No preview available
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.