Board of Directors: DENISE LUCY, Co-president BONNIE MARMOR, Co-president DAVE CRUTCHER, Secretary/Treasurer AMANDA METCALF, Past President ALAN SCHAEVITZ, Webmaster Box 449, 369 “B” Third Street, San Rafael, CA 94901 wwwprcoalition.org

August 6, 2007

FOR THE PUBLIC RECORD

Re: Village at Loch Lomond Marina

Dear Mayor Boro,

The Point San Pedro Road Coalition was pleased that some of the many issues raised by the public at the June City Council meeting concerning the Village at Loch Lomond Marina project have been addressed. We encourage you and the Council to take further measures to improve this project before it is too late.

Many questions remain.

Why are mixed-use height standards being applied to the area that is strictly residential? Why are the single-story heights so tall? Why are such tall roof pitches and high ceilings being allowed on a site that is view sensitive and where a few feet in height can make the difference between views being preserved and views being obliterated?

Why allow large, bulky buildings to line the east side of main view corridor?

General Plan NH-118 says, "Views of the marina and waterfront should draw people to the waterfront and retain their value to the surrounding community," yet staff focuses only on views from the entry corridor while ignoring other views.  Views could be better preserved by lining the view corridor with low, single-family cottages and placing the townhouses in the interior of the housing area. Also, the row of houses along the Marina Green is unnecessarily tall and blocks the view back to the hills.

General Plan also states in CD-5:  "Respect and enhance to the greatest extent possible, views of the Bay and its islands, Bay wetlands…marina…and hills and ridgelines from public streets, parks, and publicly accessible pathways." There has been little or no progress on preserving views from the public streets and sidewalks to the north of the site. Emphasis is being put on checks from Pt. San Pedro Road, an area that virtually no one uses to enjoy the views because it is so noisy and full of fumes from traffic. (The failure to require mitigation of the street noise by means of a specially treated road surface ensures that this situation will be unchanged.)

Why not implement the second entrance immediately?

The Coalition strongly favors the immediate implementation of a second entrance/exit. As you are aware, residents want to ensure that the market and the Marina thrive. If traffic is subject to a bottleneck in the busiest times, both the market and the Marina will suffer.

Most of the other multifamily housing areas on the peninsula have more than one entry/exit point even though they do not have added traffic from commercial uses and bay access for the public.

It seems far better to have a second entrance open from the onset, not only to ease traffic congestion on the site, but before new residents develop a strong desire to keep the public out. 

Why curtail marina functions and risk the demise of the marina? 

As much as local residents (myself included) want to have dry boat storage at the site, it makes little sense to do so at the expense of day-use rig parking. What does make good sense, is to simply eliminate a couple of housing units thereby creating more space and less parking demands on this overcrowded site. Dry boat storage is certainly needed, but even 35 day-rig spaces are probably not enough. Parking study averages seem to include the non-boating season and distort the real use during the boating season. Informal counts by neighbors frequently show around 40 boat rigs. The lack of adequate parking spaces will only be compounded by the failure to provide space to store and repair the marina operator's work vehicles.

Are there adequate provisions to ensure Below Market Rate owners will be able to afford the fees?

According to an article in the August 5, 2007 San Francisco Chronicle (http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2007/08/05/BUN3RBJVV1.DTL) “…[W]hat begins as affordable housing can change fast when monthly fees rise precipitously and special or emergency assessments fall like rain.” The fees plus the Mello-Roos make a hefty monthly payment.  If Below Market Rate BMR) units are not included, that will help the BMR owners, but will undoubtedly create tension with neighbors who will be required to subsidize public recreation aspects, wetland management, and to subsidize the BMR units every month.  Will the BMR owners later be required to substantially increase their portion?

Thank you for giving these issues your full consideration.

Sincerely yours,

Bonnie Marmor

Co-President

Pt. San Pedro Road Coalition