November 5, 2004

Mr. John Alden, Chair
Members of the San Rafael Planning Commission
City of San Rafael
P.O. Box 151560
San Rafael, CA 94915-1560

Dear Mr. Alden and Commissioners,

In a separate letter, I have conveyed to you our committee’s concern that the meeting scheduled for November 10 is premature since all procedural requirements for the approval of draft General Plan 2020 have not yet been completed.  As a result, any attempt to evaluate a design proposal for the Loch Lomond Marina as to its consistency with that Plan is working against a still moving target.

That said, the committee felt it appropriate to comment on the latest proposed design in order to keep the dialog active while the General Plan 2020 revision and approval process continues.  Overall, we found this most recent design a move in a positive direction.  We found the broad entrance causeway at Loch Lomond Road attractive and in keeping with our desire for maintaining views from Pt. San Pedro Road to the Bay.  We also liked the “Loch Lomond Commons” placed at the bay front as well as the wide boardwalk and marina green along the bay frontage.  We also are in favor of the more extensive implementation of single-family cottages and houses, especially the cottages.

However, there are still elements of the design that are in need of improvement before a final design will be acceptable to our members and Associations.  In no particular order or priority, these are:

1.     A single access/egress to this property is unacceptable from both a traffic and fire/safety perspective.  The design must incorporate a second access/egress as exists today to avoid traffic congestion at peak periods (summer months and commute hours).  This will be an especially bad situation when boat trailers, retail customers and residential drivers all are attempting simultaneous access/egress.

2.     There is inadequate commercial retail space (10,400 sq ft) in this design to accommodate the requirements of the neighborhood for a full-service grocery, cleaners and other retail services.

3.     We are concerned that a 50’ setback at the wetlands is insufficient and will be harmful to the flora and fauna.  We request a 100’ setback. Furthermore, reinstatement of the wetlands immediately east of Bruno’s, illegally filled in 2001, should be required before appropriate set backs can be determined.

4.     The row of cottages along Pt. San Pedro road appears to be too close to the road for sound mitigation.  This design would then require a sound wall to meet sound mitigation requirements.  As has been stated before, we are utterly opposed to a sound wall.  We feel that these units need to be set further from the road to meet sound requirements.

5.     We are concerned about adequate day use trailer parking during peak period, especially the summer months.  20 spaces are totally inadequate for busy weekends which often see in excess of 40 boat trailers parked throughout the marina property. This low number of spaces will force day use trailer parking onto Pt. San Pedro Road and into neighborhoods.

6.     The single, large “U-shaped” townhouse in the middle of the property presents a visual barrier that is contrary to the concept of an open view to the Bay.  We suggest that all the townhouse buildings be replaced with smaller buildings that have 3-4 townhouses each rather than fewer but larger units of multiple townhouses.

7.     We would prefer to see the cottages, houses and townhouses be mixed in the design rather than clustered with similar units.  This would present a more varied and pleasing appearance.

8.     Without more detailed information about the design of these units, it is difficult to determine the visual impact.  We would like to see a mix of 1 and 2 story units (houses, townhouses and cottages) to avoid a “wall” effect and to add variety.  In no case, should any unit or commercial building exceed 2 stories.

9.     We continue to be concerned about the long-term viability of a full-function grocery given the existing lease to Bruno’s and the concept of a 2-phase construction plan to accommodate that lease with the current grocery store owner.  If the planned commercial space is constructed, it will be occupied in order to generate revenue.  At the end of the grocery contract, the existing building would be removed, but there would then be no empty space to which the grocery could relocate.  The result would be no grocery store at the end of the existing lease.  We request that one of two approaches be agreed upon by the Planning Commission and the developers:

1. Delay the construction of the commercial retail space designated for a full-function grocery until the end of the current grocery (Bruno’s) contract, or
2. Provide an incentive for Bruno’s to relocate to the new commercial retail space as part of a single construction plan, rather than a 2-phase plan.  This must be considered an upfront cost of the development in order to gain the entitlements for the residential component. This would have the additional benefit to the developer of being able to complete the full development and generate related revenue much sooner than a 2-phase plan.

These concerns and suggestions are presented to the Planning Commission and the developers in the spirit of cooperation and the desire to ensure both a financially viable project for the developers and an esthetically acceptable result for our community.  We are confident that such a conclusion can be obtained.

Sincerely yours,

David Tattersall
Chair, Loch Lomond Marina Committee

cc: Bob Brown, Community Development Director