San Rafael planning panel unanimously approves 14‑unit Loch Lomond residential project

The San Rafael Planning Commission voted unanimously Dec. 9 to approve a major environmental and design review and tentative map for a three‑story, 14‑unit residential project at 25 Loch Lomond Drive.

Staff presented the proposal as a redevelopment of a long‑vacant commercial parcel within the Loch Lomond Marina planned development (PD 18‑60), noting the City Council certified an environmental impact report for the larger marina site in 2007 and that applicable mitigation and monitoring measures will apply to the new project. Associate Planner Renee Nikenig told commissioners staff had added condition of approval No. 97 to the packet and provided an affordable‑housing agreement that applies to the project.

The applicant, Andy (owner of the neighborhood market), and his architect described a design that maintains a footprint similar to the previously approved scheme, preserves a 35‑foot height limit under the PD, and adds a second‑floor pavilion intended as common outdoor space for residents. The project includes one below‑market‑rate unit that supports a density‑bonus request; staff said that request is treated as a state‑law density bonus concession that allows relief from the site’s prior commercial requirement.

Neighbors and community members provided competing views at the public hearing. Supporters — including longtime residents, business leaders and several homeowners — described the project as a neighborhood improvement and underscored the applicant’s local ties. “Andy’s Market is not just a business. It’s a place that community comes together,” said Dariush Davidi, a San Rafael Chamber board member who spoke in favor of the proposal.

Opponents and some nearby homeowners raised two central objections: (1) inconsistent or late notice to some homeowners associations and individual neighbors about the change from the originally contemplated mixed‑use plan to residential, and (2) design and safety concerns related to the three‑story form. The president of a nearby homeowners association said the community had not been given adequate opportunity to review the revised plans and asked the commission to continue the item. Several speakers also urged the commission to ensure that flood‑elevation, fire‑access and geotechnical analyses are fully resolved before construction.

Planning staff and other city officials responded that the project was noticed under the municipal code (mailing within a 300‑foot radius, on‑site posting and a newspaper notice) and that detailed technical reviews — including a geotechnical report, fire‑code review and any flood‑elevation adjustments — are evaluated as part of the building‑permit and engineering review processes. Riley Hurd, a land‑use attorney who spoke at the hearing, framed the item under state housing law and urged the commission to approve the project without delay, saying objective standards support the proposed design.

On a motion to adopt the resolution as amended by condition No. 97 and to include the affordable‑housing agreement added to the packet, the commission voted yes on roll call (Commissioners Alvarez, Summers, Rodby, Salvini and Chair Mercado). The motion passed unanimously. The chair read the appeal procedure and noted interested parties have five working days to file an appeal.

Next steps: With planning approval granted, the applicant must submit building permits and any required engineering or geotechnical reports; those permits will be reviewed by the building division and fire department for code compliance before construction can begin.