San Rafael planning commission approves 13‑story downtown housing project despite neighborhood concerns

The San Rafael Planning Commission on Nov. 18 adopted a resolution approving a major environmental and design review permit to demolish an 11,000‑square‑foot commercial building and build a 13‑story multifamily building with 188 units at the city‑addressed site 1248 5th Avenue (materials label it the 12 35th Avenue project). The resolution passed unanimously and is subject to modified conditions of approval, including a detailed construction management plan and other conditions distributed by staff at the hearing.

Staff told the commission the application entered the SB 330 pre‑application process in August 2024, was formally submitted in December 2024, and was deemed complete for processing May 8, 2025. Planners said the project uses a state density bonus and concessions and therefore is reviewed primarily against objective design standards under the Housing Accountability Act. Staff relied on an independent third‑party CEQA review (m Group) and recommended a Class 32 infill exemption.

Developer Tom Monahan described the plan as infill, mixed‑income housing to help San Rafael meet RHNA goals and to revitalize downtown. Monahan said the building would include 19 units restricted to very low income households and characterized the project as workforce housing. He told commissioners the illustrative monthly rent range would be in the low thousands for one‑bedrooms and roughly $2,000 for two‑bedrooms, and urged approval to address the housing shortage.

Architect Isaiah Stackhouse walked commissioners through design choices: a stepped massing with vertical corner articulation, a podium level with amenity space, and a roof deck with landscaping and recreational amenities. Materials proposed include EcoStucco and a palette intended to provide a strong base, middle and top to the building.

Neighbors raised several objections. Boyd Court homeowners said an existing 40‑foot access easement and eight parking spaces used by Boyd Court would be disrupted and argued that emergency egress and privacy would be harmed during and after construction. One resident asked the city to require video monitoring and electrical access gates for the shared garage; another questioned whether garbage collection and service access would be configured to avoid noise impacts on existing residents. An Elks Lodge representative said construction and project entrances could interfere with the lodge’s access for weekend events. Labor and climate advocates also addressed the commission: Carpenters Union Local 35 urged labor standards and apprenticeship requirements; the Marin Electrification Council pressed for all‑electric construction and more EV‑ready parking and bike charging.

Staff and the applicant responded on key points. Planning staff said easement disputes are primarily a private legal matter between the developer and neighbors, though the project design was kept off a recorded "no‑build" portion of the easement and the developer said it is maintaining a 40‑foot access route and replacement parking. Staff clarified the project’s voluntary parking provision is 128 vehicle spaces (a downtown precise plan baseline would have called for 156), and said the 128 figure does not include the seven parking spaces that staff identified as dedicated to Boyd Court. Staff also said the fire marshal has conditionally approved access and that detailed fire and sanitary infrastructure review will be completed at building permit stage. Traffic and CEQA analyses — peer reviewed by the city and third parties — estimated modest vehicle‑trip impacts (roughly 30 AM and low‑30s PM peak trips net, after accounting for credit from the existing office building) and concluded the project is eligible for the Class 32 exemption.

Commissioners acknowledged strong neighborhood concerns about height, parking and traffic but repeatedly noted the limits of local discretion under the Housing Accountability Act and state density bonus law. Several commissioners said they personally disliked the massing and height but supported approval because the application met the objective standards and state requirements. The applicant and staff were directed to work with neighbors during final design and to ensure a comprehensive construction management plan and traffic management measures are in the project conditions.

The commission’s approval moves the project to the building permit phase, where detailed engineering, fire‑life‑safety, sanitary connection and construction management plans will be reviewed and enforced. The developer also must finalize affordable housing agreements and implement the conditions of approval adopted with the resolution.