HomeMy WebLinkAboutCC Resolution 15401 (131 Valley View Avenue Appeal)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
