Loch Lomond Marina |
Bay Conservation
and Development Commission (BCDC) A meeting was held by the Design Review Board of BCDC at their conference room in S.F. on January 10, 2005. In attendance in addition to the Board were representatives of Thompson/Dorfman (the developer) and several representatives from the community. The developer gave a presentation of the proposed development design with questioning from the Board, then the community was given an opportunity to comment and, finally, the Board discussed the information received and provided the attendees with feedback.The DRB's written response to the developer is below. February 25, 2005 One Harbor Drive, Suite 108 ATTENTION: Will Thompson (BCDC Inquiry File No. MR.SR.7128.1) Dear
Mr. Thompson,
As you know, the DRB provided many comments and recommendations regarding the Village at Loch Lomond Marina project at its meeting on January 10, 2005. This letter serves to clarify the DRB’s major issues with the proposed project in light of BCDC’s authority and jurisdiction. Additionally, on January 18, 2005, I presented your current proposal to the entire BCDC staff and any relevant issues and concerns raised by the staff are also presented in this letter. 1. Visual Access. It is important that the project provide strong visual and physical access to the Bay. BCDC staff will support either a curvilinear or grid design for the site, as long as it provides sufficient visual access to the Bay from Point San Pedro Road as well as from within the development. In this regard, existing view corridors from neighboring parcels are important in understanding what visual access is appropriate here. 2. Marina Green. The staff believes that the proposed Marina Green could be enlivened by adding amenities such as seating, picnic tables, special planting areas, or sculptures within this area. Additionally, we suggest that you consider gently tilting the marina green towards the Bay to make the design more inviting and interesting to the public. Please also consider some method of screening the Marina Green from vehicular traffic. As an example of how this feature might look, I have attached photographs of the lawn area at China Basin Park. We are not suggesting that a seat wall, as seen in the photos, be installed between the grass and the promenade. 3. Shoreline Connection Pathways. The four-foot width of path along the eastern portion of the site is insufficient to be inviting and usable to the public. The width of this pathway and the corridor through which it runs should be increased. Additionally, there is a pinch point along this pathway where the distance between the residential homes and the public access path is 25 – 30 feet. This distance between the private and the public uses should be significantly increased to avoid potential conflicts and to assure that the public access area feels public and inviting. To further separate the private and public uses, consideration should be given to a landscaped buffer or grade change between the residential homes and the public access pathway. We would also encourage planting a transitional habitat between the pathway and the seasonal wetlands to buffer public access impacts on the adjoining wetlands. Such planting should be low enough for public safety. Finally, the six-foot-wide pathway on the western portion of the site is sufficient if a striped bike lane in both vehicle directions is installed along the entrance road connecting to the shoreline trail. 4. Bay Trail Standards. Please contact Maureen Gaffney at ABAG to determine the appropriate Bay Trail standards, surface materials, and desired Bay Trail connections for the proposed public access pathways. She can be reached at (510) 464-7909 or by e-mail maureeng@abag.ca.gov. The paths should conform to Bay Trail standards. 5. Entry Road. While our primary interest is creating a strong visual connection to the Bay from Point San Pedro Road, we believe this is best accomplished by straightening the entry road and shifting the Marina Commons to be on axis with the entry road. The layout of the commercial building should be changed to accommodate this new design. The staff believes that this would significantly improve both physical and visual access to the Bay. 6. One-Way Road. The staff believes that the one-way vehicular access on the southern side of the commercial building should be eliminated. 7. Restaurant. The staff believes that restaurant should be relocated away from the existing yacht club building and incorporated into the proposed commercial building. 8. Connection to adjacent property. The staff believes that the connection to the adjacent required public access along the project site’s western boundary (which has yet to be installed) should be expanded and improved to facilitate a smooth transition. 9. Wetland Buffer. The staff encourages you to install buffers between the parking lot and the existing seasonal wetlands. This should include native landscaping. Other separators, such as a 3-foot-high fence to block the area from being accessed by dogs, should also be considered. 10.
Day Boat Trailer Parking
and Dry Storage. As you are aware, members of 11. Runoff. Please indicate how you will be assuring that runoff from the existing asphalt parking lot and parking on the spits will be diverted away from the seasonal wetlands and tidal areas. The staff suggests that you look into incorporating drainage swales on the site to prevent runoff from moving into the Bay and the seasonal wetlands. We hope that these comments assist you in developing a plan that is more consistent with the Commission’s laws and policies. If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact me at (415) 352-3622. Sincerely, JENN
FEINBERG Enc. JF/mm cc: Keith Bloom, Thompson/Dorfman
|