San Rafael planning commission approves 238‑unit redevelopment at 4040 Civic Center Drive

The San Rafael Planning Commission voted unanimously on Jan. 27 to approve an environmental design review permit and vesting tentative map for a 238‑unit residential development at 4040 Civic Center Drive.

The project, as described by contract planner Janie Elsip and the applicant team, would replace a north parking structure with a new seven‑story building (Building 1) containing 130 units and convert the existing five‑story office building (Building 2) into 108 apartments. The proposal includes 24 below‑market units (13 in Building 1 and 11 in Building 2) designated for low‑income households and an affordable housing agreement that requires the units remain affordable for at least 55 years.

Staff told the commission the project was processed under recent state legislation (referred to in the meeting as AB 130) and the state density bonus law. Janie Elsip said the city can make the required objective findings under that framework and that staff recommended approval subject to conditions, including a condition addressing the outcome of tribal consultation with the Federated Indians of Graton Rancheria, which ended without an enforceable agreement.

Applicant representative David Persons and architect Chris Lee emphasized adaptive reuse and site sensitivity. Chris Lee described the design choice to site the new building on the footprint of the existing north garage and taper the massing to follow the hillside, and noted landscaping, terraces and a rooftop garden as mitigation for visual impacts. "We placed a new building at the existing footprint and also taper the building to reflect the hillside to preserve the view," Lee said.

Key project figures shared with the commission: 238 total units (130 new; 108 converted), a unit mix including studios, one‑bedrooms, one‑bedroom + den, two‑ and three‑bedrooms; 278 proposed vehicle parking spaces with additional overflow spaces; 16 short‑term bicycle spaces and 76 long‑term bicycle storage spaces; and an EV strategy that would provide chargers at 15% of spaces with 85% of spaces EV‑ready for future capacity.

The application requests five objective‑standard waivers: an 80‑foot building height for Building 1 (exceeding the office district’s typical 36‑foot limit), increased lot coverage (proposed 47.9%), a front setback waiver for Building 2, development within 100 vertical feet of a visually significant ridgeline, and an alternative approach to plane breaks on Building 1. Commissioners noted the waivers and the project’s placement largely on existing parking structure footprints when weighing visual impacts.

Several commissioners praised the design and the reuse of an existing office building but raised concerns about cumulative traffic near the US‑101 on‑ramp and proximity to the ridgeline. One commissioner said the area already has heavy congestion and that adding units likely will increase pressure at the same 101 entry ramps; another expressed caution about fire‑safety implications of development near the ridgeline. Staff and the applicant responded that site design and conditions of approval address code, circulation and fire‑safety requirements.

Commissioner Sarves moved to approve the environmental and design review permit (ED26‑0001) and vesting tentative map (T26‑TS26‑0001), including a determination that the project is statutorily exempt from CEQA pursuant to Public Resources Code section 21080.66; the motion passed unanimously. Chair Rodby and staff advised any interested party may appeal the commission’s decision to City Council within five working days by filing a letter of appeal and the applicable fee with the Community and Economic Development Department.

The project materials and staff report include additional conditions addressing cultural resources, an affordable housing agreement, applicable building and fire code compliance, and timing for filing the parcel map. The staff report and draft resolution were cited as the authoritative record of findings and conditions of approval.

The commission’s action is subject to appeal to the City Council. If no appeal is filed, the applicant will proceed to the permit and map‑filing steps described in staff’s conditions of approval.