The Marin Post

The Voice of the Community

Blog Post < Previous | Next >

CVP

CVP Comment to RWQCB - Offsite Alternatives - Corte Madera Inn Rebuild

Posted by: Bob Silvestri - January 15, 2017 - 4:45 PM PST

Comment Letter on the Corte Madera Inn Alternatives Analysis Final with Figures by Zentner and Zentner, as submitted The San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board (404(b)(1) Alternatives Analysis for the Corte Madera Inn Rebuild Project; in response to the documents posted on the RWQCB web site under Alternatives Analysis for the Project, which are available for public review at:

http://www.waterboards.ca.gov/sanfranciscobay/water_issues/hot_topics/CorteMadera.shtml

Dear Mr. Fernandez:

Community Venture Partners, Inc. (“CVP”) is a 501(c)(3) nonprofit organization that facilitates and assists community based projects, programs and initiatives that demonstrate the highest principles of economic, social and environmental sustainability. We work to bring the community’s voice to local government decision-making in matters related to planning, development, social and environmental justice, and other matters of general public interest. We are submitting our comments on behalf of Peter Hensel, Marla Orth, Peter Orth, and other residents of the Town of Corte Madera.

I’ve been a resident of Marin and an active participant in local planning and development matters in County for over 20 years, As president of Community Venture Partners, Inc., and based on my professional experience, I am an acknowledged expert in planning, land use, architecture, real estate finance and development and submit my comments as a licensed architect and real estate developer and former real estate broker specializing in land and investment opportunities.

Of particular relevance to this comment, as the founder of Tiburon Group, Inc., and a licensed real estate broker for 18 years, my company specialized in property and land acquisitions and acted as managing partners for a variety in investment partnerships. Clients that Tiburon Group advised included Prudential Insurance, Los Angeles, GE Capital, New York, Property Company of America, Tulsa, The Leinbach Company, Oklahoma, Pacific Union Ventures, San Francisco, La Salle Partners, Chicago, Tomlin Properties, Dallas, Gold Crown Management Denver, and Westland Properties, Denver. (See “Exhibit 16 attached),

This letter is in response to the Alternatives Analysis Final with Figures posted by RWQCB at:

http://www.waterboards.ca.gov/sanfranciscobay/water_issues/hot_topics/CorteMadera/404(b)(1)%20Alternatives%20Analysis/1000_Alt_Analysis_final%2012.01.14_w_figures.pdf

GENERAL COMMENTS & OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS

Those who prepared this Alternatives Analysis Final with Figures/Off-Site Alternatives appear to have little firsthand knowledge or experience in what is referred to as the “land business” in the real estate profession, or a great deal of knowledge about southern Marin, in general. This lack of understanding of what defines a development “opportunity” has dramatically skewed their results and generally invalidates their recommendations and conclusions.

The Applicant’s Alternatives Analysis Final with Figures (analysis of off-site alternatives) is fundamentally flawed in a number of important ways, which precludes it from consideration by your agency. The “Overriding Considerations” noted in our General Comment letter, dated January 13, 2017, are applicable.

1.Erroneous definitions: As we’ve noted, the Applicant’s analysis and conclusions in the Alternatives Analysis Final with Figures/Off-Site Alternatives, by Zentner and Zentner, are based on erroneous and self-serving definitions of the project’s” basic purpose” and “overall purpose,” and “practicable,” under the 404(b)(1) Guidelines.

2.Outdated market data: The financial analysis contained in the Alternatives Analysis Final with Figures/Off-Site Alternatives is based on studies that date back to 2009 through late 2012. That data is then somewhat magically adjusted for “inflation” and faulty forecast prognostications made by PKF without sufficient explanation or basis in fact. As such, the information, data, opinions and conclusions noted are incorrect and outdated to the point of being grossly inadequate to make a reasonable assessment of off-site alternatives. As we will discuss in our comment on On-Site Alternatives Analysis Final with Figures and Attachments, anticipated operating revenues and market demand, since 2013, in Marin County and particularly in the market of the subject property, has gone through significant increases in valuations, average room rental rates and overall hotel operating revenues, and therefore potential development opportunities (due to the economy finally emerging from the worst financial crisis and recession in more than 80 years and the ongoing extremely low interest rate environment) makes real estate investment far more feasible.

3.Lack of professional standards: The Alternatives Analysis Final with Figures/Off-Site Alternatives is mostly boilerplate marketing content that demonstrates little firsthand knowledge or experience in real estate development, real estate finance or the other aspects of what is commonly referred to as the “land business” in the real estate profession. This lack of understanding of what defines a development “opportunity” site has dramatically skewed the PKF results and generally invalidates their recommendations and conclusions.

4.Alternatives analysis is self-serving: The “Market Demand” and “Financial Analysis” by PKF Consulting that support the conclusions of the Alternatives Analysis Final with Figures/Off-Site Alternatives are not objective or comprehensive and only serve the needs and pre-determined outcomes desired by the developer, making them inadmissible under the 404(b)(1) Guidelines. This Alternatives Analysis reads as if it were a marketing brochure for the developer to convince potential investors, rather than an objective analysis. By incredible coincidence, the “analysis” by PKF Consulting arrives at the conclusion that the developer’s preferred alternative location (which the Applicant has been promoting for a decade) is the only possible practicable alternative when compared to other off-site locations (for more discussion see our third comment letter on the On-Site Alternatives Analysis Final with Figures and Attachments).

5.Inconsistent analysis methodology: The Applicant’s parameters and filters used to rank, rate and otherwise evaluate off-site alternative are essentially arbitrary and not applied equally with objective rigor. Because of this, their conclusions are often incorrect. In fact, if their parameters and filters were fairly applied to the subject property, it would likely rank as one of the worst development / risk-reward opportunities, not the best, if an investor had to do a pure cash transaction (as they show).

6.The Regional Water Quality Control Board's review of this project is not exempt from the requirement of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). The Applicant's Proposal is a “project” under CEQA, Pub. Res. Code § 21065, and thus requires full CEQA review. The Regional Board's 401 Certification review does not appear to fall within the certified regulatory program for the Regional Board's Water Quality Control (Basin)/208 Planning Program, as set forth at 14 Cal. Code Regs. § 15251(g). Even if the Board's 401 Certification Program were considered a part of the agency's certified program, the Board's CEQA review would still be required to comply with CEQA policies. Pub. Res. Code § 21080.5(d). At this juncture, however, we have not seen any attempt by the RWQCB to comply with CEQA's requirements as set forth in the Public Resources Code, including but not limited to a thorough evaluation of project impacts and avoidance of significant impacts based on feasible mitigation or project alternatives and responses to public comments. In addition please also note that the various Exhibits attached with this comment (EIRs, studies and independent analysis, expert opinions, legal comment letters, public comments, etc.) contain numerous citations, descriptions and references to unmitigated significant impacts and requirements under CEQA, all of which are hereby made a part of this comment letter and incorporated herein by reference.

For the reasons noted herein we ask RWQCB to deny the Application to fill the wetlands and destroy the contiguous wildlife habitat.

Comments on PART I OF the Applicant’s Alternatives Analysis

Re: PART I: Purpose

Under the Purpose section of the Alternatives Analysis Final with Figures, quoting the CFR statutes the Alternatives Analysis for off-site alternatives states

An alternative is practicable if it is available and capable of being done after taking into consideration cost, existing technology and logistics in light of overall project purposes. (40 CFR 230.10(a)(2) [Emphasis added]

Here again, the accuracy of the project purpose is paramount. The Applicant is again inferring that his definition of project purpose, which includes maximizing profits and capitalizing on market demand to the fullest extent possible justifies the goals and conclusions of their analysis.

And under B. Organization the Applicant quotes the Guideline that

In accordance with US Environmental Protection Agency direction on 404(b)(1) analyses, this basic purpose must be relatively general and cannot be constrained to pre -select a particular site.

However, the Applicant then goes on to completely ignore the regulation in their analysis, and uses their own self-serving definitions to reach their desired pre-determined conclusions. We point this out, again, to emphasize the importance of determining the correct project purpose, as a first step in a proper evaluation of a permit application under the 404(b)(1) Guidelines. Guidance from the EPA and Army Corps has also emphasized this requirement, which is why it is listed as the first requirement under “Sequencing” statutes.

Comments on PART II OF the Applicant’s Alternatives Analysis

Re: PART II: A. Project Summary

Under A. Project Summary of the Alternatives Analysis Final with Figures it states

Construction of larger, denser facilities will require the fill of the 0.64 -acre pond, which is classified as jurisdictional waters, but is not a wetland.

As we have noted in our General Comment letter, the Applicant knows this to be false. It has been corrected by RWQCB, the Army Corps, the EPA, and even the Town’s third biology consultant, LSA Associates in their recent Recirculated DEIR (Exhibits 24a through 24g). Under the 404(b)(1) Guidelines, an applicant for a permit to fill a wetland is required to act in good faith. We question, then, why the Applicant continues to knowingly make false statements about the classification of the Corte Madera Inn pond.

We suggest that the Applicant will continue to flout the authority of the Guidelines unless or until a regulatory agency corrects this.

Re: PART II: B. Project Setting, 2. Site History

Under section B. Project Setting, Site History, of the Alternatives Analysis Final with Figures the Applicant states

The proposed project was under review by the Corps of Engineers (Corps) and Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) at the time but a local building moratorium was declared prior to final Town, Corps or RWQCB approval and the project was withdrawn. This moratorium is no longer in effect.

This paragraph intentionally misconstrues the chronology and the true reasons and outcomes of those events in what appears to be an attempt of influence a decision by RWQCB and to confuse the public about the applications true status. The record shows that the truth of these events is as follows:

1.At the time of the submission of this analysis The Corte Madera Inn Rebuild project was not under “review by the Regional Water Quality Control Board.” No application had been filed yet.

2.The Town of Corte Madera building moratorium on Tamal Vista Boulevard did not in any way impact this project, because the Town specifically exempted the Applicant’s project from that moratorium and deemed it “grandfathered.” In fact, the majority of the project’s local review continued unencumbered during the entire time of the moratorium.

3.The application has never been withdrawn either at the Town or at any regulatory agency. The project application at the Army Corps is now on inactive status only due to the Applicant’s failure to produce documents, including an Alternatives Analysis, that are required under the 404(b)(1) Guidelines.[1]

We request that the RWQCB immediately challenge this pattern of willful dishonesty and fabricating of facts, which permeates all aspects of the Applicant’s proposal. We ask that you reject the Applicant’s submittals on this basis alone and that the entire application be denied until such time as the Applicant agrees to be forthright and to proceed in good faith.

The Guidelines require the agency to proceed in good faith and they require the same of the Applicant, and attempts to achieve a permit under false pretenses or by committing perjury are actionable.

Re: PART II: B. Project Setting, 3. Site Ecology

Under Section B. Project Setting, 3. Site Ecology of the Alternatives Analysis Final with Figures it states

Water quality in the pond is poor. The water sources are generally of relatively low quality and the lack of circulation in the pond concentrates pollutants.

The Applicant fails to disclose facts that are well established in the public record and which bear directly on RWQCB’s deliberations.

For example, the record shows that in testimony before the Corte Madera Planning Commission in March 22, 2016, Jim Martin of Environmental Collaborative, one of the three biologists who evaluated the project, commented that it was perfectly feasible to preserve and rejuvenate the pond and ensure its viability. However, he admitted that he wasn’t asked to study how to do that, in spite of the fact that available on-site alternatives existed - Alternative 2 under the recent EIR - and met the project objectives, except for the “condition” of maximizing profits for the developer.

In response to further questioning by the Commission’s chairman, Mr. Martin offered,

I would agree this looks like this is a remnant of an historic slough that went through that area …that now has been largely isolated.

And that

The culvert that goes into the drainage ditch and then the boxed culvert under the freeway is no longer used by the city…. It’s been closed off... so what’s left is this largely silted 18 inch pipe that’s not functioning and no longer provides the flushing that’s needed there to maintain the water quality conditions.

Jim Martin went on to note that the pond was not being maintained to its full advantage, which was diminishing its viability. He noted that the historic “slide gates” that would provide natural flushing of the pond had been closed by the property owner and the Town’s staff. This reduction in the natural flushing of the pond and its connection to the greater wetlands across highway 101 appears to have been done intentionally, by the developer, to destroy it and the wildlife habitat in anticipation of this redevelopment, without consent or knowledge of the Town Council.

Mr. Martin’s testimony confirmed the public’s opinion that the pond is not “artificial,” and that the hotel owner and the Town have been neglecting the pond in order to declare it a “cesspool” and a “smelly swamp” that is beyond redemption, in order to get rid of it. Martin also advised the Commission that there are many other projects, some on larger scales, in the SF Bay Area, that have the same circulation problems, but that have been solved. He said, “It’s about improving circulation in that, you want to improve the water quality, you want to improve the ability to support emergent vegetation, and increase the habitat value. “[2]

Re: PART II: B. Project Setting, 3. Jurisdictional waters

Under Section B. Project Setting, 3. Jurisdictional waters of the Alternatives Analysis Final with Figures it states

The Corte Madera pond is not a wetland, but it is jurisdictional water under Section 404 of the CWA and is defined as an “Other Water”.

As noted throughout our comments and as supported by independent experts, including LSA Associates in their recent DEIR assessment (Exhibit 24g), we question why the Applicant continues to knowingly misstate established facts. There is no question that the pond is a wetland and a special aquatic site.

Re: PART II: Section C. Basic Purpose

Under Section C. Basic Purpose, page 6, of the Alternatives Analysis Final with Figures it states

The Basic Purpose of this project is to develop a viable hotel complex capable of meeting the demand for central Marin hotel space.

Once again the Applicant uses a self-interested and incorrect definition of the project’s purpose. “Meeting the demand,” or “capitalizing on demand,” or achieving “requisite returns” are not relevant criteria as considerations for approval of a permit under the 404(b)(1) Guidelines. In point of fact, profit and financial return maximizing are expressly prohibited from being considered in the permit approval process.

The Applicant is either doing this with intention to deceive the public or is confusing the ability to note that demand exists to justify a proposal with believing an applicant has some right to meet market demand or maximize financial benefits from that demand. Under this logic, if consultants had advised that market demand were 400 rooms (which in fact it probably is) then the Applicant would have used that number to justify approval for an even larger hotel.

Again, maximizing profit consideration is expressly prohibited from being a factor in consideration of a permit. Ironically however, in taking this position, the Applicant is making an even more convincing argument for an on-site alternative that preserves the pond. In fact, our analysis, which will be discussed at length in our comment letter on the On-Site Alternatives Analysis Final with Figures and Attachments, shows that demand in southern Marin is so great at this time that almost any location in Marin with a new hotel of any reasonable size (35 rooms or more) would easily be financially feasible, profitable and therefore, practicable.

Re: PART II: Section D. Project Demand

Under Section D. Project Demand, page 6, of the Alternatives Analysis Final with Figures it states

An extensive study of the market demand for a new hotel on the subject site was completed by PKF Consulting in March 2013 (Attachment A). The study considered the current demand at the existing Corte Madera In and other unfulfilled demand in the market.

The practicability calculations and conclusions used in the Alternatives Analysis Final with Figures and which are noted in the Applicant’s Attachment “A” and used to justify the results of the On-Site Alternatives Analysis Final with Figures and Attachments, are entirely based on the opinions of PKF Consulting and paid for by the Applicant. We will comment on the quality and accuracy of that data and those opinions in our comment letter on the On-Site Alternatives Analysis Final with Figures and Attachments. However, suffice it to say, we reiterate the comments we made in our General Comments above, and wish to emphasize that the data in the PKF documents dates back to 2009 through 2013. As such, that information and data is outdated to the point of being irrelevant and grossly inadequate to make any reasonable determinations about practicability of off-site or on-site alternatives.

As we will show in our comment letter on the On-Site Alternatives Analysis Final with Figures and Attachments, hotel operating revenues and market demand the subject property market area, since the 2009 to 2013 time period, has increased dramatically. The Applicant’s documents and analysis fail to acknowledge this, which significantly impacts the analysis’ conclusions. The “Market Demand” study, by PKF Consulting, which the Applicant is wholly relying upon to justify their conclusions and financial analysis is therefore severely deficient.

“Meeting market demand” is not an admissible consideration.

In both the Alternatives Analysis Final with Figures and the On-Site Alternatives Analysis Final with Figures and Attachments, the Applicant has based its practicability arguments on evidence of “market demand” for his preferred alternative. However, “market demand” is essentially irrelevant to a permit application review process, under the 404(b)(1) Guidelines. The Guidelines do not require the Applicant to demonstrate market demand to support practicability (i.e., a developer can build whatever they want, profitable or not, so long as they’re not filling wetlands to do it). The Guidelines allow the Applicant to provide evidence regarding the practicability of different alternatives, which can include market demand or anything else they choose to submit.

However, as noted above, in this particular instance (in southern Marin), market demand is not even in question. What is ultimately in question is which practicable alternative is the least environmentally damaging project alternatives (the “LEDPA”), as prescribed in the 404(b)(1) Guidelines.

Comments on PART III OF the Applicant’s Alternatives Analysis

Re: PART III. Off Site Alternatives Analysis; A. Introduction and Purpose

Under A. Introduction and Purpose, the Applicant states

The purpose of the of-site alternatives analysis is to determine whether there are locations other than the proposed site where the project basic purpose could be practicably achieved while eliminating or reducing impacts to waters of the United States.

The aforementioned mischaracterization of the wetland as “waters of the United States” aside, we need to point out again that this entire section relies on an incorrect definition of “project basic purpose,” as we have discussed in our first General Comment letter of 01-13-16. This erroneous definition permeates the entire argument presented and diminishes them to a point that they should he disregarded.

Re: PART III. Off Site Alternatives Analysis; C. Analysis Criteria

Under C. Analysis Criteria, 2. Physical conditions and size the Applicant states

Sites where the physical conditions pose a significant constrain to development are considered not practicable; similarly, sites that are too small to put approximately 200 hotel rooms would also be inconsistent with the basic purpose. [Emphasis added]

Here is a clear instance where the Applicant’s incorrect and self-serving definition of the projects basis purpose is used to justify and skew their analysis of off-site alternatives. As we’ve noted in our comment letters, the specific number of hotel rooms, which in this case is solely driven by the demands of the Marriott Corporation (the final end user of the proposed project) is not allowed to be included in project’s basic or overall purpose, under the 404(b)(1) Guidelines. Yet, this criterion goes on to significantly impact the results of this Alternatives Analysis.

On this basis alone, we ask that the Applicant’s Alternatives Analysis of off-site alternatives be rejected in its entirety, as biased, and submittals and request for RWQCB review be denied.

Under C. Analysis Criteria, 4. Consistent Land Use the Applicant states

The Corps has recognized in its review of 404(b)(1) analyses that alternative sites must be consistent with local zoning/General Plan requirements. Alternatively, if the existing land use designation for an alternative site is not consistent, the local jurisdiction must indicate that an amendment to bring it into conformance is practicable.

This is an instance where the Applicant is applying Guidelines criteria in an inconsistent and self-serving manner. Looking at each of the alternatives offered by the Applicant, the Corte Madera Inn Rebuild project site, as the Applicant has submitted it, appears to be the most problematic under these tests. Although all of the sites shown would require some regulatory or local agency approvals, no other site on the list involves

Objectively then, the Applicant would need to reduce the number of approvals and amendments required to make the site practicable under the same requirements they note. However, the Applicant’s analysis fails to even mention this obvious challenge. In fact, in the case of the Corte Madera Inn these challenges are emphasized by the fact that the Town just spent two years creating and approving a new Community Plan and General Plan Amendments for the Tamal Vista Boulevard corridor, where the project is created. This makes their request for a General Plan Amendment to build their proposed hotels less likely than on other sites, which do not have all these challenges.

Logically, the most expedient way to ensure that the Applicant can monetize his asset and “capitalize” on the market demand would be to develop a slightly smaller hotel on the site in a way that preserves and protects the wetland and wildlife habitat area. We will discuss this Alternative in detail in our third comment letter.

Under C. Analysis Criteria, 5. Availability / Land Costs the Applicant states

Alternative sites not presently owned by the applicant that could reasonably be obtained and used to fulfill the project purpose are considered for this analysis. Conversely, alternative sites that cannot be reasonably obtained and used to fulfill the project purpose are not practicable alternatives. Properties for which development applications have ben submitted, or are already approved, are not practicable. For example, purchasing or otherwise gaining a controlling interest in a site where the owner has already initiated development approvals would pose significant cost and logistics constraints. Land subject to complex multiple ownership are similarly considered unavailable, as it is extremely difficult to acquire large tracts under multiple ownership.

Although these criteria all sound reasonable, they are essentially boilerplate gibberish that no respectable real estate broker specializing in land development would use to assist their client in finding a suitable location to develop a hotel or any other type of real estate development project. Unless one analyzes properties on a case by case basis, talks with actual property owners and assesses their needs and financial requirements, there is no possible apply these criteria to an overview, as the Applicant has done, in a productive or meaningful way. At the level of analysis presented by the Applicant in this Off-Site Alternatives Analysis, this amounts to conjecture and self-serving opinion with no basis in actual evidence (See our third comment letter on the On-Site Alternatives Analysis Final with Figures and Attachments).

Under: D. Evaluation of Practicability the Applicant states

Eight sites (not including the project site) were identified as potential project sites based on reviews of the Market Area in discussions with local planners and realtors (Figures 3 through 6). These sites were then assessed according to the criteria described above. There were no sites south of Corte Madera, a result of the dense development pattern and extent of marshlands, and very few other sites.

It is with regard to this section of the Alternatives Analysis that we find the greatest fault. Our general criticisms are that the list of sites noted is incomplete and that it was not derived based on methods used by professional real estate developers and investors when evaluating development site alternatives.

Determining development opportunity sites

Vacancy and other superficially observed characteristics do not necessarily define “opportunity” in the real estate development profession. The basis of any sound methodology to determine which sites represent an investment opportunity is the potential projected return on investment (ROI, which can be cash on cash, depreciation adjusted, tax adjusted, etc.) combined with other considerations about the market and general economics of the hotel industry in the selected region or the cost of funds, debt to equity ratios, tax considerations, public agency requirements, and most importantly the investment terms of purchase of the asset. In addition, supportive public improvements, local planning and regional government projects or incentives in certain locations impact a developer’s investment decisions.

In other words, if the cost of developing or renovating a hotel of “x” number of rooms is the same at both locations and the projected room rental rates are the same, then the transaction with better terms (less money invested up front) will produce the greatest return on investment. Similarly, if the purchase of one parcel of vacant land produces an unattractive overall rate of returns on investment because the terms of the transaction are challenging (high price, low loan to value terms, etc.), but another parcel of developed land, which has a an economically obsolete building on it (commonly referred to as a “tear down’), provides a better overall return on investment (better terms, better tax implications, simpler entitlement process with local agencies, etc.), a reasonable investor will choose the latter.

Viewed through this lens many other potential development sites become potentially viable and practicable hotel development opportunities. For example, the Extended Stay America hotel at 1775 Francisco Boulevard in San Rafael, which is within the Corte Madera Inn competitive market area, was developed on a “tear down” site, which had economically obsolete buildings on it.

These examples explain the most fundamental principle of real estate: the principle of highest and best use. The Appraisal Institute defines “highest and best use” as

The reasonably probable and legal use of vacant land or an improved property that is physically possible, appropriately supported, financially feasible, and that results in the highest value.

This implies that development will generally follow what the highest and best use of a particular property is at any given time, all factors considered.

In the case of the Corte Madera Inn property, the highest and best use at this time is for a hotel of almost any size and configuration. The market demand and quality of the location will support a wide variety of alternatives. As we will show in our third comment letter, this is not only supported by the facts of the situation, but has been determined by the Town of Corte Madera as the only use they will approve on that site.

Without a more detailed level of investigation simply driving around or looking at a map and selecting only obvious, vacant sites as “opportunities,” as PK Associates did in 2013, is essentially meaningless. For this and the other reasons stated herein, it is our professional opinion that the Applicant’s Alternatives Analysis is superficial and grossly inadequate for RWQCB to make any kind of meaningful determination.

Suffice it to say that the PKF analysis fails to adequately consider how sophisticated developers actually analyze investment opportunities. The evaluation of any investment is based on accepted industry standards for evaluating return on investment that although noted in the PKF analysis, are not applied correctly, which has skewed their findings significantly and paint a false picture of financial feasibility and therefore, practicability (See our third comment letter on the On-Site Alternatives Analysis Final with Figures and Attachments for a complete explanation of investment analysis requirements).

Re: PART III: D. Off-Site Alternatives site by site analysis

Under such a short public review period we did not have time to physically inspect each alternative property noted by the Applicant. However, we can make these general comments and some specific comments on those properties with which we are knowledgeable.

Based on the sites we have evaluated, we have reason to suspect that the analysis and descriptions of the sites shown are not accurate or a reflection of their true development potential.

For example, the applicant deems Site #7 of the Alternative Sites in the Alternatives Analysis as not being “practicable” based on the fact that it would need to be rezoned. However, the site is already zoned for commercial development so any zoning approvals would not involve a General Plan Amendment as would the Corte Madera site. So why is it discounted?

Similarly, the applicant deems Site #6 of the Alternative Sites in the Alternatives Analysis as not being “practicable” solely based on the fact that these sites are “too small” to accommodate the Applicant’s demand to build a 200 room, dual branded, Marriott Residence Inn / Springhill Suites hotel complex. However, as we have already amply established, these self-serving criteria are not provided for under the 404(b)(1) Guidelines.

In other examples, the Analysis shows Alternative #3 as a potential alternative but that site is already part of the Restoration Hardware Redevelopment project and unavailable. It notes Site #4 as an alternatives but that site was dedicated to the County as open space years ago. These inclusions make us question the qualifications of the person(s) who created this Analysis. Did they do anything more than drive around in a car and makes some extemporaneous notes to compile this “study?”

Perhaps the most striking example is the Applicant’s “analysis” of Site #5.

Site #5 is not even correctly located. The site shown is a viable office building complex. Site #5 is actually located at the other end of Larkspur Landing Circle at the intersection of Sir Francis Drake Boulevard. The description provided could not be more incorrect. Our comments and corrections are interlineated in normal font below each section.

The site is non-native annual grassland, exposed rock slope, and fragments of native oak woodland and scrubland adjacent to HWY 101. No wetlands or listed species habitats were visible during our reviews.

The site is potentially large enough to host an alternative hotel complex but significantly constrained by both slopes and layout to make siting a hotel complex here not practicable; the site is largely made up of slopes that are greater than 20%.

These statements are patently false. The site is 10 acres. 90 percent of it consists of two rectangular sections both of which are essentially flat. There could not be a better parcel of land for large development. The only sloping bench area is at the northern most part of the site. Topographic site plans available if required.

The analysis goes on to claim

There is no infrastructure suitable for a commercial development adjacent to the site. Local roadways are too narrow for commercial uses and the sewer and water lines are similarly constrained. The site is zoned for Planned Development.

All required utilities (“infrastructure) are presently in the street. There are no constraints whatsoever. In fact, the site is zoned only for commercial uses and it is also presently zoned for a hotel and high density residential. No zoning or general plan amendment would be required.

Finally, the analysis states

There is no evidence that it is available at this time. This site is not practicable due to limited access size and development constraints and lack of suitable infrastructure.

The site is more than twice the size of the Corte Madera Inn property. It has unrestricted access for several hundred feet along Larkspur Landing Circle. The site has all required infrastructure in place. The site is presently under an EPA monitored remediation of the soils, which will be completed by late 2017, at which time the majority of the members of the board of directors of the present owner, the Ross Valley Sanitary District, have indicated that they will put the property up for sale. This fact has been extensively noticed in the County, discussed and public hearings for more than two years.

Additional alternative development sites that must be considered

On the basis of the criteria and methodologies noted above, our revised version of the opportunities map would add sites and potential “development site districts” to the map. We would also extend the market area south toward Sausalito because that area was summarily dismissed by the Applicant, we believe, without any actual investigation.

Our analysis is based on the more correct basic project purpose, which is “to provide commercial hotel rooms in southern Marin County, CA.”

Mill Valley / Strawberry:

San Rafael:

Conclusion

In light of these facts, in our opinion, the conclusions reached in the Alternative Analysis Table 3: Alternative site Review Results are incomplete, incorrect, and unsupported by evidence, and arrived at using methods that are not general accepted practice in the real estate profession. For this reason and the comments noted in this letter, we ask believe RWQCB has no choice but to reject the Applicant’s analysis.

Respectfully submitted,

Bob Silvestri - President

Community Venture Partners, Inc.

Read General Comment on Alternatives Analysis

Read Comment on On-Site Alternatives - Part A

Read Comment on On-Site Alternatives - Part B

[1] As stated by Roberta Morganstern, Permit Manager at the Army Corps: Monday November 7, 2016 I notified the applicant and Town that I had withdrawn the project from "active" status. The applicant had not requested an extension and the application is not complete because the alternatives analysis, National Marin Fisheries Service (NOAA) consultation response[1], public comments responses and sacred lands research have not been satisfied.

[2] Audio recording of the March 22, 2016 Corte Madera Planning Commission hearing, which can be accessed on the Town’s web site at: http://www.ci.corte-madera.ca.us/531/Corte-Madera-...