Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCED 131 Valley View Avenue Appeal ____________________________________________________________________________________ FOR CITY CLERK ONLY Council Meeting: 04/21/2025 Disposition: Resolution 15401 Agenda Item No: 5.a Meeting Date: April 21, 2025 SAN RAFAEL CITY COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT Department: Community and Economic Development Prepared by: Renee Nickenig, Associate Planner Margaret Kavanaugh-Lynch, Planning Manager City Manager Approval: ______________ TOPIC: APPEAL TO THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION’S APPROVAL OF A REASONABLE ACCOMMODATION REQUEST SUBJECT: RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL DENYING THE APPEAL OF AND UPHOLDING THE PLANNING COMMISSION APPROVAL OF A REASONABLE ACCOMMODATION REQUEST AT 131 VALLEY VIEW AVENUE; APN 015-073-10 RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends the City Council adopt the resolution to deny the appeal and uphold the Planning Commission’s approval of a reasonable accommodation request at 131 Valley View Avenue. BACKGROUND: 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, 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. On October 21, 2024, the City of San Rafael received a timely appeal of the October 17, 2025, approval of the reasonable accommodation request. The appeal challenged 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. On January 13, 2025, the Applicant submitted an amended project plan (Project) that corrected errors in the October 17, 2024, plans. On January 21 and 22, 2025, the Appellant submitted correspondence expanding on the reasons for the appeal in the Staff Report to the Planning Commission Attachment G (Attachment 4). The appeal was SAN RAFAEL CITY COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT / Page: 2 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 Appellants have been denied due process. On February 25, 2025, the Planning Commission held a duly noticed public hearing in which the Commission considered (1) the report by staff describing the existing administrative approval and findings, (2) the amended plans submitted on January 13, 2025, (3) the modified findings regarding the amended plans, and (4) the staff report containing a response to the appeal, prepared in consultation with the City Attorney’s office. The Commission heard testimony of the Appellant, Applicant, and members of the public. The Commission asked questions of staff and the Applicant and discussed the staff report. Following deliberation, the Commission unanimously voted to accept staff’s recommendation to 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. The effect of the Commission’s action was to allow the construction of the renovations described in the January 13, 2025 plans by approving the reasonable accommodation request. (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, Attachment 2). The Project is described in pages 3-5 of the Staff Report to the Planning Commission (Attachment 4 to this report). The full project plan set is included as Attachment 5 to this report. ANALYSIS: On February 27, 2025, the City of San Rafael received a timely appeal to the City Council of the Planning Commission’s decision (Attachment 3). The appeal letter states: We write to appeal the Planning Commission’s February 25 resolution that accepts all of the staff report’s recommendation and denies our appeal of the reasonable accommodation request by 131 Valley View Avenue’s owners. We continue contest the City of San Rafael’s’ determination that the reasonable accommodation request is necessary to provide equal access to housing under the Federal Fair Housing Act and the California Fair Employment and Housing Act and disagree that the factors set forth in San Rafael Municipal Code Section 14.26.060 support grating the reasonable accommodation request. The appeal refers to the previous testimony the Appellant provided for the Planning Commission Hearing. The Appellant makes 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 Appellants have been denied due process. Please refer to pages 11 through 15 of the staff report to the Planning Commission (Attachment 4 for staff’s response) to these claims, prepared in consultation with the City Attorney’s office. Findings of Approval Pursuant to SRMC Section 14.26.020.B, the approval of the request for reasonable accommodation supplants the requirement for all other discretionary land use permits. The City Council should review pages 2-4 of the draft resolution (Attachment 1). The draft resolution (Attachment 1) includes all of the findings of approval, specifically on pages 2-4. One of the findings is particularly noteworthy that if the reasonable accommodation request is not granted, the applicant will be forced to relocate to other SAN RAFAEL CITY COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT / Page: 3 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. The City Council, based on their own independent judgment, should determine if they are able to support the findings contained therein. CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT (CEQA) REVIEW: The Project is exempt from the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines 15061(b)(3) and 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. COMMUNITY OUTREACH: The project has been duly noticed in accordance with SRMC Chapter 14.29. FISCAL IMPACT: There is no fiscal impact associated with this staff report. OPTIONS: The City Council has the following options to consider in this matter: 1. Adopt the resolution denying the appeal of and upholding the Planning Commission’s approval of a reasonable accommodation request at 131 Valley View Avenue. 2. Grant the appeal, overturn the Planning Commission’s approval of the reasonable accommodation request, and direct staff to return with a revised resolution of denial. 3. Continue the appeal to allow the Appellant and the Applicant to address any of the City Council’s comments or concerns. RECOMMENDED ACTION: Staff recommends the City Council adopt the resolution to deny the appeal and uphold the Planning Commission’s approval of a reasonable accommodation request at 131 Valley View Avenue. ATTACHMENTS: 1. Draft Resolution of the City Council Denying the Appeal of and Upholding the Planning Commission Approval of a Reasonable Accommodation Request at 131 Valley View Avenue. 2. 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. 3. Appellant Letter to City Council, dated and received February 27, 2025 4. Staff Report to the Planning Commission with associated attachments. 5. Project Plans, Approved by Planning Commission February 25, 2025 6. Correspondence RESOLUTION NO. 15401 RESOLUTION OF THE SAN RAFAEL CITY COUNCIL DENYING THE APPEAL OF AND UPHOLDING THE PLANNING COMMISSION 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 the requested additions; 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 WHEREAS, on February 25, 2025 the Planning Commission held a duly noticed public hearing during which the Commission considered (1) the report by staff describing the existing administrative approval and findings, (2) the amended plans submitted on January 13, 2025, (3) the modified findings regarding the amended plans, (4) the staff report containing a response to the appeal, prepared in consultation with the City Attorney’s office, (5) testimony of the Appellant, Applicant, and members of the public ; and asked questions of staff and the Applicant; and WHEREAS, on February 25, 2025, following deliberation, the Planning Commission denied the Appeal in part and approved 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; and WHEREAS, on April 21, 2025, the City Council held a duly noticed public hearing during which it considered the Appeal of the Planning Commission’s February 25, 2025, action; and - 2 - 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). NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, the City Council denies the Appeal and Upholds the Planning Commission Approval of the Reasonable Accommodation Request at 131 Valley View Avenue subject to the findings and conditions below. 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 Federal Fair Housing Act and the California Fair Employment and Housing Act (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 request 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. - 3 - • 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. Alternative designs would provide little or no benefit to the owners of neighboring properties or to the City. 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: 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 - 4 - 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. Modificatio ns 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 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 suffici ent 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 April 29, 2025 and shall be valid for a period of two (2) years from the date of final approval, or April 29, 2027, and shall become null and void if a building permit is not issued or a time extension granted - 5 - by April 29, 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 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). I, LINDSAY LARA, Clerk of the City of San Rafael, hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was duly and regularly introduced and adopted at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of San Rafael, held on Monday, the 21st day of April 2025, by the following vote, to wit: AYES: Councilmembers: Hill, Kertz, Llorens Gulati & Mayor Kate NOES: Councilmembers: None ABSENT: Councilmembers: Bushey _________________ Lindsay Lara, City Clerk February 27, 2025 Lisa Dal Gallo Josh Sullivan 127 Valley View Ave. San Rafael, CA 94901 City of San Rafael City Council 1400 5th Ave., Suite 209 San Rafael, CA 94901 Dear City Council: We write to appeal the Planning Commission's February 25 resolution that accepts all of the staff report's recommendation and denies our appeal of the reasonable accommodation request by 131 Valley View Avenue's owners. We continue contest the City of San Rafael's' determination that the reasonable accommodation request is necessary to provide equal access to housing under the Federal Fair Housing Act and the California Fair Employment and Housing Act and disagree that the factors set forth in San Rafael Municipal Code Section 14.26.060 support grating the reasonable accommodation request. Co sequently, we request the City Council hear our appeal at its next public meeting. i,.JL<-~ Josh Sullivan 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. SAN RAFAEL THE CITY WITH A MISSION 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. I 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 ,m [l'J•oG +---0 ;.. 1'-1· "«> <t' st> ''"' B•IH ( Pfll lil"1t Y l!J (£} klTCHO. ~ /41 7 ~ /41 (£) Ur,, a· a· (E) HJ.LL (<:)Cl. □ (f ) HM...L (E) B 00"' (E) 6 OOV, Cl , ... ,. □ __r 1 -r 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 lTITITI!l -- ~-•• ;n--llOU 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 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 Via Email: 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 CITY OF SAN RAFAEL I 1400 FIFTH AVENUE, SAN RAFAEL, CALIFORNIA 94901 I CITYOFSANRAFAEL.ORG 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. I I ~J,,,in .. ·•- JI V 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 I 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). 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 ADDITION & NEW ATTACHED ADU APN: 010-081-18 DESIGNER'S STATEMENT THIS PLOT PLAN CORRECTLY REPRESENTS A PLOT PLAN MADE BY ME OR UNDER MY DIRECTION. I HEREBY STATE THAT TO THE BEST OF MY KNOWLEDGE ALL PROVISIONS OF APPLICABLE STATE LAWS AND LOCAL ORDINANCES HAVE BEEN COMPLIED WITH. DESIGNER -ll~1;;;~rA-_ Hector Orozco z::,i----- MARCH 14, 2024 DATE DESIGNER TITLE VICINITY MAP • ..... SYMBOL LEGEND HEIGHT SECTION ELEVATION DETAIL GRID LINE DOOR WINDOW NOTE AX.X @t----- ® 0 @ n n CODE COMPLIANCE DESCRIPTION OF WORK ADDITION -NEW ATTACHED ADU ( ONE BATH AND TWO BEDROOMS ) PROJECT INFORMATION LOT SIZE: 6,745 SQ.FT. CONSTRUCTION: TYPE V B UNPROTECTED WOOD FRAME R-3 SPRINKLER: NO PARCEL #: 010-081-18 EXISTING LIVING AREA = 1,375 SQ.FT. EXISTING GARAGE AREA = 721 SQ.FT. (NO CHANGE) REAR ADDITION = 278 SQ.FT + 86 SQ.FT. FRONT ADDITION = 43 SQ.FT. TOTAL ADDITION AREA = 407 SQ.FT. PORCH CONVERSION AREA = 63 SQ.FT. NEW ATTACHED ADU = 702 SQ.FT. TOTAL LIVING AREA = 2,547 Sq. Ft. (EXISTING + ADDITION + NEW ADU) LOT COVERAGE {EXCLUDING ADU AREA) = 1892/6745 = 28% 2022 CALIFORNIA BUILDING CODE (INCORPORATES BY ADOPTION AND REPRINTS THE 2015 INTERNATIONAL BUILDING CODE WITH CALIFORNIA AMENDMENTS. PUBLISHED BY THE INTERNATIONAL CODE COUNCIL, ICC) 2022 CALIFORNIA RESIDENTIAL CODE -APPLIES TO ONE AND TWO FAMILY HOUSES AND TOWN HOMES LESS THAN 3 STORIESIN HEIGHT. (INCORPORATES BY ADOPTION AND REPRINTS THE 2015 INTERNATIONAL RESIDENTIAL CODE.) 2022 CALIFORNIA ENERGY CODE. CHECK THE CALIFORNIA ENERGY COMMISSION'S WEBSITE AT HTTP: //WWW.ENERGY.CA.GOV FOR A DOWNLOADABLE VERSION. (PUBLISHED BY ICC). 2022 CALIFORNIA ELECTRICAL CODE (INCORPORATES BY ADOPTION AND REPRINTS THE 2015 NATIONAL ELECTRICAL CODE WITH CALIFORNIA AMENDMENTS. PUBLISHED BY THE NATIONAL FIRE PROTECTION AGENCY, NFPA) 2022 CALIFORNIA PLUMBING CODE (INCORPORATES BY ADOPTION AND REPRINTS THE 2015 UNIFORM PLUMBING CODE WITH CALIFORNIA AMENDMENTS. PUBLISHED BY THE INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF PLUMBING AND MECHANICAL OFFICIALS, IAPMO) 2022 CALIFORNIA MECHANICAL CODE (INCORPORATES BY ADOPTION AND REPRINTS THE 2015 UNIFORM MECHANICAL CODE WITH CALIFORNIA AMENDMENTS. PUBLISHED BY THE INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF PLUMBING AND MECHANICAL OFFICIALS, IAPMO) 2022 CALIFORNIA FIRE CODE (INCORPORATES BY ADOPTION AND REPRINTS THE 2015 INTERNATIONAL FIRE CODE WITH CALIFORNIA AMENDMENTS. PUBLISHED BY ICC) 2022 CALGREEN CODE -APPLIES TO CERTAIN NEW BUILDINGS ONLY -ALL NEW RESIDENTIAL BUILDINGS 3 STORIES OR LESS AND ALL NEW NON-RESIDENTIAL BUILDINGS. DRAWING NOTE TYPICAL OWNER/DEVELOPER BUILDING PERMIT SET OF DRAWINGS: THESE DRAWINGS ARE INTENDED FOR BUILDING PERMIT APPROVAL AND ARE NOT INTENDED TO BE A COMPREHENSIVE SET OF DRAWINGS INDICATING CONSTRUCTION DETAILS, WATER PROOFING, SPECIFIC FINISHES, SPECIFIC CABINETRY, SPECIFIC PLUMBING FIXTURES, LIGHTING FIXTURES, SPECIFIC DOORS, WINDOWS, & HARDWARE, OR M.E.P. & UTILITY ROUTING. OWNER/DEVELOPER IS RESPONSIBLE FOR THE SELECTION OF THESE ITEMS AND CLARIFICATION AND COORDINATION OF THESE WITH THE CONTRACTOR AS PART OF THE BUILDING CONTRACT AND CONSTRUCTION PROCESS. CONTRACTOR IS RESPONSIBLE FOR CONFIRMING CODE COMPLIANCE OF ALL WORK NOT FULLY REFLECTED IN THESE DOCUMENTS AS WELL AS ANY REVISIONS TO THIS SCOPE WITH THE ENTITIES HAVING JURISDICTION. CONTRACTOR IS RESPONSIBLE FOR PROVIDING A COMPLETE, STRUCTURALLY SOUND, FULLY OPERATIONAL, CODE COMPLIANT, FINISHED WORK WITH COMPLETE PROTECTION AGAINST ELEMENTS. NATURAL STATE OF LOT CALCULATION {NOT INCLUDING ADU): LOT AREA = 6,745 SQ.FT. BUILDING TOTAL COVERAGE = 1,892 SQ.FT. CONCRETE AREA = 412 SQ.FT. NATURAL STATE REMAINING = 65.8% SHEET INDEX A-0 TITLE A-1 SITE PLAN A-2 EXISTING FLOOR PLAN A-3 PROPOSED FLOOR PLAN ADU A-3a PROPOSED FLOOR PLAN ADITION A-4 EXISTING ELEVATIONS A-5 PROPOSED ELEVATIONS A-Sa PROPOSED ELEVATIONS A-6 PLAN NOTES A-7 ROOF PLAN & SECTIONS A-8 UTILITY PLAN A-9 TITLE 24 A-10 TITLE 24 A-11 TITLE 24 POR. RANCHO SAN PEDRO, SANTA MARGARITA, Y LAS GALLINAS Tax Rate Area 8-000 89 -000 ~ @Pc!~ !.2,' Ac, A'.•,-;,--.s-:---., ·,. "'-., .. @) l.27J.c N58"WWW ~16.H -i>._._..J' = . .J9. rz 7 ~?, .sn•.:u:r . RS05-17ff t1,a'lffW •• @ 100.v.1012 MEM H .a N ,.., t-S Bu< PRIOR ,4F'/ol N!:W APN YR Al.ff/I 002 SUR.-EYS 00 RFAIOCKF() VIEW 1.17 Ac. @ I.SB Ac NOTE-Asses.so(s 8'o,k Numbe,s Shown in-f/fjpses , Asses.sor·s Paree! Nvmbers Shown in Cirdes. pM .10-27 \ Assessor's Map Bk. /0 -Pg. 08 County of Marin , Calif. ABBREVIATIONS A.B./ANCHOR BOLT E./EAST I.D./INSIDE DIAMETER P.A./PLANTING AREA S1L./STEEL ABV./ABOVE (E)/EXISTING IN./INCH P.B./PANIC BAR STRL./STRUC1\JRAL A.C./ASPHAL TIC CONCRETE EA./EACH INCAND./INCANDESCENT P.C.P. /PRECAST CONCRETE PANEL S4S/SURFACE FOUR SIDES A.C.T./ACOUSTICAL CEILING TILE E.J./EXPANSION JOINT INCR./INCREMENT PERIM./PERIMETER S2S/SURFACE TWO SIDES A/C/AIR CONDITIONING EL/ELEVATION INFO./INFORMATION PL./PLATE S.S./STAINLESS STEEL ACOUS./ ACOUSTICAL ELAS./ELASTOMERIC INSUL./INSULATION PL .G./PLATE GLASS SVC/SERVICE A.D./AREA DRAIN ELEC./ELECTRICAL INT./1NTERIOR P.LAM./PLASTIC LAMINATE STOR /STORAGE ADMIN./ADMINISTRATION ELEV. /ELEVA TOR PLAS. /PLASTER SUSP./SUSPENDED ADJ./ADJUSTABLE EMER./EMERGENCY JAN./JANITOR PLBG./PLUMBING S. W./SOUTHWEST A.F.F./ABOVE FINISHED FLOOR ENCL./ENCLOSURE JST./JOIST PL YWD./PL YWOOD S.W.S./SEE WINDOW SCHEDULE AGGR./ AGGREGRA TE ENGR./ENGINEER JT./JOINT PNL./PANEL SYM./SYMMETRICAL AL./ALUMINUM EQ./EQUAL PR./PAIR ALT./ALTERNATE EQUIP./EQUIPMENT Kil/KITCHEN PREP./PREPARA TION T./TREAD A. P. / ACCESS PANEL E.S./EACH SIDE K.P./KICK PL P.S.F./POUNDS PER SQUARE FOOT T.B./TACKBOARD APP/APPLICATION EXP./EXPANSION LAB./LABORA TORY P.S.1./POUNDS PER SQUARE INCH TECH./TECHNOLOGY APPROX./APPROXIMATE EXH./EXHAUST P.T./PRESSURE TREATED TELE./TELEPHONE ARCH./ARCHITEC1\JRAL EXIST./EXISTING LAM./LAMINATE PT./POINT TEMP./TEMPERED or TEMPERATURE ASPH./ASPHALT EXT./EXTERIOR LAV./LAVATORY P.T.D./PAPER TOWEL DISPENSER TER./TERRAZZO A TTEN./ A ffiNUA TING E.W./EACH WAY LB./POUND P1N./PARTITION T & G/TONGUE & GROOVE L.F./LINEAR FEET PVC/POLYVINYL CHLORIDE THK./THICK BD./BOARD F./FREEZER L.H./LEFT HAND PVMT./PAVEMENT THRES./THRESHOLD BET. /BETWEEN F.A./FIRE ALARM LIN./LINEAR T.0./TOP OF B.F./BRACED FRAME F.A.F./FORCED AIR FURNACE LKR./LOCKER R./RISER OR REFRIGERATOR T.O.C./TOP OF CURB or CONCRETE BLDG./BUILDING F.D./FLOOR DRAIN L.L.H./LONG LEG HORIZONTAL (R)/REMOVE T.O.D./TOP OF DECKING BLK./BLOCKING FND./FOUNDATION L.P./LOW POINT R.A./RETURN AIR T.O.M./TOP OF MASONRY BM./BEAM F.E./FIRE EXTINGUISHER LT./LIGHT RAD./RADIUS T.O.P./TOP OF PAVEMENT or BOT./BOTTOM F.E.C./FIRE EXTINGUISHER & LVR./LOUVER R.B./RUBBER BASE PARAPET CABINET R.C.P./REFLECTED CEILING PLAN T.O.S./TOP OF STEEL CAB./CABINET FED./FEDERAL MACH./MACHINE R.D./ROOF DRAIN T.O. W./TOP OF WALL C/C/CENTER TO CENTER F.V./FIELD VERIFY MAINT./MAINTENANCE REF./REFERENCE T.S./TUBULAR STEEL CEM./CEMENT F.F./FINISH FLOOR MATL./MATERIAL REF/REFRIGERATOR T.S.C.D./TOILET SEAT COVER CER./CERAMIC F.H.C./FIRE HOSE CABINET MAS./MASONRY REFR./REFRIGERATION DISPENSER C.F./CUBIC FEET FIN./FINISH MAX./MAXIMUM REINF./REINFORCED T. T.D./TOILET TISSUE DISPENSER CH/CHANNEL Fl X. /FIX1\JRE M.B./MARKER BOARD or REQD./REQUIRED TV /TELEVISION C.1./CAST IRON F.L/FLOW LINE MACHINE BOLT REV./REVISION OR RE~SED TYP./TYPICAL C.J./CONTROL JOINT FLR./FLOOR M.C./MEDICINE CABINET RESIL./RESILIENT C.L/CENTERLINE FLUOR./FLUORESCENT MECH./MECHANICAL R.H./RIGHT HAND U.B.C./UNIFORM BUILDING CODE CLG./CEILING F.0./F ACE OF MEMB./MEMBRANE RM./ROOM U.G./UNDERGROUND CLKG./CAULKING F.O.C./FACE OF CONCRETE MEP /MECHANICAL/ELECTRICAL R.0./ROUGH OPENING U.L./UNDER\\RITERS LABORATORY CLO./CLOSET F.O.F./FACE OF FINISH & PLUMBING R\\IJ./REDWOOD UNF./UNFINISHED MET./METAL U.O.N./UNLESS OTHER\\1SE NOTED CLR./CLEAR F.O.M./FACE OF MASONRY R.W.L./RAINWATER LEADER C.M.U./CONCRETE MASONRY UNIT F.O.S./FACE OF STUD MFR./MANUFACTURER UR./URINAL Ml C /TC/MICROWAVE/TOASTER COL/COLUMN F.O.W./FACE OF WALL S./SOUTH COMP./COMPUTER FPRF./FIREPROOF(ING} OVEN SA/SUPPLY AIR V.C.T./~NYL COMPOSITION TILE MIN./MINIMUM CONC./CONCRETE FRM'G/FRAMING S.B./SCOREBOARD VERT./VERTICAL CONF./CONFERENCE F.R.T./FIRE RETARDANT TREATED MIR./MIRROR S.C./SOLID CORE VEST./VESTIBULE CONT./CONTINUOUS F.R.P./FIBERGLASS REINFORCED MISC./MISCELLANEOUS S.C.D./SEE CIVIL DRAWINGS V.G.D.F./VERTICAL GRAIN DOUGLAS CONTR./CONTRACTOR POLYESTER MK./MARK SCHED./SCHEDULE FIR CONST./CONSTRUCTION F.S./FLOOR SINK M.0./MASONRY OPENING S.D./STORM DRAIN V.I.F./VERIFY IN FIELD CORR./CORRIDOR F.S.E./FOOD SER~CE MTD./MOUNTED S.D.S./SEE DOOR SCHEDULE VOL. /VOLUME MTL./METAL V. T.R./VENT THRU ROOF (S .. P.D. CPT./CARPET EQUIPMENT S.E./SOUTHEAST C.R./COLD-ROLLED FT./FOOT OR FEET MUL/MULLION S.E.D./SEE ELECTRICAL DRA\\1NGS V.W.C./~NYL WALL COVERING CSMT./CASEMENT FTG./FOOTING N./NORTH SECT./SECTION W./WEST OR WASHER C.T./CERAMIC TILE FURR./FURRING S.F./SQUARE FOOT (FEET) FUT./FUTURE (N)/NEW W/ /\\1TH CTR./CENTER N/A/NOT APPLICABLE S.F.S./SEE (ROOM) FINISH SCHEDULE W.C./WATER CLOSET CTSK./COUNTERSUNK GA./GAUGE N.E./NORTHEAST S.G.S./SEE GLAZING SCHEDULE W/0/WASHER/DRYER C.Y./CUBIC YARDS SHT./SHEET GALV./GALVANIZED N.I.C./NOT IN CONTRACT SHTG./SHEATHING WD./WOOD G.LB./GLUE-LAMINATED NO./NUMBER WDW./l'i1NDOW D./DRYER (WOOD) BEAM NOM./NOMINAL SIM./SIMILAR W.F./\\1DE FLANGE DBL/DOUBLE S.L.D./SEE LANDSCAPE DRAWINGS GL /GLASS N. T.S./NOT TO SCALE WGL/\\1RE GLASS DECK./DECKING S.M./SHEET METAL DEG./DEGREE GND./GROUND N. W./NORTHWEST SL /SLOPE W.H./WATER HEATER G.R.G./GLASS REINFORCED W.I.C./WOODWORK INSTI1\JTE OF DEMO./DEMOLITION OBS./OBSCURE SMACNA /SHEET METAL AND AIR DEPT./DEPARTMENT GYPSUM CONDITIONING CONTRACTORS CALIFORNIA DET./DETAIL G.S.M./GALVANIZED SHEET 0. C. /ON CENTER NATIONAL ASSOCIATION W.0./WHERE OCCURS D.F./DRINKING FOUNTAIN METAL O.D./OUTSIDE DIAMETER or S.M.D./SEE MECHANICAL DRA\\1NGS W/0/WITHOUT GYP ./GYPSUM DIMENSION W.P./WORKING POINT DI A. /DIAMETER O.F.C.1./0WNER FURNISHED, S.M.S/SHEET METAL SCREW DIM./DIMENSION G. W.B./GYPSUM WALL BOARD S.N.D./ SANITARY NAPKIN DISPENSER WSCT./WAINSCOT CONTRACTOR INSTALLED W.S.P./WET STANDPIPE DIR./DIRECTION O.F.D./OVERFLOW DRAIN S.N.R./SANITARY NAPKIN RECEPTACLE DISP./DISPOSAL H.B./HOSE BIBB O.F.S./OVERFLOW SCUPPER S.O.G./SLAB ON GRADE WT./WEIGHT DIST./DISTRIBUTION H.C./HOLLOW CORE 0. H. /OVER HEAD S.P.D./SEE PLUMBING DRAWINGS W.W.F./WELDED \\1RE FABRIC DIV./DIVISION HDWR./HARDWARE SPEC./SPECIFICA TION HDWD./HARDWOOD OPNG./OPENING & /AND DN./OOWN HT./HEIGHT OPP. HD./ OPPOSITE HAND SPR/SPRINKLERED @ /AT DR./DOOR H.M./HOLLOW METAL OZ./OUNCE S.P.S./SEE PARTITION SCHEDULE /CHANNEL D.S./DOWNSPOUT HORIZ./HORIZONTAL SQJSQUARE d /PENNY D.S.A./ DIVISION OF STATE H.P./HIGH POINT S.S.D./SEE STRUCTURAL DRA\\1NGS # /POUND OR NUMBER ARCHITECT STD./STANDARD D.S.P./DRY STAND PIPE HVAC/HEATING, VENTILATING, DWG./DRAWING AIR CONDITIONING GENERAL NOTES 1. THE DESIGN PRESENTED IN THESE DRAWINGS ESTABLISHES THE GENERAL ARCHITECTURAL REQUIREMENTS FOR THE PROJECT. IT DOES NOT PRESENT ALL DETAILS REQUIRED FOR CONSTRUCTION. THE CONTRACTOR IS EXPECTED TO EXERCISE SOUND JUDGMENT IN ACCORDANCE WITH CODE REQUIREMENTS. 2. THE DRAWINGS INDICATE LOCATION AND DIMENSONS, BUT THEY DO NOT ILLUSTRATE EVERY CONDITION. IN THE EVENT THAT CERTAIN FEATURES ARE NOT FULLY SHOWN ON THE DRAWINGS OR CALLED FOR IN THE SPECIFICATIONS, THEIR CONSTRUCTION SHALL BE IN ACCORDANCE WITH CONVENTIONAL PRACTICES OF THE UNIFORM BUILDING CODE. 3. ALL CONDITIONS AFFECTING WORK PROGRESS AND CONFORMANCE TO PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS SHALL BE VERIFIED BY THE CONTRACTOR PRIOR TO START OF WORK. 4. ANY SITE AND BUILDING AREAS UNAFFECTED BY THIS WORK SHALL BE PROTECTED FROM ANY DAMAGE CAUSED BY THIS WORK. ANY DAMAGE TO EXISTING STRUCTURES AND BUILDING ELEMENTS SO CALLED, SHALL BE THE FINANCIAL RESPONSIBILITY OF THE CONTRACTOR. 5. ANY WASTE AND REFUSE, CAUSED BY THIS WORK SHALL BE REMOVED FROM THE PREMISES AND DISPOSED OF IN A LEGAL MANNER BY THE CONTRACTOR PER CITY'S GREEN WASTE STANDARDS. 6. SEE CAL GREEN CODE REQUIREMENTS FOR MATERIALS MOISTURE CONTENT. 7. PROPERTY BOUNDARY, AND LOCATION OF THE NEW STRUCTURES ON SITE SHALL BE ESTABLISHED BY A LICENSE SURVEYOR. TITLE PLAN 0 u N 0 L 0 L 0 &f::j~ +-' u Q) :r: a~ . . L Q) C I CJ) ~~ ·-en Q) 0 Q) ~ L >0 <(O) Q) -.:I" C ~O) 3::: w - 0 -c >u -........._ +-' >-_J C WW 0 _J<( _J LL u <(<( ·-> 0::: -I Q_ Q_ I ~z I"')<( <( I ~lf) A-0 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/ Conditions7 MARK: 323.9 ' 12" STU 8" TR[[ 6 " STUMP 6" TR[[ 5" TR[[ ., (jl (jl • Z- 7.~ ~ 0 ~'-1t7 o ... EX-Tc 332.66' EX-FL 332.25' -+> <5' ... ... :z <...,,-\ er> • c..O -+> ... 573·01·oo"W 73.59 ' ., ~ <D '~/ [X. CONC. ST[PS ' I:> "" ' "" I:> "" I:> I:> ' ., "" I:> [X. -0R/V[WAY 'v' ' I:> ' ., I:> ., 6" fR[[ I 1 0) "1 N CJ7 VALLEY . "1 0 I") ., ., ., (Jl ___. (Jl -5' ., "" ' " . - <.o "1 ' "" ' I:> ., ., ~ hS:~l ~ WOOD[N POST ROOF OUTLIN[ APN 1 [X. UTILITY BOX EX-Tc 345_09 , EX-FL 344.65' SITE PLAN 0 u N 0 L 0 L 0 &.-+-' N u ...--- ~ ~ i L'. ~ 8 Q) '----.....5 r--- c I .01 ~o en ...--- Q) LO 0 Q) ~ >0 ~ <(~ C ~m 3:: w : 0 >8 -........._ +-' >-_J C WW 0 _J <( _J LL u <( <( ·-> 0::: o_ I o_ I ~z <( I~~ A-1 DEMO WALL 1 A B A B 2 3 1 2 3 EXISTING WALL 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 • 0, I ;,., N • 0, I "' N • r--. I ;,-, ~ • I 0 • 0 I -:.,. N (E) C 58'-5" 13'-7" 6'-8" 7'-4" 10'-9" <9 ~ ~ ~ il)D G]rJ 0 0 (E) BA TI-I (E) BATI-1 (E) KITCHEN a (E) PRIMARY BEDROOM I@ • @ (E) LINEN (E) HALL (E) CL @ (E) CL (E) HALL @I (E) BEDROOM (E) BEDROOM (E) PORCH ~ 12'-6" 1 l'-1" 3'-1" g' EXISTING UPPER FLOOR PLAN SCALE: 1/ 4' = 1' 30'-7" 26'-3" 3'-5" (E) GARAGE EXISTING LOWER FLOOR PLAN (GARAGE) SCALE: 1/4" = 1' 12'-1" 6' @ @j) (E) DINING ':.,- (E) PORCH I 0 @j) r L..------------- • "' (E) LIVING F.P. I -:.,. @ ~ 18' -1" t:EADER !5<J1fPI I f· -4 X ~ LP TO ,4' OFl=NINE> -4 X f> LP TO 6 OFl=NINEi -4 X l:1. LP TO fl OFl=NINEi DOOR SCHEDULE TAG I SIZE TYPE I MODEL I REMARKS @i) 3'-Q" X 6'-8" HINGED VlNYL @ 2'-6" X 6'-8" HINGED VlNYL @ 17'8"-0" X 6'-8" HINGED VlNYL WINDOW SCHEDULE SEE TYPICAL COOSTRUCllOII NOlES FOR ADDITIONAL \\INDOW INFORMATION TAG SIZE TYPE MANUF. MODEL REMARKS w X H 0 6'x3' SLIDING VINYL ~ 3'x3' SLIDING VlNYL <§> 8'x4' SLIDING VlNYL <B> 6'x4' SLIDING VlNYL <v 1 o'x5' SLIDING VlNYL i> 4'x3' SLIDING VlNYL EXISTING FLOOR PLAN 0 u N 0 L 0 L 0 +-' u (I) :r: L (I) C 3:: 0 -........._ +-' C 0 u Q_ Q_ <( Q) ~ >0 <(°' -.:t- ~O) w --c >u >-_J WW _J<( _J LL <(<( > 0::: A-2 EXISTING WALL $ GFCI NEW WALL REF. NEW ATTACHED ADU (A= 702 SQ.FT.) 1 A B 2 3 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 N N <O "' PORCH 13'-4" PORCH 13' .BEDROOM ·~•· CL F ~i:=-=:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: . CL ••• • . .-. .-.-.. • .. • . .".'</)"." ••• • . .-. .-.-. .-. .-. .-.z ·.- • • • • • ·.-.-_g'_.:.,.a~-• • • • • • BEDROOM .......... : :-: !:i · :- 1 ......... ·.·.· ... ·.·. • ffi •r····.······~·•• .. •.·••••••••••••••••• .• .. •.•.•.•.• . (@ ·.·· . . . '----I ........ . . . . . . . ..... . . . . . . . . . . . . ...... . ••• •• • •• ••• •• •• •••••••• <KitCHEN <••· > <••····•······ >•§)• >••· •••>• "<o I "' 0 ...., " . ·• ·• ··••Ld .. [j[J~ ,,~ " +--t--+t==-~=====i;:==t ,..L::::...::::...::::...=..:i...::::...::...=-.=-.=-.=-.=-.::::...::::...::::...::...:_::...::::c...~~~~:,_E..::...::...=-.=.._i_:::_:::_~:::_:":_~:__.5...E,__::...::...=-.~=-=-=-=-=-:i..=-=-=-=-.=t1----------+ • 0 I <t N GLASS @JI (E) GARAGE 29'-8" PROPOSED ATTACHED ADU FLOOR PLAN SCALE: 1/4" = 1' • I ;,., TAG I @) @ TAG 0 ~ <§> <§> 0 0 SIZE 3'-Q" X 6'-8" 2'-6" X 6'-8" :-: :-:-:-:-: :-: : :-:-:-: ~ I HEADfR 6Ctl:0 I f: 4 X '-LP TO ,V ~INE':I 4 X & LP TO _,. ~INE':I 4 X IZ LP TO &' ~INE':I DOOR SCHEDULE I TYPE I MODEL I HINGED HINGED REMARKS v1NYL v1NYL WINDOW SCHEDULE SEE TYPICAL CONSlRUCTION NOTES FOO ADDITIONAL YtllllOW INFORMATION SIZE TYPE MANUF. MODEL REMARKS w X H 6'x4' SLIDING --v1NYL 6'x5' SLIDING --v1NYL 4'x4' SLIDING --v1NYL 3'x1' SLIDING --v1NYL 3'x3' SLIDING --v1NYL 3'x5' SLIDING - - v1NYL U.F. SHGC FOR NEW ~NOOWS El EGJRICAL LfGENP DUPLEX OUlLET I[]) I[]) DUPLEX OUlLET W/ GROUND FAULT SWITCH \ ,,,.-WIRING ~ -¢-CEILING/PENDANT LIGHT <ll FAN WITH LIGHT ♦ RECESS LIGHT " r:ti:lBK:,IL trn@ 1-El.UTRIUL ITcM5 st'UtlN ~ 5ttf'MATJ,', ,W Tit IN5T IU.ATION 6HIU.. llE RE\IIEM:D r,y Tit lll.l..DIOO IN6f'Et.TOR IN Tit Fli.P. 1. IU. tlJll.EI" 6Pla\'EI, 'Elfl' ~6, P!Ni. taATION5 ,W LDID ~ 6HIU.. ~ PERTANI00/1..iUL ure ~6. ,. N:W MNMM IOO !NP 61:RVla: ~ llE IN61" IU. FOR Tit N:W ~ D'M:LLINE':I PER tEC-2/713. PROPOSED FLOOR PLAN ADU 0 u N 0 L 0 L 0 +-' u Q) :r: L Q) C $'. 0 -........._ +-' C 0 u Q_ Q_ <( Q) ~ >0 <(O) -.:t-~O) w --c >u >-_J WW _J<( _J LL <(<( > 0::: A-3 (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 CITY OF SAN RAFAEL - PLANNING DIVISION APPROVED w/ Conditions ' ; j ~ • r--- 1 r--. 14'-5" 7'-1" (N) <$> ·············~··········· . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. •.•.• .. •.• .. •.•.•.• .. •.•.•.• .. ·.·.·.~···.·.··.·.·.·.· . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ....... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . BAlH (E) PRIMARY BEDROOM " ·,:..;.........: • ' [3 ---::.1)0 I I (E) BAlH -/ ' (E) LINEN r,: r--"i t .:::J,: ==========i•C:.J (E) CL (E) HALL CL ~ (E) BEDROOM (E) BEDROOM PRO\oiSIONS FO CL ~ 12'-10" 11'-1" "' N G ~ 1£VATOR CL 7' "' ~ ,------ ill DECK 0 ill a:, 0 - 0 ill OJ 5 ~ (E) CL (E) KITCHEN -[I ~ (E) HALL g' (N) FOYER/ @ (N) (N) PORCH -.. = ·:·. F <B> [2j l 2'-7" 9'-4" PROPOSED MAIN HOUSE FLOOR PLAN SC.ALE 1/4" = I' J ' 15'-5" ® . . ' .. I DINING DOOR SCHEDULE TAG I SIZE I TYPE I MODEL I REMARKS @j) 3' -Q" X 6' -8" HINGED SOLID WOOD OR FlBER GLASS @ 2°-6" X 6'-8" HINGED SOLID WOOD OR FlBER GLASS ® 2°-6" X 6'-8" BIFOLD SOLID WOOD OR FlBER GLASS @) 2'-8" X 6' -8" HINGED SOLID WOOD OR FlBER GLASS @ 3' -Q" X 6' -8" HINGED SOLID WOOD OR FlBER GLASS l 8'-8" ' WINDOW SCHEDULE SEE TIPICAI. CONSlRUCTION NOlES FOR ADDITIONAL YIINDOW INFORMATION (E) LIVING TAG SIZE TYPE MANUF. MODEL REMARKS WxH 0 6'x3' SLIDING --VlNYL OR FlBER GLASS ~ 3'x3' SLIDING --VINYL OR FIBER GLASS <$> 8'x4' SLIDING --VlNYL OR FlBER GLASS ~ 6 1 x4' SLIDING --VlNYL OR FlBER GLASS 0 1 o'x5' SLIDING --VlNYL OR FlBER GLASS .......... <€> 4'x3' SLIDING --VlNYL OR FlBER GLASS <B> ~ 40"X24" SLIDING --VlNYL OR FlBER GLASS ... <B> 40"X60" SLIDING --VlNYL OR FlBER GLASS (lf) 0 3'X4' SLIDING --VlNYL OR FlBER GLASS 0 3'X5' CASEMENT --VlNYL OR FlBER GLASS <B> 2'X5' CASEMENT --VlNYL OR FlBER GLASS 12·-11· 2'-7" 18' -1" I FOR NEW \\1NDOWS U.F. SHGC PROPOSED ELECTRICAL LEGEND 0 DUPLEX OUTLET 0 DUPLEX OUTLET W/ GROUND FAULT SWITCH \ ,,,.-WIRING ~ -¢-CEILING/PENDANT LIGHT (5) FAN WllH LIGHT ♦ RECESS LIGHT I. EL.Et,l'RIUL ITI:M5 511/N/N ~ !Of:MATii; 1W Tl1: FLOOR IN5r IU.ATJ(;N 61111.L llE R1:V1:'M:P f!>Y Tl1: IU.DINE':> IN6f'EC.Ti:R IN Tl1: FIELD. IU. tllJll..Ef !:f'ACINE':>, 'E't'I' ~IREM:NT5, PAN:!.. L..OUruN5 1W L.OID Dl:MAi'D5 6HIU. M:l:r Pl:RTAININE'>/\,alt.. U're ~5. JIEW MINM.M kW 1M' !cRVltE 6HIU. llE IN5f lU. Fi:R Tl1: JIEW Ka£/SORY 17MilN:> F1:R tfC. 202.2. PLAN ADITION 0 u N 0 L 0 L 0 &f::j~ +--' u Q) :r: L a~ Q) C I CJ) ~~ en Q) 0 Q) ~ L >0 <(O) Q) -.:I- C ~O) $'. w - 0 -c -........._ >u +--' >-_J C WW 0 _J<( _J LL u <(<( > 0::: Q_ ~z Q_ <( I"')<( ~lf) A-4 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 ' 0, I N - EXISTING TYPICAL MATERIALS: ROOF: COMPOSITION A SHINGLES SIDING: WOOD SHINGLES AND STUCCO WINDOWS: VINYL DUAL-PANE GLASS EXTERIOR TRIM FOR WINDOWS: 4" WOOD TRIM 111111111111111111 .................. 111111111 ............ II I I ,----- I I II I II II II ij I I I I I I I I 111111111111111111 ••••••••••••••••••• 11 I I I I I ~ □D D DD II 11111111111 11111111111 EXISTING FRONT ELEVATION (SOUTH) %.ALE I/ 4" = I' [D ------ !DD EXISTING REAR ELEVATION (NORTH) %.ALE I/ 4" = I' 111111111 11111111111 ' "' I N N ' "' I N - ' "' I N N ' "' I N - □ EXISTING RIGHT ELEVATION (EAST) %.ALE: I/ 4" = I' II II II II II II II EXISTING LEFT ELEVATION (WEST) %.ALE: I/ 4" = I' EXISTING ELEVATIONS 0 u N 0 L 0 L 0 &f::j~ +--' u Q) :r: . . a~ L Q) C I CJ) ~~ en Q) 0 Q) ~ L >0 <(O) Q) -.:I- C ~O) $'. w - 0 -c -........._ >u +--' >-_J C WW 0 _J<( _J LL u <(<( I > 0::: Q_ Q_ I ~z <( I I"')<( ~lf) A-5 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 CITY OF SAN RAFAEL - PLANNING DIVISION APPROVED w/ Conditions "-l!.i:r:[,!l,rnlt,w -I ;::-i ~ ' <O I ;,, '· '. '• ~ DD□ DD I ·· .. 11 I I : ' ' '' ' II II 11 A II II I ' II 11 I I ' " 111 11 1111 11 111 11 I 11 I I I I I I I I I 11 I I I II 11 11 I I 11 I I II 11 11 I I II I I ' -------~ ·--~ ,y --.. ),/' '-·. ,·. '' ' ' I I I, I , I I I I I , I I I '' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' '' ' ' , I , I , I , I , I , I, I , '' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' '' ' ' I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I '' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' '' ' ' I I I I I I I I , I I I I I I '' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' '' ' ' I I I, I I I I I I I I I I I '' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' '' ' ' I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I '' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' '' ' ' I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I '' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' '' ' ' I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I '' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' " ' " " ' I 1111 II 111 II 111 II 1111 I •• : ... ' I ' I I I I I I I I 11 I I 1111 1111 1111 1111 11 I I 11 I I ... -·:-. I I PROPOSED FRONT ELEVATION (SOUTH) %ALE: I/ 4" = I' I , , I I , I , I , I , I , I , I , I I , I -----' I I I I I I I I I I ' ., I .. :, --~ ' I:, ,., ' I I "'--1,, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, '' ' •• i"'--...._ ' ' ' " ' II 1111 II 1111 II 1111 , .... '.'· □ .: ... .1 Ji 1'1 iilli 11 l J .-l ~ l l l ~ ~ 11 11 111 II 1111 II 111 I 11 II 11 11 11 I ' ' ' ' ' I . ' I I I I 1 II I I ' " ' II 1111 II I [I] I I - ,, .. -· ,' > '. [I] .... ' . ' '' I " PROPOSED REAR ELEVATION (NORTH) %ALE: I/ 4" = I' ' ' ' ' ' '' ' ' ' ' ' '' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' - .. -· ' '' ' ' ' ' ' ' '' ' ' ' , I I I I I I I ' ' ' .. ·'• ·. _-, ·. 12-~5 I , I, I , I , I ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' , I , I , I , I , I , I , I , I ' ' ' ' ' ·_·,. I ';,, I <O 's;[ I >-I I I,,' '[-.., I ;,, N PROPOSED TYPICAL MATERIALS (MATCH EXISTING): ROOF: COMPOSITION A SHINGLES SIDING: WOOD SHINGLES AND STUCCO WINDOWS: VINYL DUAL-PANE GLASS EXTERIOR TRIM FOR WINDOWS: 4" WOOD TRIM PROPOSED ELEVATIONS 0 u N 0 L 0 L 0 &f::j~ +-' u Q) :r: L a~ Q) C I CJ) ~ 0 en ..---- Q) LO 0 Q) ~ L >0 <(O) Q) -.:I- C ~O) $'. w 0 -c -.......__ >u +-' >-_J C WW 0 _J<( _J LL u <(<( > 0::: Q_ ~z Q_ <( I"')<( ~lf) A-6 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 -k-- -I "' I I I I I I I I ' ' ' ' I I I I I I I I ' ' ' ' I I I I I I I I ' ' ' ' • <O I <D - i ~ I ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' _, I 12. 5[;?" .A -' ' ' - ~ 12 ? i::::-:;_, ' --___ - ' -- ' -= ' ' ' ' ' ' ' , I , I , I , I ' ' ' ' ' ' I , I , I , I , I , ' ' ' ' ' ' I ·• .. --" -I I 11 II --11 11 I -.- I "' " ' ' ' .. ., I ' -' --,. ' " " -.,, -- -I II I ' -- PROPOSED RIGHT ELEVATION (EAST) %ALE I/ 4" = I' , I , I I I I I I I I I I I 1 '' '' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' I , I , I , I I I I I I I I I I I I I '' '' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' '' , I , I , I , I I I I I I I I I I I 1 '' '' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' I •, ... • \-' 11 11 11 I □□.L I ~II~ -, ,____, ,: n L I . . I , , I , I , I , , , I , I , , 11 ' ' I I I I I I I I I ' I I I I I I I I I I I I ' ' I --' I , I , I , I , I , I , I , I , I , I I , , I I I! ! I [ ' ' I I I I I I I ! ! ' ' ••.· _,. ... . .-· .. : . L---,--:r""'r"7"""'"'.""'r"_-:-_ ,rc,-""'r"C"""C""""'." __ ..,._ ,--:---'"."'.""""7""""~--.-:~ •. 7"",_ 7=. --:-, . --:-__ ,--:-_ ,-'.""7".".;'.'"'.""7"".:-:,-'." __ • -_--:--::: -·--.-:----,-.. -:"7""777'.":'"'."':'.":'1:::::1'7:-"'7"""' :-:< - .,, :·.,.. ·. . i·'·, 1,: ..,._. '.,;,, -,." -. ' ' .. -._ ..... 1<< •. -, _,.; . • ·-- . . ,, .. ' •, .... ·' ,:>·-:.-.··· "_._-" PROPOSED LEFT ELEVATION (WEST) %ALE I/ 4" = I' I - . --- - " -- -- 11 ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' I " ' , I , I , I , I I I I I , ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' 12 ' I , I , I , I , I , I , I , I , ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' --<c:::],, ' , I , I , I I I I I I I I I I I ' '' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' I , I , I , I I I , I I I I I I ' '' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' , I , I , I , I I I I I , I I I ' '' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' .,· ' ' -- " ' - ' .•, . -- - --, . .' - I ' ' ' ' ' ' -' -, -- I I I I I I I I I I I --: - I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I ' '' ' ' ' ' ' I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I ' '·· • ....... II I II II 11 I 11 I I II '" -~·. .. -" - ' I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I ' ' ' ' I I I " -- I 7 " " • <O I <O PROPOSED TYPICAL MATERIALS (MATCH EXISTING): ROOF: COMPOSITION A SHINGLES SIDING: WOOD SHINGLES AND STUCCO WINDOWS: VINYL DUAL-PANE GLASS EXTIERIOR TRIM FOR WINDOWS: 4" WOOD TRIM PROPOSED 0 u N 0 L 0 L 0 &f::j~ +-' u Q) :r: L a~ Q) C I CJ) ~ 0 en ..---- Q) LO 0 Q) ~ L >0 <(O) Q) "SI- C ~O) $'. w 0 -c '-....,_ >u +-' >-__J C WW 0 __J <( __J LL u <(<( > 0::: Q_ ~z Q_ <( I"')<( ~lf) A-7 ELEVATIONS WATER EFFICIENT PLUMBING FIXTURES WINDOWS REQUIREMENTS M.E.P. GENERAL 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 PLAN NOTES (D SAFETY (TEMPERED) GLAZING: at: (1) hazardous locations-windows adjacent to: tubs showers, and tub/showers (2) adjacent lo and within 24 inches of either edge of doors (3) glazin_q less than 60" above walking surface at stairways or landing.s (4) windows within 5' horiz. from tub/shower unless btm ol glazing >60" abv. standing surface of tub/shower. a) SHOWER/TUB:• showerhead 1.8 gal. per min. max. a. shower stalls shall be a minimum fimshea interior of 1 1 024 square inches, be capable of encompassing a 30" diameter circle, and any doors shal swing out of the enclosure have a clear opening of 22" minimum. (cpc 411.6 and 411.7) ® (j) b. glazing in any portion of the shower, bathtub, or hydro-massage tub enclosure shall be safety glazing (1.e. temQered glass) when the bottom edge of the glazing is less than 50" above fhe standing surface oflhe unit. (cbc 2406.3 and ere 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 f20° f. any new or replaced water-filler valve in bathtubslwhirlpools shall have a temperature limiting device set at a maximum of 120° e. the water heater thermostat cannot be used to meefthe these provisions. (cpc 414.0 and 418.0) f. hydro-massage tubs (i.e.1·acuzzi tubs) shall have motor access, a gfci protected dedicated circuit, and be ul isled. all metal cables, fittingsLpiping, or other metal surfaces, within 5' of the inside wall of the hyrdo-massage tub shall oe 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-asbeslos fiber-cement reinforced cementitious backer units installed in accordance with manufacturers' recommendations. [r702.4.2] h.water-resistant gyRsum board shall not be installed over a class i or ii vaporretarder in a shower or tub compartment. [r702.3.7] waler resistant gypsumbacking board shall not be used where there will be direct exposure to water, or inareas subject to continuous hign humidity. [r702.3.7.1] 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. BATHROOM: a. all receptacles shall be gfci protected & tamQer resistant. new/additional outlets shall have a dedicated 20-amp circuit. (cec 406.11, 210.8, 210.11) b. provide energy star com3Iiant mechanical ventilation system capable of providing 5 air changes/hr-mechanical 5 cfm minimum; exhaust fans are required in all bathrooms, even 1f 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. drye~ bath and utility fans etc. must be 3 feet away from doors, windows, opening sl<yfights or auic vents) with dampers. d. lighting fixtures located within 3' horizontally and 8' vertically of the bathtub rim or shower slall 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 shalrbe controlled wifh 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-asbeslos fiber-cement reinforced cementitious liacker units installed in accordance with manufacturers' recommendations. [r702.4.2] h.water-resistant gyRsum 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 hign 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. dryers1 bath and utility fans etc. must be 3 feet away from doors, windows, opening slfyfights or aliic 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 Ii. 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 elm, or a 65 % capture efficiency. the _gas-powered range hood in a dwelling under 750 square feet, the hood capacity must be 280 elm, or an 85 % capture efficiency (ce). [cenc table150.0-g, cenc 150.0(o)g.1] 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 aucts 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 sl<vfights or attic vents) e. laundry room lighting: all flglits shall be fluorescent or controlled by an occuP.ant 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. GUARD RAILS: ~uardrail req'd at walking surface 30" or more above grade. guardrail height shall be min. 42 high with intermediate rails such that 4" s11here shalrnot pass through. guardrail & connection shall be capable of resisting 20 Qlf 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 P.0unds per square foot applied horizontally at right angles ofver the entire tributary area, including openings and spaces between rails. @ STAIRS: conform to at 1¼"-2t"hdiameter handrai~ mounted 34Jo 38in. above the tread nosing. required at all s airs wI 4 or more risers -return al en s b. handrails shall be moun ed so that the completed rail and supporting structure are caP.able 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 riser~ handrail both sides required at ext stairs; handrail at one side alloweo 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 ® 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" slopelor weather exposed landings; balconies and roof decks sealed uncferneath @ STORAGE UNDER STAIRS: Provide i" type x gyp bd under stairs at storage area, typ. @ 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 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. f1A\ 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 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 WATER HEATER: ( qas storaqe-tank type) a. seismic anchorage of Wl\ter heater il'lclude 3 anCHoi'l! 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. dwti location prohibited in bdrm; bathnm; clothes els!; or area open to same except direct vent appliance e. if located over framing; requires watertight pan w/1" drain f. externally wrapped wifh min. R-12 insulation @) 1-HR WALL BETWEEN GARAGE & LIVING SPACE: 5/8" type x gyp. bd garage side; 2x6 wd studs@ 16" o.c. w/R-19 bait insul; 1/2" gyp bd @house side. 1-hr clg ptween Qarage & house: 2 layers i" type X gyp. bd. garage side (fasten per CBC Table 7-C item 21-l.1j Fire separa ion shall extend through ceiling to the underside of roof sheathing. @ 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 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 with¼" 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. Otlierwise, such wood framing shan 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. @ 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. ATTIC ACCESS PANEL: R807.1: 22"x30" min. panel (size lar_ger to accomodate fau as req'd) located in hallway or other readily accessible location. if FAD in attic, provide 30" min deep platform in front of firebox & lighting outlet switched at access door near furnace. EGRESS WINDOW: 5.7 sq. fl. 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 tliat opens to a public way 1'i?, ARC-FAULT CIRCUIT INTERRUPTER: at all branch circuits that supply 120 V2:!J volt, single-phase, 15 and 20 ampere receptacle outlets installed in all dwelling unit rooms and kitcliens, except bathrooms and garages. CEC 210.12 SMOKE DETECTORS: new 110v smoke detectors (with batteiy 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 wllere ceiling height is more than 24" above hallway ceiling leading to sleeP.ing_ room. all smoke detectors are to be interconnectea 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) CARBON MONOXIDE ALARMS: (Sec:R315) new 110v carbon monoxide alanm (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 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 ® CLOSETS: Lighting in clothes closet shall be fully glass enclosed or flourescent fixture. EXTERIOR WALL GAPS: annular spaces around pipes, electric cables, conduits or openinings in sole/bottom plates at exterior walls shall be closed with cement morlar1 concrete masonry or a similar method acceptable to the enforcing agency to prevent passage o rodents. @ 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 ancfbe controlled by onf of the following combinations: a. photocell and motion sensor b. photocell and time switch c. astronomical lime clock d. EMCS with features of astronomical lime clock, does not allow the luminarie to be ON during the day, and may be programmed to automatically turn lighting off at night. INDOOR LIGHTING: Indoor lightin9 for new homes and remodels must be high efficacy. The definition of "high efficacy luminaires includes all light sources identified as "efficient" unaer the 2016 Standards. This includes linear flourescent; pin based compact fiourescent, GU-24 base CFL, HID, and induction. High efficacy products include any luminaire that contains a JAB-compliant lamp or otherlight source. In other words, any luminaire can ~ualigy as high efficacy as long as it meets wifh the requirements of Section 150.0(k) and Joint Appendix JAB. ® 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 approv~d 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 P.rovided that the aggregate area of the openings through the membrane does not exceed 100 square inches in any 100 square feet of wan 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 individuar non communicating stud cavities. -By solid fireblocking -By protecting both boxes with approved listed putty pads. B. Membrane P.enetrations 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. HOUSE 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. b. C. d. e. Whole house fans shall have a maximum of 1.0 sane sound rating, with a minum 100 cfm. HVAC contractor to provide and calculate system requirements. On the wall above switch, a label is required that stares somellng like "ventilation control" or "Operate Exhaust Fan when home is occupied" 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. Identify the exhaust or supply fans that are part of the mechanical ventilation system provides the appropriate ventilation rate. Ian switch shall have a label reading the following: "this switch controls the indoor air quality ventilation for the home. leave it on unless the ou!door air quality is very poor." @) MOISTURE BARRIER: Vapor retarder shall be a 6-mil polyethylene or approved vapor retarder with joints lal)ped not less than 6 incnes shall be praced between the concrete floor slab and P.repared 4 inch thick subgrade consisting of gravel, crushed stone or crushed concrete (ere r506.2.3). exception: subgrade is not required when the soil condition is of silty sand, sand-silt mixture (ere table r4'05.1 ). approvable methods: 1.icc esr#1413-redgard waterproofing and crack prevention membrane, ccure pro-red waterproofing membrane 963, cbp 232 waterproofing and antifracture membrane, ana jambo waterproofing membrane 2.icc esr #2417 -laticrete hydro ban 3.icc esr #2785 -polycoat-aquatight and flexideck 4. ice 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 steerer slope, a lever platfonm 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 palh of vehicles. [cmc 305.1.1] d.if outdoors, a compressor or porlion of acondensing unit supported from the ground shall rest of a concrete or other approvedbase extending not less !nan 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] @ 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 located between 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 ad/"acent to a side wall capable of accommodating a grab bar, the bathroom shall have provisions for insta lation of floor-mounted,foldaway or similar alternate grab bar reinforcements. Shower reinforcement shall be continuous where wall framing is 11rovided. Bathtub and combination bathtub/shower reinforcement shall be continuous on each end of the bathtub and the back wall. Additionallyhback wall reinforcement for a lower grab bar shall be provided with the bottom edge located no more t an 6" above the bathtub rim. (crcr327.1.1) EMERGENCY ESCAPE 'MNPOWS IN BEDROOMS PROVIDE OPERABLE ESCAPE WINDOWS (AT LEAST ONE IN EACH BEDROOM) MEETING ALL OF lHE FOLLOWING: A NET CLEAR OPENABLE AREA NOT LESS lHAN 5.7 SF A MINIMUM CLEAR OPENING HEIGHT OF 24". A MINIMUM CLEAR OPENING WIDlH OF 20" A SILL HEIGHT NOT OVER 44" ABOVE lHE FLOOR. NAJURAL LIGHT AND VENTILATION REQUIREMENTS EACH HABITABLE ROOM (EXCLUDES HALLWAYS, BAlHROOMS, AND LAUNDRY ROOMS) IS REQUIRED TO HAVE: NA lURAL LIGHT (WINDOWS OR SKYLIGHTS) SIZED TO A MINIMUM OF 8% OF lHE FLOOR AREA OF lHE ROOM VENTILATION (OPENABLE PORTION OF WINDOW OR SKYLIGHT) SIZED TO A MINIMUM OF 4% OF lHE FLOOR AREA. SAFETY GLAZING-WINDOWS GLAZING LESS 11-IAN 60" ABOVE 11-IE DRAIN INLET IN HOT TUBS, WHIRLPOOLS, SAUNAS, SlEAM ROOMS, BA 11-ITUBS AND SHOWERS SHALL BE lEMPERED. GLAZING IN FIXED OR OPENABLE PANELS ADJACENT TO A DOOR, WHERE 11-IE NEAREST EXPOSED EDGE OF 11-IE GLAZING IN WITI-IIN A 24" ARC OF EITI-IER VERTICAL EDGE OF 11-IE DOOR IN A CLOSED POSITION AND WHERE 11-IE BOTTOM EXPOSED EDGE IS LESS 11-IAN 60" ABOVE 11-IE WALKING SURFACE, SHALL BE lEMPERED. GLAZING IN WAL.LS ENCLOSING STAIRWAY LANDINGS OR WITI-IIN 5 FEET OF 11-IE BOTTOM AND TOP STAIRWAYS WHERE 11-IE BOTTOM EDGE OF 11-IE GLASS IS LESS 11-IAN 60" ABOVE A WALKING SURFACE SHALL lEMPERED. GLAZING IN INDIVIDUAL FIXED OR OPERABLE WINDOWS SHALL BE SAFETY TYPE IF 11-IE WINDOW IN QUESTION MEETS ALL OF THE FOLLOWING CONDmONS: -11-IE EXPOSED AREA OF 11-IE INDMDUAL PANE IS GREATER THAN 9 SQUARE FEET. -11-IE EXPOSED BOTTOM EDGE IS LESS 11-IAN 18" ABOVE 11-IE FLOOR. -11-IE EXPOSED TOP EDGE IS GREAlER THAN 36" ABOVE 11-IE FLOOR. -11-IERE ARE ONE OR MORE WALKING SURFACES WITHIN 36" HORIZONTALLY OF 11-IE PLANE OF 11-IE GLAZING. TYPE OF FIXTURE WATER CLOSET (TOILET) SHOWERHEAD FAUCET BATHROOM FAUCET KITCHEN REQUIRED WATER-CONSERV1NG PLUMBING FlXTURE (MAXIMUM FLOW-RATES) 1.28 GALLONS/FLUSH 1.8 GALLONS/MINUTE AT 8DPSI 1.2 GALLONS/MINUTE AT 60 PSI 1.8 GALLONS/MINUTE AT 60 PSI (AVERAGE) 1. ALL MECHANICAL AND ELEClRICAL WORK TO BE DESIGNED BUILD, INFORMATION PROVIDED FOR REFERENCE ONLY. 2. DUCT OPENINGS AND OlHER RELAlED AIR DISlRIBUTION COMPONENT OPENINGS SHALL BE COVERED DURING CONSlRUCTION 3. HVAC SYSlEM INSTALLERS SHALL BE lRAINED AND CERTIFIED IN lHE PROPER INSTALLATION OF HVAC SYSlEMS. 4. PROVIDE INSULATION FOR 11-IE HOT WAlER SUPPLY FROM lHE WATER HEAlER TO lHE KITCHEN FAUCET 5. PROVIDE GROUND-FAULT CIRCUIT INlERRUPTERS FOR RECEPTACLES INSTALLED AT BAlHROOM AND KITCHEN COUNlERTOP SURFACES. 6. AT 11-IE KITCHEN, PROVIDE 2-20 AMP CIRCUITS FOR SMALL APPLIANCES AND A 15 AMP DEDICAlED CIRCUIT FOR lHE REFRIGERATOR. INDEPENDENTLY, PROVIDE SEPARAlE CIRCUITS FOR LIGHTING, APPLIANCE RECEPTACLES, HOOD FANS, DISHWASHERS AND DISPOSALS. 7. ALL PERMANENTLY INSTALLED LU MIN AIRES IN KITCHENS SHALL BE HIGH EFFICACY LUMINAIRES, AS SPECIFIED IN §150.0(k)l 8. LIGHT FIXlURES RECESSED INTO INSULATED CEILINGS SHALL BE LISlED FOR ZERO CLEARANCE INSULATION CONTACT. 9. SMOKE DETECTORS SHALL BE INSTALLED IN EXISTING BEDROOMS, IN HALLWAYS, AND WllHIN EACH STORY. WHEN DWELLING HAS FUEL-BURNING APPLIANCES OR ATTACHED GARAGE: INSTALL CARBON MONOXIDE ALARM IN HALLWAYS ADJOINING SLEEPING AREAS AT EACH LEVEL. SMOKE DElECTORS AND CARBON MONOXIDE ALARMS SHALL RECEIVE lHEIR PRIMARY POWER FROM lHE BUILDING WIRING AND BATTERY BACKUP. 10. ALL PERMANENTLY INSTALLED LU MIN AIRES IN BATI-IROOM SHALL BE HIGH EmCACY LUMINAIRES, AS SPECIFIED IN §150.0(k)1 11. BAlHROOM RECEPTACLES SHALL BE INSTALLED ON A DEDICAlED 20-AMPERE BRANCH CIRCUIT lHAT IS: -DEDICATED TO ONLY BATI-IROOM RECEPTACLES OR, -DEDICATED TO lHE RECEPTACLES AND LIGHTING WllHIN A SINGLE BAlHROOM ONLY. 12. SURFACE MOUNlED LIGHTING FIXlURES IN CLOSETS SHALL BE 18" FROM STORAGE AREAS. FLUSH MOUNTED SHALL BE 6" AWAY. 13. ALL RECEPTACLES, LIGHTING CIRCUITS, SWITCHES AND HARD WIRED SMOKE DElECTORS INSTALLED IN ROOMS OlHER lHAN KITCHEN, SHALL BE PROTEClED WllH AN ARC FAULT CIRCUIT INlERRUPTER. 14. ALL RECEPTACLES SHALL BE TAMPER RESISTANCE IN ACCORDANCE TO 2022 CEC 15. EXHAUST FANS Will-I INlEGRAL LIGHTING SYSlEM SHALL BE SWITCHES SEPARATELY FROM LIGHTING SYSTEM OR HA VE A LIGHTING SYSlEM lHAT CAN BE MANUALLY lURNED ON AND OFF WHILE ALLOWING lHE FAN TO CONTINUE TO OPERAlE FOR AN EXTENDED PERIOD OF TIME. LIGHTING INlEGRAL TO AN EXHAUST FAN MUST BE HIGH-EFFICACY. 16. EACH BAlHROOM IS REQUIRED TO HAVE A 50 CFM MINIMUM EXHAUST FAN DUClED TO lHE OUTSIDE. BAlHROOM IS ANY ROOM WllH A BAlHlUB, SHOWER, SPA OR SIMILAR SOURCES OF MOISTURE. TOILET ROOM IS NOT CONSIDERED A BAlHROOM. 17. NOT USED 18. LOCAL EXHAUST FANS ARE REQUIRED TO BE RAlED FOR SOUND AT A MAXIMUM OF 3 SONES, UNLESS lHEIR MAXIMUM RAlED AIRFLOW EXCEEDS 400 CFM. 19. PROVIDE ONE 20A DEDICATED CIRCUIT FOR lHE RECEPTACLE OUTLETS FOR lHE LAUNDRY ROOM. lHE 20A LAUNDRY ROOM RECEPTACLE CIRCUIT CAN SUPPLY MORE lHAN ONE RECEPTACLE IN lHE LAUNDRY ROOM. lHIS RECEPTACLE CAN NOT SUPPLY OlHER OUTLETS, SUCH AS lHE LAUNDRY ROOM LIGHTING OR RECEPTACLES IN OlHER ROOMS. GFCI PROlECTION IS NOT REQUIRED FOR 15A AND 20A, 125V RECEPTACLES IN A LAUNDRY ROOM, UNLESS lHEY ARE wtlHIN 6 FT OF A SINK. 20. EXHAUST DUCTS FOR DRYER SHALL 1ERMINA1E ON lHE OUTSIDE OF lHE BUILDING AND NOT LESS lHAN 3 FEET IN ANY DIRECTION FROM OPENINGS INTO BUILDINGS. DUCT lERMINATION SHALL BE EQUIPED Will-I A BACKDRAFT DAMPER 21. LIGHTING CONlROL FOR KITCHEN, DINING, FAMILY, LIVING, AND BEDROOMS SHALL BE ON DIMMERS. 22. LIGHTING CONlROL FOR GARAGE, LAUNDRY, BAlHROOMS, AND STORAGE SHALL BE ON VACANCY SENSORS. 23. EXlERIOR LIGHTS SHALL BE ON TIMERS OR PHOTO SENSORS. 24. GFI RECEPTACLE FOR EACH PARKING SPACE. 25. PROVIDE EARlHQUAKE SHUTOFF VALVE 26. ALL LIGHTS lHROUGHOUT lHE RESIDENCE, INCLUDING lHE GARAGE AND EXlERIOR, SHALL BE HIGH EFFICACY. 27. LIGHTING IN ALL HABITABLE SPACES SHALL HAVE DIMMER CONlROLS (ENERGY CODE 150.0(K)2F) 28. ELEClRICAL RECEPTACLE OUTLETS, SWITCHES AND CONlROLS INlENDED TO BE USED BY OCCUPANTS, SHALL BE LOCATED NO MORE lHAN 48" MEASURED FROM lHE TOP OF lHE OUTLET BOX AND NOT LESS 11-IAN 15"MEASURED FROM lHE BOTTOM OF lHE OUTLET BOX ABOVE 11-IE FINISH FLOOR. (CRC 327.1.2) 29. AT 11-IE KITCHEN ISLAND, A MINIMUM OF ONE GFI/AFCI PROTEClED ELEClRICAL RECEPTACLE SHALL BE INSTALLED AT KITCHEN ISLAND COUNlERTOPS WllH A SURFACE AREA OF 9 SQUARE FEET OR LESS. FOR ISLAND COUNlER TOPS WllH AN AREA OF MORE 11-IAN 9 SQUARE FEET, AN ADDITIONAL ELEClRICAL RECEPTACLE SHALL BE INSTALLED FOR EVERY ADDITIONAL 18 SQUARE FEET OF COUNTERTOP SURFACE AREA. lWO ELEClRICAL RECEPTACLES ARE REQUIRED. (CEC 210.52(C)(2)) PLAN NOTES 0 u N 0 L 0 L 0 &f::j~ +-' u Q) :r: . . a~ L Q) C I CJ) ~~ ·-en Q) 0 Q) ~ L >0 <(O) Q) -.:I- C ~O) 3::: w - 0 -c -........._ >u +-' >-_J C WW 0 _J<( _J LL u <(<( ·-> 0::: -I Q_ Q_ I ~z <( I I"")<( ~lf) A-8 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 <c-D □ ~ <c-D □~ <c-~ D □ 0 D <c-~ '"" I DS • I t <c-0 Cl Cl Cl DI DI DI () Q DS PROPOSED ROOF PLAN SC-Al.£: I/ 4" = I' I "' RIDGE OR VALJ.£Y DIRECTION OF WAlER FLOW ~ DOWN SPOUT [!JDS I I ROOF' LOU~ vans e· x us· ADU ATTIC VENTILATION CALCULATION ATTIC AREA TO BE VEN Tl LA TIED = 232 SF REQUIRED VENTILATION AREA = 1,815 SF / 150 SF = 12.10 SF PROVIDED ATTIC VENTILATION AREA: -ROOF VENTS = (19) X 0.66 = 12.54 -GABLE VENT = (0) X 0.66 = 0.00 TOTAL = 12.54 SF Tl-lEREFORE TOTAL PROVIDED VENTILATION AREA IS MORE THAN REQUIRED ROOF PLAN 0 u N 0 L 0 L 0 &f::j~ +-' u Q) :r: a~ L Q) C I CJ) ~~ en Q) 0 Q) ~ L >0 <(O) Q) -.:I- C ~O) $'. w - 0 -c -........._ >u >-_J +-' C WW _J<( 0 _J LL u <(<( > 0::: Q_ ~z Q_ <( I"')<( ~lf) A-9 & SECTIONS Lisa Dal Gallo Josh Sullivan 127 Valley View Ave. San Rafael, CA 94901 City of San Rafael Planning Commission 1400 510 Ave., Suite 209 San Rafael, CA 94901 Dear Planning Commission: We write to formally appeal the City of San Rafael's approval of the reasonable accommodation request relating to planned construction at 131 Valley View Avenue and attach a copy of Associate Planner Renee Nickenig's October 17 letter approving the request. We disagree with the City's determination that the reasonable accommodation request provides our neighbors with equal access to housing under the Federal Fair Housing Act and the California Fair Employment and Housing Act and disagree that the factors set forth in San Rafael Municipal Code Section 14.26.060 support grating the reasonable accommodation request. Consequently we request the Planning Commission hear our appeal at its next public meeting. October 17, 2024 Habibolah Hastaie & Carol Underwood 131 Valley View Ave San Rafael, CA 94901 Via Email: 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@cityofsanrafae l.o rg . Sincerely, Renee Nickenig, Associate Planner CITY OF SAN RAFAEL ATTACHMENTS 1. Findings and Conditions 2. Project Plans cc: Application Address File CITY OF SAN RAFAEL : 1400 FIFTH AVENUE, SAN RAFAEL, CALIFORNIA 94901 : CITYOFSANRAFAEL.ORG Kate Colin, Mayor• Maribeth Bushey, Vice Mayor• Rachel Kertz, Councilmember • Maika Llorens Gulati, Councilmember • Eli Hill, Councilmember Address: Request for Reasonable Accommodation Project No. RA24-001 (PLAN23-151) roved : Yes Effective Date: 10/25/2024 Signature : ~ J 10/17/2024 Project Descr ipt ion 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. C:EQA Finding Yes No The project is categorically X The project has been determined to be exempt from exe mpt from the provisions of he provisions of CEQA pursuant to CEQA Guidelines the California Environmental Section 15303 -New Construction or Conversion of Quality Act (CEQA) and none Small Structures. of the exceptions of Section 15300.2 app ly . 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; 2. Whether the request for reasonable accommodation is necessary to make specific housing available to an individual with a disability under the Acts; 3. Whether there is an alternative accommodation which may provide an equivalent level of benefit; 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. 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. 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 Page 2 of 5 4. Whether the requested accommodation would negatively impact surrounding uses or properties; 5. Whether the requested reasonable accommodation would impose an undue financial or administrative burden on the city; and 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 1, 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. 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. 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. 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 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 Page 4 of 5 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 Va lid ity. 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. Exte ri or 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). 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 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 01.13.25 7 MARK: 323.9 ' 12" STU 8" TR[[ 6 " STUMP 6" TR[[ 5" TR[[ ., (jl (jl • Z- 7.~ ~ 0 ~'-1t7 o ... EX-Tc 332.66' EX-FL 332.25' -+> <5' ... ... :z <...,,-\ er> • c..O -+> ... 573·01·oo"W 73.59 ' ., ~ <D '~/ [X. CONC. ST[PS V 17 ., 27'-2" l7 · 1> ' l> 1> ' "' 1> "' 1> 1> ' ., "' 1> [X. -0R/V[WAY 'v' ' 1> ' ., ., 6" fR[[ I 1 0) "1 N CJ7 VALLEY . "1 0 I") ., ., ., (Jl ___. (Jl -5' ., "' ' " . - <.o "1 ' "' ., ., ~ hS:~l ~ WOOD[N POST ROOF OUTLIN[ APN 1 [X. UTILITY BOX EX-Tc 345_09 , EX-FL 344.65' SITE PLAN 0 u N 0 L 0 L 0 &.-+-' N u .- ~ ~ i L'. ~ 8 Cl) '----.....5 r--- c I .01 ~o en .- (I) LO 0 Q) ~ >0 ~ <(~ C ~m 3:: w : 0 >8 -........._ +-' >-_J C WW 0 _J <( _J LL u <( <( ·-> 0::: o_ I o_ I ~z <( I~~ A-1 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 01.13.25 EXISTING LOWER FLOOR PLAN (GARAGE) SCALE: 1/4" = 1' • 0, I ;,., N • 0, I "' N • r--. I ;,-, ~ • I 0 • 0 I -:.,. N (E) C 13'-7" <9 0 (E) PRIMARY BEDROOM I@ (E) CL (E) BEDROOM ~ 12'-6" 30'-7" 26'-3" (E) GARAGE 58'-5" 6'-8" 7'-4" 10'-9" ~ ~ ~ il)D G]rJ 0 (E) BA TI-I (E) BATI-1 (E) KITCHEN a • @ (E) LINEN (E) HALL @ (E) CL (E) HALL @I @ (E) BEDROOM (E) PORCH 1 l'-1" 3'-1" g' 3'-5" 12'-1" 6' @ @j) (E) DINING ':.,- (E) PORCH I 0 @j) r L..------------- • "' (E) LIVING F.P. I -:.,. ~ 18' -1" t:EADER !5<J1fPI I f· -4 X ~ LP TO ,4' OFl=NINE> -4 X f> LP TO 6 OFl=NINEi -4 X l:1. LP TO fl OFl=NINEi DOOR SCHEDULE TAG I SIZE TYPE I MODEL I REMARKS @i) 3'-Q" X 6'-8" HINGED VlNYL @ 2'-6" X 6'-8" HINGED VlNYL @ 17'8"-0" X 6'-8" HINGED VlNYL WINDOW SCHEDULE SEE TYPICAL COOSTRUCllOII NOlES FOR ADDITIONAL \\INDOW INFORMATION TAG SIZE TYPE MANUF. MODEL REMARKS w X H 0 6'x3' SLIDING VINYL ~ 3'x3' SLIDING VlNYL <§> 8'x4' SLIDING VlNYL <B> 6'x4' SLIDING VlNYL <v 1 o'x5' SLIDING VlNYL i> 4'x3' SLIDING VlNYL EXISTING FLOOR PLAN 0 u N 0 L 0 L 0 +-' u (I) :r: L (I) C 3:: 0 -........._ +-' C 0 u Q_ Q_ <( Q) ~ >0 <(°' -.:t- ~O) w --c >u >-_J WW _J<( _J LL <(<( > 0::: A-2 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 01.13.25 N N <O "' PORCH 13'-4" PORCH 13' .BEDROOM ·~•· CL F ~i:=-=:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: . CL ••• • . .-. .-.-.. • .. • . .".'</)"." ••• • . .-. .-.-. .-. .-. .-.z ·.- • • • • • ·.-.-_g'_.:.,.a~-• • • • • • BEDROOM ......... : :-: !:i -:- 1 ......... ·.·.· ... ·.·. ffi •r····.······~·•• .. •.·••••••••••••••••• .• .. •.•.•.•.• . (@ ·.·· . . . '----I ........ . . . . . . . ..... . . . . . . . . . . . . ...... . ••• • •• •••••••• <KitCHEN <••· > <••····•······ >•§)• >••· •••>• "<o I "' 0 ..., ··• ·•··••Ld .. d[J~•···•"~ ~ +--t--+t==-~=====i;:==t ,..L::::...::::...::::...=..:i...::::...::...=-.=-.=-.=-.=-.::::...::::...::::...::...:_::...::::c...~~~~:,_E..::...::...=-.=.._i_:::_:::_~:::_:":_~:__.5...E,__::...::...=-.~=-=-=-=-=-:i..=-=-=-=-.=t1----------+ • 0 I <t N GLASS @JI (E) GARAGE 29'-8" • I ;,., TAG I SIZE @) 3'-Q" X 6'-8" @ 2'-6" X 6'-8" :-: :-:-:-:-: :-: : :-:-:-: ~ I HEADfR 6Ctl:0 I f: 4 X '-LP TO ,V bf'ENINE':1 4 X & LP TO _,. bf'ENINE':1 4 X IZ LP TO &' bf'ENINE':1 DOOR SCHEDULE I TYPE I MODEL I HINGED HINGED REMARKS v1NYL v1NYL WINDOW SCHEDULE SEE TYPICAL CONSlRUCTION NOTES FOO ADDITIONAL YtllllOW INFORMATION TAG SIZE TYPE MANUF. MODEL REMARKS w X H 0 6'x4' SLIDING --v1NYL ~ 6'x5' SLIDING --v1NYL <§> 4'x4' SLIDING --v1NYL <§> 3'x1' SLIDING --v1NYL 0 3'x3' SLIDING --v1NYL 0 3'x5' SLIDING - - v1NYL U.F. SHGC FOR NEW ~NOOWS El EGJRICAL LfGENP DUPLEX OUlLET I[]) I[]) DUPLEX OUlLET W/ GROUND FAULT SWITCH \ _,.-WIRING ~ -¢-CEILING/PENDANT LIGHT <ll FAN WITH LIGHT ♦ RECESS LIGHT " r:ti:lBK:,IL trn@ 1-El.UTRIUL ITcM5 st'UtlN ~ 5ttf'MATJ,', ,W Tit IN5T IU.ATION 6HIU.. llE RE\IIEM:D r,y Tit llll..DIOO IN6f'Et.TOR IN Tit Fli.P. 1. IU. tlJll.EI" 6Pla\'EI, 'Elfl' ~6, P!Ni. taATION5 ,W LDID ~ 6HIU.. ~ PERTANI00/1..iUL ure ~6. '· N:W MNMM IOO !NP 61:RVla: ~ f.e IN61" IU. FOR Tit N:W ~ D'M:LLINE':I PER tEC-2/713. PROPOSED FLOOR PLAN ADU 0 u N 0 L 0 L 0 +-' u Q) :r: L Q) C $'. 0 -........._ +-' C 0 u Q_ Q_ <( Q) ~ >0 <(O) -.:t-~O) w --c >u >-_J WW _J<( _J LL <(<( > 0::: A-3 (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 01.13.25 PROPOSED MAIN HOUSE FLOOR PLAN ' ; j ~ • r--- 1 r--. 14'-5" 7'-1" (N) <$> ·············~··········· . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. •.•.• .. •.• .. •.•.•.• .. •.•.•.• .. ·.·.·.~···.·.··.·.·.·.· . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ....... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . BAlH (E) PRIMARY BEDROOM " ·,:..;.........: • ' [3 ---::.1)0 I I (E) BAlH -/ ' (E) LINEN r,: r--"i t .:::J,: ==========i•C:.J (E) CL (E) HALL CL ~ (E) BEDROOM (E) BEDROOM PRO\oiSIONS FO CL ~ 12'-10" 11'-1" SC.ALE 1/4" = I' "' N G ~ 1£VATOR CL 7' "' ~ ,------ ill DECK 0 ill a:, 0 - 0 ill OJ 5 ~ (E) CL (E) KITCHEN -[I ~ (E) HALL g' (N) FOYER/ @ (N) (N) PORCH -.. = ·:·. F <B> [2j l 2'-7" 9'-4" 15'-5" ® DINING J 8'-8" (E) LIVING ' (lf) 12·-11· 18' -1" . . ' .. I DOOR SCHEDULE TAG I SIZE I TYPE I MODEL I REMARKS @j) 3' -Q" X 6' -8" HINGED SOLID WOOD OR FlBER GLASS @ 2°-6" X 6'-8" HINGED SOLID WOOD OR FlBER GLASS ® 2°-6" X 6'-8" BIFOLD SOLID WOOD OR FlBER GLASS @) 2'-8" X 6' -8" HINGED SOLID WOOD OR FlBER GLASS @ 3' -Q" X 6' -8" HINGED SOLID WOOD OR FlBER GLASS l ' WINDOW SCHEDULE SEE TIPICAI. CONSlRUCTION NOlES FOR ADDITIONAL YIINDOW INFORMATION TAG SIZE TYPE MANUF. MODEL REMARKS WxH 0 6'x3' SLIDING --VlNYL OR FlBER GLASS ~ 3'x3' SLIDING --VINYL OR FIBER GLASS <$> 8'x4' SLIDING --VlNYL OR FlBER GLASS ~ 6 1 x4' SLIDING --VlNYL OR FlBER GLASS 0 1 o'x5' SLIDING --VlNYL OR FlBER GLASS .......... <€> 4'x3' SLIDING --VlNYL OR FlBER GLASS <B> ~ 40"X24" SLIDING --VlNYL OR FlBER GLASS ... <B> 40"X60" SLIDING --VlNYL OR FlBER GLASS 0 3'X4' SLIDING --VlNYL OR FlBER GLASS 0 3'X5' CASEMENT --VlNYL OR FlBER GLASS <B> 2'X5' CASEMENT --VlNYL OR FlBER GLASS 2'-7" I FOR NEW \\1NDOWS U.F. SHGC PROPOSED ELECTRICAL LEGEND 0 DUPLEX OUTLET 0 DUPLEX OUTLET W/ GROUND FAULT SWITCH \ ,,,.-WIRING ~ -¢-CEILING/PENDANT LIGHT (5) FAN WllH LIGHT ♦ RECESS LIGHT I. EL.Et,l'RIUL ITI:M5 511/N/N ~ !Of:MATii; 1W Tl1: FLOOR IN5r IU.ATJ(;N 61111.L llE R1:V1:'M:P f!>Y Tl1: IU.DINE':> IN6f'EC.Ti:R IN Tl1: FIELD. IU. tllJll..Ef !:f'ACINE':>, 'E't'I' ~IREM:NT5, PAN:!.. L..OUruN5 1W L.OID Dl:MAi'D6 6HIU. M:l:r Pl:RTAININE'>/\,alt.. U're ~5. JIEW MINM.M kW 1M' !cRVltE 6HIU. llE IN5f lU. Fi:R Tl1: JIEW Ka£/SORY 17MilN:> F1:R tfC. 202.2. PLAN ADITION 0 u N 0 L 0 L 0 &f::j~ +--' u Q) :r: L a~ Q) C I CJ) ~~ en Q) 0 Q) ~ L >0 <(O) Q) -.:I- C ~O) $'. w - 0 -c -........._ >u +--' >-_J C WW 0 _J<( _J LL u <(<( > 0::: Q_ ~z Q_ <( I"')<( ~lf) A-4 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 01.13.25 EXISTING REAR ELEVATION (NORTH) EXISTING RIGHT ELEVATION (EAST) EXISTING LEFT ELEVATION (WEST) • a, I 1,,-, EXISTING TYPICAL MATERIALS: ROOF: COMPOSITION A SHINGLES SIDING: WOOD SHINGLES AND STUCCO WINDOWS: VINYL DUAL-PANE GLASS EXTERIOR TRIM FOR WINDOWS: 4" WOOD TRIM II II I II II I II I II I II l-t-'7'1-'-rht-'-n'-rht-'-trr'ht11hT"TTTlht-'7/rr'l".t"'T~I ~ lll -rr'-fl'rht'71T'T'/I I~~-~•□ D D Ill~ I I DDn•-~~--- %.ALE I/ 4" = I' II II II II II II II II %.ALE I/ 4" = I' ' a, I 1,,-, in I 1,,-, N ' a, I 1,,-, II %.ALE: I/ 4" = I' II II II %.ALE: I/ 4" = I' • a, I 1,,-, II II EXISTING ELEVATIONS 0 u N 0 L 0 L 0 +--' u Q) :r: L Q) C $'. 0 -........._ +--' C 0 u Q_ Q_ <( Q) ~ >0 <(O) -.:t-~O) w --c >u >-_J WW _J<( _J LL <(<( > 0::: A-5 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 01.13.25 PROPOSED FRONT ELEVATION (SOUTH) PROPOSED REAR ELEVATION (NORTH) "-l!.i:!r,!l,rnlt,w -l~l ~ • 0, I ;.-, ~ '· •. ., ~ DD□ .. DD I ·· .. • ' ~J;.. " ' ... ' I .. ·.· I . •. ' ' II " : ' ' . " 11 11 II II I " I .. . _ .. l'-/n¥-rl--+r'T'II-I 111 II 1111 II 111 II I 11 I I I I I I I I I 11 I I I " " " " " " " " " " " " ·.• : .... •· ·, ·:· .: •. .· . ·. ,·. ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' '' ' ' I I I, I I I I I I I I I I I '' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' '' ' ' I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I '' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' '' ' ' I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I '' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' '' ' ' I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I '' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' I 1111 II 111 II 111 II 1111 I I I I I I I " " " " " " " " " " " " .. .-·:-. ·' ·, ' . ' ' ' ' , . . ' '· ' I I , , I I , I , I , I , I , I , I , I I , ' ' I I I I I I I I I I ' , I , I , I , I , I , I, I , '' ' ., II ' ' ' " ' II 1111 II 1111 II 1111 , .... '.·· □ I ., ., .: ... -1 Ji1'1 -' l J I:, ,., . l ~ II ' l l l ~ ~ I I 11 11 111 II 1111 II 111 I I I II I I 11 II II I ~I ' I I ., I I " .. I " ·.'. ' %ALE: I/ 4" = I' ' " ' II 1111 II I [I] I 1 II I I I '.' " %ALE: I/ 4" = I' I I . .---· •• : ... ' . .. -· I .. ,, .. -· .· > '.· [I] <· .... ' . :;;_. ' • .. · .. I I •. " PROPOSED TYPICAL MATERIALS (MATCH EXISTING): ROOF: COMPOSITION A SHINGLES SIDING: WOOD SHINGLES AND STUCCO WINDOWS: VINYL DUAL-PANE GLASS EXTERIOR TRIM FOR WINDOWS: 4" WOOD TRIM ' ' ' ' I I I I I I I I I I I I I I ' ' ' I I , I I ' ·_·, . • . 0, I ;,, 0 u N 0 L .. 0 L 's;[ I >-I I I,,' 0 i .- +--' N u .---Q) .---:r: I a t"J L 0 Q) r--- C I CJ) ~ 0 en .--- Q) LO 0 Q) ~ L >0 <(O) Q) -.:I- C ~O) $'. w 0 -c -.......__ >u +--' >-_J C WW 0 _J<( _J LL u <(<( > 0::: Q_ ~z Q_ <( I"')<( ~lf) '' ' ' I I I I I ' '' I , , I , I , I , I , I , I , I , I I ' A-6 PROPOSED ELEVATIONS 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 01.13.25 PROPOSED RIGHT ELEVATION (EAST) PROPOSED LEFT ELEVATION (WEST) -I "' I I I I I , I , I, I, I I I I I I I ' ' ' ' ' ' I , I , I , I , I I I I . I ·l'-fTY/-.+'-nY'ht"-h'-rl-;/-"'-/,Y, l'-;-1-','lrY/ 1--.1-'-nl'Yl-.+'-hlY/-,-/-'-;/rY,'-I I " . I %ALE 1/4" I ' ' ' ' ~J:..-I I I I I I I I I I I I '' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' '' I I I I I I I I I I I I I '' ' ' ' ' ' '' I I I I I I I I I I I I I '' ' ' I ••... • \-' I 1~111--□~ □ :. ! L ' I , , I , , I , I , I , , , I , I , , I ' ' I I I I I I I I I ' I I I I I I I I I I I I ' ' ' ' , , I I , I , I , I , I , I , I , I , I , I I , , I I ' ' I ! I I I I I ! ! ' ' I I ". ~-['""']""T""T""T""T .. _T"".".---,-,""T""T .. ,..,.,. -,---,-,.,-,,,~..,...,-,--,--•. -,-, . ..,...,..-, -,-. ·..,.·,.,..,. . .....,,......,,.,,.,,...,...,..: ,._.....,,.,:,,·,....•·-·: .....,,.,..,.,.,..~--,--:r....,.,.,,..,.. :-:< . . ·'· .,, :·.,. .. .-:-,,.- ..,._. '.,;,, ._., .. •. -, .. ,, .. ' • ' ,: :.: ":. ·., "_._-" I I I > ,•, . : ,._ -. II = 1· I %ALE I/ 4" = I' I I I I I I _,. ... -,.·· ,, _,.; . PROPOSED TYPICAL MATERIALS (MATCH EXISTING): ROOF: COMPOSITION A SHINGLES SIDING: WOOD SHINGLES AND STUCCO WINDOWS: VINYL DUAL-PANE GLASS EXTIERIOR TRIM FOR WINDOWS: 4" WOOD TRIM ' ' , I , I , I , I , I , I , ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' I , I , I , I , I , I , I , I , ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' , I , I , I , I , I , I , I , I ' '' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' I 0 u N 0 I- 0 I- 0 i .. ·. .-+-' N ~ u .---Q) .--- :r: I a t"J I-0 Q) r--- C I CJ) ~ 0 en .--- Q) LO 0 Q) ~ I->0 <(O) Q) -.:I- C ~O) $'. w 0 -c -........._ >u +-' >-_J C WW 0 _J<( _J LL u <(<( > 0::: Q_ ~z Q_ <( I"')<( ~lf) ' .t ' ' I I I I I I I I ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' I I I I I I I I I I I ' '' ' ' ' I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I ' I I I 111 II I I I I I I I 7 I I I II 1 1 I "'-1..11--11~ - '.-,•. : ·' . .,. --: . :, -., . . . , ..... . ·..:.· . ...... A-7 PROPOSED ELEVATIONS 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 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 01.13.25 PLAN NOTES @ CD 0 @ 03) @ @ (gas storage-tank type) @ - @) ® I @ @ @ (3) ® (j) ® I ® @ @) @ @ EMERGENCY ESCAPE 'MNPOWS IN BEDROOMS PROVIDE OPERABLE ESCAPE WINDOWS (AT LEAST ONE IN EACH BEDROOM) MEETING ALL OF THE FOLLOWING: -A NET CLEAR OPENABLE AREA NOT LESS THAN 5.7 SF A MINIMUM CLEAR OPENING HEIGHT OF 24". A MINIMUM CLEAR OPENING WIDTH OF 20" A SILL HEIGHT NOT OVER 44" ABOVE THE FLOOR. NAJURAL LIGHT AND VENTILATION REQUIREMENTS EACH HABITABLE ROOM (EXCLUDES HALLWAYS, BATHROOMS, AND LAUNDRY ROOMS) IS REQUIRED TO HAVE: -NATURAL LIGHT (WINDOWS OR SKYLIGHTS) SIZED TO A MINIMUM OF 8% OF THE FLOOR AREA OF THE ROOM -VENTILATION (OPENABLE PORTION OF WINDOW OR SKYLIGHT) SIZED TO A MINIMUM OF 4% OF THE FLOOR AREA. SAFETY GLAZING-WINDOWS -GLAZING LESS THAN 60" ABOVE THE DRAIN INLET IN HOT TUBS, WHIRLPOOLS, SAUNAS, SlEAM ROOMS, BATHTUBS AND SHOWERS SHALL BE lEMPERED. -GLAZING IN FIXED OR OPENABLE PANELS ADJACENT TO A DOOR, WHERE THE NEAREST EXPOSED EDGE OF THE GLAZING IN WITHIN A 24" ARC OF EITHER VERTICAL EDGE OF THE DOOR IN A CLOSED POSITION AND WHERE THE BOTTOM EXPOSED EDGE IS LESS THAN 60" ABOVE THE WALKING SURFACE, SHALL BE lEMPERED. GLAZING IN WALLS ENCLOSING STAIRWAY LANDINGS OR WITHIN 5 FEET OF THE BOTTOM AND TOP STAIRWAYS WHERE THE BOTTOM EDGE OF THE GLASS IS LESS THAN 60" ABOVE A WALKING SURFACE SHALL lEMPERED. -GLAZING IN INDIVIDUAL FIXED OR OPERABLE WINDOWS SHALL BE SAFETY TYPE IF THE WINDOW IN QUESTION MEETS OF THE FOLLOWING CONDmONS: -THE EXPOSED AREA OF THE INDMDUAL PANE IS GREATER THAN 9 SQUARE FEET. -THE EXPOSED BOTTOM EDGE IS LESS THAN 18" ABOVE THE FLOOR. -THE EXPOSED TOP EDGE IS GREAlER THAN 36" ABOVE THE FLOOR. -THERE ARE ONE OR MORE WALKING SURFACES WITHIN 36" HORIZONTALLY OF THE PLANE OF THE GLAZING. TYPE OF FIXTURE WATER CLOSET (TOILET) SHOWERHEAD FAUCET BATHROOM FAUCET KITCHEN REQUIRED WATER-CONSERV1NG PLUMBING FlXTURE (MAXIMUM FLOW-RATES) 1.28 GALLONS/FLUSH 1.8 GALLONS/MINUTE AT 8DPSI 1.2 GALLONS/MINUTE AT 60 PSI 1.8 GALLONS/MINUTE AT 60 PSI (AVERAGE) 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. ALL MECHANICAL AND ELECTRICAL WORK TO BE DESIGNED BUILD, INFORMATION PROVIDED FOR REFERENCE ONLY. DUCT OPENINGS AND OTHER RELAlED AIR DISTRIBUTION COMPONENT OPENINGS SHALL BE COVERED DURING CONSTRUCTION HVAC SYSlEM INSTALLERS SHALL BE TRAINED AND CERTIFIED IN THE PROPER INSTALLATION OF HVAC SYSlEMS. PROVIDE INSULATION FOR THE HOT WAlER SUPPLY FROM THE WATER HEAlER TO THE KITCHEN FAUCET PROVIDE GROUND-FAULT CIRCUIT INlERRUPTERS FOR RECEPTACLES INSTALLED AT BATHROOM AND KITCHEN COUNlERTOP SURFACES. AT THE KITCHEN, PROVIDE 2-20 AMP CIRCUITS FOR SMALL APPLIANCES AND A 15 AMP DEDICAlED CIRCUIT FOR THE REFRIGERATOR. INDEPENDENTLY, PROVIDE SEPARAlE CIRCUITS FOR LIGHTING, APPLIANCE RECEPTACLES, HOOD FANS, DISHWASHERS AND DISPOSALS. ALL PERMANENTLY INSTALLED LU MIN AIRES IN KITCHENS SHALL BE HIGH EFFICACY LUMINAIRES, AS SPECIFIED IN §150.0(k)l LIGHT FIXTURES RECESSED INTO INSULATED CEILINGS SHALL BE LISlED FOR ZERO CLEARANCE INSULATION CONTACT. SMOKE DETECTORS SHALL BE INSTALLED IN EXISTING BEDROOMS, IN HALLWAYS, AND WITHIN EACH STORY. WHEN DWELLING HAS FUEL-BURNING APPLIANCES OR ATTACHED GARAGE: INSTALL CARBON MONOXIDE ALARM IN HALLWAYS ADJOINING SLEEPING AREAS AT EACH LEVEL. SMOKE DElECTORS AND CARBON MONOXIDE ALARMS SHALL RECEIVE THEIR PRIMARY POWER FROM THE BUILDING WIRING AND BA TlERY BACKUP. 10. ALL PERMANENTLY INSTALLED LU MIN AIRES IN BATHROOM SHALL BE HIGH EmCACY LUMINAIRES, AS SPECIFIED IN §150.0(k)1 11. BATHROOM RECEPTACLES SHALL BE INSTALLED ON A DEDICAlED 20-AMPERE BRANCH CIRCUIT THAT IS: -DEDICATED TO ONLY BATHROOM RECEPTACLES OR, -DEDICATED TO THE RECEPTACLES AND LIGHTING WITHIN A SINGLE BATHROOM ONLY. 12. SURFACE MOUNlED LIGHTING FIXTURES IN CLOSETS SHALL BE 18" FROM STORAGE AREAS. FLUSH MOUNTED SHALL BE 6" AWAY. 13. ALL RECEPTACLES, LIGHTING CIRCUITS, SWITCHES AND HARD WIRED SMOKE DElECTORS INSTALLED IN ROOMS OTHER THAN KITCHEN, SHALL BE PROTEClED WITH AN ARC FAULT CIRCUIT INlERRUPTER. 14. ALL RECEPTACLES SHALL BE TAMPER RESISTANCE IN ACCORDANCE TO 2022 CEC 15. EXHAUST FANS WITH INlEGRAL LIGHTING SYSlEM SHALL BE SWITCHES SEPARATELY FROM LIGHTING SYSTEM OR HA VE A LIGHTING SYSlEM THAT CAN BE MANUALLY TURNED ON AND OFF WHILE ALLOWING THE FAN TO CONTINUE TO OPERAlE FOR AN EXTENDED PERIOD OF TIME. LIGHTING INlEGRAL TO AN EXHAUST FAN MUST BE HIGH-EFFICACY. 16. EACH BATHROOM IS REQUIRED TO HAVE A 50 CFM MINIMUM EXHAUST FAN DUClED TO THE OUTSIDE. BATHROOM IS ANY ROOM WITH A BATHTUB, SHOWER, SPA OR SIMILAR SOURCES OF MOISTURE. TOILET ROOM IS NOT CONSIDERED A BATHROOM. 17. NOT USED 18. LOCAL EXHAUST FANS ARE REQUIRED TO BE RAlED FOR SOUND AT A MAXIMUM OF 3 SONES, UNLESS THEIR MAXIMUM RAlED AIRFLOW EXCEEDS 400 CFIM. 19. PROVIDE ONE 20A DEDICATED CIRCUIT FOR THE RECEPTACLE OUTLETS FOR THE LAUNDRY ROOM. THE 20A LAUNDRY ROOM RECEPTACLE CIRCUIT CAN SUPPLY MORE THAN ONE RECEPTACLE IN THE LAUNDRY ROOM. THIS RECEPTACLE CAN NOT SUPPLY OTHER OUTLETS, SUCH AS THE LAUNDRY ROOM LIGHTING OR RECEPTACLES IN OTHER ROOMS. GFCI PROlECTION IS NOT REQUIRED FOR 15A AND 20A, 125V RECEPTACLES IN A LAUNDRY ROOM, UNLESS THEY ARE WITHIN 6 FT OF A SINK. 20. EXHAUST DUCTS FOR DRYER SHALL 1ERMINA1E ON THE OUTSIDE OF THE BUILDING AND NOT LESS THAN 3 FEET IN ANY DIRECTION FROM OPENINGS INTO BUILDINGS. DUCT lERMINATION SHALL BE EQUIPED WITH A BACKDRAFT DAMPER 21. LIGHTING CONTROL FOR KITCHEN, DINING, FAMILY, LIVING, AND BEDROOMS SHALL BE ON DIMMERS. 22. LIGHTING CONTROL FOR GARAGE, LAUNDRY, BATHROOMS, AND STORAGE SHALL BE ON VACANCY SENSORS. 23. EXlERIOR LIGHTS SHALL BE ON TIMERS OR PHOTO SENSORS. 24. GFI RECEPTACLE FOR EACH PARKING SPACE. 25. PROVIDE EARTHQUAKE SHUTOFF VALVE 26. ALL LIGHTS THROUGHOUT THE RESIDENCE, INCLUDING THE GARAGE AND EXlERIOR, SHALL BE HIGH EFFICACY. 27. LIGHTING IN ALL HABITABLE SPACES SHALL HAVE DIMMER CONTROLS (ENERGY CODE 150.0(K)2F) 28. ELECTRICAL RECEPTACLE OUTLETS, SWITCHES AND CONTROLS INlENDED TO BE USED BY OCCUPANTS, SHALL BE LOCATED NO MORE THAN 48" MEASURED FROM THE TOP OF THE OUTLET BOX AND NOT LESS THAN 15"MEASURED FROM THE BOTTOM OF THE OUTLET BOX ABOVE THE FINISH FLOOR. (CRC 327.1.2) 29. AT THE KITCHEN ISLAND, A MINIMUM OF ONE GFI/AFCI PROTEClED ELECTRICAL RECEPTACLE SHALL BE INSTALLED AT KITCHEN ISLAND COUNlERTOPS WITH A SURFACE AREA OF 9 SQUARE FEET OR LESS. FOR ISLAND COUNlER TOPS WITH AN AREA OF MORE THAN 9 SQUARE FEET, AN ADDITIONAL ELECTRICAL RECEPTACLE SHALL BE INSTALLED FOR EVERY ADDITIONAL 18 SQUARE FEET OF COUNTERTOP SURFACE AREA. TWO ELECTRICAL RECEPTACLES ARE REQUIRED. (CEC 210.52(C)(2)) PLAN NOTES 0 u N 0 L 0 L 0 &f::j~ +-' u Q) :r: . . a~ L Q) C I CJ) ~~ ·-en Q) 0 Q) ~ L >0 <(O) Q) -.:I- C ~O) $'. w - 0 -c -........._ >u +-' >-_J C WW 0 _J<( _J LL u <(<( ·-> 0::: -I Q_ Q_ I ~z <( I I"'")<( ~lf) A-8 PROPOSED ROOF PLAN 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 01.13.25 <c-D □ ~ OS <c-D □~ <c-~ D □ 0 D <c-~ '"" I DS • I t <c-0 Cl Cl Cl DI DI DI () Q OS SC-Al.£: I/ 4" = I' I "' RIDGE OR VALJ.£Y DIRECTION OF WAlER FLOW (SLOPE) ~ DOWN SPOUT (!JDS ROOF' LOU~ vans e· x us· I I ADU ATTIC VENTILATION CALCULATION ATTIC AREA TO BE VEN Tl LA TIED = 232 SF REQUIRED VENTILATION AREA = 1,815 SF / 150 SF = 12.10 SF PROVIDED ATTIC VENTILATION AREA: -ROOF VENTS = (19) X 0.66 = 12.54 -GABLE VENT = (0) X 0.66 = 0.00 TOTAL = 12.54 SF Tl-lEREFORE TOTAL PROVIDED VENTILATION AREA IS MORE THAN REQUIRED ROOF PLAN 0 u N 0 L 0 L 0 &f::j~ +-' u Q) :r: a~ L Q) C I CJ) ~~ en Q) 0 Q) ~ L >0 <(O) Q) -.:I- C ~O) $'. w - 0 -c -........._ >u >-_J +-' C WW _J<( 0 _J LL u <(<( > 0::: Q_ ~z Q_ <( I"')<( ~lf) A-9 & SECTIONS 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 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 01.13.25 r \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ EXISTING A \ PARCEL DJECENT \ (E) GAS MEj, ~/SHUTtFt I ALVE \ \ \ \ \ L --- (E) WATER METER EXISTING PARCEL ADJECENT w. z ::J BS >-<( "' :r: u. z T • ~ PANEL - PORCH ---- UTILITY PLAN %.Alf '? /16" = I' - ;,- 'S- "' !I,! w (fl '-" z >-(fl X w r v' TO MAIN 7 \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ CONNECT SEWER LAfrRfXISTING (cleanout) L -----_.,,,.,,,,.. EXISTING PARCEL ADJECENT \ \ \ \ \ \ \ ) w-- UTILITY PLAN 0 u N 0 L 0 L (I) Q) ~ >0 <(~ ~m w -> ci u C 3:: 0 -........._ -+--' >-_J C WW 0 _J <( U _J LL ·-<( <( o_ I > a::: o_ I ~z <( I l""l <C ~Cf) A-9 Outlook Re: 131 Valley View reasonable accomodation appeal From Josh Sullivan 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 • On Tuesday, January 21, 2025 at 09:32:35 PM PST, Josh Sullivan 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 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 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 Sent: Monday, January 13, 2025 7:45 AM To: Renee Nickenig <Renee.Nickenig@cityofsanrafael.org> Cc: Lisa Dal Gallo 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 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 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 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 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 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. • ~SAN RAFAEL ~ lH~C.llYWIIHAMISSION 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 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 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 Outlook Re: Continuing Hearing for 131 Valley View Appeal From Carol Underwood Date Mon 2/17/2025 7:50 PM To Renee Nickenig <Renee.Nickenig@cityofsanrafael.org> Cc Hastaie 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. I 15'-5" flt 0 DINING .. <g)(N) ~ 0 14'-5" 7'-1" 0 (N) ~•) <9 - <g) (N) --V ~· ..... (N) '8 ..... ·r:v:7······ .. • <!> •· ..... ~ ,__ ~ 0 @j) @j) I 3 -'1 11 111 111 111 111 111 1 L_ D r ,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, BATH ➔ . 1,1,1,1,1,1,1,1,1,1, .,, ' ,, , a ..., (E) BATH 1 1 1 1 1 1isr,~t 1 1 1 1 I (E) PRIMARY BEDROOM l~~'p •~II : 111 11 1 1 I ~7 1 1 1 11 1 ,1,1,1,1,1,1,1,1,1,1 .... --(E) KITCHEN ,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, I -,:,:,:,:,:,:,:,:,:,: -~ f@l D 11 1,1,1,1,1,1,1,1,1,1,1 11 ::e: •~11 11 111 111 111 111 11 : 0♦1:,:,:,:,:•@'o~•: ~ =tb I 11111 ,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, ,,, -1 I I I I I I I I I t· 11 F ',','li'M' l~l ~I 1,1, (E) LINEN -I 1 111 11 I I E, 111 1 A (E) CL {E) HALL ~ l ' 8'-8" l < 1----I ~ ~ (E) CL (E) HALL ----~ CL I 1111 @I (E) LI VING ~ T (E) BEDR OOM = (E) BEDROOM I ~ 9' PROVISICJlS FC tlEVATal (N) CL (@ CL (N) FOYERr: <!> 13' @ - (N) \-'::) ~ ~ 12·-10-11'-1'' T (N) PORCH J "' (Nt -r , ___ I 2'-7' 12·-11· 2'-7' 9'-4" 18'-1" PROPOSED MAIN HOUSE FLOOR PLAN sc;PLE 1/4" .. r CAL FIRE Hazard Map for 131 Valley View Avenue as of February 14, 2025 •• Fairfax Margarira Valley Te ra da H19 C n R a Red --11 I R d H \ Av San Anselmo Ross .:,-qRaf el ,"Hi/I Sun Valley ,an R.lfa M racleM c m r 1 Moo H,11 San Rafael no , Back Cany I ■ Es.ri, NASA, NGA. USGS, FEMA I County of Mann, California State Park5, Esri, Tom Tom, Ga'rm1n, Safe.. Powered by Esri About this Map This map displays adopted Fire Hazard Severity Zones (FHSZ) in the State Responsibility Area (SRA), effective April 1st 2024. tt al displays recommended FHSZ in the local Responsibility Area (LRA)ITom 2007-2011. Due to regulatory processes, there are lands that a.re no longer classified as SRA and have bGCOme dassified as LRA yet had a FHSZ designation from the 2007 SRA FHSZ map adoption. The areas are shown on the map with hatched symbology. To verify your Fire Hazard Severity Zone in LRA, please contact your local agency. Use the link below to access the combined FHSZ data: Legen d Map Layers Fire Hazard Severity Zones FHSZ in SRA-Effective April 1, 2024 lllilllllii Very High a.i High lillllllii Moderate FHSZ in LRA -Reclassified from SRA ~ VeryHigh ~/, High ~ Moderat e FHSZ in LRA-Recommended 2007-2011 Very High 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 Mayor Colin and the Members of the San Rafael City Council April 16, 2025 Page 2 Because there is no nexus between the proposed Project and Applicants' mobility disability, the City Council cannot make the findings required by SRMC § 14.26.06 0, and the appeal should be granted. I.The Planning Commission Erred by Approving the Revised January 13, 2025 Plans without Exclusion of the ADU First and most basically, the Resolution signed by the Planning Commission confusingly approves a set of plans that includes an ADU. All parties, including the Applicants and City Staff, agree that the ADU included in the January 2025 Revised Plans is NOT a part of the reasonable accommodations project, and was not approved by the Planning Commission. However, the wording of the Planning Commission's Resolution is misleading on this point, as the approval extends "to include the revised project plans submitted on January 13, 2025". Moreover, a condition of approval states that "all information ... as present for approval on plans, dated January 13, 2025 ... shall be the same as required for the issuance of a building permit." This language is confusing and, viewed without context of the meeting, can be interpreted as approving the ADU, as it is included in the January 13, 2025 plans. It needs to be clarified that the ADU shown in the January 2025 Revised Plans is not approved as part of the Reasonable Accommodations project, and the ADU must go through a separate plan review process if the Applicants wish to pursue building an ADU. Moreover, given that the ADU was not approved, the result is that the Planning Commission approved an incomplete set of plans, that do not show any support for the proposed master bedroom and bathroom addition. Approval of plans with such a basic and critical omission is error by the City. Therefore, Appellants request that the City Council issue a revised Resolution that makes clear that the ADU shown in the January 2025 plans is not included in any approvals by the City, and requests Applicants to submit a full set of plans, including structural support for the master bedroom addition, prior to approval of the Project. II.There is No Nexus Between the Proposed Plans and the Applicants' Mobility Disability The law requires both necessity and reasonableness before granting a reasonable accommodation. See SRMC § 14.26.06 0(A )(2).1 Appellants do not question the Applicants' need for modifications to their home due to a mobility disability. However, most of the 1 See also HUD guidance document attached to Planning Commission Staff Report, at pages 2-3. EXHIBIT A EXHIBIT A 1 The Fair Housing Act is codified at 42 U.S.C. §§ 3601 - 3619. 2 The Act uses the term “handicap” instead of the term "disability." Both terms have the same legal meaning. See Bragdon v. Abbott, 524 U.S. 624, 631 (1998) (noting that 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)(B). 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. May 17, 2004 JOINT STATEMENT OF THE DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT AND THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE REASONABLE ACCOMMODATIONS 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, nat ion al o rigi n, f ami lia l st atu s, a nd d isa bil ity.2 One type of disability discrimination prohibited by the Act is the refusal to make reasonable accommodations in rules, policies, practices, or services when such accommodations may be necessary to afford a person with a disability the equal oppo rtunity to us e and enjoy a dwel ling.3 HUD and DOJ frequently respond to complaints alleging that housing providers have violated the Act by refusing reasonable accommodations 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 4 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 require recipients of federal financial assistance to provide reasonable accommodations to applicants and residents with disabilities. Although Section 504 imposes greater obligations than the Fair Housing Act, (e.g., providing and paying for reasonable accommodations that involve structural modifications to units or public and common areas), the principles discussed in this Statement regarding reasonable accommodation under the Fair Housing Act generally apply to requests for reasonable accommodations to rules, policies, practices, and services under Section 504. See U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, Office of Public and Indian Housing, Notice PIH 2002-01(HA) (www.hud.gov/offices/fheo/disabilities/PIH02-01.pdf) and “Section 504: Frequently Asked Questions,” (www.hud.gov/offices/fheo/disabilities/ sect504faq.cfm#anchor272118). 5 The Fair Housing Act’s protection against disability discrimination covers not only home seekers with disabilities but also buyers and renters without disabilities who live or are associated with individuals with disabilities 42 U.S.C. § 3604(f)(1)(B), 42 U.S.C. § 3604(f)(1)(C), 42 U.S.C. § 3604(f)(2)(B), 42 U.S.C. § (f)(2)(C). See also H.R. Rep. 100-711 – 24 (reprinted in 1988 U.S.C.A.N. 2173, 2184-85) (“The Committee intends these provisions to prohibit not only discrimination against the primary purchaser or named lessee, but also to prohibit denials of housing opportunities to applicants because they have children, parents, friends, spouses, roommates, patients, subtenants or other associates who have disabilities.”). Accord: Preamble to Propos ed HUD Rules Implementin g the Fair Hou sing Act, 53 Fed. Reg. 45001 (Nov. 7, 1988) (citing House Report). 6 42 U.S.C. § 3604(f)(3)(B). HUD regulations pertaining to reasonable accommodations may be found at 24 C.F.R. § 100.204. - 2 - reasonable accommodations.4 Questions and Answers 1. What types of discrimination against persons with disabilities does the Act prohibit? The Act prohibits housing providers from discriminating against applicants or residents because of their disability or the disability of anyone associated with them5 and from treating persons with disabilities less favorably than others because of their disability. 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.”6 The Act also prohibits housing providers from refusing residency to persons with disabilities, or placing conditions on their residency, because those persons may require reasonable accommodations. In addition, in certain circumstances, the Act requires that housing providers allow residents to 7 This Statement does not address the principles relating to reasonable modifications. For further information see the HUD regulations at 24 C.F.R. § 100.203. This statement also does not address the additional requirements imposed on recipients of Federal financial assistance pursuant to Section 504, as explained in the Introduction. - 3 - make reasonable structural modifications to units and public/common areas in a dwelling when those modifications may be necessary for a person with a disability to have full enjoyment of a dwelling.7 With certain limited exceptions (see response to question 2 below), the Act applies to privately and publicly owned housing, including housing subsidized by the federal government or rented through the use of Section 8 voucher assistance. 2. Who must comply with the Fair Housing Act’s reasonable accommodation requirements? Any person or entity engaging in prohibited conduct – i.e., refusing to make reasonable accommodations in rules, policies, practices, or services, when such accommodations may be necessary to aff ord a person with a disa bility an equa l opportun ity to use and e njoy a dwellin g – 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. 703, 710 (D. Md. 2001), aff'd 2002 WL 2012545 (4th Cir. 2002). Under specific exceptions to the Fair Housing Act, the reasonable accommodation requirements of the Act do not apply to a private individual owner who sells his own home so long as he (1) does not own more than three single-family homes; (2) does not use a real estate agent and does not employ any discriminatory advertising or notices; (3) has not engaged in a similar sale of a home within a 24-month period; and (4) is not in the business of selling or renting dwellings. The reasonable accommodation requirements of the Fair Housing Act also do not apply to owner-occupied buildings that have four or fewer dwelling units. 3. 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 than addiction caused by current, illegal use of a controlled substance) and alcoholism. 8 The Supreme Court has questioned but has not yet ruled on whether "working" is to be considered a major life activity. See Toyota Motor Mfg, Kentucky, Inc. v. Williams, 122 S. Ct. 681, 692, 693 (2002). If it is a major activity, the Court has noted that a claimant would be required to show an inability to work in a “broad range of jobs” rather than a specific job. See Sutton v. United Airlines, Inc., 527 U.S. 470, 492 (1999). 9 See, e.g., United States v. Southern Management Corp., 955 F.2d 914, 919 (4th Cir. 1992) (discussing exclusion in 42 U.S.C. § 3602(h) for “current, illegal use of or addiction to a controlled substance”). - 4 - The term "su bstantial ly limits" su ggests that t he limitat ion is "sign ificant" 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.8 This list of major life activities is not exhaustive. See e.g., Bragdon v. Abbott, 524 U.S. 624, 691-92 (1998)(holding that for certain individuals reproduction is a major life activity). 4. Does the Act protect juvenile offenders, sex offenders, persons who illegally use controlled substances, and persons with disabilities who pose a significant danger to others? No, juvenile offenders and sex offenders, by virtue of that status, are not persons with disabilities protected by the Act. Similarly, while the Act does protect persons who are recovering from substance abuse, it does not protect persons who are currently engaging in the current illegal use of controlled substances.9 Additionally, the Act does not protect an individual with a disability whose tenancy would constitute a "direct threat" to the health or safety of other individuals or result in substantial physical damage to the property of others unless the threat can be eliminated or significantly reduced by reasonable accommodation. 5. How can a housing provider determine if an individual poses a direct threat? The Act does not allow for exclusion of individuals based upon fear, speculation, or stereotype about a particular disability or persons with disabilities in general. A determination that an individual poses a direct threat must rely on an individualized assessment that is based on reliable objective evidence (e.g., current conduct, or a recent history of overt acts). The assessment must consider: (1) the nature, duration, and severity of the risk of injury; (2) the probability that injury will actually occur; and (3) whether there are any reasonable accommodations that will eliminate the direct threat. Consequently, in evaluating a recent history of overt acts, a provider must take into account whether the individual has received intervening treatment or medication that has eliminated the direct threat (i.e., a significant risk of substantial harm). In such a situation, the provider may request that the individual document - 5 - how the circumstances have changed so that he no longer poses a direct threat. A provider may also obtain satisfactory assurances that the individual will not pose a direct threat during the tenancy. The housing provider must have reliable, objective evidence that a person with a disability poses a direct threat before excluding him from housing on that basis. Example 1: A housing provider requires all persons applying to rent an apartment to complete an application that includes information on the applicant’s current place of residence. On her application to rent an apartment, a woman notes that she currently resides in Cambridge House. The manager of the apartment complex knows that Cambridge House is a group home for women receiving treatment for alcoholism. Based solely on that information and his personal be lief that al coholics ar e likely to caus e disturba nces and dam age property, the manager rejects the applicant. The rejection is unlawful because it is based on a generalized stereotype related to a disability rather than an individualized assessment of any threat to other persons or the property of others based on reliable, objective evidence about the applicant’s recent past conduct. The housing provider may not treat this applicant differently than other applicants based on his subjective perceptions of the potential problems posed by her alcoholism by requiring additional documents, imposing different lease terms, or requiring a higher security deposit. However, the manager could have checked this applicant’s references to the same extent and in the same manner as he would have checked any other applicant’s references. If such a reference check revealed objective evidence showing that this applicant had posed a direct threat to persons or property in the recent past and the direct threat had not been eliminated, the manager could then have rejected the applicant based on direct threat. Example 2: James X, a tenant at the Shady Oaks apartment complex, is arrested for threatening his neighbor while brandishing a baseball bat. The Shady Oaks’ lease agreement contains a term prohibiting tenants from threatening violence against other residents. Shady Oaks’ rental manager investigates the incident and learns that James X threatened the other resident with physical violence and had to be physically restrained by other neighbors to keep him from acting on his threat. Following Shady Oaks’ standard practice of strictly enforcing its “no threats” policy, the Shady Oaks rental manager issues James X a 30-day notice to quit, which is the first step in the eviction process. James X's attorney contacts Shady Oaks' rental manager and explains that James X has a psychiatric disability that causes him to be physically violent when he stops taking his prescribed medication. Suggesting that his client will not pose a direct threat to others if proper safeguards are taken, the attorney requests that the rental manager grant James X an exception to the “no threats” policy as a reasonable accommodation based on James X’s disability. The Shady Oaks rental manager need only grant the reasonable accommodation if James X’s attorney can provide satisfactory assurance that James X will receive appropriate counseling and - 6 - periodic medication monitoring so that he will no longer pose a direct threat during his tenancy. After consulting with James X, the attorney responds that James X is unwilling to receive counseling or submit to any type of periodic monitoring to ensure that he takes his prescribed medication. The rental manager may go forward with the eviction proceeding, since James X continues to pose a direct threat to the health or safety of other residents. 6. What is a "reasonable accommodation" for purposes of the Act? A “re aso nab le a ccom mod ati on” is a chan ge, e xce pti on, or ad jus tme nt t o a ru le, pol icy, practice, or service that may be necessary for a person with a disability to have an equal opportunity to use and enjoy a dwelling, including public and common use spaces. Since rules, policies, practices, and services may have a different effect on persons with disabilities than on other persons, treating persons with disabilities exactly the same as others will sometimes deny them an equal opportunity to use and enjoy a dwelling. The Act makes it unlawful to refuse to make reasonable accommodations to rules, policies, practices, or services when such accommodations may be necessary to afford persons with disabilities an equal opportunity to use and enjoy a dwelling. To show that a requested accommodation may be necessary, there must be an identifiable relationship, or nexus, between the requested accommodation and the individual’s disability. Example 1: A housing provider has a policy of providing unassigned parking spaces to residents. A resident with a mobility impairment, who is substantially limited in her ability to walk, requests an assigned accessible parking space close to the entrance to her unit as a reasonable accommodation. There are available parking spaces near the entrance to her unit that are accessible, but those spaces are available to all residents on a first come, first served basis. The provider must make an exception to its policy of not providing assigned parking spaces to accommodate this resident. Example 2: A housing provider has a policy of requiring tenants to come to the rental office in person to pay their rent. A tenant has a mental disability that makes her afraid to leave her unit. Because of her disability, she requests that she be permitted to have a friend mail her rent payment to the rental office as a reasonable accommodation. The provider must make an exception to its payment policy to accommodate this tenant. Example 3: A housing provider has a "no pets" policy. A tenant who is deaf requests that the provider allow him to keep a dog in his unit as a reasonable accommodation. The tenant explains that the dog is an assistance animal that will alert him to several sounds, including knocks at the door, sounding of the smoke detector, the telephone ringing, and cars coming into the driveway. The housing - 7 - provider must make an exception to its “no pets” policy to accommodate this tenant. 7. Are there any instances when a provider can deny a request for a reasonable accommodation without violating the Act? Yes. A housing provider can deny a request for a reasonable accommodation if the requ est was not mad e by o r on beh alf of a p ers on w ith a di sab ili ty or if t here is n o di sab ili ty- related need for the accommodation. In addition, a request for a reasonable accommodation may be denied if providing the accommodation is not reasonable – i.e., if it would impose an undue financial and administrative burden on the housing provider or it would fundamentally alter the nature of the provider's operations. The determination of undue financial and administrative burden must be made on a case-by-case basis involving various factors, such as the cost of the requested accommodation, the financial resources of the provider, the benefits that the accommodation would provide to the requester, and the availability of alternative accommodations that would effectively meet the requester's disability-related needs. When a housing provider refuses a requested accommodation because it is not reasonable, the provider should discuss with the requester whether there is an alternative accommodation that would effectively address the requester's disability-related needs without a fundamental alteration to the provider's operations and without imposing an undue financial and administrative burden. If an alternative accommodation would effectively meet the requester's disability-related needs and is reasonable, the provider must grant it. An interactive process in which the housing provider and the requester discuss the requester's disability-related need for the requested accommodation and possible alternative accommodations is helpful to all concerned because it often results in an effective accommodation for the requester that does not pose an undue financial and administrative burden for the provider. Example: As a result of a disability, a tenant is physically unable to open the dumpster placed in the parking lot by his housing provider for trash collection. The tenant requests that the housing provider send a maintenance staff person to his apartment on a daily basis to collect his trash and take it to the dumpster. Because the housing development is a small operation with limited financial resources and the maintenance staff are on site only twice per week, it may be an undue financial and administrative burden for the housing provider to grant the requested daily trash pick-up service. Accordingly, the requested accommodation may not be reasonable. If the housing provider denies the requested accommodation as unreasonable, the housing provider should discuss with the tenant whet her reasonab le accommod ations cou ld be provi ded to meet the tenant 's disability-related needs – for instance, placing an open trash collection can in a location that is readily accessible to the tenant so the tenant can dispose of his own trash and the provider's maintenance staff can then transfer the trash to the dumpster when they are on site. Such an accommodation would not involve a - 8 - fundamental alteration of the provider's operations and would involve little financial and administrative burden for the provider while accommodating the tenant's disability-related needs. There may be instances where a provider believes that, while the accommodation requested by an individual is reasonable, there is an alternative accommodation that would be equally effective in meeting the individual's disability-related needs. In such a circumstance, the provider should discuss with the individual if she is willing to accept the alternative accommodation. However, providers should be aware that persons with disabilities typically have the most accurate knowledge about the functional limitations posed by their disability, and an individual is not obligated to accept an alternative accommodation suggested by the provider if she believes it will not meet her needs and her preferred accommodation is reasonable. 8. What is a “fundamental alteration”? A "fundament al alterati on" is a modi fication t hat alters t he essenti al nature of a provider's operations. Example: A tenant has a severe mobility impairment that substantially limits his ability to walk. He asks his housing provider to transport him to the grocery store and assist him with his grocery shopping as a reasonable accommodation to his disability. The provider does not provide any transportation or shopping services for its tenants, so granting this request would require a fundamental alteration in the nature of the provider's operations. The request can be denied, but the provider should discuss with the requester whether there is any alternative accommodation that would effectively meet the requester's disability-related needs without fundamentally altering the nature of its operations, such as reducing the tenant's need to walk long distances by altering its parking policy to allow a volunteer from a local community service organization to park her car close to the tenant's unit so she can transport the tenant to the grocery store and assist him with his s hopping. 9. What happens if providing a requested accommodation involves some costs on the part of the housing provider? Courts have ruled that the Act may require a housing provider to grant a reasonable accommodation that involves costs, so long as the reasonable accommodation does not pose an undue financial and administrative burden and the requested accommodation does not constitute a fundamental alteration of the provider’s operations. The financial resources of the provider, the cost of the reasonable accommodation, the benefits to the requester of the requested accommodation, and the availability of other, less expensive alternative accommodations that would effectively meet the applicant or resident’s disability-related needs must be considered in determining whether a requested accommodation poses an undue financial and administrative - 9 - burden. 10. What happens if no agreement can be reached through the interactive process? A failure to reach an agreement on an accommodation request is in effect a decision by the provider not to grant the requested accommodation. If the individual who was denied an accommodation files a Fair Housing Act complaint to challenge that decision, then the agency or court receiving the complaint will review the evidence in light of applicable law and decide if the housing provider violated that law. For more information about the complaint process, see question 19 below. 11. May a housing provider charge an extra fee or require an additional deposit from applicants or residents with disabilities as a condition of granting a reasonable accommodation? No. Housing providers may not require persons with disabilities to pay extra fees or deposits as a condition of receiving a reasonable accommodation. Example 1: A man who is substantially limited in his ability to walk uses a motorized scooter for mobility purposes. He applies to live in an assisted living facility that has a policy prohibiting the use of motorized vehicles in buildings and elsewhere on the premises. It would be a reasonable accommodation for the facility to make an exception to this policy to permit the man to use his motorized scooter on the premises for mobility purposes. Since allowing the man to use his scooter in the buildings and elsewhere on the premises is a reasonable accommodation, the facility may not condition his use of the scooter on payment of a fee or deposit or on a requirement that he obtain liability insurance relating to the use of the scooter. However, since the Fair Housing Act does not protect any person with a disability who poses a direct threat to the person or property of others, the man must operate his motorized scooter in a responsible manner that does not pose a significant risk to the safety of other persons and does not cause damage to other persons' property. If the individual's use of the scooter causes damage to his unit or the common areas, the housing provider may charge him for the cost of repairing the damage (or deduct it from the standard security deposit imposed on all tenants), if it is the provider's practice to assess tenants for any damage they cause to the premises. Example 2: Because of his disability, an applicant with a hearing impairment needs to keep an assistance animal in his unit as a reasonable accommodation. The housing provider may not require the applicant to pay a fee or a security deposit as a condition of allowing the applicant to keep the assistance animal. However, if a tenant's assistance animal causes damage to the applicant's unit or the common areas of the dwelling, the housing provider may charge the tenant for - 10 - the cost of repairing the damage (or deduct it from the standard security deposit imposed on all tenants), if it is the provider's practice to assess tenants for any damage they cause to the premises. 12. When and how should an individual request an accommodation? Under the Act, a resident or an applicant for housing makes a reasonable accommodation request whenever she makes clear to the housing provider that she is requesting an exception, change, or adjustment to a rule, policy, practice, or service because of her disability. She should explain what type of accommodation she is requesting and, if the need for the accommodation is not readily apparent or not known to the provider, explain the relationship between the requested accommodation and her disability. An applicant or resident is not entitled to receive a reasonable accommodation 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 accommodation request; the request can be made by a family member or someone else who is acting on her behalf. An individual making a reasonable accommodation request does not need to mention the Act or use the words "reasonable accommodation." However, the requester must make the request in a manner that a reasonable person would understand to be a request for an exception, change, or adjustment to a rule, policy, practice, or service because of a disability. Although a reasonable accommodation 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 accommodation requests even if the requester makes the request orally or does not use the provider's preferred forms or procedures for making such requests. Example: A tenant in a large apartment building makes an oral request that she be assigned a mailbox in a location that she can easily access because of a physical disability that limits her ability to reach and bend. The provider would prefer that the tenant make the accommodation request on a pre-printed form, but the tenant fails to complete the form. The provider must consider the reasonable accommodat ion request even though the tenant would not u se the provi der's designated form. 13. Must a housing provider adopt formal procedures for processing requests for a reasonable accommodation? - 11 - No. The Act does not require that a housing provider adopt any formal procedures for reasonable accommodation requests. However, having formal procedures may aid individuals with disabilities in making requests for reasonable accommodations and may aid housing providers in assessing those requests so that there are no misunderstandings as to the nature of the request, and, in the event of later disputes, provide records to show that the requests received proper consideration. A provider may not refuse a request, however, because the individual making the request did not follow any formal procedures that the provider has adopted. If a provider adopts formal procedures for processing reasonable accommodation requests, the provider should ensure that the procedures, including any forms used, do not seek information that is not necessary to evaluate if a reasonable accommodation may be needed to afford a person with a disability equal opp ort uni ty to use and enj oy a d wel lin g. S ee Qu est ion s 16 - 18 , wh ich dis cus s th e di sab ili ty- related inf ormation t hat a provid er may and may not req uest for th e purposes o f evaluatin g a reasonable accommodation request. 14. Is a housing provider obligated to provide a reasonable accommodation to a resident or applicant if an accommodation has not been requested? No. A housing provider is only obligated to provide a reasonable accommodation to a resident or applicant if a request for the accommodation has been made. A provider has notice that a reasonable accommodation request has been made if a person, her family member, or som eon e act ing o n he r beh alf requ est s a ch ange , ex cept ion , or adj ust men t to a rul e, p oli cy, practice, or service because of a disability, even if the words “reasonable accommodation” are not used as part of the request. 15. What if a housing provider fails to act promptly on a reasonable accommodation request? A provider has an obligation to provide prompt responses to reasonable accommodation requests. An undue delay in responding to a reasonable accommodation request may be deemed to be a failure to provide a reasonable accommodation. 16. What inquiries, if any, may a housing provider make of current or potential residents regarding the existence of a disability when they have not asked for an accommodation? Under the Fair Housing Act, it is usually unlawful for a housing provider to (1) ask if an applicant for a dwelling has a disability or if a person intending to reside in a dwelling or anyone associated with an applicant or resident has a disability, or (2) ask about the nature or severity of such persons' disabilities. Housing providers may, however, make the following inquiries, provided these inquiries are made of all applicants, including those with and without disabilities: - 12 - •An i nqu iry i nto an ap pli cant ’s a bil ity t o me et t he re qui rem ent s of ten ancy; •An inquiry to determine if an applicant is a current illegal abuser or addict of a controlled substance; •An inquiry to determine if an applicant qualifies for a dwelling legally available only to persons with a disability or to persons with a particular type of disability; and •An inquiry to determine if an applicant qualifies for housing that is legally available on a priority basis to persons with disabilities or to persons with a particular disability. Example 1: A housing provider offers accessible units to persons with disabilities needing the features of these units on a priority basis. The provider may ask applicants if they have a disability and if, in light of their disability, they will benefit from the features of the units. However, the provider may not ask applicants if they have other types of physical or mental impairments. If the applicant's disability and the need for the accessible features are not readily apparent, the provider may request reliable information/documentation of the disability-related need for an accessible unit. Example 2: A housing provider operates housing that is legally limited to persons with chronic mental illness. The provider may ask applicants for information needed to determine if they have a mental disability that would qualify them for the housing. However, in this circumstance, the provider may not ask applicants if they have other types of physical or mental impairments. If it is not readily apparent that an applicant has a chronic mental disability, the provider may request reliable information/documentation of the mental disability needed to qu alify for the ho using. In some instances, a provider may also request certain information about an applicant's or a resident's disability if the applicant or resident requests a reasonable accommodation. See Questions 17 and 18 below. 17. What k inds of i nformation , if any, ma y a housin g provider request fr om a person with an obvious or known disability who is requesting a reasonable accommodation? A provider is entitled to obtain information that is necessary to evaluate if a requested reasonable accommodation may be necessary because of a disability. If a person’s disability is obvious, or otherwise known to the provider, and if the need for the requested accommodation is also readily apparent or known, then the provider may not request any additional information 10 Persons who meet the definition of disability for purposes of receiving Supplemental Security Income ("SSI") or Social Security Disability Insurance ("SSDI") benefits in most cases meet the definition of 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) - 13 - about the requester's disability or the disability-related need for the accommodation. If the requester's disability is known or readily apparent to the provider, but the need for the accommodation is not readily apparent or known, the provider may request only information that is necessary to evaluate the disability-related need for the accommodation. Example 1: An applicant with an obvious mobility impairment who regularly uses a walker to move around asks her housing provider to assign her a parking space near the entrance to the building instead of a space located in another part of the park ing l ot. Sin ce t he p hysi cal dis abi lit y (i.e., difficulty walking) and the disability-related need for the requested accommodation 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 accommodation. Example 2: A rental applicant who uses a wheelchair advises a housing provider that he wishes to keep an assistance dog in his unit even though the provider has a "no pets" policy. The applicant’s disability is readily apparent but the need for an assistance animal is not obvious to the provider. The housing provider may ask the applicant to provide information about the disability-related need for the dog. Example 3: An applicant with an obvious vision impairment requests that the leasing agent provide assistance to her in filling out the rental application form as a reasonable accommodation because of her disability. The housing provider may not require the applicant to document the existence of her vision impairment. 18. 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 accommodation? A housing provider may not ordinarily inquire as to the nature and severity of an ind ivi dua l's d isa bil ity (see Answer 16, above). However, in response to a request for a reasonable accommodation, 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 accommodation, and (3) shows the relationship between the person’s disability and the need for the requested accommodation. 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 himself or herself (e.g., proof that an individual under 65 years of age receives Supplemental Security Income or Social Security Disability Insurance benefits10 or a credible statement by the individual). A doctor or other (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). - 14 - 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 accommodation 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 accommodation request or unless disclosure is required by law (e.g., a court-issued subpoena requiring disclosure). 19. If a person believes she has been unlawfully denied a reasonable accommodation, what should that person do if she wishes 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 reasonable accommodation, 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 with HUD, 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 - 15 - 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 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. EXHIBIT B EXHIBIT B EXHIBIT C EXHIBIT C 4/16/25, 9:27 AM Fire Hazard Severity Zones (FHSZ) - 2025 LRA Map Update - San Rafael https://www.cityofsanrafael.org/fire-hazard-severity-zones-fhsz-2025-lra-map-update/2/6 EXHIBIT D EXHIBIT D 1 IBHS RESEARCH 2025 LA County Wildfires: Early Insights from Field Observations Insurance Institute for Business & Home Safety March 6, 2025 Insurance Institute for Business & Home Safety 2 FROM WILDFIRE TO CONFLAGRATION The Palisades and Eaton Fires raged through Los Angeles County neighborhoods creating catastrophic conflagration. More than 16,000 structures were destroyed in the fires which now rank as two of California’s three most destructive fires on record. In the days following the conflagration, the Insurance Institute for Business & Home Safety (IBHS) deployed teams to study the damage and further advance the understanding of fire spread into and through communities. Conflagrations follow humans, drought, and wind. Fire weather conditions in Los Angeles County reached their extreme just before the first fire reports: relative humidity dropped as the strong northerly Santa Ana winds kicked in. At these wind speeds, fixed-wing firefighting aircraft could not operate safely. With the fire environment primed for rapid growth and aerial firefighting grounded, wind-driven fire dynamics took over, accelerating both the spread and intensity of the flames in the early critical stages. Since the early 20th century, urban conflagrations have resulted in significant financial losses across the United States. From historic fires like the Big Blowup Fire of 1910 in the Northwest to more recent devastating urban fires— the Tubbs Fire (2017) and the Camp Fire (2018) in California, the Marshall Fire (2021) in Colorado, the Lahaina Fire (2023) in Hawaii, and now the Palisades and Eaton Fires in Southern California—these events highlight the vulnerability of communities with dense housing, interconnected urban fuels (e.g., fences, vehicles, and sheds), and vulnerable building components that struggle to withstand even non-intense fire conditions. Fire Behavior Wildfires spread at different rates, influenced by factors like available fuel, topography, weather conditions, and suppression efforts. In California, these driving factors differ across the state's diverse wildland regions. In central and Northern California where conifer forests are more common, wildfires are primarily fuel driven. In contrast, Southern California, characterized by chaparral shrubland, experiences fires where fuel is more limited, and wind plays a dominant role in fire spread. These Southern California wildfires generally fall into two categories: • fall fires that are typically driven by strong offshore Santa Ana winds, and • summer fires which typically occur under hot, dry conditions with comparatively weak onshore winds1. Most wildland ignitions in Southern California occur during the summer under the weaker onshore winds. However, the Santa Ana-driven fires receive the most attention and drive the majority of losses. Santa Ana Winds The Santa Ana downsloping wind events are often the driving factor for damaging wildfires that enter the built environment across Southern California, as was the case for the Palisades and Eaton Fires. • Climatologically, Santa Ana wind events typically peak in November and December. Their seasonal occurrence typically spans October through April with the region averaging two events per month during this time.2 1 Jin, Yufang, et al. "Contrasting controls on wildland fires in Southern California during periods with and without Santa Ana winds." Journal of Geophysical Research: Biogeosciences 119.3 (2014): 432-450. 2 Guzman-Morales, J., A. Gershunov, J. Theiss, H. Li, and D. Cayan (2016) Santa Ana winds of Southern California: Their climatology, extremes, and behavior spanning six and a half decades, Geo Phys Res. Lett, 43 (6), 2827-2834. https://doi.org/10.1002/2016GL067887 Insurance Institute for Business & Home Safety 3 • The intradecadal frequency of these wind events is generally tied to the El Ni ño/Southern Oscillation (ENSO) phases, with El Niño years typically seeing a reduced number of Santa Ana events compared to neutral or La Niña conditions, which was the case in January of 2025.3 • The most intense Santa Ana events both in magnitude and duration occur primarily in December and January. On average, events last 1.5 days, which is near the duration of peak downsloping winds that occurred during the Palisades and Eaton Fires. • Santa Ana wind events exhibit a diurnal cycle which differs from typical convectively driven wind events that reach their peak in the mid-afternoon during peak daytime heating. Santa Ana wind events often peak in the early morning hours and decay during the daytime . During these fires, the winds reached their initial peak during the late afternoon and early evening hours on January 8, followed by a secondary wind maximum during the early morning hours of January 9. This strong Santa Ana wind event, combined with dry conditions and low relative humidity, created extreme fire conditions on Tuesday, January 7. Once the Palisades and Eaton Fires ignited, they quickly became two of California’s most destructive, together destroying more than 16,000 structures. Drought In early December 2024—just over a month before the fires, Los Angeles County was not experiencing any drought conditions (Figure 1a). However, by the end of the month, parts of the county fell under D0 (abnormally dry) and D1 (moderate drought) intensity levels (Figure 1b). Drought conditions persisted throughout January. On the day both fires started, the US Drought Monitor expanded the severe drought classification to cover most of Los Angeles County: 40% of the county was classified as moderate drought, while 60% of the county—including the areas where both fires ignited—was in severe drought. The overall intensity and extent of drought leading up to the fires and throughout January are summarized by the time history of the Drought Severity and Coverage Index shown in Figure 2, which indicates that Los Angeles County experienced drought conditions ranging from extreme (200 –299) to exceptional (300–400) during January. With the highly flammable chaparral fuels primed for ignition by the flash drought, strong winds pushed the fire quickly into heavier vegetation, including shrubs and trees, leading to medium - and long-range spotting. 3 Rafael, M.N. (2003) The Santa Ana winds of California, Earth Interactions, 7(8), 1-13. https://doi.org/10.1175/1087- 3562(2003)007%3C0001:TSAWOC%3E2.0.CO;2 Insurance Institute for Business & Home Safety 4 (a) Valid 7 a.m. EST December 3, 2024. (b) Valid 7 a.m. EST December 31, 2024. (c) Valid 7 am EST January 7th, 2025. Figure 1. US Drought Monitor showing changes in drought conditions in Los Angeles County (outlined in red) during the weeks leading up to the flres. Location of the flre ignition is indicated in the map. Insurance Institute for Business & Home Safety 5 Palisades Fire On January 7, 2025, just before 10:30 a.m. local time, a fire ignited near Skull Rock in the Summit neighborhood. As shown in Figure 3, data from the National Weather Service Automated Surface Observing Station (ASOS) at Van Nuys, located approximately 9 miles north of Pacific Palisades, indicates that at the time of ignition, the mean wind speed was around 30 mph, with gusts reaching up to 60 mph. These intense winds combined with a falling relative humidity created a highly volatile environment that contributed to the rapid spread of the fire and spotting across the Palisades neighborhood. Further, these winds created very unstable conditions for flight operations hindering aerial firefighting containment efforts. Figure 3. Mean wind speed, wind gusts, and relative humidity recorded by the Van Nuys Automated Surface Observing Station (ASOS ). The time of ignition of the Palisades Fire and when it reached nearly 70% of the flre’s flnal size are indicated. Figure 2. Time history of the Drought Severity and Coverage Index (DSCI) in Los Angeles County during December 2024 and January 2025, highlighting the intensiflcation of drought conditions. Insurance Institute for Business & Home Safety 6 After ignition, the fire quickly spread downhill toward the Riverview Country Estates while also advancing eastward. According to the CAL FIRE incident reports, within just an hour and a half—by 12:00 p.m.—the fire spotted across Palisades Drive. Shortly after 2:00 p.m., the fire had grown to 771 acres and reached the Castellammare neighborhood to the southwest near the coast. Within 8 hours, by 6:00 p.m., the fire spread along Temescal Canyon Road toward the Pacific Coast Highway in the south and crossing Topanga Canyon Boulevard on the west, consuming 2,920 acres on its path through neighborhoods to the Pacific Ocean. Strong winds persisted throughout the night, and by 1:00 p.m. on January 8, the fire had reached 15,832 acres, extending from Eastern Malibu to Rustic Canyon in the east. While the fire continued to burn for 43 more days, this 27-hour period of rapid growth accounted for nearly 70% of the fire’s final size, highlighting the intensity and speed at which the fire spread under extreme winds and dry conditions. As winds subsided and aerial firefighting returned, targeted, strategic large drops of fire retardant aided containment efforts and kept fire from entering the next communities—the Monte Nido community in northwest Malibu and Crestwood Hills east of Mandeville Canyon (Figure 4). Additional fire growth was primarily backward, as forward growth had reached the Pacific Ocean fire break (Figure 5). While wind drives forward fire progression, fuels drive lateral spread. The Palisades Fire was fully contained on February 20 after burning over 23,000 acres, destroying 6,833 structures, and claiming 12 lives. The final fire perimeter abuts the perimeters of two historical fires in the area in the past four years (Figure 6). The Franklin Fire, which started on December 9, 2024, burned over 4,000 acres and destroyed 20 structures in Malibu. The 2021 Palisades Fire began on May 4, 2021, in Topanga State Park and consumed 1,202 acres. These previous fires created a fuel break for the 2025 Palisades Fire , as the fire-prone vegetation was significantly depleted following these incidents, reducing available fuel for the active fire. Figure 4. Strategic areas where flre retardant was dropped as part of the containment operations to prevent the flre spreading into Crestwood Hills. Insurance Institute for Business & Home Safety 7 Figure 5. Progression of the Palisades Fire refiected in the flre perimeters from January 7 to January 11. Figure 6. Final Palisades Fire perimeter, shaded in red, with historical flre perimeters in the area outlined in green, including the 2024 Franklin Fire to the west and 2021 Palisades Fire to the north. Insurance Institute for Business & Home Safety 8 Eaton Fire The Eaton Fire ignited on January 7 at approximately 6:20 p.m. local time in the Eaton Canyon area of the San Gabriel Mountains, according to CAL FIRE status reports—eight hours into the Palisades Fire. At the time of ignition, relative humidity had dropped to around 10%, sustained winds exceeded 40 mph, and peak gusts surpassed 60 mph, as recorded by the ASOS at Burbank, located approximately 16 miles from the ignition site (Figure 7), creating extreme fire weather conditions. As with the Palisades Fire, the combination of low humidity, dry fuels, and shifting winds created ideal conditions for rapid fire spread and spot fire development. The fire posed a significant threat to nearby communities and made containment efforts challenging. In less than an hour, the wind-driven fire had already spread to 200 acres. By 10:00 a.m. on January 8—just 16 hours after ignition—it had surged past 10,000 acres. Within 24 hours, by 6:10 p.m. on January 8, the fire had grown to over 13,600 acres, reaching 96% of its final size and devastating entire neighborhoods in Altadena. Maxar Satellite imagery shows the widespread destruction and active burning in Altadena on January 8 (see Figure 8). While the Eaton Fire continued to burn for 42 more days, the extreme fire conditions during this initial 24-hour period led to conflagration. In the early hours of January 9, winds dropped below 10 mph, which allowed firefighting aircraft to operate along the northeast perimeter near Chantry Flats to suppress multiple hotspots. Despite ongoing containment challenges, minimal fire growth was observed after January 10. The fire became fully contained on February 20, 2025, after burning over 14,000 acres, destroying 9,418 structures, and claiming 17 lives. As observed, the fire spread into Altadena for nearly two miles toward Historic Highlands in the southwest, completely burning neighborhoods between Lincoln Avenue (west of the fire footprint) and Sinaloa Avenue (east of the fire footprint). In the southeast, several structures in the wildland-urban interface (WUI) were destroyed. However, unlike in Altadena, the fire did not spread deep into these communities. Figure 7. Mean wind speed, wind gust, and relative humidity recorded by the Burbank Automated Surface Observing Station (ASOS) and the time of ignition of the Eaton Fire. Insurance Institute for Business & Home Safety 9 Figure 8. Infrared Maxar Satellite image showing active burning in Altadena on January 8, 2025.4 Figure 9. Final Eaton Fire perimeter shaded in red. 4 https://globalnews.ca/news/10950343/los-angeles-wildfires-photos-satellite-imagery/ Insurance Institute for Business & Home Safety 10 Overview of the Deployment From January 13 through 19, IBHS conducted a post-disaster investigation in Los Angeles County, California, with a team of nine staff who evaluated 247 structures affected by the fires. The deployment aimed to gain a better understanding of: • the exposure to fire from both the wildland and the built environment, • the potential pathways for fire spread into communities, and • building materials and mitigation strategies that increase the likelihood of structural survivability. The team collected specific data across three key categories: building components, separation distance, and fuel factors, with a particular emphasis on connective fuels around the main structure on a parcel. In some cases, aerial drone imagery provided a broader perspective of the surrounding environment, including property boundaries and nearby connective fuels. Key Data Collected: • Building Type: 97% of the evaluated structures were single-family residential homes. • Roofing Material: The most common roof materials of the evaluated structures were asphalt shingles and clay or concrete tiles. 46% of the evaluated structures had an asphalt shingle roof. 18.6% had clay or concrete barrel tile, 11.8% clay or concrete flat tile. • Vents: Among structures with vents, only 7.8% had a 1/8-inch or finer metal mesh. • Wall Material: 80% of structures had stucco as the primary exterior wall material. • Windows: Window frames were most commonly metal (38%) and vinyl (34%). • Decks: 63% of the structures had decks, most commonly with a wood walking surface. • Fencing: Over 95% of the surveyed parcels had a fence, and in 61% of cases, the fence was either directly attached to the structure or located within Zone 0 (the 0–5 foot noncombustible zone). Additionally, 65% of fences were made of wood, increasing fire risk and serving as a dominant connective fuel. Transition to Urban Fire Post-event investigations consistently indicate that most initial structure ignitions in conflagrations result from the accumulation of airborne embers and wind-driven, ground-traveling burning debris near urban connective fuels or the buildings themselves, rather than direct contact with the main fire front. Under fire-conducive conditions, these small spot fires can grow vertically and lead to sporadic large fires within a community. In extreme fire weather, these scattered fires can spread, merge, generate significant embers, and evolve into full-scale conflagrations depending on the community’s characteristics. (a) (b) Figure 10. Examples of airborne and ground-traveling structural embers observed during the LA County flres shared by local residents with IBHS staff during the post-disaster investigation. Note that in (b), the flre on the connective fuel vegetation was successfully suppressed. Insurance Institute for Business & Home Safety 11 Studies of past conflagrations and the observations by the IBHS team in the Eaton and Palisade s fires reveal two distinct patterns in the destruction5: 1. sporadic losses where smaller clusters of homes are burned. 2. large-scale urban conflagration driven by structure-to-structure fire spread resulting in widespread devastation. On a microscale, direct flame contact and radiation become the main fire spread mechanisms in conflagrations. On the macroscale, especially in high-wind events where ember generation markedly increases, embers remain a crucial factor in fire spread. While even typical building materials that comply with modern building codes are likely to fail under the extreme heating rate of direct flame contact, fire intensity remains highly localized —even in strong wind conditions. This occurs because shifts in wind direction and natural breaks in fuel continuity—such as roads, parking lots, and parks— can disrupt fast and uniform fire spread. When windflow characteristics—influenced by upstream buildings, terrain, vegetation, etc.—create pockets of reduced fire intensity, homes constructed with vulnerable materials or those with connective fuels that create paths to burning structures do not benefit from this variation in intensity. Slow-moving, low-intensity fires can still consume available connective fuels, reach structures, and eventually ignite vulnerable materials. However, homes built with resilient components—such as those required in the IBHS Wildfire Prepared Home™ standard—can withstand prolonged exposure and help break the chain of conflagration. In the Eaton and Palisades fires, the three pillars of conflagration, as identified by IBHS after the Lahaina Fire (2023), remained highly relevant: structure separation, connective fuels, and building materials. Structure Separation Structure density is a key factor in determining wildfire risk in WUI communities. Once the first few homes ignite in densely built neighborhoods, downwind structures are more likely to experience extreme heating by direct flame contact. Additionally, higher-density communities tend to have more connective fuels—such as fences, landscaping, and debris—which can allow low-intensity fires to build strength and potentially exceed the tolerance of building materials. Dense neighborhoods pose challenges for evacuation where roads are one of the few fire breaks. Abandoned vehicles and congestion obstruct roads which reduces their effectiveness as natural fuel breaks, adds to the fuel load, and complicates firefighting efforts. These combined factors make high-density, unmitigated communities particularly vulnerable to rapid fire spread and complicate emergency response. In wind-driven fires, flames are forced to tilt downward and extend forward, intensifying radiative heat transfer to downwind ground fuels and urban connective fuels. Stretched flames help fire spread rapidly from one building to another along the local wind vector. Meanwhile, homes positioned crosswind, or perpendicular to the wind vector, experience a level of convective cooling, as the surrounding air temperature remains lower than the temperature of the flames and the wind-driven plume. For these buildings, radiative heat transfer and intermittent flame contact act as the primary heating mechanisms. Understanding these dynamics is critical to understanding how to effectively and wholistically mitigate communities against fire exposure.5 In the densely built areas of Pacific Palisades and Altadena, the typical structure separation ranged from 8 to 20 feet. Differing exposures unique to the wind patterns of this event explain damage patterns in these communities. Downwind Research from IBHS shows that with about 10 feet of separation between a fully engulfed structure and a downwind structure no building material on the downwind structure is likely to survive. However, when the separation distance increases to approximately 20 feet, the benefits of fire-resistant building components become evident. A home’s overall fire resilience is only as strong as its weakest link. A combination of noncombustible building materials and double-pane tempered windows in a resilient frame—such as fiberglass or metal—significantly reduces 5 F. Hedayati, X. Monroy, E. Sluder, H. Fallahian, M. Shabanian, The 2023 Lahaina Conflagration, IBHS Research Report, September 2024. Insurance Institute for Business & Home Safety 12 the likelihood of total loss. In contrast, vulnerable materials can fail even at greater separation distances due to intense downwind heat exposure, as illustrated in Figure 11 from the Palisades Fire. In this instance, a road with sidewalks provided a separation distance of approximately 60 feet from a burning upwind structure . The downwind home's window—a wood frame, single-pane annealed glass window—failed under moderate heat exposure. This highlights the critical role of both separation distance and material choice in determining a building’s ability to withstand wildfire exposure. (a) (b) Figure 11. Example of damage to less resilient building materials from a downwind exposure at approximately 60 feet. Crosswind Exposure in crosswind conditions is significantly lower than in downwind scenarios, as radiation becomes the primary heating mechanism with some convective cooling and possible intermittent flame contact. In these crosswind conditions, buildings with resilient materials can provide effective protection, even at a separation distance of just 10 feet, as illustrated in Figure 12 in the Eaton Fire. In this crosswind scenario, the highlighted building experienced moderate to high heat exposure from a neighboring structure. However, because the highlighted building featured noncombustible siding and double-pane windows, the damage was limited and not a total loss. Notably, this home had a larger setback from the street than the neighboring destroyed structure, which helped reduce lateral radiation exposure to only a small portion of the side of the home. Field observations further revealed that only the overlapping sections of the highlighted structure sustained window damage, while others remained unaffected. This highlights the potential of strategically varying setbacks in high-density neighborhoods to help mitigate fire spread and reduce structural losses. (a) (b) Figure 12. Example of a home with a crosswind exposure from the Eaton Fire. Insurance Institute for Business & Home Safety 13 Connective Fuels The connectivity of fuels between the wildland and the built environment, as well as between homes within a community, plays a critical role in both the initial entry of fire and its spread in a community. Figure 13 highlights a case in the Eaton Fire where ignition was likely caused by embers traveling across a golf course and landing on flammable materials around a home or entering through openings. These embers ignited the corner home exposing the neighboring structure to crosswind heat. A tall concrete masonry unit block fence between the two buildings significantly reduced heat exposure, but the presence of connective fuels —in this case, an awning—between properties allowed the fire to spread closer to the neighboring home. It appears that first responders were able to suppress the fire on the awning before it could cause major structural damage. As a result, damage to the neighboring home was limited to broken window glass. The survival of this house effectively disrupted the chain of conflagration, creating an island of undamaged homes within a heavily impacted community. Figure 13d further highlights the importance of fuel management in Zone 0. The leeward side of a tree in Zone 0 was completely consumed by fire, while the windward side remained green. This suggests that strong winds removed heat at a rate that prevented fire from spreading in the opposite direction toward the house. Without the persistent wind pushing the fire away from the home, the damage to the adjacent building could have been significantly worse. By maintaining Zone 0, homeowners become more in control of potential exposure to their homes rather than relying on stochastic fire behavior. (a) (b) (c) (d) Figure 13. Example of connective fuel exposure in the Eaton Fire. (b) shows the noncombustible wall bordering the property, which acted to reduce exposure. (c) shows the damaged window. (d) shows the tree in Zone 0 which burned similarly to the tree in the foreground. Insurance Institute for Business & Home Safety 14 Figure 14 depicts another example of connective fuel in Zone 0 where rows of woody shrubs created a direct connective fuel pathway between the home and its neighbor. With a crosswind exposure, the fire used this vegetation to spread closer to the structure and heat the eave area, which showed signs of light charring suggesting that suppression efforts likely prevented further damage. The damage and the need for first responder intervention could have been prevented by removing the connecting fuel. This emphasizes that even under extreme fire conditions—where heat intensity along the wind can surpass the resistance of any building material —fire intensity in the crosswind direction varies locally. By implementing the requirements of Wildfire Prepared Home, homeowners can use all available opportunities to reduce damage and improve survivability, even in extreme fire events. (a) (b) (c) Figure 14. Impact of connective fuel on damage spread in the crosswind directio n from the closest destroyed neighbor on the side. This home is the same home shown in Figure 11 where the home’s downwind structure separation was considered. Insurance Institute for Business & Home Safety 15 In addition to permanent connective fuels such as trees and shrubs, portable connective fuels—such as trash cans, hot tubs, and small storage sheds—further impact a building’s risk of ignition. The potential hazard these items pose depends on their contents, as certain materials can significantly increase fuel load and fire intensity. • Trash Cans: IBHS researchers observed instances where ignited trash cans caused damage to the adjacent buildings (Figure 15a, 15b, 15c). In these instances, the fire was suppressed by first responders, limiting the damage to the building’s cladding. • Hot Tubs: Figure 15d depicts damage caused by a burning hot tub, likely ignited by embers. Fortunately, in this case, the wind direction helped limit fire spread to the building itself. However, the intense heat from the burning hot tub led to the failure of a nearby window and door, causing the frame and panes to collapse and creating an opening in the structure. Since this opening was on the leeward side, the likelihood of ember entry into the building was minimal, preventing a total loss. Nonetheless, the building still sustained severe damage. These examples demonstrate how even seemingly minor external fuel sources can significantly impact fire behavior and the subsequent damage level to a home. (a) (b) (c) (d) Figure 15. Examples of portable connective fuels observed in the Palisades and Eaton Fires. (a), (b), and (c) show examples of trash cans while (d) shows a hot tub. Insurance Institute for Business & Home Safety 16 Building Materials Building materials play a decisive role in fire resistance when fire intensity is not extreme. Fire intensity in urban fires can vary significantly due to changes in available fuel, wind speed, and wind direction. While wind patterns are beyond human control, reducing fuel connectivity and availability—by removing or spacing out combustible materials—creates an opportunity for fire-resistant building materials to mitigate damage. This, in turn, can help slow fire spread and potentially break the chain of conflagration. IBHS researchers identified numerous cases where a combination of fire-resistant building materials and lower fire intensity—either due to shifts in wind patterns or fuel discontinuity—helped contain fire damage (Figure 16). Figure 16 shows a home exposed to radiant heat from burning wildland shrubs along a nearby hiking trail. A break in the fuel continuity caused by the driveway reduced overall thermal exposure and limited damage to the home to the failure of annealed windowpanes, while the structure itself remained largely intact. Notably, two windows faced the fire and experienced similar levels of heat exposure —an annealed glass window and a tempered glass window. Only the annealed glass failed; the tempered glazing remained in place, sustaining only frame damage. (a) (b) (c) (d) Figure 16. Example of building material impacts in non-extreme flre conditions. (b) shows lack of connective fuels. (c) shows the two windows— one annealed glass and one tempered—on the side of the home that experienced similar flre exposure, but only the annealed glass window failed. (d) shows the tempered window etching. Insurance Institute for Business & Home Safety 17 Figure 17 shows reduced exposure due to crosswind conditions and a lack of connective fuels. The building's noncombustible siding received enough heat to spall; had it been combustible, it likely would have ignited in a manner similar to the wood window frame, which did ignite before being suppressed. The annealed single-pane windows broke; however, because this window was not on the windward side, it received minimal ember exposure, and embers did not enter the house. Figure 18 highlights an example of avoidable damage. While connective fuel in the form of a fence carried the fire close to the building, the stucco siding was able to withstand more heat than the burning fence could generate. This case demonstrates the effectiveness of fire-resistant materials when exposed to moderate heat and their ability to contain damage. However, it is important to note that if a window had been located near the fence, or if the local wind pattern had directed the flames from the fence toward the open eaves, the resulting heat could have caused window failure or eave ignition— potentially leading to the total loss of the building. This potential reinforces the need to avoid connective fuels between homes, e ven when structures comply with modern WUI building codes. Decks are also vulnerable to ember ignition. Embers can accumulate on joists between deck boards, igniting debris trapped in those gaps (Figure 19). Once ignited, the fire can spread along the joists in a smoldering phase. When the smoldering fire reaches the board gaps, it can rekindle into open flames, creating a burn pattern where large sections are consumed at the interface of boards and joists. In this case, the deck ignition was successfully suppressed, preventing further fire spread. (a) (b) Figure 17. Scorch marks and damaged windows show the exposure this home received and resisted because of the noncombustible stucco cladding. (a) (b) Figure 18. Two examples where fences served as connective fuels carrying flre towards structures. In both instances, the noncombustible cladding resisted ignition. Insurance Institute for Business & Home Safety 18 Figure 19. Decks pose a vulnerability to ember ignitions as seen at this home, where a hose was used to extinguish the ignitions. Building Materials and Extreme Fire Conditions Most of the construction in the neighborhoods impacted by the Eaton and Palisades Fires occurred in the 1950s, prior to the development of California’s Chapter 7A building code for wildfire-prone areas. While not required by building code at the time, typical construction in these neighborhoods favored the use of noncombustible siding—such as stucco—and Class A roofs. Many homes also featured double-pane windows for energy efficiency purposes, but few had tempered windows. Fire intensity increases disproportionately under extreme wind conditions, underscoring the need for resilient building systems. Research by IBHS on wind-driven fires indicates that the energy accumulation rate from a burning shed 20-feet away increases sixfold at a wind speed of 25 mph compared to no-wind conditions and rises twentyfold when exposed to 60 mph winds. During conflagration conditions, this intense energy is forced onto downwind structures, often overwhelming nearly all construction materials and leading to uncontrollable structure to structure fire spread. Only as these densely built structures experience the local variation in fire intensity can connective fuels and building materials compliant with modern WUI codes impact the chain of conflagration. Noncombustible building materials alone cannot stop conflagration. Firefighter Interventions IBHS surveyed numerous buildings that demonstrated the effectiveness of on-the-ground firefighter interventions. These interventions typically occurred at the initial point of fire development on or near buildings. Security camera footage shared by homeowners also revealed that some residents who did not evacuate suppressed ignitions in fuels near their homes. In one case, footage showed an individual applying fire retardant gel to a home a few hours before the arrival of the fire front. However, the timestamp ed footage indicated that about three hours later, the gel had dried out due to dry and windy conditions, minimizing its effectiveness. This observation aligns with previous IBHS research on fire retardant gels, which, while initially effective, undergo weathering and lose their protective properties within a few hours under extreme fire conditions.6 In these conditions, the effectiveness of the gels largely depends on the time gap between their application and the fire front's arrival. IBHS advises homeowners against using valuable evacuation time to apply gels to their property. 6 Kadel, J., Hedayati, F., Quarles, S.L. et al. Effect of Environmental Conditions on the Dehydration and Performance of Fire- Protective Gels. Fire Technol 57, 1241–1257 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10694 -020-01045-2 Insurance Institute for Business & Home Safety 19 SUMMARY The Palisades and Eaton Fires collectively scorched approximately 60 square miles, resulting in the tragic loss of at least 29 lives and the destruction of over 16,000 structures. • From Wildfire to Conflagration: Strong Santa Ana winds fueled an extreme fire weather setup and, once an ignition occurred, led to rapid, wind-driven, building-to-building fire spread through densely populated communities. The same weather conditions that fuel rapid fire spread grounded the air resources equipped to battle the blazes. • Structure Density: Under such strong winds, flames from burning buildings bent down and stretched along the wind. For tightly spaced structures, this allowed flames to directly reach from one building to the next. Each home ignition generated high flux of short-range embers and ground-traveling embers, further amplifying the fire. In downtown Altadena and Pacific Palisades, the exposure was so extreme that even homes with some fire-resistant features had little chance of survival because the fire exploited the unmitigated weakest links. • Connective Fuels & Building Materials: Where structure separation distances were closer to 20 feet, or when exposure was not directly downwind of the fire, fire-resistant building materials played a crucial role in reducing damage severity. These instances interrupted the chain of conflagration, leaving islands of undamaged homes within the scorched community. These homes typically did not have any connective fuels to their surrounding destroyed neighborhoods. Exposure & Resilience: Among the three pillars of conflagration—structure density, connective fuel, and building materials—structure density and connective fuels couple with environmental conditions to determine thermal exposure intensity. Meanwhile, building materials determine a structure’s resilience to this exposure. When exposure intensity surpasses resilience, structures are not expected to survive. With tight structure density, significant connective fuel, and Santa Ana winds, the exposure level becomes so intense that nearly all building materials are overwhelmed. • In existing communities where structure separation cannot be changed, removing connective fuel s becomes the meaningful lever to reduce exposure levels. Where connective fuels have been addressed, resilient building materials have a better chance of reducing damage. • Noncombustible fences, such as brick and concrete masonry, can effectively minimize radiation and intermittent flame contact from burning neighbors and compartmentalize fire. Work towards Wildfire Prepared Home: Typical construction in these communities featured some resilient elements compliant with the Wildfire Prepared Home requirements—such as stucco cladding, Class A roofs, double- paned tempered windows—but lacked the full system of mitigations. While individually these components provide an acceptable degree of fire resistance, the overall resilience of a structure is determined by its weakest component . Until all components are addressed, the property cannot reap the benefits of the individual component’s fire resistance. Because the remaining weak component varied structure to structure from relatively inexpensive features like vents to more costly features like windows, the cost to mitigate homes in this area varies. But the investment required to enhance resilience in these communities is not as substantial as commonly estimated. Strengthening strategic vulnerable components within an already robust system can significantly improve a home's resistance to fire. Mayor Colin and the Members of the San Rafael City Council April 16, 2025 Page 2 Because there is no nexus between the proposed Project and Applicants' mobility disability, the City Council cannot make the findings required by SRMC § 14.26.06 0, and the appeal should be granted. I.The Planning Commission Erred by Approving the Revised January 13, 2025 Plans without Exclusion of the ADU First and most basically, the Resolution signed by the Planning Commission confusingly approves a set of plans that includes an ADU. All parties, including the Applicants and City Staff, agree that the ADU included in the January 2025 Revised Plans is NOT a part of the reasonable accommodations project, and was not approved by the Planning Commission. However, the wording of the Planning Commission's Resolution is misleading on this point, as the approval extends "to include the revised project plans submitted on January 13, 2025". Moreover, a condition of approval states that "all information ... as present for approval on plans, dated January 13, 2025 ... shall be the same as required for the issuance of a building permit." This language is confusing and, viewed without context of the meeting, can be interpreted as approving the ADU, as it is included in the January 13, 2025 plans. It needs to be clarified that the ADU shown in the January 2025 Revised Plans is not approved as part of the Reasonable Accommodations project, and the ADU must go through a separate plan review process if the Applicants wish to pursue building an ADU. Moreover, given that the ADU was not approved, the result is that the Planning Commission approved an incomplete set of plans, that do not show any support for the proposed master bedroom and bathroom addition. Approval of plans with such a basic and critical omission is error by the City. Therefore, Appellants request that the City Council issue a revised Resolution that makes clear that the ADU shown in the January 2025 plans is not included in any approvals by the City, and requests Applicants to submit a full set of plans, including structural support for the master bedroom addition, prior to approval of the Project. II.There is No Nexus Between the Proposed Plans and the Applicants' Mobility Disability The law requires both necessity and reasonableness before granting a reasonable accommodation. See SRMC § 14.26.06 0(A )(2).1 Appellants do not question the Applicants' need for modifications to their home due to a mobility disability. However, most of the 1 See also HUD guidance document attached to Planning Commission Staff Report, at pages 2-3. EXHIBIT A EXHIBIT A 1 The Fair Housing Act is codified at 42 U.S.C. §§ 3601 - 3619. 2 The Act uses the term “handicap” instead of the term "disability." Both terms have the same legal meaning. See Bragdon v. Abbott, 524 U.S. 624, 631 (1998) (noting that 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)(B). 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. May 17, 2004 JOINT STATEMENT OF THE DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT AND THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE REASONABLE ACCOMMODATIONS 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, nat ion al o rigi n, f ami lia l st atu s, a nd d isa bil ity.2 One type of disability discrimination prohibited by the Act is the refusal to make reasonable accommodations in rules, policies, practices, or services when such accommodations may be necessary to afford a person with a disability the equal oppo rtunity to us e and enjoy a dwel ling.3 HUD and DOJ frequently respond to complaints alleging that housing providers have violated the Act by refusing reasonable accommodations 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 4 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 require recipients of federal financial assistance to provide reasonable accommodations to applicants and residents with disabilities. Although Section 504 imposes greater obligations than the Fair Housing Act, (e.g., providing and paying for reasonable accommodations that involve structural modifications to units or public and common areas), the principles discussed in this Statement regarding reasonable accommodation under the Fair Housing Act generally apply to requests for reasonable accommodations to rules, policies, practices, and services under Section 504. See U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, Office of Public and Indian Housing, Notice PIH 2002-01(HA) (www.hud.gov/offices/fheo/disabilities/PIH02-01.pdf) and “Section 504: Frequently Asked Questions,” (www.hud.gov/offices/fheo/disabilities/ sect504faq.cfm#anchor272118). 5 The Fair Housing Act’s protection against disability discrimination covers not only home seekers with disabilities but also buyers and renters without disabilities who live or are associated with individuals with disabilities 42 U.S.C. § 3604(f)(1)(B), 42 U.S.C. § 3604(f)(1)(C), 42 U.S.C. § 3604(f)(2)(B), 42 U.S.C. § (f)(2)(C). See also H.R. Rep. 100-711 – 24 (reprinted in 1988 U.S.C.A.N. 2173, 2184-85) (“The Committee intends these provisions to prohibit not only discrimination against the primary purchaser or named lessee, but also to prohibit denials of housing opportunities to applicants because they have children, parents, friends, spouses, roommates, patients, subtenants or other associates who have disabilities.”). Accord: Preamble to Propos ed HUD Rules Implementin g the Fair Hou sing Act, 53 Fed. Reg. 45001 (Nov. 7, 1988) (citing House Report). 6 42 U.S.C. § 3604(f)(3)(B). HUD regulations pertaining to reasonable accommodations may be found at 24 C.F.R. § 100.204. - 2 - reasonable accommodations.4 Questions and Answers 1. What types of discrimination against persons with disabilities does the Act prohibit? The Act prohibits housing providers from discriminating against applicants or residents because of their disability or the disability of anyone associated with them5 and from treating persons with disabilities less favorably than others because of their disability. 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.”6 The Act also prohibits housing providers from refusing residency to persons with disabilities, or placing conditions on their residency, because those persons may require reasonable accommodations. In addition, in certain circumstances, the Act requires that housing providers allow residents to 7 This Statement does not address the principles relating to reasonable modifications. For further information see the HUD regulations at 24 C.F.R. § 100.203. This statement also does not address the additional requirements imposed on recipients of Federal financial assistance pursuant to Section 504, as explained in the Introduction. - 3 - make reasonable structural modifications to units and public/common areas in a dwelling when those modifications may be necessary for a person with a disability to have full enjoyment of a dwelling.7 With certain limited exceptions (see response to question 2 below), the Act applies to privately and publicly owned housing, including housing subsidized by the federal government or rented through the use of Section 8 voucher assistance. 2. Who must comply with the Fair Housing Act’s reasonable accommodation requirements? Any person or entity engaging in prohibited conduct – i.e., refusing to make reasonable accommodations in rules, policies, practices, or services, when such accommodations may be necessary to aff ord a person with a disa bility an equa l opportun ity to use and e njoy a dwellin g – 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. 703, 710 (D. Md. 2001), aff'd 2002 WL 2012545 (4th Cir. 2002). Under specific exceptions to the Fair Housing Act, the reasonable accommodation requirements of the Act do not apply to a private individual owner who sells his own home so long as he (1) does not own more than three single-family homes; (2) does not use a real estate agent and does not employ any discriminatory advertising or notices; (3) has not engaged in a similar sale of a home within a 24-month period; and (4) is not in the business of selling or renting dwellings. The reasonable accommodation requirements of the Fair Housing Act also do not apply to owner-occupied buildings that have four or fewer dwelling units. 3. 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 than addiction caused by current, illegal use of a controlled substance) and alcoholism. 8 The Supreme Court has questioned but has not yet ruled on whether "working" is to be considered a major life activity. See Toyota Motor Mfg, Kentucky, Inc. v. Williams, 122 S. Ct. 681, 692, 693 (2002). If it is a major activity, the Court has noted that a claimant would be required to show an inability to work in a “broad range of jobs” rather than a specific job. See Sutton v. United Airlines, Inc., 527 U.S. 470, 492 (1999). 9 See, e.g., United States v. Southern Management Corp., 955 F.2d 914, 919 (4th Cir. 1992) (discussing exclusion in 42 U.S.C. § 3602(h) for “current, illegal use of or addiction to a controlled substance”). - 4 - The term "su bstantial ly limits" su ggests that t he limitat ion is "sign ificant" 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.8 This list of major life activities is not exhaustive. See e.g., Bragdon v. Abbott, 524 U.S. 624, 691-92 (1998)(holding that for certain individuals reproduction is a major life activity). 4. Does the Act protect juvenile offenders, sex offenders, persons who illegally use controlled substances, and persons with disabilities who pose a significant danger to others? No, juvenile offenders and sex offenders, by virtue of that status, are not persons with disabilities protected by the Act. Similarly, while the Act does protect persons who are recovering from substance abuse, it does not protect persons who are currently engaging in the current illegal use of controlled substances.9 Additionally, the Act does not protect an individual with a disability whose tenancy would constitute a "direct threat" to the health or safety of other individuals or result in substantial physical damage to the property of others unless the threat can be eliminated or significantly reduced by reasonable accommodation. 5. How can a housing provider determine if an individual poses a direct threat? The Act does not allow for exclusion of individuals based upon fear, speculation, or stereotype about a particular disability or persons with disabilities in general. A determination that an individual poses a direct threat must rely on an individualized assessment that is based on reliable objective evidence (e.g., current conduct, or a recent history of overt acts). The assessment must consider: (1) the nature, duration, and severity of the risk of injury; (2) the probability that injury will actually occur; and (3) whether there are any reasonable accommodations that will eliminate the direct threat. Consequently, in evaluating a recent history of overt acts, a provider must take into account whether the individual has received intervening treatment or medication that has eliminated the direct threat (i.e., a significant risk of substantial harm). In such a situation, the provider may request that the individual document - 5 - how the circumstances have changed so that he no longer poses a direct threat. A provider may also obtain satisfactory assurances that the individual will not pose a direct threat during the tenancy. The housing provider must have reliable, objective evidence that a person with a disability poses a direct threat before excluding him from housing on that basis. Example 1: A housing provider requires all persons applying to rent an apartment to complete an application that includes information on the applicant’s current place of residence. On her application to rent an apartment, a woman notes that she currently resides in Cambridge House. The manager of the apartment complex knows that Cambridge House is a group home for women receiving treatment for alcoholism. Based solely on that information and his personal be lief that al coholics ar e likely to caus e disturba nces and dam age property, the manager rejects the applicant. The rejection is unlawful because it is based on a generalized stereotype related to a disability rather than an individualized assessment of any threat to other persons or the property of others based on reliable, objective evidence about the applicant’s recent past conduct. The housing provider may not treat this applicant differently than other applicants based on his subjective perceptions of the potential problems posed by her alcoholism by requiring additional documents, imposing different lease terms, or requiring a higher security deposit. However, the manager could have checked this applicant’s references to the same extent and in the same manner as he would have checked any other applicant’s references. If such a reference check revealed objective evidence showing that this applicant had posed a direct threat to persons or property in the recent past and the direct threat had not been eliminated, the manager could then have rejected the applicant based on direct threat. Example 2: James X, a tenant at the Shady Oaks apartment complex, is arrested for threatening his neighbor while brandishing a baseball bat. The Shady Oaks’ lease agreement contains a term prohibiting tenants from threatening violence against other residents. Shady Oaks’ rental manager investigates the incident and learns that James X threatened the other resident with physical violence and had to be physically restrained by other neighbors to keep him from acting on his threat. Following Shady Oaks’ standard practice of strictly enforcing its “no threats” policy, the Shady Oaks rental manager issues James X a 30-day notice to quit, which is the first step in the eviction process. James X's attorney contacts Shady Oaks' rental manager and explains that James X has a psychiatric disability that causes him to be physically violent when he stops taking his prescribed medication. Suggesting that his client will not pose a direct threat to others if proper safeguards are taken, the attorney requests that the rental manager grant James X an exception to the “no threats” policy as a reasonable accommodation based on James X’s disability. The Shady Oaks rental manager need only grant the reasonable accommodation if James X’s attorney can provide satisfactory assurance that James X will receive appropriate counseling and - 6 - periodic medication monitoring so that he will no longer pose a direct threat during his tenancy. After consulting with James X, the attorney responds that James X is unwilling to receive counseling or submit to any type of periodic monitoring to ensure that he takes his prescribed medication. The rental manager may go forward with the eviction proceeding, since James X continues to pose a direct threat to the health or safety of other residents. 6. What is a "reasonable accommodation" for purposes of the Act? A “re aso nab le a ccom mod ati on” is a chan ge, e xce pti on, or ad jus tme nt t o a ru le, pol icy, practice, or service that may be necessary for a person with a disability to have an equal opportunity to use and enjoy a dwelling, including public and common use spaces. Since rules, policies, practices, and services may have a different effect on persons with disabilities than on other persons, treating persons with disabilities exactly the same as others will sometimes deny them an equal opportunity to use and enjoy a dwelling. The Act makes it unlawful to refuse to make reasonable accommodations to rules, policies, practices, or services when such accommodations may be necessary to afford persons with disabilities an equal opportunity to use and enjoy a dwelling. To show that a requested accommodation may be necessary, there must be an identifiable relationship, or nexus, between the requested accommodation and the individual’s disability. Example 1: A housing provider has a policy of providing unassigned parking spaces to residents. A resident with a mobility impairment, who is substantially limited in her ability to walk, requests an assigned accessible parking space close to the entrance to her unit as a reasonable accommodation. There are available parking spaces near the entrance to her unit that are accessible, but those spaces are available to all residents on a first come, first served basis. The provider must make an exception to its policy of not providing assigned parking spaces to accommodate this resident. Example 2: A housing provider has a policy of requiring tenants to come to the rental office in person to pay their rent. A tenant has a mental disability that makes her afraid to leave her unit. Because of her disability, she requests that she be permitted to have a friend mail her rent payment to the rental office as a reasonable accommodation. The provider must make an exception to its payment policy to accommodate this tenant. Example 3: A housing provider has a "no pets" policy. A tenant who is deaf requests that the provider allow him to keep a dog in his unit as a reasonable accommodation. The tenant explains that the dog is an assistance animal that will alert him to several sounds, including knocks at the door, sounding of the smoke detector, the telephone ringing, and cars coming into the driveway. The housing - 7 - provider must make an exception to its “no pets” policy to accommodate this tenant. 7. Are there any instances when a provider can deny a request for a reasonable accommodation without violating the Act? Yes. A housing provider can deny a request for a reasonable accommodation if the requ est was not mad e by o r on beh alf of a p ers on w ith a di sab ili ty or if t here is n o di sab ili ty- related need for the accommodation. In addition, a request for a reasonable accommodation may be denied if providing the accommodation is not reasonable – i.e., if it would impose an undue financial and administrative burden on the housing provider or it would fundamentally alter the nature of the provider's operations. The determination of undue financial and administrative burden must be made on a case-by-case basis involving various factors, such as the cost of the requested accommodation, the financial resources of the provider, the benefits that the accommodation would provide to the requester, and the availability of alternative accommodations that would effectively meet the requester's disability-related needs. When a housing provider refuses a requested accommodation because it is not reasonable, the provider should discuss with the requester whether there is an alternative accommodation that would effectively address the requester's disability-related needs without a fundamental alteration to the provider's operations and without imposing an undue financial and administrative burden. If an alternative accommodation would effectively meet the requester's disability-related needs and is reasonable, the provider must grant it. An interactive process in which the housing provider and the requester discuss the requester's disability-related need for the requested accommodation and possible alternative accommodations is helpful to all concerned because it often results in an effective accommodation for the requester that does not pose an undue financial and administrative burden for the provider. Example: As a result of a disability, a tenant is physically unable to open the dumpster placed in the parking lot by his housing provider for trash collection. The tenant requests that the housing provider send a maintenance staff person to his apartment on a daily basis to collect his trash and take it to the dumpster. Because the housing development is a small operation with limited financial resources and the maintenance staff are on site only twice per week, it may be an undue financial and administrative burden for the housing provider to grant the requested daily trash pick-up service. Accordingly, the requested accommodation may not be reasonable. If the housing provider denies the requested accommodation as unreasonable, the housing provider should discuss with the tenant whet her reasonab le accommod ations cou ld be provi ded to meet the tenant 's disability-related needs – for instance, placing an open trash collection can in a location that is readily accessible to the tenant so the tenant can dispose of his own trash and the provider's maintenance staff can then transfer the trash to the dumpster when they are on site. Such an accommodation would not involve a - 8 - fundamental alteration of the provider's operations and would involve little financial and administrative burden for the provider while accommodating the tenant's disability-related needs. There may be instances where a provider believes that, while the accommodation requested by an individual is reasonable, there is an alternative accommodation that would be equally effective in meeting the individual's disability-related needs. In such a circumstance, the provider should discuss with the individual if she is willing to accept the alternative accommodation. However, providers should be aware that persons with disabilities typically have the most accurate knowledge about the functional limitations posed by their disability, and an individual is not obligated to accept an alternative accommodation suggested by the provider if she believes it will not meet her needs and her preferred accommodation is reasonable. 8. What is a “fundamental alteration”? A "fundament al alterati on" is a modi fication t hat alters t he essenti al nature of a provider's operations. Example: A tenant has a severe mobility impairment that substantially limits his ability to walk. He asks his housing provider to transport him to the grocery store and assist him with his grocery shopping as a reasonable accommodation to his disability. The provider does not provide any transportation or shopping services for its tenants, so granting this request would require a fundamental alteration in the nature of the provider's operations. The request can be denied, but the provider should discuss with the requester whether there is any alternative accommodation that would effectively meet the requester's disability-related needs without fundamentally altering the nature of its operations, such as reducing the tenant's need to walk long distances by altering its parking policy to allow a volunteer from a local community service organization to park her car close to the tenant's unit so she can transport the tenant to the grocery store and assist him with his s hopping. 9. What happens if providing a requested accommodation involves some costs on the part of the housing provider? Courts have ruled that the Act may require a housing provider to grant a reasonable accommodation that involves costs, so long as the reasonable accommodation does not pose an undue financial and administrative burden and the requested accommodation does not constitute a fundamental alteration of the provider’s operations. The financial resources of the provider, the cost of the reasonable accommodation, the benefits to the requester of the requested accommodation, and the availability of other, less expensive alternative accommodations that would effectively meet the applicant or resident’s disability-related needs must be considered in determining whether a requested accommodation poses an undue financial and administrative - 9 - burden. 10. What happens if no agreement can be reached through the interactive process? A failure to reach an agreement on an accommodation request is in effect a decision by the provider not to grant the requested accommodation. If the individual who was denied an accommodation files a Fair Housing Act complaint to challenge that decision, then the agency or court receiving the complaint will review the evidence in light of applicable law and decide if the housing provider violated that law. For more information about the complaint process, see question 19 below. 11. May a housing provider charge an extra fee or require an additional deposit from applicants or residents with disabilities as a condition of granting a reasonable accommodation? No. Housing providers may not require persons with disabilities to pay extra fees or deposits as a condition of receiving a reasonable accommodation. Example 1: A man who is substantially limited in his ability to walk uses a motorized scooter for mobility purposes. He applies to live in an assisted living facility that has a policy prohibiting the use of motorized vehicles in buildings and elsewhere on the premises. It would be a reasonable accommodation for the facility to make an exception to this policy to permit the man to use his motorized scooter on the premises for mobility purposes. Since allowing the man to use his scooter in the buildings and elsewhere on the premises is a reasonable accommodation, the facility may not condition his use of the scooter on payment of a fee or deposit or on a requirement that he obtain liability insurance relating to the use of the scooter. However, since the Fair Housing Act does not protect any person with a disability who poses a direct threat to the person or property of others, the man must operate his motorized scooter in a responsible manner that does not pose a significant risk to the safety of other persons and does not cause damage to other persons' property. If the individual's use of the scooter causes damage to his unit or the common areas, the housing provider may charge him for the cost of repairing the damage (or deduct it from the standard security deposit imposed on all tenants), if it is the provider's practice to assess tenants for any damage they cause to the premises. Example 2: Because of his disability, an applicant with a hearing impairment needs to keep an assistance animal in his unit as a reasonable accommodation. The housing provider may not require the applicant to pay a fee or a security deposit as a condition of allowing the applicant to keep the assistance animal. However, if a tenant's assistance animal causes damage to the applicant's unit or the common areas of the dwelling, the housing provider may charge the tenant for - 10 - the cost of repairing the damage (or deduct it from the standard security deposit imposed on all tenants), if it is the provider's practice to assess tenants for any damage they cause to the premises. 12. When and how should an individual request an accommodation? Under the Act, a resident or an applicant for housing makes a reasonable accommodation request whenever she makes clear to the housing provider that she is requesting an exception, change, or adjustment to a rule, policy, practice, or service because of her disability. She should explain what type of accommodation she is requesting and, if the need for the accommodation is not readily apparent or not known to the provider, explain the relationship between the requested accommodation and her disability. An applicant or resident is not entitled to receive a reasonable accommodation 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 accommodation request; the request can be made by a family member or someone else who is acting on her behalf. An individual making a reasonable accommodation request does not need to mention the Act or use the words "reasonable accommodation." However, the requester must make the request in a manner that a reasonable person would understand to be a request for an exception, change, or adjustment to a rule, policy, practice, or service because of a disability. Although a reasonable accommodation 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 accommodation requests even if the requester makes the request orally or does not use the provider's preferred forms or procedures for making such requests. Example: A tenant in a large apartment building makes an oral request that she be assigned a mailbox in a location that she can easily access because of a physical disability that limits her ability to reach and bend. The provider would prefer that the tenant make the accommodation request on a pre-printed form, but the tenant fails to complete the form. The provider must consider the reasonable accommodat ion request even though the tenant would not u se the provi der's designated form. 13. Must a housing provider adopt formal procedures for processing requests for a reasonable accommodation? - 11 - No. The Act does not require that a housing provider adopt any formal procedures for reasonable accommodation requests. However, having formal procedures may aid individuals with disabilities in making requests for reasonable accommodations and may aid housing providers in assessing those requests so that there are no misunderstandings as to the nature of the request, and, in the event of later disputes, provide records to show that the requests received proper consideration. A provider may not refuse a request, however, because the individual making the request did not follow any formal procedures that the provider has adopted. If a provider adopts formal procedures for processing reasonable accommodation requests, the provider should ensure that the procedures, including any forms used, do not seek information that is not necessary to evaluate if a reasonable accommodation may be needed to afford a person with a disability equal opp ort uni ty to use and enj oy a d wel lin g. S ee Qu est ion s 16 - 18 , wh ich dis cus s th e di sab ili ty- related inf ormation t hat a provid er may and may not req uest for th e purposes o f evaluatin g a reasonable accommodation request. 14. Is a housing provider obligated to provide a reasonable accommodation to a resident or applicant if an accommodation has not been requested? No. A housing provider is only obligated to provide a reasonable accommodation to a resident or applicant if a request for the accommodation has been made. A provider has notice that a reasonable accommodation request has been made if a person, her family member, or som eon e act ing o n he r beh alf requ est s a ch ange , ex cept ion , or adj ust men t to a rul e, p oli cy, practice, or service because of a disability, even if the words “reasonable accommodation” are not used as part of the request. 15. What if a housing provider fails to act promptly on a reasonable accommodation request? A provider has an obligation to provide prompt responses to reasonable accommodation requests. An undue delay in responding to a reasonable accommodation request may be deemed to be a failure to provide a reasonable accommodation. 16. What inquiries, if any, may a housing provider make of current or potential residents regarding the existence of a disability when they have not asked for an accommodation? Under the Fair Housing Act, it is usually unlawful for a housing provider to (1) ask if an applicant for a dwelling has a disability or if a person intending to reside in a dwelling or anyone associated with an applicant or resident has a disability, or (2) ask about the nature or severity of such persons' disabilities. Housing providers may, however, make the following inquiries, provided these inquiries are made of all applicants, including those with and without disabilities: - 12 - •An i nqu iry i nto an ap pli cant ’s a bil ity t o me et t he re qui rem ent s of ten ancy; •An inquiry to determine if an applicant is a current illegal abuser or addict of a controlled substance; •An inquiry to determine if an applicant qualifies for a dwelling legally available only to persons with a disability or to persons with a particular type of disability; and •An inquiry to determine if an applicant qualifies for housing that is legally available on a priority basis to persons with disabilities or to persons with a particular disability. Example 1: A housing provider offers accessible units to persons with disabilities needing the features of these units on a priority basis. The provider may ask applicants if they have a disability and if, in light of their disability, they will benefit from the features of the units. However, the provider may not ask applicants if they have other types of physical or mental impairments. If the applicant's disability and the need for the accessible features are not readily apparent, the provider may request reliable information/documentation of the disability-related need for an accessible unit. Example 2: A housing provider operates housing that is legally limited to persons with chronic mental illness. The provider may ask applicants for information needed to determine if they have a mental disability that would qualify them for the housing. However, in this circumstance, the provider may not ask applicants if they have other types of physical or mental impairments. If it is not readily apparent that an applicant has a chronic mental disability, the provider may request reliable information/documentation of the mental disability needed to qu alify for the ho using. In some instances, a provider may also request certain information about an applicant's or a resident's disability if the applicant or resident requests a reasonable accommodation. See Questions 17 and 18 below. 17. What k inds of i nformation , if any, ma y a housin g provider request fr om a person with an obvious or known disability who is requesting a reasonable accommodation? A provider is entitled to obtain information that is necessary to evaluate if a requested reasonable accommodation may be necessary because of a disability. If a person’s disability is obvious, or otherwise known to the provider, and if the need for the requested accommodation is also readily apparent or known, then the provider may not request any additional information 10 Persons who meet the definition of disability for purposes of receiving Supplemental Security Income ("SSI") or Social Security Disability Insurance ("SSDI") benefits in most cases meet the definition of 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) - 13 - about the requester's disability or the disability-related need for the accommodation. If the requester's disability is known or readily apparent to the provider, but the need for the accommodation is not readily apparent or known, the provider may request only information that is necessary to evaluate the disability-related need for the accommodation. Example 1: An applicant with an obvious mobility impairment who regularly uses a walker to move around asks her housing provider to assign her a parking space near the entrance to the building instead of a space located in another part of the park ing l ot. Sin ce t he p hysi cal dis abi lit y (i.e., difficulty walking) and the disability-related need for the requested accommodation 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 accommodation. Example 2: A rental applicant who uses a wheelchair advises a housing provider that he wishes to keep an assistance dog in his unit even though the provider has a "no pets" policy. The applicant’s disability is readily apparent but the need for an assistance animal is not obvious to the provider. The housing provider may ask the applicant to provide information about the disability-related need for the dog. Example 3: An applicant with an obvious vision impairment requests that the leasing agent provide assistance to her in filling out the rental application form as a reasonable accommodation because of her disability. The housing provider may not require the applicant to document the existence of her vision impairment. 18. 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 accommodation? A housing provider may not ordinarily inquire as to the nature and severity of an ind ivi dua l's d isa bil ity (see Answer 16, above). However, in response to a request for a reasonable accommodation, 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 accommodation, and (3) shows the relationship between the person’s disability and the need for the requested accommodation. 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 himself or herself (e.g., proof that an individual under 65 years of age receives Supplemental Security Income or Social Security Disability Insurance benefits10 or a credible statement by the individual). A doctor or other (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). - 14 - 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 accommodation 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 accommodation request or unless disclosure is required by law (e.g., a court-issued subpoena requiring disclosure). 19. If a person believes she has been unlawfully denied a reasonable accommodation, what should that person do if she wishes 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 reasonable accommodation, 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 with HUD, 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 - 15 - 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 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. EXHIBIT B EXHIBIT B EXHIBIT C EXHIBIT C 4/16/25, 9:27 AM Fire Hazard Severity Zones (FHSZ) - 2025 LRA Map Update - San Rafael https://www.cityofsanrafael.org/fire-hazard-severity-zones-fhsz-2025-lra-map-update/2/6 EXHIBIT D EXHIBIT D 1 IBHS RESEARCH 2025 LA County Wildfires: Early Insights from Field Observations Insurance Institute for Business & Home Safety March 6, 2025 Insurance Institute for Business & Home Safety 2 FROM WILDFIRE TO CONFLAGRATION The Palisades and Eaton Fires raged through Los Angeles County neighborhoods creating catastrophic conflagration. More than 16,000 structures were destroyed in the fires which now rank as two of California’s three most destructive fires on record. In the days following the conflagration, the Insurance Institute for Business & Home Safety (IBHS) deployed teams to study the damage and further advance the understanding of fire spread into and through communities. Conflagrations follow humans, drought, and wind. Fire weather conditions in Los Angeles County reached their extreme just before the first fire reports: relative humidity dropped as the strong northerly Santa Ana winds kicked in. At these wind speeds, fixed-wing firefighting aircraft could not operate safely. With the fire environment primed for rapid growth and aerial firefighting grounded, wind-driven fire dynamics took over, accelerating both the spread and intensity of the flames in the early critical stages. Since the early 20th century, urban conflagrations have resulted in significant financial losses across the United States. From historic fires like the Big Blowup Fire of 1910 in the Northwest to more recent devastating urban fires— the Tubbs Fire (2017) and the Camp Fire (2018) in California, the Marshall Fire (2021) in Colorado, the Lahaina Fire (2023) in Hawaii, and now the Palisades and Eaton Fires in Southern California—these events highlight the vulnerability of communities with dense housing, interconnected urban fuels (e.g., fences, vehicles, and sheds), and vulnerable building components that struggle to withstand even non-intense fire conditions. Fire Behavior Wildfires spread at different rates, influenced by factors like available fuel, topography, weather conditions, and suppression efforts. In California, these driving factors differ across the state's diverse wildland regions. In central and Northern California where conifer forests are more common, wildfires are primarily fuel driven. In contrast, Southern California, characterized by chaparral shrubland, experiences fires where fuel is more limited, and wind plays a dominant role in fire spread. These Southern California wildfires generally fall into two categories: • fall fires that are typically driven by strong offshore Santa Ana winds, and • summer fires which typically occur under hot, dry conditions with comparatively weak onshore winds1. Most wildland ignitions in Southern California occur during the summer under the weaker onshore winds. However, the Santa Ana-driven fires receive the most attention and drive the majority of losses. Santa Ana Winds The Santa Ana downsloping wind events are often the driving factor for damaging wildfires that enter the built environment across Southern California, as was the case for the Palisades and Eaton Fires. • Climatologically, Santa Ana wind events typically peak in November and December. Their seasonal occurrence typically spans October through April with the region averaging two events per month during this time.2 1 Jin, Yufang, et al. "Contrasting controls on wildland fires in Southern California during periods with and without Santa Ana winds." Journal of Geophysical Research: Biogeosciences 119.3 (2014): 432-450. 2 Guzman-Morales, J., A. Gershunov, J. Theiss, H. Li, and D. Cayan (2016) Santa Ana winds of Southern California: Their climatology, extremes, and behavior spanning six and a half decades, Geo Phys Res. Lett, 43 (6), 2827-2834. https://doi.org/10.1002/2016GL067887 Insurance Institute for Business & Home Safety 3 • The intradecadal frequency of these wind events is generally tied to the El Ni ño/Southern Oscillation (ENSO) phases, with El Niño years typically seeing a reduced number of Santa Ana events compared to neutral or La Niña conditions, which was the case in January of 2025.3 • The most intense Santa Ana events both in magnitude and duration occur primarily in December and January. On average, events last 1.5 days, which is near the duration of peak downsloping winds that occurred during the Palisades and Eaton Fires. • Santa Ana wind events exhibit a diurnal cycle which differs from typical convectively driven wind events that reach their peak in the mid-afternoon during peak daytime heating. Santa Ana wind events often peak in the early morning hours and decay during the daytime . During these fires, the winds reached their initial peak during the late afternoon and early evening hours on January 8, followed by a secondary wind maximum during the early morning hours of January 9. This strong Santa Ana wind event, combined with dry conditions and low relative humidity, created extreme fire conditions on Tuesday, January 7. Once the Palisades and Eaton Fires ignited, they quickly became two of California’s most destructive, together destroying more than 16,000 structures. Drought In early December 2024—just over a month before the fires, Los Angeles County was not experiencing any drought conditions (Figure 1a). However, by the end of the month, parts of the county fell under D0 (abnormally dry) and D1 (moderate drought) intensity levels (Figure 1b). Drought conditions persisted throughout January. On the day both fires started, the US Drought Monitor expanded the severe drought classification to cover most of Los Angeles County: 40% of the county was classified as moderate drought, while 60% of the county—including the areas where both fires ignited—was in severe drought. The overall intensity and extent of drought leading up to the fires and throughout January are summarized by the time history of the Drought Severity and Coverage Index shown in Figure 2, which indicates that Los Angeles County experienced drought conditions ranging from extreme (200 –299) to exceptional (300–400) during January. With the highly flammable chaparral fuels primed for ignition by the flash drought, strong winds pushed the fire quickly into heavier vegetation, including shrubs and trees, leading to medium - and long-range spotting. 3 Rafael, M.N. (2003) The Santa Ana winds of California, Earth Interactions, 7(8), 1-13. https://doi.org/10.1175/1087- 3562(2003)007%3C0001:TSAWOC%3E2.0.CO;2 Insurance Institute for Business & Home Safety 4 (a) Valid 7 a.m. EST December 3, 2024. (b) Valid 7 a.m. EST December 31, 2024. (c) Valid 7 am EST January 7th, 2025. Figure 1. US Drought Monitor showing changes in drought conditions in Los Angeles County (outlined in red) during the weeks leading up to the flres. Location of the flre ignition is indicated in the map. Insurance Institute for Business & Home Safety 5 Palisades Fire On January 7, 2025, just before 10:30 a.m. local time, a fire ignited near Skull Rock in the Summit neighborhood. As shown in Figure 3, data from the National Weather Service Automated Surface Observing Station (ASOS) at Van Nuys, located approximately 9 miles north of Pacific Palisades, indicates that at the time of ignition, the mean wind speed was around 30 mph, with gusts reaching up to 60 mph. These intense winds combined with a falling relative humidity created a highly volatile environment that contributed to the rapid spread of the fire and spotting across the Palisades neighborhood. Further, these winds created very unstable conditions for flight operations hindering aerial firefighting containment efforts. Figure 3. Mean wind speed, wind gusts, and relative humidity recorded by the Van Nuys Automated Surface Observing Station (ASOS ). The time of ignition of the Palisades Fire and when it reached nearly 70% of the flre’s flnal size are indicated. Figure 2. Time history of the Drought Severity and Coverage Index (DSCI) in Los Angeles County during December 2024 and January 2025, highlighting the intensiflcation of drought conditions. Insurance Institute for Business & Home Safety 6 After ignition, the fire quickly spread downhill toward the Riverview Country Estates while also advancing eastward. According to the CAL FIRE incident reports, within just an hour and a half—by 12:00 p.m.—the fire spotted across Palisades Drive. Shortly after 2:00 p.m., the fire had grown to 771 acres and reached the Castellammare neighborhood to the southwest near the coast. Within 8 hours, by 6:00 p.m., the fire spread along Temescal Canyon Road toward the Pacific Coast Highway in the south and crossing Topanga Canyon Boulevard on the west, consuming 2,920 acres on its path through neighborhoods to the Pacific Ocean. Strong winds persisted throughout the night, and by 1:00 p.m. on January 8, the fire had reached 15,832 acres, extending from Eastern Malibu to Rustic Canyon in the east. While the fire continued to burn for 43 more days, this 27-hour period of rapid growth accounted for nearly 70% of the fire’s final size, highlighting the intensity and speed at which the fire spread under extreme winds and dry conditions. As winds subsided and aerial firefighting returned, targeted, strategic large drops of fire retardant aided containment efforts and kept fire from entering the next communities—the Monte Nido community in northwest Malibu and Crestwood Hills east of Mandeville Canyon (Figure 4). Additional fire growth was primarily backward, as forward growth had reached the Pacific Ocean fire break (Figure 5). While wind drives forward fire progression, fuels drive lateral spread. The Palisades Fire was fully contained on February 20 after burning over 23,000 acres, destroying 6,833 structures, and claiming 12 lives. The final fire perimeter abuts the perimeters of two historical fires in the area in the past four years (Figure 6). The Franklin Fire, which started on December 9, 2024, burned over 4,000 acres and destroyed 20 structures in Malibu. The 2021 Palisades Fire began on May 4, 2021, in Topanga State Park and consumed 1,202 acres. These previous fires created a fuel break for the 2025 Palisades Fire , as the fire-prone vegetation was significantly depleted following these incidents, reducing available fuel for the active fire. Figure 4. Strategic areas where flre retardant was dropped as part of the containment operations to prevent the flre spreading into Crestwood Hills. Insurance Institute for Business & Home Safety 7 Figure 5. Progression of the Palisades Fire refiected in the flre perimeters from January 7 to January 11. Figure 6. Final Palisades Fire perimeter, shaded in red, with historical flre perimeters in the area outlined in green, including the 2024 Franklin Fire to the west and 2021 Palisades Fire to the north. Insurance Institute for Business & Home Safety 8 Eaton Fire The Eaton Fire ignited on January 7 at approximately 6:20 p.m. local time in the Eaton Canyon area of the San Gabriel Mountains, according to CAL FIRE status reports—eight hours into the Palisades Fire. At the time of ignition, relative humidity had dropped to around 10%, sustained winds exceeded 40 mph, and peak gusts surpassed 60 mph, as recorded by the ASOS at Burbank, located approximately 16 miles from the ignition site (Figure 7), creating extreme fire weather conditions. As with the Palisades Fire, the combination of low humidity, dry fuels, and shifting winds created ideal conditions for rapid fire spread and spot fire development. The fire posed a significant threat to nearby communities and made containment efforts challenging. In less than an hour, the wind-driven fire had already spread to 200 acres. By 10:00 a.m. on January 8—just 16 hours after ignition—it had surged past 10,000 acres. Within 24 hours, by 6:10 p.m. on January 8, the fire had grown to over 13,600 acres, reaching 96% of its final size and devastating entire neighborhoods in Altadena. Maxar Satellite imagery shows the widespread destruction and active burning in Altadena on January 8 (see Figure 8). While the Eaton Fire continued to burn for 42 more days, the extreme fire conditions during this initial 24-hour period led to conflagration. In the early hours of January 9, winds dropped below 10 mph, which allowed firefighting aircraft to operate along the northeast perimeter near Chantry Flats to suppress multiple hotspots. Despite ongoing containment challenges, minimal fire growth was observed after January 10. The fire became fully contained on February 20, 2025, after burning over 14,000 acres, destroying 9,418 structures, and claiming 17 lives. As observed, the fire spread into Altadena for nearly two miles toward Historic Highlands in the southwest, completely burning neighborhoods between Lincoln Avenue (west of the fire footprint) and Sinaloa Avenue (east of the fire footprint). In the southeast, several structures in the wildland-urban interface (WUI) were destroyed. However, unlike in Altadena, the fire did not spread deep into these communities. Figure 7. Mean wind speed, wind gust, and relative humidity recorded by the Burbank Automated Surface Observing Station (ASOS) and the time of ignition of the Eaton Fire. Insurance Institute for Business & Home Safety 9 Figure 8. Infrared Maxar Satellite image showing active burning in Altadena on January 8, 2025.4 Figure 9. Final Eaton Fire perimeter shaded in red. 4 https://globalnews.ca/news/10950343/los-angeles-wildfires-photos-satellite-imagery/ Insurance Institute for Business & Home Safety 10 Overview of the Deployment From January 13 through 19, IBHS conducted a post-disaster investigation in Los Angeles County, California, with a team of nine staff who evaluated 247 structures affected by the fires. The deployment aimed to gain a better understanding of: • the exposure to fire from both the wildland and the built environment, • the potential pathways for fire spread into communities, and • building materials and mitigation strategies that increase the likelihood of structural survivability. The team collected specific data across three key categories: building components, separation distance, and fuel factors, with a particular emphasis on connective fuels around the main structure on a parcel. In some cases, aerial drone imagery provided a broader perspective of the surrounding environment, including property boundaries and nearby connective fuels. Key Data Collected: • Building Type: 97% of the evaluated structures were single-family residential homes. • Roofing Material: The most common roof materials of the evaluated structures were asphalt shingles and clay or concrete tiles. 46% of the evaluated structures had an asphalt shingle roof. 18.6% had clay or concrete barrel tile, 11.8% clay or concrete flat tile. • Vents: Among structures with vents, only 7.8% had a 1/8-inch or finer metal mesh. • Wall Material: 80% of structures had stucco as the primary exterior wall material. • Windows: Window frames were most commonly metal (38%) and vinyl (34%). • Decks: 63% of the structures had decks, most commonly with a wood walking surface. • Fencing: Over 95% of the surveyed parcels had a fence, and in 61% of cases, the fence was either directly attached to the structure or located within Zone 0 (the 0–5 foot noncombustible zone). Additionally, 65% of fences were made of wood, increasing fire risk and serving as a dominant connective fuel. Transition to Urban Fire Post-event investigations consistently indicate that most initial structure ignitions in conflagrations result from the accumulation of airborne embers and wind-driven, ground-traveling burning debris near urban connective fuels or the buildings themselves, rather than direct contact with the main fire front. Under fire-conducive conditions, these small spot fires can grow vertically and lead to sporadic large fires within a community. In extreme fire weather, these scattered fires can spread, merge, generate significant embers, and evolve into full-scale conflagrations depending on the community’s characteristics. (a) (b) Figure 10. Examples of airborne and ground-traveling structural embers observed during the LA County flres shared by local residents with IBHS staff during the post-disaster investigation. Note that in (b), the flre on the connective fuel vegetation was successfully suppressed. Insurance Institute for Business & Home Safety 11 Studies of past conflagrations and the observations by the IBHS team in the Eaton and Palisade s fires reveal two distinct patterns in the destruction5: 1. sporadic losses where smaller clusters of homes are burned. 2. large-scale urban conflagration driven by structure-to-structure fire spread resulting in widespread devastation. On a microscale, direct flame contact and radiation become the main fire spread mechanisms in conflagrations. On the macroscale, especially in high-wind events where ember generation markedly increases, embers remain a crucial factor in fire spread. While even typical building materials that comply with modern building codes are likely to fail under the extreme heating rate of direct flame contact, fire intensity remains highly localized —even in strong wind conditions. This occurs because shifts in wind direction and natural breaks in fuel continuity—such as roads, parking lots, and parks— can disrupt fast and uniform fire spread. When windflow characteristics—influenced by upstream buildings, terrain, vegetation, etc.—create pockets of reduced fire intensity, homes constructed with vulnerable materials or those with connective fuels that create paths to burning structures do not benefit from this variation in intensity. Slow-moving, low-intensity fires can still consume available connective fuels, reach structures, and eventually ignite vulnerable materials. However, homes built with resilient components—such as those required in the IBHS Wildfire Prepared Home™ standard—can withstand prolonged exposure and help break the chain of conflagration. In the Eaton and Palisades fires, the three pillars of conflagration, as identified by IBHS after the Lahaina Fire (2023), remained highly relevant: structure separation, connective fuels, and building materials. Structure Separation Structure density is a key factor in determining wildfire risk in WUI communities. Once the first few homes ignite in densely built neighborhoods, downwind structures are more likely to experience extreme heating by direct flame contact. Additionally, higher-density communities tend to have more connective fuels—such as fences, landscaping, and debris—which can allow low-intensity fires to build strength and potentially exceed the tolerance of building materials. Dense neighborhoods pose challenges for evacuation where roads are one of the few fire breaks. Abandoned vehicles and congestion obstruct roads which reduces their effectiveness as natural fuel breaks, adds to the fuel load, and complicates firefighting efforts. These combined factors make high-density, unmitigated communities particularly vulnerable to rapid fire spread and complicate emergency response. In wind-driven fires, flames are forced to tilt downward and extend forward, intensifying radiative heat transfer to downwind ground fuels and urban connective fuels. Stretched flames help fire spread rapidly from one building to another along the local wind vector. Meanwhile, homes positioned crosswind, or perpendicular to the wind vector, experience a level of convective cooling, as the surrounding air temperature remains lower than the temperature of the flames and the wind-driven plume. For these buildings, radiative heat transfer and intermittent flame contact act as the primary heating mechanisms. Understanding these dynamics is critical to understanding how to effectively and wholistically mitigate communities against fire exposure.5 In the densely built areas of Pacific Palisades and Altadena, the typical structure separation ranged from 8 to 20 feet. Differing exposures unique to the wind patterns of this event explain damage patterns in these communities. Downwind Research from IBHS shows that with about 10 feet of separation between a fully engulfed structure and a downwind structure no building material on the downwind structure is likely to survive. However, when the separation distance increases to approximately 20 feet, the benefits of fire-resistant building components become evident. A home’s overall fire resilience is only as strong as its weakest link. A combination of noncombustible building materials and double-pane tempered windows in a resilient frame—such as fiberglass or metal—significantly reduces 5 F. Hedayati, X. Monroy, E. Sluder, H. Fallahian, M. Shabanian, The 2023 Lahaina Conflagration, IBHS Research Report, September 2024. Insurance Institute for Business & Home Safety 12 the likelihood of total loss. In contrast, vulnerable materials can fail even at greater separation distances due to intense downwind heat exposure, as illustrated in Figure 11 from the Palisades Fire. In this instance, a road with sidewalks provided a separation distance of approximately 60 feet from a burning upwind structure . The downwind home's window—a wood frame, single-pane annealed glass window—failed under moderate heat exposure. This highlights the critical role of both separation distance and material choice in determining a building’s ability to withstand wildfire exposure. (a) (b) Figure 11. Example of damage to less resilient building materials from a downwind exposure at approximately 60 feet. Crosswind Exposure in crosswind conditions is significantly lower than in downwind scenarios, as radiation becomes the primary heating mechanism with some convective cooling and possible intermittent flame contact. In these crosswind conditions, buildings with resilient materials can provide effective protection, even at a separation distance of just 10 feet, as illustrated in Figure 12 in the Eaton Fire. In this crosswind scenario, the highlighted building experienced moderate to high heat exposure from a neighboring structure. However, because the highlighted building featured noncombustible siding and double-pane windows, the damage was limited and not a total loss. Notably, this home had a larger setback from the street than the neighboring destroyed structure, which helped reduce lateral radiation exposure to only a small portion of the side of the home. Field observations further revealed that only the overlapping sections of the highlighted structure sustained window damage, while others remained unaffected. This highlights the potential of strategically varying setbacks in high-density neighborhoods to help mitigate fire spread and reduce structural losses. (a) (b) Figure 12. Example of a home with a crosswind exposure from the Eaton Fire. Insurance Institute for Business & Home Safety 13 Connective Fuels The connectivity of fuels between the wildland and the built environment, as well as between homes within a community, plays a critical role in both the initial entry of fire and its spread in a community. Figure 13 highlights a case in the Eaton Fire where ignition was likely caused by embers traveling across a golf course and landing on flammable materials around a home or entering through openings. These embers ignited the corner home exposing the neighboring structure to crosswind heat. A tall concrete masonry unit block fence between the two buildings significantly reduced heat exposure, but the presence of connective fuels —in this case, an awning—between properties allowed the fire to spread closer to the neighboring home. It appears that first responders were able to suppress the fire on the awning before it could cause major structural damage. As a result, damage to the neighboring home was limited to broken window glass. The survival of this house effectively disrupted the chain of conflagration, creating an island of undamaged homes within a heavily impacted community. Figure 13d further highlights the importance of fuel management in Zone 0. The leeward side of a tree in Zone 0 was completely consumed by fire, while the windward side remained green. This suggests that strong winds removed heat at a rate that prevented fire from spreading in the opposite direction toward the house. Without the persistent wind pushing the fire away from the home, the damage to the adjacent building could have been significantly worse. By maintaining Zone 0, homeowners become more in control of potential exposure to their homes rather than relying on stochastic fire behavior. (a) (b) (c) (d) Figure 13. Example of connective fuel exposure in the Eaton Fire. (b) shows the noncombustible wall bordering the property, which acted to reduce exposure. (c) shows the damaged window. (d) shows the tree in Zone 0 which burned similarly to the tree in the foreground. Insurance Institute for Business & Home Safety 14 Figure 14 depicts another example of connective fuel in Zone 0 where rows of woody shrubs created a direct connective fuel pathway between the home and its neighbor. With a crosswind exposure, the fire used this vegetation to spread closer to the structure and heat the eave area, which showed signs of light charring suggesting that suppression efforts likely prevented further damage. The damage and the need for first responder intervention could have been prevented by removing the connecting fuel. This emphasizes that even under extreme fire conditions—where heat intensity along the wind can surpass the resistance of any building material —fire intensity in the crosswind direction varies locally. By implementing the requirements of Wildfire Prepared Home, homeowners can use all available opportunities to reduce damage and improve survivability, even in extreme fire events. (a) (b) (c) Figure 14. Impact of connective fuel on damage spread in the crosswind directio n from the closest destroyed neighbor on the side. This home is the same home shown in Figure 11 where the home’s downwind structure separation was considered. Insurance Institute for Business & Home Safety 15 In addition to permanent connective fuels such as trees and shrubs, portable connective fuels—such as trash cans, hot tubs, and small storage sheds—further impact a building’s risk of ignition. The potential hazard these items pose depends on their contents, as certain materials can significantly increase fuel load and fire intensity. • Trash Cans: IBHS researchers observed instances where ignited trash cans caused damage to the adjacent buildings (Figure 15a, 15b, 15c). In these instances, the fire was suppressed by first responders, limiting the damage to the building’s cladding. • Hot Tubs: Figure 15d depicts damage caused by a burning hot tub, likely ignited by embers. Fortunately, in this case, the wind direction helped limit fire spread to the building itself. However, the intense heat from the burning hot tub led to the failure of a nearby window and door, causing the frame and panes to collapse and creating an opening in the structure. Since this opening was on the leeward side, the likelihood of ember entry into the building was minimal, preventing a total loss. Nonetheless, the building still sustained severe damage. These examples demonstrate how even seemingly minor external fuel sources can significantly impact fire behavior and the subsequent damage level to a home. (a) (b) (c) (d) Figure 15. Examples of portable connective fuels observed in the Palisades and Eaton Fires. (a), (b), and (c) show examples of trash cans while (d) shows a hot tub. Insurance Institute for Business & Home Safety 16 Building Materials Building materials play a decisive role in fire resistance when fire intensity is not extreme. Fire intensity in urban fires can vary significantly due to changes in available fuel, wind speed, and wind direction. While wind patterns are beyond human control, reducing fuel connectivity and availability—by removing or spacing out combustible materials—creates an opportunity for fire-resistant building materials to mitigate damage. This, in turn, can help slow fire spread and potentially break the chain of conflagration. IBHS researchers identified numerous cases where a combination of fire-resistant building materials and lower fire intensity—either due to shifts in wind patterns or fuel discontinuity—helped contain fire damage (Figure 16). Figure 16 shows a home exposed to radiant heat from burning wildland shrubs along a nearby hiking trail. A break in the fuel continuity caused by the driveway reduced overall thermal exposure and limited damage to the home to the failure of annealed windowpanes, while the structure itself remained largely intact. Notably, two windows faced the fire and experienced similar levels of heat exposure —an annealed glass window and a tempered glass window. Only the annealed glass failed; the tempered glazing remained in place, sustaining only frame damage. (a) (b) (c) (d) Figure 16. Example of building material impacts in non-extreme flre conditions. (b) shows lack of connective fuels. (c) shows the two windows— one annealed glass and one tempered—on the side of the home that experienced similar flre exposure, but only the annealed glass window failed. (d) shows the tempered window etching. Insurance Institute for Business & Home Safety 17 Figure 17 shows reduced exposure due to crosswind conditions and a lack of connective fuels. The building's noncombustible siding received enough heat to spall; had it been combustible, it likely would have ignited in a manner similar to the wood window frame, which did ignite before being suppressed. The annealed single-pane windows broke; however, because this window was not on the windward side, it received minimal ember exposure, and embers did not enter the house. Figure 18 highlights an example of avoidable damage. While connective fuel in the form of a fence carried the fire close to the building, the stucco siding was able to withstand more heat than the burning fence could generate. This case demonstrates the effectiveness of fire-resistant materials when exposed to moderate heat and their ability to contain damage. However, it is important to note that if a window had been located near the fence, or if the local wind pattern had directed the flames from the fence toward the open eaves, the resulting heat could have caused window failure or eave ignition— potentially leading to the total loss of the building. This potential reinforces the need to avoid connective fuels between homes, e ven when structures comply with modern WUI building codes. Decks are also vulnerable to ember ignition. Embers can accumulate on joists between deck boards, igniting debris trapped in those gaps (Figure 19). Once ignited, the fire can spread along the joists in a smoldering phase. When the smoldering fire reaches the board gaps, it can rekindle into open flames, creating a burn pattern where large sections are consumed at the interface of boards and joists. In this case, the deck ignition was successfully suppressed, preventing further fire spread. (a) (b) Figure 17. Scorch marks and damaged windows show the exposure this home received and resisted because of the noncombustible stucco cladding. (a) (b) Figure 18. Two examples where fences served as connective fuels carrying flre towards structures. In both instances, the noncombustible cladding resisted ignition. Insurance Institute for Business & Home Safety 18 Figure 19. Decks pose a vulnerability to ember ignitions as seen at this home, where a hose was used to extinguish the ignitions. Building Materials and Extreme Fire Conditions Most of the construction in the neighborhoods impacted by the Eaton and Palisades Fires occurred in the 1950s, prior to the development of California’s Chapter 7A building code for wildfire-prone areas. While not required by building code at the time, typical construction in these neighborhoods favored the use of noncombustible siding—such as stucco—and Class A roofs. Many homes also featured double-pane windows for energy efficiency purposes, but few had tempered windows. Fire intensity increases disproportionately under extreme wind conditions, underscoring the need for resilient building systems. Research by IBHS on wind-driven fires indicates that the energy accumulation rate from a burning shed 20-feet away increases sixfold at a wind speed of 25 mph compared to no-wind conditions and rises twentyfold when exposed to 60 mph winds. During conflagration conditions, this intense energy is forced onto downwind structures, often overwhelming nearly all construction materials and leading to uncontrollable structure to structure fire spread. Only as these densely built structures experience the local variation in fire intensity can connective fuels and building materials compliant with modern WUI codes impact the chain of conflagration. Noncombustible building materials alone cannot stop conflagration. Firefighter Interventions IBHS surveyed numerous buildings that demonstrated the effectiveness of on-the-ground firefighter interventions. These interventions typically occurred at the initial point of fire development on or near buildings. Security camera footage shared by homeowners also revealed that some residents who did not evacuate suppressed ignitions in fuels near their homes. In one case, footage showed an individual applying fire retardant gel to a home a few hours before the arrival of the fire front. However, the timestamp ed footage indicated that about three hours later, the gel had dried out due to dry and windy conditions, minimizing its effectiveness. This observation aligns with previous IBHS research on fire retardant gels, which, while initially effective, undergo weathering and lose their protective properties within a few hours under extreme fire conditions.6 In these conditions, the effectiveness of the gels largely depends on the time gap between their application and the fire front's arrival. IBHS advises homeowners against using valuable evacuation time to apply gels to their property. 6 Kadel, J., Hedayati, F., Quarles, S.L. et al. Effect of Environmental Conditions on the Dehydration and Performance of Fire- Protective Gels. Fire Technol 57, 1241–1257 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10694 -020-01045-2 Insurance Institute for Business & Home Safety 19 SUMMARY The Palisades and Eaton Fires collectively scorched approximately 60 square miles, resulting in the tragic loss of at least 29 lives and the destruction of over 16,000 structures. • From Wildfire to Conflagration: Strong Santa Ana winds fueled an extreme fire weather setup and, once an ignition occurred, led to rapid, wind-driven, building-to-building fire spread through densely populated communities. The same weather conditions that fuel rapid fire spread grounded the air resources equipped to battle the blazes. • Structure Density: Under such strong winds, flames from burning buildings bent down and stretched along the wind. For tightly spaced structures, this allowed flames to directly reach from one building to the next. Each home ignition generated high flux of short-range embers and ground-traveling embers, further amplifying the fire. In downtown Altadena and Pacific Palisades, the exposure was so extreme that even homes with some fire-resistant features had little chance of survival because the fire exploited the unmitigated weakest links. • Connective Fuels & Building Materials: Where structure separation distances were closer to 20 feet, or when exposure was not directly downwind of the fire, fire-resistant building materials played a crucial role in reducing damage severity. These instances interrupted the chain of conflagration, leaving islands of undamaged homes within the scorched community. These homes typically did not have any connective fuels to their surrounding destroyed neighborhoods. Exposure & Resilience: Among the three pillars of conflagration—structure density, connective fuel, and building materials—structure density and connective fuels couple with environmental conditions to determine thermal exposure intensity. Meanwhile, building materials determine a structure’s resilience to this exposure. When exposure intensity surpasses resilience, structures are not expected to survive. With tight structure density, significant connective fuel, and Santa Ana winds, the exposure level becomes so intense that nearly all building materials are overwhelmed. • In existing communities where structure separation cannot be changed, removing connective fuel s becomes the meaningful lever to reduce exposure levels. Where connective fuels have been addressed, resilient building materials have a better chance of reducing damage. • Noncombustible fences, such as brick and concrete masonry, can effectively minimize radiation and intermittent flame contact from burning neighbors and compartmentalize fire. Work towards Wildfire Prepared Home: Typical construction in these communities featured some resilient elements compliant with the Wildfire Prepared Home requirements—such as stucco cladding, Class A roofs, double- paned tempered windows—but lacked the full system of mitigations. While individually these components provide an acceptable degree of fire resistance, the overall resilience of a structure is determined by its weakest component . Until all components are addressed, the property cannot reap the benefits of the individual component’s fire resistance. Because the remaining weak component varied structure to structure from relatively inexpensive features like vents to more costly features like windows, the cost to mitigate homes in this area varies. But the investment required to enhance resilience in these communities is not as substantial as commonly estimated. Strengthening strategic vulnerable components within an already robust system can significantly improve a home's resistance to fire. From: Scott Mccrea Sent: Monday, April 21, 2025 10:33 AM To: Distrib- City Clerk <city.clerk@cityofsanrafael.org> Subject: 131 VALLEY VIEW PROJECT- FOR 4/21/25 MEETING Here is my comment for the 4/21/25 meeting STAFF REPORT 2-25-25 STATES: “CRITICALLY”, SUBJECT PROPERTY IS NOT LOCATED IN A DESIGNATED FIRE ZONE IN THE MOST REENT CAL FIRE MAPS. BUT, WE ARE IN A DANGEROUS FIRE ZONE AS DESIGNATED BY LATEST CALFIRE-MAP ATTACHED ON TODAY’S PACKET. AERIAL PHOTO ALSO SHOWS HEAVILY WOODED ON ALL SIDES OF OUR HOME AT 135 VALLEY VIEW SLOPING UP TO 45 DEGREES. THIS EXTENDS STEEPLY DOWNHILL ALL THE WAY TO TERRA LINDA. NOT ADDRESSED IN THE PLANNING COMMISSION REPORT: (1) WE’RE ON A STEEP CUL DE SAC WITH NO SPACE PROVIDED TO TURN AROUND (2) NO PARKING IS PROVIDED FOR NEW TENANTS IN PROPOSED ADU. ONLY WAY OUT IS ELIZABETH, A LONG STEEP STREET CONSISTING OF ALMOST ALL DUPLEXES WITH PACKED STREET PARKING (3) 4-EXIT STREETS ALL CONVERGE AT ONE INTERSECTION AT THE END OF OUR CUL DE SAC. IRONICALLY, IT’S THE SAME LOCATION OF A FIRE FREE WARNING SIGN JUST FEET FROM OUR HOMES Planning Commission Report states: “EXISTING FIRE SAFETY LAWS AND BUILDING CODES MINIMIZE THE FIRE RISKS ASSOCIATED WITH THE PROJECT” My response: following is Heatmap Company statement (business is involved in climate change policy and green energy transition analysis): THE MOST DESTRUCTIVE FIRES IN RECENT AMERICAN HISTORY SWEPT OVER A STATE WITH THE COUNTRY’S STRICTEST WILDFIRE-SPECIFIC BUILDING CODE IN NEIGHBORHOODS THAT ARE NOW SMOLDERING RUBBLE