San Rafael planning commission approves 17‑story, 200‑unit project at 700 Erwin Street over traffic and safety objections

The San Rafael Planning Commission voted 4–1 on Jan. 13 to approve an environmental and design review permit for a 17‑story, 200‑unit mixed‑use project at 700 Erwin Street, determining the proposal is statutorily exempt from CEQA under AB 130 and Public Resources Code §21080.66.

City Community and Economic Development Director Micah Hinkle said staff and outside consultants conducted a lengthy review of the application. “This has probably been, in my career, probably one of the most complex projects that I’ve ever actually had to evaluate or review,” Hinkle said, noting internal and consultant reviews on planning, public works and building safety.

The developer’s plan, presented by Chris Collins of 700 Erwin Street Partners and Urban Pacific, proposes roughly 201,700 square feet of new construction with up to 4,000 square feet of ground‑floor commercial space, 200 residential units of which 30 are deed‑restricted below‑market units, about 215 parking spaces largely served by mechanized lifts, and 60 bicycle parking spaces. David Krizier, the project developer, said the proposal would “transform [a] boarded up site into a timber‑built gateway” and triple nearby affordable units from 11 to 30.

Staff and the applicant said the project relies on state density bonus law, requesting three concessions and eight waivers — including a height waiver that raises the effective proposal well above the 50‑foot downtown limit. Principal planner Christina Ratcliffe told commissioners the waivers include bicycle parking dimensions and counts, parking facility dimensions for mechanized lifts, frontage/facade requirements, and stepback rules; she reiterated that approvals must be based on objective standards the city can lawfully apply and that an enforceable 55‑year affordable housing agreement is part of the conditions.

Many speakers at the packed hearing urged approval for housing and downtown revitalization. Omar Carrera, CEO of Canal Alliance, said the project “shows the smart planning can solve challenges rather than stop solutions.” The San Rafael Chamber of Commerce’s Government Affairs Committee and board also submitted endorsements, with Michelle Hassid saying the development “addresses critical housing needs” and will help the local economy.

Opponents and several technical experts raised sustained concerns about traffic, emergency access, sea‑level rise and geotechnical risk. Sharna Dimer, citing a Feb. 28, 2025 geotechnical report paid for by the applicant, warned that up to 30 feet of low‑strength bay mud and “very high liquefaction susceptibility” at the site make a 17‑story tower risky in an earthquake. Multiple residents and speakers also questioned whether San Rafael Fire Department equipment can access upper floors and whether mechanized parking could queue onto nearby streets during peak periods.

The developer and project team responded in technical terms: Collins and counsel said modern high‑rise life‑safety systems, mass‑timber construction (which is lighter than concrete), engineered foundations and current California codes address those risks. The applicant’s traffic analysis, submitted with the application, used vehicle‑miles‑traveled (VMT) methodology and concluded the site’s location near the freeway and transit produces less‑than‑significant VMT impacts; the developer agreed to contribute $840,000 to the city’s transportation mitigation fund and to pre‑ and post‑occupancy traffic monitoring, and said adding a third parking lift remains an option.

Several public speakers accused the project of creating unequal amenities for affordable residents, and one commenter, Steven Bryant, called the proposed unit dispersion “blatantly discriminatory,” arguing the city’s Resolution 14890 cannot be waived under density‑bonus law; that claim was raised in public comment but not resolved in the hearing.

Commissioners spent substantial time discussing the tension between state laws that limit local discretion (density bonus and AB 130) and local concerns about scale, safety and cumulative traffic from multiple pipeline projects. After deliberation a commissioner moved to adopt the staff resolution approving the environmental and design review permit (ED25‑031) and finding the project statutorily exempt from CEQA under Public Resources Code §21080.66; the motion passed on a roll call vote (yes: Commissioners Haven, Alvarez, Summers, Salvamini; no: Chair Abdi).

The decision is appealable. Staff said any interested party may file an appeal within five working days by submitting a cover form, a letter stating grounds for appeal and the fee at the Community & Economic Development Department public counter (office doors open 08:30–16:00).