 16517137 11 PARK
RIDGE RD B2405-033 ADU R
5/6/2024
1 1 1 0 NONE No
1221145 1221145 121 CLORINDA
AVE B2406-042
ADU R
6/5/2024
1 1 1 0 NONE No
1207310 1207310 709 C ST UNIT PLAN24-025 2 to 4 R 2/20/2024 4 4 4 0 NONE No
1404202 1404202 90 DEER PARK
AVE B2401-036 ADU R
1/3/2024
1 1 1 0 NONE No
1124541 1124541 1515 4th St PLAN24-033 5+R 3/4/2024 155 155 155 0 NONE Yes
17904127 17904127 350
MERRYDALE
RD
PLAN24-081
5+R
5/23/2024
2 43 45 45 0 NONE Yes
1412327 1412327 930 IRWIN ST PLAN24-098 5+R 6/14/2024 18 195 213 NONE Yes
18517101 18517101 151
ROLLINGWOO
D DR
B2405-046
ADU R
5/7/2024
1 1 1 0 NONE No
17531121 17531121 16 NOVA
ALBION WAY B2402-089 ADU R
2/22/2024
1 1 1 0 NONE No
1201635 1201635 207 TERRACE
AVE B2403-166
ADU R
3/27/2024
1 1 1 0 NONE No
1222214 1222214 221 D ST B2407-043 ADU R 7/8/2024 1 1 1 0 NONE No
17804143 17804143 482 LAS
COLINDAS RD B2410-080
ADU R
10/14/2024
1 1 1 0 NONE No
Table A
Cells in grey contain auto-calculation formulas
51
Project Identifier Unit Types Proposed Units - Affordability by Household Incomes Density Bonus Law
Applications
10
Housing Development Applications Submitted
17504202 17504202 85 ESMEYER
DR B2408-126 ADU R
8/20/2024
1 1 1 0 NONE No
16506313 16506313 913 PATRICIA
WAY B2406-183
ADU R
6/28/2024
1 1 1 0 NONE No
0
0
Jurisdiction San Rafael ANNUAL ELEMENT PROGRESS REPORT
Reporting
Year 2024
(Jan. 1 - Dec.
31)Housing Element Implementation Cells in grey contain auto-calculation formulas
Planning
Period 6th Cycle 01/31/2023 - 01/31/2031
Table A2
Streamlining Infill
Housing without
Financial Assistance or
Deed Restrictions
Term of
Affordability or
Deed Restriction
Notes
2 3 5 6 8 9 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
Prior APN+Current APN Street Address Project Name+Local
Jurisdiction
Tracking ID
Unit
Category
(SFA,SFD,2
to
4,5+,ADU,MH
)
Tenure
R=Renter
O=Owner
Very Low-
Income
Deed
Restricted
Very Low-
Income
Non Deed
Restricted
Low-
Income
Deed
Restricted
Low-
Income
Non Deed
Restricted
Moderate-
Income
Deed
Restricted
Moderate-
Income Non
Deed
Restricted
Above
Moderate-
Income
Entitlement
Date
Approved
# of Units
issued
Entitlements
Very Low-
Income
Deed
Restricted
Very Low-
Income
Non Deed
Restricted
Low-
Income
Deed
Restricted
Low-
Income
Non Deed
Restricted
Moderate-
Income
Deed
Restricted
Moderate-
Income Non
Deed
Restricted
Above
Moderate-
Income
Building
Permits Date
Issued
# of Units Issued
Building Permits
Very Low-
Income
Deed
Restricted
Very Low-
Income
Non Deed
Restricted
Low-
Income
Deed
Restricted
Low-
Income
Non Deed
Restricted
Moderate-
Income
Deed
Restricted
Moderate-
Income Non
Deed
Restricted
Above
Moderate-
Income
Certificates of
Occupancy or
other forms of
readiness (see
instructions) Date
Issued
# of Units
issued
Certificates
of
Occupancy
or other
forms of
readiness
How many of
the units
were
Extremely
Low Income?
Please select
the state
streamlining
provision the
project was
APPROVED
pursuant to.
(may select
multiple)
Infill Units?
Y/N+
Assistance
Programs for Each
Development
(may select
multiple - see
instructions)
Deed Restriction
Type
(may select
multiple - see
instructions)
For units affordable
without financial
assistance or deed
restrictions, explain how
the locality determined the
units were affordable
(see instructions)
Term of Affordability
or Deed Restriction
(years) (if affordable
in perpetuity enter
1000)+
Number of
Demolished/Destro
yed Units
Demolished
or Destroyed
Units
Demolished/
Destroyed
Units
Owner or
Renter
Total Density Bonus
Applied to the Project
(Percentage Increase in
Total Allowable Units or
Total Maximum Allowable
Residential Gross Floor
Area)
Number of Other
Incentives,
Concessions,
Waivers, or Other
Modifications Given
to the Project
(Excluding Parking
Waivers or Parking
Reductions)
List the
incentives,
concessions,
waivers, and
modifications
(Excluding
Parking Waivers
or Parking
Modifications)
Did the project
receive a reduction
or waiver of parking
standards? (Y/N)
Notes+
Summary Row: Start Data Entry Below 0 0 0 0 0 2 202 204 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
17813124 17813124 346 HOLLY DR B2404-104 ADU R 0 1/0/1900 0 4/15/2024 0 12/5/2024 0 NONE N 0
1124541 1124541 1515 4th PLAN24-033 5+R 155 7/23/2024
155 1/1/1950 0 0 NONE Y DB Senior 0 20.0%12
Development
Standards
Modification
No
1207310 1207310 709 C St 1 PLAN24-025 2 to 4 R 4 12/16/2024 4 12/16/2024 0 0 0 NONE N INC
17904127 17904127 350
MERRYDALE
RD
PLAN24-081 5+R 2 43
10/23/2024 45
0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
Note: "+" indicates an optional field
Housing with Financial
Assistance and/or Deed
Restrictions
Demolished/Destroyed UnitsProject Identifier
Annual Building Activity Report Summary - New Construction, Entitled, Permits and Completed Units
Density Bonus
1
Unit Types Affordability by Household Incomes - Completed Entitlement Affordability by Household Incomes - Building Permits Affordability by Household Incomes - Certificates of Occupancy
4 7 10
Jurisdiction San Rafael ANNUAL ELEMENT PROGRESS REPORT
Reporting
Year 2024
(Jan. 1 - Dec.
31)Housing Element Implementation Cells in grey contain auto-calculation formulas
Planning
Period 6th Cycle 01/31/2023 - 01/31/2031
Note: "+" indicates an optional field
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
Jurisdiction San Rafael ANNUAL ELEMENT PROGRESS REPORT
Reporting
Year 2024
(Jan. 1 - Dec.
31)Housing Element Implementation Cells in grey contain auto-calculation formulas
Planning
Period 6th Cycle 01/31/2023 - 01/31/2031
Note: "+" indicates an optional field
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
Jurisdiction San Rafael ANNUAL ELEMENT PROGRESS REPORT
Reporting
Year 2024
(Jan. 1 - Dec.
31)Housing Element Implementation Cells in grey contain auto-calculation formulas
Planning
Period 6th Cycle 01/31/2023 - 01/31/2031
Note: "+" indicates an optional field
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
Jurisdiction San Rafael ANNUAL ELEMENT PROGRESS REPORT
Reporting
Year 2024
(Jan. 1 - Dec.
31)Housing Element Implementation Cells in grey contain auto-calculation formulas
Planning
Period 6th Cycle 01/31/2023 - 01/31/2031
Note: "+" indicates an optional field
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
Jurisdiction San Rafael ANNUAL ELEMENT PROGRESS REPORT
Reporting Year 2024 (Jan. 1 - Dec. 31)Housing Element Implementation
Planning Period 6th Cycle 01/31/2023 - 01/31/2031
1
Projection
Period 3 4
RHNA Allocation
by Income Level
Projection
Period -
06/30/2022-
01/30/2023
2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031
Total Units to
Date (all
years)
Total Remaining
RHNA by
Income Level
Deed Restricted - 40 - - - - - - - -
Non-Deed Restricted - - - - - - - - - -
Deed Restricted 1 - - - - - - - - -
Non-Deed Restricted 14 13 - - - - - - - -
Deed Restricted - - - - - - - - - -
Non-Deed Restricted - - - - - - - - - -
Above Moderate 1,350 14 56 - - - - - - - - 70 1,280
3,220
29 109 - - - - - - - - 138 3,082
5 6 7
Extremely low-
Income Need 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 Total Units to
Date
Total Units
Remaining
429 40 - - - - - - - - 40 389
VLI Deed Restricted
VLI Non Deed Restricted
464
Please note: For the last year of the 5th cycle, Table B will only include units that were permitted during the portion of the year that was in the 5th cycle. For the first year of the 6th cycle, Table B will only include units that
were permitted since the start of the planning period. Projection Period units are in a separate column.
Total RHNA
Total Units
Income Level
Very Low
Low
Extremely Low-Income Units*
Note: units serving extremely low-income households are included in the very low-income RHNA progress and must be reported as very low-income units in section 7 of Table A2. They must also be reported in the extremely low-income category (section 13) in Table A2 to
be counted as progress toward meeting the extremely low-income housing need determined pursuant to Government Code 65583(a)(1).
*Extremely low-income housing need determined pursuant to Government Code 65583(a)(1). Value in Section 5 is default value, assumed to be half of the very low-income RHNA. May be overwritten.
Progress toward extremely low-income housing need, as determined pursuant to Government Code 65583(a)(1).
Please Note: Table B does not currently contain data from Table F or Table F2 for prior years. You may login to the APR system to see Table B that contains this data.
Please note: The APR form can only display data for one planning period. To view progress for a different planning period, you may login to HCD's online APR system, or contact HCD staff at apr@hcd.ca.gov.
521
40
This table is auto-populated once you enter your jurisdiction name and current
year data. Past year information comes from previous APRs.
- Moderate
857
492
521
Please contact HCD if your data is different than the material supplied here
28
2
Table B
Regional Housing Needs Allocation Progress
Permitted Units Issued by Affordability
817
Jurisdiction San Rafael
Reporting Year 2024 (Jan. 1 - Dec. 31)
1 2 3 4
Name of Program Objective Timeframe in H.E Status of Program Implementation
1: Housing and
Homelessness Division
Create a Housing and Homelessness
Division within the Community
Development Department.
2023
In 2023, the City established a Housing and Homelessness Division within the
Community Development Department and hired two additional staff members for
the division, bringing the total staffing to three people. In 2024, the City
Manager's Office (CMO) transferred the division director and analyst position to
a newly formed Community Services Division within the CMO. The Division is
dedicated to enhancing quality of life for all residents, with a special focus on
disadvantaged, historically underserved, and vulnerable populations. For the
foreseeable future, the focus of their work will be on homelessness response.
The analyst position continues to work cross-divisionally on housing and
homelessness. The Community Development Department hired an Assistant
Director overseeing Housing and Economic Development, and Housing and
Economic Development staff collaborate on housing development projects.
2: Extremely Low-Income
Housing Resources
Expand housing resources and
supportive services for extremely low
income households.
Ongoing
In 2024, construction continued on the conversion of an office building at 3301
Kerner Blvd into 40 units of permanent supportive housing, a project that
received both City and County funding. The project will be completed in the first
half of 2025.
ANNUAL ELEMENT PROGRESS REPORT
Housing Element Implementation
Housing Programs Progress Report
Describe progress of all programs including local efforts to remove governmental constraints to the maintenance, improvement, and development of housing
as identified in the housing element.
Table D
Program Implementation Status pursuant to GC Section 65583
3: Funding and Resources
to Prevent and Reduce
Homelessness
Continue to actively seek funding for
strategies that prevent homelessness
and help San Rafael residents
experiencing homelessness in securing
a place to live and access to the
services they require.
Ongoing
In 2024, the City, in partnership with Marin County, was awarded a $5,999,241
Encampment Resolution Funding Round 3 (ERF-3) grant. These funds will
support improved living conditions and housing services for individuals residing
in the Mahon Creek Area encampment, including interim shelter, housing-based
case management, sanitation, and supportive services. Additionally, the City
received a $1,000,000 grant from a combination of state and local funds, which
has facilitated the development of a Sanctioned Camping Area (SCA) along a
portion of the Mahon Creek Path. The SCA currently serves 50 participants, with
an additional 15 individuals—totaling 65—receiving housing-based case
management, outreach, and other services to help secure permanent housing
through June 2027.
4: Emergency Shelter
Capacity
Provide emergency shelter capacity
sufficient to meet local needs.Ongoing
The 2024 PIT Count for San Rafael showed 264 unsheltered individuals in the
city. Staff have been collaborating with the County and consultants to identify
opportunities and funding to increase shelter capacity. In 2024, City and Marin
County staff initiated regular partnership meetings to identify a potential location
for a housing-focused, interim shelter site, which would be developed using
partial ERF-3 grant funding.
5: Public Information and
Engagement
Expand awareness of housing laws,
programs, and resources provided by
the City and by other agencies and
organizations through a comprehensive,
multi-lingual community outreach and
engagement initiative.
Annually
In 2024, staff launched a series of housing workshops for Spanish-speaking
tenants. Workshop topics include the types of below market rate housing that
exist in Marin and who is eligible, fair housing law, code enforcement, and tenant
protection policies. The workshops will continue through Spring 2025 and are
helping to inform additional community outreach materials and strategies.
6: Fair Housing Program
Administration
As part of the Cooperative Agreement
with the County on CDBG funding,
direct a portion of the City’s allocation
to a local fair housing assistance
program.
Ongoing In May, City Council approved continued countywide CDBG funding for Fair
Housing Advocates of Northern California.
7: Affirmative Marketing of
Housing Opportunities
Affirmatively market local affordable
housing opportunities to include groups
that have historically been
disadvantaged in the local housing
market.
Ongoing
The City requires affordable housing developers requesting funding from the
Affordable Housing Trust Fund to provide an affirmative marketing plan for
review as part of their application.
8: Latinx Community
Capacity Building and
Engagement
Undertake a capacity-building and
educational program designed to
increase understanding of the housing
system by the City’s Latinx community.
2024
In 2024, staff launched a series of housing workshops for Spanish-speaking
tenants. Workshop topics include the types of below market rate housing that
exist in Marin and who is eligible, fair housing law, code enforcement, and tenant
protection policies. The workshops will continue through Spring 2025 and are
helping to inform additional community outreach materials and strategies.
9: Interjurisdictional
Housing Activities
Collaborate with Marin County, cities
and towns to address regional planning
and housing issues. Remain open to
alignment on programs to increase
housing supply and further fair housing.
Ongoing
San Rafael, the County of Marin, and other Marin jurisdictions expanded the
Napa-Sonoma ADU Center's services into Marin through a multi-jurisdictional
services agreement. The Center provides additional support and resources for
homeowners interested in constructing ADUs. Based on a cooperative
agreement with the County of Marin, the City continues to participate in a single
joint countywide program for CDBG and HOME allocations on an annual basis.
For the first time in 2025, the City plans to include its Notice of Funding
Availability for its Affordable Housing Trust Fund with the County's
"SuperNOFA," creating a more streamlined experience for applicants who wish
to apply for City and County funding sources. In July 2024, updated commercial
linkage fees went into effect, which were based on a joint study commissioned
by multiple Marin County jurisdictions. Together with San Rafael and other Marin
jurisdictions, the County of Marin is developing a scope for the Infill Builders
Association to organize a developer forum. The purpose is to share promising
Housing Element sites, gain a better understanding of what questions
developers have about Marin jurisdictions’ zoning, entitlement processes, etc.,
and what would be helpful for developers who are interested in developing in
Marin. The Infill Builders Assn will produce a report for the public and local
decisionmakers with findings from the discussion and recommendations to
address barriers to housing development, specifically on infill sites in Marin
County.
10: Just Cause for Eviction
Maintain and monitor effectiveness of
local just cause for eviction regulations.
Require rental property owners to
provide relocation assistance to low-
income tenants in no-fault evictions.
Ongoing
Staff regularly respond to tenant and landlord inquiries and provide education
and information regarding the City's Cause for Eviction policy. Staff enforce
relocation assistance requirements by reviewing permit applications for
renovation/remodel that could displace tenants. In April 2024, the City adopted
an urgency ordinance that applies to the Canal Opportunity Zone and is in effect
through December 2026. The policy requires landlords to offer tenants the right
to return to their unit after substantial repairs requiring temporary relocation are
completed. If the tenant wants to return to the unit after repairs are completed,
the tenant must continue to pay rent while the unit is being repaired to maintain
the existing lease. While the unit is being repaired, the landlord must either pay
the tenant a daily amount to cover the cost of temporary lodging, or provide a
comparable unit on the property or another property in San Rafael.
11: Tenant Protection
Measures
Evaluate existing and additional
measures to protect tenants from
eviction or the loss of housing due to
economic or other factors. Implement
new measures based on their viability
and community feedback.
2025
In 2024, in addition to gathering feedback through tenant workshops, San Rafael
participated in a multi-jurisidictional anti-displacement education and outreach
initiative called Rooted in Marin (www.rootedinmarin.org). From August to
November 2024, the project team heard from communities across Marin about
their experiences and housing concerns through a countywide survey,
community workshop, and focus groups. An Advisory Committee of
representatives from key community stakeholder groups provided strategic
guidance throughout the project. The project team researched and analyzed anti-
displacement policies identified during the community engagement process and
compiled a draft report outlining the community engagement process, feedback
received, and information on relevant policies, including feasibility analysis and
case studies from other jurisdictions. San Rafael staff plan to use the
information gathered through Rooted in Marin in combination with City-specific
data, feedback gathered through tenant housing workshops, and an evaluation
of existing City policies. The report will be finalized in Spring 2025. Additionally
in 2024, staff began assembling and analyzing data on existing City policies
including Just Cause for Eviction, Mandatory Mediation, and Relocation
Assistance, and will bring forward an evaluation to City Council in 2025.
12: Periodic Housing
Inspection Program
Continue and strengthen the Periodic
Housing Inspection Program to ensure
the safety and habitability of the rental
housing stock.
Ongoing
The Code Enforcement Division continued to inspect rental housing properties
with three or more units and issue notices to property owners regarding code
violations requiring correction. In 2024, the Code Enforcement Division
inspected 1364 units at 54 properties.
13: Code Enforcement
Program
Provide effective code enforcement
efforts in all neighborhoods to abate
unsafe or unsanitary conditions.
Organize service delivery around
principles of equity and inclusion.
Ongoing The Code Enforcement Division continued to respond to inspection requests
from tenants throughout the City.
14: Residential Building
Record (RBR) Program
Continue residential building
inspections at the time of sale to ensure
the safety and habitability of units.
Ongoing In 2024, Code Enforcement's RBR program processed 508 transactions.
15: Increasing Equity in
Home Maintenance
Support lower income households in
maintaining their homes and increase
their ability to participate in and reap the
benefits of housing sustainability
initiatives.
Ongoing
In May, the City Council approved allocation of CDBG funding for the Residential
Rehabilitation Loan Program, which provides low-interest loans and technical
assistance to qualified very low-income homeowners to make basic repairs,
correct substandard conditions, and eliminate hazards around the home.
16: Funding for Affordable
Housing
Increase funding for affordable housing
through the City’s Affordable Housing
Trust Fund and other sources.
Ongoing
In 2024, the San Rafael City Council approved the implementation of a rolling
application process for acquisitions. The amount available through the rolling
application process is capped at $250,000 per year, unless the City Council
authorizes additional funding, and is dependent on sufficient funds being
available. Through this process, San Rafael awarded $250,000 for the acquisition
and preservation of a 9-unit apartment building at 1400 Lincoln Ave.
17: Affordable Housing
Requirements for
Residential and
Commercial Development
Maintain affordable housing
requirements for market-rate residential
and commercial developments. Monitor
the effectiveness of the City’s affordable
housing policy and periodically revise to
reflect changing housing market
conditions.
Ongoing
Updated commercial linkage fees went into effect on July 1, 2024. The City began
working with consultants to evaluate its current inclusionary housing
requirement, which was adopted in 2021. Staff anticipates bringing forward an
evaluation and recommendation to the City Council in 2025.
18: Pro-Housing City
Designation
Apply for designation as a “Pro-Housing
City” by the State of California.2023
Staff completed an initial assessment of the City's eligibility and competitiveness
for the Pro-Housing City Designation. Due to limited staff capacity, the target
date for applying has been moved to 2026.
19: Air Rights Strategic
Plan
Develop an official City process for
developing housing in air rights on
municipally-owned sites, including
Downtown municipal parking lots. The
process should support and promote
public-private partnership opportunities
that result in new housing on these
sites.
2027
In December 2023, the City issued a Request for Proposals for development of
affordable housing on a City-owned property at 519 4th St. Through that process,
the City Council adopted Resolution 15286 to declare the property as surplus
land in compliance with the California Surplus Lands Act and selected Abode
Housing Development (Abode) as a development partner. The City and Abode
entered into an Exclusive Negotiating Agreement in September 2024. Abode
proposes to construct 56 affordable apartments, with 28 units (50%) set aside for
permanent supportive housing and people experiencing homelessness. Abode is
seeking funds necessary to develop a complete planning package to secure
entitlements in 2025/2026.
Staff have applied for funding for preliminary evaluation of other publicly owned
sites and is waiting to hear back regarding the application status.
20: Precise Plan for North
San Rafael
Prepare a Precise Plan (or equivalent
planning document) for the North San
Rafael Priority Development Area (PDA).
2027
Staff drafted a Request for Proposals (RFP) for a consultant team to prepare the
neighborhood plan for the PDA. The goal is to finalize the RFP for issuance in
mid March 2025 and award the contract in May, with project kick-off in Summer
2025.
21: Precise Plan for
Southeast San Rafael
Prepare a Precise Plan (or an equivalent
planning document) for the Southeast
San Rafael Priority Development Area
(PDA).
2027
Staff drafted a Request for Proposals (RFP) for a consultant team to prepare the
neighborhood plan for the PDA. The goal is to finalize the RFP for issuance in
mid March 2025 and award the contract in May, with project kick-off in Summer
2025.
22: Accountability
Reporting
Provide periodic updates on progress
toward Housing Element implementation
and other City Council and community
housing priorities.
Annually
In March 2024, the City provided an update to the City Council on Housing
Element implementation progress, construction of ADUs, implementation of
state laws such as SB9 and SB 35, and other housing policy priorities previously
identified by the community and City Council.
23: Monitoring and
Marketing of Housing
Opportunity Sites
Maintain capacity to meet the RHNA at
all times during the 2023-2031 planning
period and add new sites as
opportunities arise. Make the list of
housing opportunity sites (Appendix B)
available to prospective developers and
the public.
Ongoing
The housing opportunity sites were adopted as part of the Housing Element in
May 2023 and certified by the state in June 2023. Since then, City staff have met
with a number of developers to discuss potential sites. The City continues to
maintain capacity to meet the RHNA. The Housing Element is available on the
City's website at sanrafaelhousing.org.
24: By Right Development
Along Commercial
Corridors
Develop a list of sites located along
commercial corridors that could be
prime for by right development under
Assembly Bill 2011 (AB 2011).
2025 No Action
25: Objective Design
Standards for Multi-Family
Housing
Adopt objective design and
development standards (ODDS) to
expedite project approvals for all “by
right” multifamily housing projects.
2023
The City Council adopted preliminary ODDS in Spring 2024. Staff continues to
evaluate and plans to bring forward a refined version of the ODDS for City
Council consideration.
26: Accessory Dwelling
Units (ADUs)
Expand resources and reduce barriers
for the construction of ADUs and Junior
ADUs (JADUs) in San Rafael
neighborhoods.
Ongoing
San Rafael, the County of Marin and other Marin jurisdictions have expanded the
Napa-Sonoma ADU Center services into Marin to provide additional support and
resources for homeowners interested in constructing ADUs. The ADU Center’s
program launched for residents in Marin County on April 1, 2024. Marin
homeowners are eligible for one-on-one feasibility consultations and have
access to informational webinars and a list of recommended vendors.
27: Lot Splits and
Duplexes
Implement Senate Bill 9 (SB 9)
regulations and update the City’s
website with information to support
property owners pursuing lot splits and
duplexes on qualifying single-family
lots.
2024
Lot Splits and Duplexes has been implemented. Staff developed a checklist for
SB 9 Development Submittal Requirements that is publicly available online and
continues to track data on the number of SB 9 applications and the number of
units created through these applications.
28: Housing on
Institutional and Religious
Properties
Support housing development on
institutional and religious properties.2031 City staff met with religious community leaders for preliminary conversations
regarding possible housing development opportunities.
29: Conversion of
Residential and Non-
Residential
Discourage conversion of residential
units to non-residential uses, and limit
loss of rental housing stock. Encourage
conversion from commercial/office
space to residential use.
2026
Staff enforced the City's existing condominium conversion regulations that
prohibit the loss of rental housing stock when the vacancy rate is below 5.0
percent.
Construction continued at 3301 Kerner to convert an office building into
permanent supportive housing. The project will be completed by Spring 2025.
30: Preservation of At-Risk
Housing
Protect affordable housing options,
including affordable housing units in
subsidized projects that are at risk of
reverting to market rate rents during the
planning period.
Ongoing
The City maintained existing rent stabilization for mobile home parks.
The City awarded funds for the acquisition of a 9-unit apartment building at 1400
Lincoln for preservation as deed-restricted affordable housing.
In December, staff applied to be part of a statewide public sector learning cohort
focused on preservation of unsubsidized small to medium multifamily
properties.
31: Monitoring the Status
of BMR Units
Monitor the status of affordable units
created through local inclusionary
housing requirements to ensure that
they are occupied by qualifying
households and rented or sold at
affordable rates.
Ongoing The City continued its agreement with Marin Housing Authority for monitoring of
BMR ownership and rental units.
32: Housing Resources for
Older Adults
Begin to implement Age-Friendly San
Rafael Strategic Plan recommendations.2025 The Vivalon Healthy Aging Campus at 999 Third St officially opened in early 2024,
providing 66 new units of affordable housing for older adults.
33: Adaptable and
Accessible Housing
Create additional housing resources for
persons with disabilities, including
developmental disabilities.
2026
City staff attended meetings of disability advocates and service providers to
learn more about what's needed to enhance accessibility in San Rafael's housing
and to open the door for future communication and collaboration.
34: Residential Care
Facilities and Non-
Licensed Group Homes
Facilitate the development of large and
small residential care facilities and non-
licensed group homes in San Rafael.
2027 No Action
35: Affordable Housing for
Large Families
Creative incentives that result in a larger
percentage of apartments that are three
bedrooms or more in affordable housing
developments.
2025 Provision of units for larger families continues to be a scoring consideration for
the City’s Notice of Funding Availability for the Affordable Housing Trust Fund.
36: Review of
Development Fees and
Waiver/Deferral Policies
Review and update the master fee
schedule periodically to reflect the costs
of delivering City services and to reduce
fee burdens for affordable housing
projects, where possible.
2025 No Action
38: Incentives for Lot
Consolidation
Develop tools to facilitate the
consolidation of small lots into larger,
more developable sites, especially in
Downtown San Rafael, including a
voluntary merger process that allows
two parcels to be combined into a single
parcel, consistent with the Subdivision
Map Act.
2027 No Action
39: Affordable Housing
Incentives
Implement State and local density bonus
programs, including allowances for
additional height and concessions and
waivers to development standards for
projects with affordable housing.
2024
Staff worked with consultants to collect feedback on the City's local density
bonus from developers who chose to use State density bonus rather than local
density bonus for their projects in San Rafael. This information will inform future
modifications to City policy.
40: Water and Sewer
Priority
Establish written procedures so that
projects with affordable housing units
are granted priority for water and sewer
connections in the event of future
service limitations.
2024
In staff conversations with affordable and market-rate developers, developers
often identify utilities as a key concern/obstacle. Staff has initiated conversations
with water and sewer service providers to better understand their challenges and
capacity and will use the information gathered to formulate recommendations on
this topic.
41: Streamlining of
Development Approval
Implement measures to streamline the
development approval process and
reduce the time required between
project proposal and project entitlement.
2027
The City created an Inter-department Review Committee to provide meaningful
feedback to development teams at the pre-proposal stage. In addition, the City
revised the municipal code to remove the Design Review Committee and re-
allocated the role of the Board to other bodies of decision.
42: Zoning Text and Map
Revisions
Complete strategic revisions to the San
Rafael Zoning Ordinance to better
achieve Housing Element objectives.
2026 The City will be initiating a comprehensive zoning code update in 2025.
43: Revisions to Parking
Standards
Complete an evaluation of residential off-
street parking standards to reduce
parking as a housing development
expense.
2023
The City complies with all state requirements related to parking standards and
continues to provide parking reductions for residential and mixed-use projects
that incorporate bicycle parking, e-bikes, and parking lifts.
44: Monitoring of
Approved Development
Projects
Convene regularly-scheduled meetings
with residential developers following
project entitlement to identify any issues
impacting project schedules and actions
the City can take to address regulatory
or permitting constraints.
Ongoing
The Community and Economic Development Director, planning and housing
staff continued to communicate with and outreach to residential developers to
help facilitate projects in the development pipeline. Some projects that stalled
post-entitlement are now making progress toward building permit issuance.
Community Development Department – Planning Division
Meeting Date: February 25, 2025
Agenda Item:
H.1
Project Planner:
Margaret Kavanaugh-Lynch
Planning Manager
Margaret.kavanaugh-
lynch@cityofsanrafael.org
REPORT TO PLANNING COMMISSION
SUBJECT: Annual Meeting of the Planning Commission. Adoption of the Regular Meeting Schedule
for 2025, Selection of the San Rafael Planning Commission Chair and Vice Chair, and
Approval of the San Rafael Planning Commission Public Hearing Guidelines
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The Annual Meeting of the Planning Commission is required to elect the Chair and Vice Chair officers for
the calendar year and set its calendar. It also allows for the review and approval of the San Rafael Planning
Commission Public Hearing Guidelines.
BACKGROUND AND ANALYSIS
2025 Planning Commission Meeting Dates:
The list of scheduled Planning Commission meetings for 2025 is found in Table 3, below.
Table 1. 2023 Scheduled Planning Commission Meetings
January 14 May 13 September 9
January 28 May 27 September 23
February 11 June 10 October 14
February 25 June 24 October 28
March 11 July 8 November 11*
March 25 July 22 November 26
April 8 August 12 December 9
April 22 August 26
*Pursuant to the Boards, Commissions and Committees (BCC) Rules and Procedures Section 4.3.B, “If
at any time any regular meeting of the BCC falls on a holiday, if it is known that a quorum will not be
available, or if there are items of business that require scheduling at a special meeting due to the need to
take action prior to a regular meeting or that require a meeting devoted to the subject matter proposed for
the meeting, a Special Meeting may be scheduled to the earliest convenient time.”
At this time, staff does not have guidance to offer as to whether the November 11th meeting should be
rescheduled. Therefore, staff suggests that the Planning Commission cancel this meeting as part of their
approval of this calendar. If a November meeting is needed, staff will work with the Chair and City Clerk to
identify a suitable date and location for the meeting.
REPORT TO PLANNING COMMISSION Page 2
Election of Officers:
Chapter 2, Section 7 of the Boards, Commissions, Committees (BCCs) Rules and Procedures requires
that the BCCs conduct an annual meeting to select officers (Chair and Vice Chair) for the calendar year.
The new Chair and Vice-Chair positions will commence at the next scheduled Planning Commission
meeting (i.e. not this one). The criteria for the selection of the Chair and Vice Chair are outlined, below.
Staff notes that that any commissioner may decline to be selected as Chair or Vice Chair if they wish to do
so.
The office of the Chair and Vice Chair is rotational, with selection based on seniority or tenure of service
as well as the goal of not having a Commissioner serve as a Chair more than once in seven consecutive
years. Table 1 below lists the appointment dates and past service as Chair and Vice Chair by each of the
Commission members:
Table 1: San Rafael Planning Commission History of Tenure and Chairpersonship
Commissioner First Appointed to
Commission
Years Served as
Chairperson
Years Served as
Vice Chair
Aldo Mercado July 2018 2020 partial 2020 partial
Jon Previtali June 2020 2022 2021
Samina Saude June 2020 2023 2022
Jon Haveman May 2021 2024 2023
Jill Rodby April 2023 N/A N/A
Stewart Summers August 2024 N/A N/A
Danielle O’Leary October 2024 N/A N/A
Chair
Based on the rotation criteria, Commissioner Mercado who served as Vice Chair in 2024, is next-in-line to
serve as Chair.
Vice Chair
The same rules and procedures apply in the determination of Vice Chair. Commissioner Rodby is the
Commissioner with the longest tenure that has yet to serve as an officer. Therefore, Commissioner Rodby
would be the next in line to serve as Vice Chair. The Rules and Procedures note that the Vice Chair shall
serve as Chair in the following year.
Boards, Commissions and Committees Rules & Procedures
Historically, the San Rafael Planning Commission had its own set of Rules & Procedures for how the
Planning Commissions operates. However, in 2023 the City Council adopted Resolution 15196 which
adopted Boards, Commissions & Committees Rules & Procedures (Attachment 1) to be used throughout
the Board, Commissions & Committees (BCC) Program. Most of the contents from the previous Planning
Commission Rules & Procedures document are outlined in the City’s BCC Rules and Procedures
document, except for the handling of public hearings. Staff has prepared a supplemental material outlining
any Planning Commission specific information that is not covered in the City’s BCC Rules & Procedures
document or the Bylaws (Attachment 3). The only change being proposed to the operations of the Planning
Commission is the modification from 3-minute public comment to 2-minute public comment. Staff
recommends changing public comment from 3-mintues to 2-minutes to be consistent with all BCCs as well
as the City Council, and to limit confusion for the community as they maneuver through public meetings in
San Rafael.
REPORT TO PLANNING COMMISSION Page 3
RECOMMENDATION: Adopt the 2025 San Rafael Planning Commission Regular Meeting Schedule,
Elect Commissioner Mercado as Chair and Commissioner Rodby as Vice Chair, and Approve the San
Rafael Planning Commission Public Hearing Guidelines
ATTACHMENTS
1. San Rafael Boards, Commissions, Committees Rules & Procedures
2. San Rafael Planning Commission Bylaws
3. Planning Commission Specific Information
1
San Rafael Planning Commission
Public Hearing Guidelines
Presentation or Hearing of Proposals
The following shall be the order of procedure for hearings/discussion items concerning
planning and zoning matters:
A. The Chair shall announce agenda item.
B. If a request is made for continuance, a motion may be made and voted upon to
continue the public hearing to a definite time and date (noticing not required) or a
time and date to be determined (re-noticing required).
C. Order of Speaking.
The order of speaking shall be as follows:
1. The Chair shall call for commissioners to make ex parte disclosures and
potential conflict of interest disclosures with respect to the proposed
project.
2. Staff provides a report on the project and summarizes its compliance with
San Rafael's General Plan, compliance with State laws and the City Code, the
status of environmental review, and the staff recommendation for action(s)
by the Commission.
3. The applicant makes a presentation to the Commission.
4. The Commission may ask questions or obtain facts or clarification from staff
or the applicant after each segment of the agenda.
5. The Chair invites public comment.
6. After comments have concluded, the Chair closes public comment.
7. Staff or the applicant responds to questions raised by the public
8. The matter is returned to the Commission for discussion and action.
D. Rules of Testimony
The rules of testimony shall be as follows:
1. Upon opening the public hearing, the Chair shall invite the public to speak by
inviting each speaker (one-at-a-time) to approach the podium. On large or
controversial projects where many people wish to provide public testimony,
the Chair may request that speaker cards be filled-out and submitted.
2. Persons presenting testimony to the Commission shall be limited to two (2)
minutes for their comments. This time, or the total allotted time for public
comment, may be limited or extended at the Chair’s discretion.
2
3. If there are numerous people in the audience who wish to participate on the
issue and it is known that all represent the same opinion, a spokesperson
may be selected to speak for the entire group. At the Chair’s discretion, the
spokesperson may be granted additional time beyond the two (2) minute
limit for their presentation.
4. To avoid unnecessary repetitive evidence, the Chair may limit the number of
speakers or the time on a particular issue.
5. Irrelevant, defamatory, or disruptive comments will be ruled out of order.
6. All comments shall be addressed to the Commission. All questions shall be
made or directed through the Chair.
E. Applicant Presentations
Applicant presentations shall comply with the guidelines developed by the
Planning Commission. Applicants shall be limited to a maximum of ten (10)
minutes for their presentation, inclusive of all members of the applicant’s team
(if applicable). An extension of this time limit may be granted at the Chair’s
discretion.