San Rafael commission recommends approval of parking deck and rear deck at 38 Miraflores, adds Public Works review

The San Rafael Planning Commission voted unanimously June 24 to recommend that the City Council approve a major environmental and design review permit, an exception to specified hillside development standards and a variance for a project at 38 Miraflores Avenue that would add a two‑car detached parking deck at the front of the lot and an elevated open deck at the rear.

The commission’s recommendation — which comes after a staff presentation and a public hearing with the applicant team — includes an added condition directing City of San Rafael Public Works to review a nearby retaining wall to determine whether portions of it are in the public right of way and whether repairs or coordination with the property owner are needed before the matter advances to council.

Renee Nikkinek, associate planner for the city, told the commissioners the hearing was to review the proposed detached parking deck at the front property lines and a new attached open deck at the rear, plus related landscaping and access paths. "The purpose of this hearing is to review a proposed project for a new detached parking deck at the front and side property lines and a new attached open deck at the rear of the residence," Nikkinek said during her staff report. She said the project requires major environmental and design review and a hillside exception because it does not meet several R‑5 zoning and hillside residential design standards.

The applicant, architect Yuju No of SpaceCraft Architect, said the house at 38 Miraflores is on an approximately 5,000‑square‑foot lot in the Gerstel Park neighborhood with an average slope of just over 58 percent and currently has no on‑site parking. "This property . . . has been neglected for decades," No said, arguing the proposed additions would address safety and livability problems, provide the two on‑site parking spaces required under San Rafael Municipal Code 14‑12‑030 for streets less than 26 feet wide, and create usable outdoor space on a steep lot.

Owner Jason Rommel said removing vehicles from the street would reduce load on an existing retaining wall abutting the property and that the project team would repair that wall if needed. "By taking the cars off the street, it'll allow less weight to be on on the wall," Rommel said. The project team also provided a letter of neighbor support from the adjacent property at 44 Miraflores Avenue.

Staff identified three notable deviations from the hillside standards: the project would retain about 51 percent of the site in its "natural state" versus the code requirement of 83 percent; the gross building square footage would exceed the code maximum by roughly "15" as noted in the staff presentation (the transcript did not specify units); and the property is within 100 vertical feet of a ridgeline, a factor the code restricts for new development. Nikkinek said the existing primary residence (about a century old) and the project sit so that the additions would not further obstruct ridgeline views.

Commissioners who spoke in deliberations repeatedly cited the lot’s steep terrain, existing lack of parking and neighborhood context of similar elevated decks as reasons to approve the variances and exception. One commissioner summarized the commission’s view during deliberations: "I think they're both a win as far as I'm concerned," citing the hardship of applying the natural‑state requirement to an already developed, very steep lot.

After discussion the commission adopted a motion to recommend approval per staff conditions with the added condition that Public Works review the retaining wall and, if the wall or portions of it lie in the right of way and require work, coordinate with the owner. Commissioner Haven seconded the motion. The roll call vote was unanimous: Commissioner Haven — yes; Commissioner Radley — yes; Commissioner Sade — yes; Commissioner Summers — yes; Chair Mercado — yes.

The commission’s action is a recommendation to the City Council; any permits and building‑permit work will proceed only after council action and applicable permitting and inspections. The project team told the commission that the parking deck would be open‑air (no roof) to minimize visual impact, the rear deck would be elevated on piers to preserve grade and permeable surface, and the landscaping plan would use drought‑tolerant, fire‑resistant plants and stormwater measures to address erosion concerns.

The commission also noted that Public Works and building‑permit review remain separate processes: if work on the retaining wall becomes necessary during construction or permit review, building staff and Public Works would require appropriate permits and follow‑up. The case will now move to the City Council for final action.