Marin IJ Readers’ Forum for March 1, 2026

San Rafael high-rise housing proposal is far too large

The size of the proposed high-rise apartment building at 700 Irwin St. is too large. Right now, it is approved for 17 stories. It’s ridiculous. Will San Rafael approve a building the size of Salesforce Tower in San Francisco next? The state’s concept for dense housing is absurd. For some, the economic boom that would be created for our soon-to-be urbanized Mission City appears to be all that matters.

When exiting Highway 101 northbound at the Central San Rafael exit during commute hours, I expect to find a severe backup in the right lanes as drivers attempt to turn onto Second Street. I also expect an increased bottleneck as traffic turns right onto Grand Avenue heading toward the Canal neighborhood. When I think about how vehicles in that highly congested single lane of traffic will have to navigate around construction barriers and trucks carrying steel beams and construction supplies, I shake my head.

Many have said that San Rafael is “between a rock and state law,” but there must be some recourse for this bad idea. We must reduce the size of this 17-story monstrosity. It will be a visual blight at the entrance to the city.

We should instead add more units around Northgate mall or use the large, vacant property where the cinema used to be on Smith Ranch Road. There are other locations that would better meld into the physical environment of San Rafael.

I can only presume officials who did nothing to stop the project do not live in East San Rafael. If they did, they would realize the extraordinary inconvenience this project presents to our community.

— Bruce W. Burtch, San Rafael

Wildlife invasive species should not be protected

I am writing in response to the Marin Voice published Feb. 24 with the headline “Mountain-lion victory a mandate for smarter conservation” by Fleur Dawes and Katie Nolan from the In Defense Of Animals nonprofit.

Regarding mute swans, the authors seemingly ignored that they are invasive. Much like nutria, wild pigs or Eurasian doves, mute swans compete with our local, indigenous wildlife for food, water and shelter.

I think it is hypocritical to tout the positive impacts of our indigenous mountain-lion population, and advocate for help on their behalf, while ignoring the negative impacts of invasive species on our indigenous species who need the help far more than the invasive.

Do not be fooled by emotional pleas about “beauty and intelligence.” Our California natives should be valued above invasives and, as caretakers and conservationists, we have a duty to ensure that our local species are given the best chance at survival.

— Michael Schubert, San Anselmo

Testing quickened through regulatory streamlining

I am writing in response to the Marin Voice commentary by Kevin Morrison published Feb. 17 with the headline “Animal testing slows medical progress. It wastes money. It’s wrong.” I agree that promising non-animal-testing technologies — organoids and modeling by artificial intelligence — are great innovations. His points about animal testing ethics are well taken.

However, it does not appear to me that replacing animal testing with advanced technologies would materially reduce the time or cost of developing successful drugs. I think the bottleneck lies elsewhere.

Morrison referenced this statistic: Approximately 90% of drugs that succeed in animal tests fail in humans. I think that’s misleading when attributed to animal testing as the problem. These statistics appear to describe failures during human clinical trials — the phase that occurs after animal testing concludes.

Human clinical trials result in fewer than 10% of drugs receiving approval by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration. This isn’t because animal models were inadequate; I think it’s because drug development is difficult. Phase 2 trials — the first efficacy tests in actual patient populations — are where most drugs fail, regardless of animal trial success. For more, go to bit.ly/4752C7Z.

Morrison correctly notes that “Operation Warp Speed” delivered COVID-19 vaccines in 13 months. But this achievement required unprecedented circumstances: $10 billion to $18 billion in federal commitments, emergency-use authorization pathways and overlapping trial phases. Critically, these shortcuts didn’t compromise science. Phase 3 trials still enrolled between 30,000 and 43,000 participants with rigorous, placebo-controlled designs maintaining more than 94% efficacy standards.

The lesson is clear: Timelines are compressed through funding, as well as a removal of financial risk and regulatory streamlining — not through faster science. These extraordinary measures cannot be generalized to standard drug approvals given federal fiscal constraints. This approach would be unaffordable, especially for a government that is going bust.

— Gaetan Lion, Mill Valley