[0:51] Ready to go. All right looks like we've established quorum

[0:59] so I'm calling. To order this committee of the Wompa

[1:03] Committee for September 3rd 2026. This is a Waterfront master

[1:08] plan advisory committee. There is one absence, the chairman Peck,

[1:13] and I'll be taking this place today. He will be

[1:15] sorely missed. The next item will be any committee. Members

[1:21] announcements for today. I'm good, I don't have any announcements.

[1:29] It's good to be here, everybody. So far they're making

[1:35] it easy for me. So the next will be any

[1:40] director announcements. Oh, defer my announcements to the presentation. So

[1:45] nothing at this time.

[1:58] Next item is public comments for items that are on

[2:01] the agenda at this time. Is there any. Thank you?

[2:07] State your name and you have three minutes. Hi, Eric

[2:11] Meyer speaking as a private citizen. I'm upon a commissioner

[2:15] also, but I'm not speaking on behalf of the commission.

[2:19] I have two things I want to discuss briefly. As

[2:23] this process moves forward, it's going to come to the

[2:25] planning commission and it's also going to go to the

[2:27] city council. And there are subjective responses that I've heard

[2:32] a lot of you discuss and debate. And there are

[2:35] objective responses that we've seen in the form of the

[2:39] public meetings and the outcome of voting and however you

[2:42] feel about that, whatever. But I would like to suggest

[2:46] that you form our memorialize your own feelings about things

[2:53] a little bit more concisely. At this juncture, I've heard

[2:56] disparate opinions about some of the subject street ends, traffic,

[3:02] you know, et cetera, et cetera. The fisherman's kiosk, the

[3:06] otter area. And what I'd like to see from you,

[3:09] I think what the public needs or what the city

[3:10] needs. His confirmation of an agreement. So someone needs to

[3:14] make a motion about the various things which you agree

[3:17] on. As a lot of them you agree on. And

[3:20] so just whichever items do you feel you agree on,

[3:23] in my opinion, just to set it in stone, if

[3:26] you memorialize it through a motion, it'll make it much

[3:29] more certain to us and staff. Secondarily, with respect to

[3:37] how the design guidelines. Moral bays not like every other

[3:42] beach city more obey is a little bit more casual,

[3:46] I'd like to say. What we saw happen in Avaloft,

[3:50] for instance, kind of the Disneylandification, I call it, of

[3:54] what Avalo used to be sad in a way. And

[3:58] we've lost some of its quaint old features. And when

[4:01] you go down to the Waterfront and you sit down

[4:03] on an old log from a eucalyptus tree that was

[4:06] cut down 50 years ago and you eat your bologna

[4:09] sandwich while watching the otters. That's different than sitting on

[4:13] a concrete whale tail with fake starfish. And I just

[4:18] want you to keep in mind what morobay really is

[4:20] when you discuss your design guideline. And don't turn it

[4:24] into hardy plank and vinyl windows. Thank you very much.

[4:32] Is there anybody. On the queue. There are no raised

[4:37] hands in the keel. Thank you. Mr. Chair, just for

[4:41] the public's benefit will also take public comment after the

[4:44] staff presentation on the agenda item as well. There want

[4:48] to hear that. Okay, thank you. Uh, item five here.

[4:57] We need to, I imagine all the committee members have

[4:59] reviewed the minutes from our August 6, 2026 meeting. And,

[5:05] uh, at this time, if the questions or comments or

[5:10] I'll entertain a motion to approve those minutes as presented

[5:13] to us. I move that we approve the minutes as

[5:17] presented. I'll second. All those in favor. Aye. Opposed.

[5:27] None.

[5:41] Okay. The next part here isn't actually two parts. And,

[5:46] uh, at the chair's discretion, we're going to allow five

[5:49] minutes for speaker instead of the three. And so anyone

[5:55] in the audience that has any kind of comments on

[6:00] the revised preferred alternate, you can step four at this

[6:02] time and you have five minutes. Is that right? Or

[6:05] is it for the committee? So Mr. Chair, I will

[6:07] go ahead and start off with the staff presentation and

[6:10] then committee members will ask questions. Then we'll go to

[6:11] the public. Thank you. Thank you for correct me. So

[6:15] I will start the presentation and then hand it over

[6:17] to Amy Sinsheimer with placeworks. Also, we have Alan Loomis

[6:21] with placeworks available on Zoom. And he will present a

[6:24] couple of the slides as well. So here is the

[6:29] timeline that we present at each one pack meeting, you

[6:32] know, where are we going. So we actually have only

[6:37] three more WAMPAC meetings, only two after this meeting. So

[6:40] I know that's maybe sad news that we're coming to

[6:43] an end on this work. Um, it's been great working

[6:46] with the WAMPAC. We're at a very exciting time in

[6:49] the process wrapping up the preferred alternative. Really the focus

[6:52] of today's meeting is getting the final comments that the

[6:56] WAMPAC is going to forward to the planning commission on

[6:59] the revised preferred alternative. Also, we're going to introduce the

[7:04] design guidelines, which is going to be the focus of

[7:06] the October one - pack meeting. And that's pretty much

[7:11] what this agenda slide. Uh, states. So we're going over

[7:15] the preferred alternative and introducing the design guidelines and preparation

[7:18] for the October 1PAC meeting. And I wanted to give

[7:22] a kind of high level overview, again, of the purpose

[7:25] of the Waterfront Master Plan and how that relates to

[7:28] zoning. In the city of Moro Bay before we hand

[7:31] it over to Amy to go over the referred alternative.

[7:35] So first, I wanted to really emphasize, I think I

[7:37] mentioned this last time, I'm going to say it again

[7:40] that the underlying is donating is what determines the allowed

[7:45] land uses. So the Waterfront is divided up among a

[7:49] few different zilling districts. We have Waterfront zoning district. We

[7:52] have commercial fishing visitor serving, uh, commercial parks and recreation,

[7:59] open space. And those zoning designations and those zoning code

[8:03] determine which types of land uses are allowed where. So

[8:08] with that in mind, the purpose of the Waterfront Master

[8:10] Plan is to one, provide a framework to make sure

[8:14] that new development keeps with a character of the Waterfront.

[8:17] And that really is primarily the, uh, the role of

[8:19] the design guidelines that we're going to get to. We're

[8:21] going to introduce today and get to more in October.

[8:24] Um, next, the Waterfront Master plan really identifies the infrastructure

[8:28] and public improvements and amenities that are needed to kind

[8:31] of wrap around that development allowed by the zoning code

[8:34] to make the waterfront function successfully. Then finally, since the

[8:40] city does own a lot of key sites on the

[8:42] Waterfront, the Waterfront Master plan is an opportunity to, um,

[8:46] kind of envision different land use concepts, um, for the

[8:48] city council to consider, um, for future development of those

[8:52] city owned parcels. And with that introduction, I'm going to

[8:57] turn it over to Amy to go over the revised

[9:00] draft referred alternative. So Amy is going to discuss how,

[9:03] um, place works and staff have made revisions to the

[9:06] preferred alternative to reflect the input that we got from

[9:10] WAMP back in August. So Amy. Great. Good afternoon committee

[9:17] and chair. Thanks for having us again. Um, so next

[9:21] slide, please. Just a refresher on the character areas that

[9:25] we're talking about. And we'll go to the next slide.

[9:30] So this is character area six, which is the former

[9:34] wastewater treatment plan, morodunes RV park and a little, um,

[9:38] additional area around there. You did not have a drawing

[9:42] for this area or a set of drawings for this

[9:45] area in August. So this is new. So just pausing

[9:49] here to let you see the kind of the full

[9:52] drawing before we dive into the one that has the

[9:57] proposals called out. So we can move on now. Um,

[10:02] so what we ended up drawing, um, on this next

[10:05] slide is to have the retaining of RV camping, but

[10:12] also including glamping on the site. And also, um, some

[10:17] public recreational uses. And we did redesign the area where

[10:24] the RV camping and storage is now. So you'll see

[10:27] that, um, number one on here that indicates the area

[10:31] where there would be RV camping. Then we have glamping

[10:35] closer to the creek. To the south. And then the

[10:40] area marked two is an area for public recreational uses,

[10:44] but we didn't actually draw any particular use. This could

[10:49] be baseball. It could be other sports pickleball soccer, et

[10:54] cetera. The details at this point, um, we believe are

[11:02] up to a particular proposal, but definitely interested in the

[11:07] committee's feedback. Um, item number four on this drawing is

[11:12] actually, um, the relocation of an existing parking area that's

[11:16] on the west side currently and the sea level rise

[11:20] analysis for the Waterfront master plan has indicated that within

[11:24] the horizon of the plan, 25 to 30 years, it's

[11:27] possible that there could be, you know, a lot of

[11:31] flooding issues on the west side. So we're drawing the

[11:35] parking into the east side. For the purposes of that

[11:39] impact. And then number five is the bridge over Moro

[11:44] Creek. So that would be widening that bridge to allow

[11:47] for vehicles. Shown number five. And we'll go to the

[11:52] next slide. And before I go to the next slide,

[11:56] I just wanted to add to what Amy said on

[11:59] this slide for the old wastewater treatment plant side and

[12:02] moral dunes RV. Park in the concrete plant site. So

[12:06] this is a kind of illustrative example of how the

[12:09] site could be developed at some point in the future,

[12:13] but it really is just illustrative, you know, at this

[12:16] point in time the city doesn't know exactly how a

[12:19] developer might bid on a request for proposals and how

[12:23] they might like to lay out a RV park or

[12:26] a glamping facility. So this is again, not set in

[12:30] stone by any means. It's really, um, inspirational illustrative drawing

[12:34] of how the area could be developed. And then at

[12:37] some point in time the city would issue a request

[12:39] for proposals and developers would, um, propose different development concepts

[12:43] that kind of fit within these parameters, but may also

[12:47] make more sense from a developer and economic standpoint. Okay.

[12:54] So then the next slide shows roadways and bike facilities

[13:00] that serve this area. We've also noted on here that

[13:04] there are existing, uh, 170 existing RV camp spots and

[13:10] the way this has been drawn. It could accommodate at

[13:12] least 170, possibly more, but wanted to note that. And

[13:18] we'll go to the next slide. And we can skip

[13:21] this one. So moving on, uh, to the areas that

[13:27] we've made revisions. So character areas one, two, and five,

[13:31] which is basically the area north of Beach Street, but

[13:35] south of where we just were looking. There weren't a

[13:40] lot of edits. There weren't a lot of comments that

[13:43] led to edits. So really the two big changes are

[13:48] to extend the harbor walk along the shoreline from Coleman

[13:51] Park two towards Moro Rock. And we'll see that on

[13:55] a couple of slides. And then also to include a

[13:58] class one bikeway or multi - use path. On the

[14:02] sidewalk or where the sidewalk would be next to the

[14:06] road on the east side of the embarkadero. And that

[14:10] would be, you know, between that intersection with Coleman Drive

[14:13] and Beach Street. So we will see that on a

[14:17] few slides as well. So we can move on. To

[14:20] the next one. So you can see the harbor walk

[14:25] is extended down along the side of the rock and

[14:29] this drawing. You can't really see the bike way that

[14:32] well. So we'll look at that on a different side.

[14:35] Next slide. And similarly the call - outs for each

[14:41] proposal have been updated here. Next slide. And we can

[14:46] go past the tables. And then on this one, you

[14:50] can see a little more clearly the pink harbor walk

[14:54] extension. Towards the rock. And next slide. So these cross

[15:00] sections are very similar, but a little bit modified from

[15:05] the last set that you saw. So this first slide

[15:07] just shows where the cross sections of embarcadero are drawn.

[15:11] Uh, in two locations. And then next slide. The proposed

[15:16] cross section in both locations. Now it's hard to see

[15:20] at this scale, but on the far right, it does

[15:23] indicate that there would be a multi - use path.

[15:27] And that could be for pedestrians, bicyclists, et cetera. But

[15:31] there are still bike lanes in the roadway as well

[15:34] going north and south. So it's an option for bikes.

[15:39] Which facility they would like to use. And we'll go

[15:42] to the next one, which is pretty similar, just at

[15:45] a slightly different. Location along Embarcadero Road. And we'll go

[15:51] to the next slide. So this slide, um, just the

[15:55] drawing underneath the parking has changed. Um, we did get

[16:01] some comments about parking numbers in this area. And we

[16:04] are happy to, um, discuss that. During the, uh, the

[16:10] Q and A a little bit later. We have some

[16:13] numbers now that actually split out the east side from

[16:16] the west side of embarcadero on the right side of

[16:20] this graphic. So we'll go to the next slide. And

[16:24] I believe now I'm going to hand it over to

[16:26] Allen to present. The next few slides. Yeah. Thank you,

[16:31] Amy. Can you give me a thumbs up or? We

[16:34] hear you. Audio is coming through. Yes. Thank you. Um,

[16:39] so appreciating able to participate remotely this afternoon. Uh, I'm

[16:43] going to speak to market plaza and street ends. Um,

[16:47] at our last meeting, uh, August, kind of two directions

[16:52] on these two topics that are reflected now and kind

[16:55] of the way we're thinking about the drawings. The first

[16:58] bullet, kind of the most significant was that the committee

[17:02] deferred identifying a specific land use strategy for the market

[17:07] plaza, uh, parking lot and associated building that's on a

[17:11] city lease. And suggested that instead the primary issues with

[17:15] that site are design oriented and that we should address

[17:18] that through the design guidelines of the Waterfront Master plan.

[17:22] Um, so we've started outlining as we think about potential

[17:25] development scenarios on that site. Like what are the key.

[17:31] Design topics that we need to address? And that'll be

[17:33] on upcoming slide. And then there was also a kind

[17:36] of direction to revise the way we've drawn this street

[17:39] end plaza at the end of moral bay boulevard. The

[17:43] earlier drawing, we, we first showed, uh, encroached upon the

[17:46] 801 embarcadero or the Libertine lease site. So we've made

[17:51] a somewhat subtle revision to that drawing to reflect the

[17:53] difference between public space and the lease site. So the

[17:57] next slide. Brings up, uh, illustration of market plaza. So

[18:03] this is not intended to be a proposal that's being

[18:06] recommended for market plaza. This is very similar in some

[18:11] ways to an earlier kind of, um, more intense development

[18:14] scenario that was shown at one of the earlier workshops

[18:17] that by and large. Most community members, uh, committee members

[18:21] sort of suggest it was not appropriate for the market

[18:24] plaza. But that being said, the underlying zoning, um, on

[18:29] this site does permit a developer to submit a proposal

[18:32] to the city that would maximize the potential of this

[18:35] site with the presumed premise that that development would have

[18:40] to replace any public parking, um, that's currently on the

[18:44] parking lot. And then probably, you know, most likely also

[18:48] self - park the new development on that site. And

[18:51] there's very little ways of thinking about that scenario. Um,

[18:56] without imagining that there ends up being effectively a two

[18:59] story parking structure on that site with buildings on top

[19:02] of it. So this drawing is illustrating the embarcadero and

[19:07] the waterfront is, uh, in the lower right, um, effectively

[19:11] at bird's eye seagull view looking to the southeast. So

[19:15] the bluff in downtown is kind of oriented in your

[19:19] upper left in this illustration. And as we think about

[19:22] that kind of, very intense development scenario, well, we've highlighted

[19:27] in the pink callouts are some of the kind of

[19:29] key design topics that we think such a building would

[19:33] have to be addressing. And so these are not the

[19:36] specific design guidelines. They're really just calling out this sort

[19:39] of ideas that we would need to address and open

[19:41] to the committee sort of feedback on, are we kind

[19:44] of hitting the mark or do we think the other

[19:46] topics. To take on? So without going through all six

[19:50] of the call outs, um, I just point out that,

[19:53] you know, there's potentially a very significant kind of building

[19:57] face engaging directly onto the embarcadero. So we think, you

[20:01] know, having guidelines that address how those storefronts are treated

[20:05] and modulated so that it begins, um, to look like,

[20:08] you know, it's not one long building, but potentially looks

[20:10] like a collection of smaller buildings, um, potentially the third

[20:15] floor located on the embarkadero side. So we think like

[20:18] there's these design guidelines that suggest those larger, taller portions

[20:24] of the building are kind of broken up into smaller

[20:25] pieces. We think there should be some sort of guidelines

[20:29] suggesting that there should be direct access through stairs from

[20:32] embarcadero to some upper level plaza. That's probably at the

[20:36] level of market street. And that any buildings that are

[20:39] located on this kind of platform that the market street

[20:42] level should be smaller structures, more kind of character with

[20:47] the size of existing buildings and the downtown. And that

[20:50] they should have modulated roof lines. Um, and so that's,

[20:54] these are some of the ideas that we're starting to

[20:55] flag here is saying if such a building were to

[20:59] come to the city as a proposal, how would the

[21:01] guidelines begin to help city staff and committees and commission

[21:06] sort of modulate this building and respond to this context.

[21:09] Um, some of these guidelines might apply to sort of

[21:12] lower scale development, but the reality is that unless the

[21:14] existing parking is completely replaced, uh, relocated, uh, existing development

[21:20] is likely to take the footprint of the building that

[21:23] is there today with a surface parking lot. Um, so

[21:25] this is looking, as I said, at a somewhat extreme

[21:28] scenario, um, but one that's possible within the context of

[21:31] the zoning. So we think it's appropriate that the design

[21:33] guidelines, uh, provide some guidance for this possibility. So with

[21:38] that, we can move to the next slide. So looking

[21:42] at the street ends, uh, scenarios, as I mentioned, the

[21:47] drawing that addresses more obey boulevard street end or the

[21:51] one directly Jason to market plaza kind of as you

[21:54] kind of cascade down the stairs towards the waterfront. The

[21:58] original drawing that produced sort of encroached onto the leasehold

[22:01] site. This illustration is in the upper right. And there

[22:05] is a very subtle change in this illustration to indicate

[22:08] that what appears to be a portion of that street

[22:11] end plaza would actually be, um, a plaza or kind

[22:17] of public space that we'd be developed and concert with

[22:19] the leasehold site, uh, and would effectively be sort of,

[22:23] um, done independently of any sort of street and plaza.

[22:27] And this is while we draw in as relatively consistent

[22:30] with the most recent leasehold proposal that the city's received

[22:34] for what's known as the Libertine site. So it's very

[22:37] subtle change to the drawing, but one, that's important to

[22:40] recognize where right of way and leasehold sites, uh, bound

[22:44] reserve on. So in the next slide, sequence of slides,

[22:51] um, this really comes back to this other kind of

[22:54] consistence at a slide to be produced for the other,

[22:56] um, uh, character areas of sort of following the circulation

[23:00] pass, the harbor walk and pink bike lanes and dash

[23:04] purple and vehicular circulation or the roadways and the kind

[23:07] of teal color for the market plaza site. And then

[23:11] this case, you can see the drawing here is indicating

[23:14] what is so far been kind of the preferred scenario

[23:17] for this site, which is to expand the existing parking

[23:19] lot to increase some parking supply and effectively leave the

[23:23] existing, uh, building that front side of market street in

[23:27] place. So that's what these drawings are showing. And so

[23:30] these drawings do not show any change to circulation patterns

[23:33] from what was shared at the August meeting. And next

[23:37] slide. Uh, and again, this also shows to kind of

[23:42] disposition of parking in the accounts for parking between the

[23:46] two street end conditions and the expanded, um, parking lot,

[23:51] uh, public parking lot at the market plaza site. And

[23:53] so they're again, no changes to this drawing or these

[23:55] counts in comparison to what we presented in August. So

[24:01] next slide. Um, so with that, I'm going to turn

[24:05] it back over to, uh, Ayrlan to kind of round

[24:09] out the presentation. So this concludes the, um, the first

[24:14] part of this agenda item, which is the draft preferred

[24:17] alternative. The specific ask of WAMPAC is to provide your

[24:23] final feedback on the revised draft preferred alternative. And then

[24:26] I have just a couple of slides on the second

[24:28] part, which is the, uh, Design Guidelines introduction. So I'll

[24:32] go ahead and present those slides. And then the one

[24:36] pack we want to ask questions of staff and open

[24:38] it up to the public. So second part of this,

[24:42] uh, introduction to Design Guidelines. Again, we're going to have

[24:46] a full discussion about this in October. And Allen just,

[24:51] um, already touched on this talking about the different, um,

[24:55] possibilities for design guidelines at market plaza kind of shape

[24:58] the massine and form of a building at that site.

[25:03] Um, but as far as introduction, I wanted to just

[25:06] emphasize really the purpose of the design guidelines. So first

[25:10] is to ensure that new development is compatible with that,

[25:14] you know, working Waterfront fishing village character. Of the Waterfront.

[25:20] The design guidelines are heavily focused on protecting public views.

[25:24] The Design Guidelines specifically define what is meant by public

[25:27] views and specifically says that means it does not protect

[25:31] private views from businesses or residences or any other private

[25:34] view. And the Design Guideline specifically call out the Bay

[25:39] Harbor Rock and Sandspit as those resources to be protected

[25:43] from public view standpoint. Then something else that I think

[25:48] is a little unique and very forward thinking of the

[25:52] 96 Waterfront Master Plan designed Guidelines is that they very

[25:57] intentionally focus more on building mass and scale over architectural

[26:01] design. So I think the Design Guidelines even specifically call

[26:05] out, um, downtown stand up barbar saying, we're not, our

[26:10] intent isn't, um, define a specific architectural style like downtown,

[26:14] stand up barbarous kind of mission style. But instead to

[26:17] focus on, uh, form and massing. To allow four more

[26:21] of a diverse eclectic variety of architectural styles. And so

[26:29] that's my kind of initial, um, introduction on design guidelines,

[26:35] a important ask of the Juanpack is that you do

[26:38] review the current 1996 Waterfront Master Plan aside Guidelines before

[26:41] the October meetings. So we're prepared to have a full

[26:44] discussion and a kind of substantive discussion on that in

[26:49] October. Um, with that, I'll turn it back over to

[26:52] the chair for questions of staff.

[27:04] Is there any, I'm sure there is questions and comments

[27:07] for staff. Mary, we can start with you. Is it

[27:13] just questions right now and then we'll do public comment

[27:17] correct. Okay. Um, I had a question regarding character area

[27:20] six is the, we said something about, you know, leaving

[27:25] it open - ended in terms of, um, different designs

[27:29] from developer proposals is the proposal then to just kind

[27:33] of zone to allow those or call out zoning to

[27:38] allow those uses specifically in those areas. Or kind of

[27:43] what, since we're leaving it open - ended to development

[27:46] proposals regarding the specific design, what would go into the

[27:50] master plan that kind of expresses the view of those

[27:56] uses, such as the rec facilities or art camping.

[28:13] So the. So the Waterfront Master Plan would identify.

[28:24] Those uses so the glamping, the RV camping. And then

[28:27] now we added an area showing the kind of recreational

[28:32] fields and leaving that, um, that open, not specifying specific

[28:36] types of recreational facilities at this time. Um. It would

[28:42] be through a subsequent process, um, after the Waterfront Master

[28:46] Plan is finalized when the city is ready to go

[28:49] out for a request for proposals where the council at

[28:53] that point, um, likely with input from other committees like

[28:57] recreation and park committee on the specific types of recreational

[29:00] facilities that would make the most sense on that site.

[29:03] And that should be identified in the request for proposals.

[29:10] Thank you. Hello. Uh, okay. So my question is, um,

[29:19] for the access between market street and the embarkadero, um,

[29:24] prior to the, this Waterfront master plan, um, there were

[29:28] other workshops regarding an elevator or some kind of form

[29:31] of ADA transport from the top of the bluff to

[29:34] the bottom of the bluff. I know that when we

[29:36] had other workshops for this one, it was brought up,

[29:39] um, I do understand that there was a survey done

[29:42] and it was omitted from one of the options. But

[29:46] is there, um, a reason why it cannot be put

[29:49] in this preferred alternative because it was requested at other

[29:52] times, but that survey was the only one that didn't

[29:55] have it. And I think a lot of people who

[29:57] took the survey didn't realize that it wasn't included in

[30:00] keeping the current stairs. So like, uh, Alan presented

[30:10] the direction we heard from Juanpacket, the last meeting for

[30:13] market plaza was to let the zoning. Kind of do

[30:19] its job, identify the uses that are allowed on the

[30:21] site. And then when the city in the future is

[30:24] used in RFP, we can receive different proposals for those

[30:28] allowed uses. But looking then at the rule of the

[30:31] Waterfront Master Plan as controlling the architectural design, they can

[30:36] elevator is a feature that, um, the city council could

[30:40] certainly put into, um, the requirements for an RFP to

[30:43] be incorporated. But that would be more of a use

[30:46] function than design guidelines. Um, with that said, I think

[30:50] it would make sense for, you know, as one pack

[30:54] develops your recommendation on the Waterfront Master Plan to have

[30:59] some type of comment that you forward to planning commission

[31:01] and council, um, uh, there is a need for an

[31:06] elevator and that should be considered in any future development

[31:09] plans for the site. So you're just referring to the

[31:14] site as the, um, the building that's currently being rented,

[31:19] that it would be part of that RFP. Or are

[31:22] you talking about a city? So I'm talking about the.

[31:27] Looking at the site currently as it is at zone

[31:29] visitor serving commercial under the zoning code that allows for

[31:33] a hotel allows for restaurant, you know, retail, um, development.

[31:38] We wouldn't specify what type of, uh, use goes on

[31:41] that site because that's a decision later for the council

[31:45] when they, um, approve an RFP to go out for

[31:49] potential developers to propose on. But instead just focus on

[31:55] the design guidelines or how to protect what would be

[31:57] inappropriate height limit to protect public views of the bay,

[32:02] the different ideas of, um, very facades and roof pitches

[32:06] like Alan was talking about that would be really the

[32:09] role of the Waterfront Master plan on those design features,

[32:12] in those design features. Okay. Yeah. I just, I still

[32:17] feel that an elevator can be included in the design,

[32:20] especially if we're saying that the courtyard instead of parking

[32:23] in the one zone and we're drawing up that. And

[32:25] then so my next question is, um, the intersection at

[32:29] the bottom of beach street and in the embarkadero front

[32:33] street as well. Um, with the change of it shutting

[32:38] off the one inlet, it still creates this parallelogram, kind

[32:43] of an odd format for pedestrians to walk. And, um,

[32:49] as far as that goes, it has been, the comments

[32:51] have been made to make that more, uh, friendly to

[32:56] pedestrians. And then help with the flow of traffic. So

[33:01] I was just wondering if there was a way that

[33:03] we could see that in, um, this preferred alternative. Um,

[33:09] yeah, so I'll leave that to Amy or Alan to

[33:12] respond to you. But, um, first I did want to

[33:14] go back to your comment about the elevator at, at

[33:16] market plaza and just reiterate that even though the approach,

[33:22] we're now taking is design guideline focused. I think it

[33:25] would be appropriate for one pack to forward a comment

[33:29] to planning commission and council that future development proposals should

[33:33] consider an elevator. So I just want to end as,

[33:36] um, as Eric Meyer mentioned during public comment, that could

[33:38] be an example of something someone can make a motion

[33:41] on and then that could be a recommendation that gets

[33:43] forwarded onto the decision makers. Hi, so responding about

[33:53] Beat Street, we did actually draw that a little bit

[33:55] differently in the big drawing, but it's probably a little

[33:59] bit hard to see the change at the scale. I

[34:02] don't know if we want to pull up that slide

[34:04] again. There it is. So it is

[34:15] drawn a bit differently. We kind of reduce the size

[34:18] of the public plaza part of that area. Um, in

[34:22] order to change the geometry. So if you want to

[34:25] take a look at it, um, like when you can

[34:28] zoom in more and let us know if you still,

[34:31] I don't know if you already noticed that or not.

[34:33] So, um, yeah. It wasn't consistent across the different diagram.

[34:37] So that's what I was wondering. Is this if this

[34:39] was, and that's really small. So yeah. And I apologize

[34:42] that the street ends diagram wasn't updated properly. Um, so

[34:46] this is the new overall drawing that is underlaying everything.

[34:52] So, okay. Great. Thanks.

[35:04] Yeah. Back on Beach Street. Have you, has there been

[35:11] any. Thought on putting maybe like a roundabout there instead

[35:17] of. Everybody loves roundabouts? This is a perfect space for

[35:24] it. How funny is that? You know, I'm against roundabouts.

[35:31] So that is funny. But we want to keep all

[35:33] our options open. I just wondered if they, if there

[35:35] was any study or anything done on them to get

[35:38] that, because my focus is on traffic flow. So if

[35:43] you want to, you're kind of choking that area out.

[35:47] So I just didn't know if you looked at all

[35:48] the options or we just, that's off the table. Or

[35:51] I mean, I want everything on the table. We can

[35:53] pick and choose what we want. I'm not saying that's

[35:54] what we have to do. I want to know what's

[35:56] been done. I want all the information to see. We

[36:01] can double check with our transportation teammate. But my recollection

[36:05] is that wasn't an option there. We can double check.

[36:08] Thank you. Yeah. I just want to know if there

[36:11] was a study down on that. I was wondering if

[36:20] you can bring up the slide for a character area

[36:23] six if it's possible. In that area chose that, um,

[36:31] where the public works yards are and where the water

[36:35] plant building at houses, the reverse osmosis, they're not there.

[36:39] So where it becomes of them. Is there a destination

[36:43] for those facilities. To put this in the words. You

[36:49] showed the parking where those things are now. Yeah. That,

[36:53] that's actually a really good point. Coming member Donnelly. So

[36:56] we will make sure to coordinate with the public works

[36:59] department. I know there is some, uh, essential infrastructure there

[37:04] that may still be needed long term. So we'll make

[37:06] sure that those are not, um, shown as future development

[37:10] sites. Well, in that area, it's all plumbed up. For

[37:16] the new recycling. Right. Yeah. So exactly. So any site

[37:19] that we know will be necessary for IPR or for

[37:23] the current wastewater treatment plant operations, um, those would maintain.

[37:27] We're not proposing to replace those. But we'll coordinate with

[37:29] public works to make sure we identify the right facilities

[37:33] and show them on the plan. Also, there is a

[37:36] note there. It's hard to read, but it talks about

[37:38] the bridge of our moral creek. And I think I

[37:43] went time you were going to, somebody was going to

[37:44] check the conditional development permit that the state posed upon

[37:50] that bridge about what can or cannot be done in

[37:52] the future of that location. Did anybody check that out.

[37:55] Uh, yeah. So I had a brief conversation with, uh,

[37:59] our coastal commission staff planners. And they indicated that, you

[38:04] know, of course, anytime you're proposing to build or widen

[38:07] a bridge over a stream and a brother, sensitive habitat,

[38:11] um, area, concerns, um, policy issues to address through that

[38:18] planning process, but they also said the, um, there's no,

[38:22] uh, strict, uh, condition or policy that would prevent that.

[38:26] So it would have to go through. So when the

[38:28] pedestrian bridge was permitted, it received what's called a coastal

[38:31] development permit waiver from the coastal commission. Um, so there

[38:35] would be a process for the city to, um, apply

[38:38] for a new waiver to allow for widening of that

[38:41] bridge. And of course, we'd have to consider, um, extra

[38:44] impacts, um, possibly, you know, sea level rise impacts, but

[38:48] there is a path forward for that proposal to be

[38:51] submitted and approved by coastal commission. I really don't see

[38:57] how you can widen it to make it work. Um,

[39:00] you need to really actually remove and put in a

[39:03] highway bridge like they're doing on self - eat boulevard

[39:05] right now. Yeah. And when I say widen, I don't

[39:08] literally mean necessarily widening, but just replacing it with the

[39:11] bridge that could handle, you know, regular vehicle traffic. And

[39:14] of course, we leave that to the engineers to design

[39:15] and plan out. Also on this area, and I brought

[39:19] this up before the character area six, we assured the

[39:21] RV parking. That, that's an underflood. And that has flooded.

[39:26] So it seems to me anything that goes in there.

[39:29] It must be conditioned with the heaven and already evacuation

[39:32] plan for anybody that might be there when the flood

[39:35] comes like this winter. We expect some big floods. And

[39:38] that area will definitely flood out again. I'd hate to

[39:41] see some campers getting floated in a way because they

[39:43] didn't know that they were supposed to evacuate. Is there

[39:46] some condition that could be posed upon any development there.

[39:50] So, I mean, we already have policies in our general

[39:53] plan and standards in our zoning code dealing with, um,

[39:56] development in a floodplain that any feature development would have

[39:58] to comply with. So I think we already have that

[40:00] covered. On this slide, or this thing for the character

[40:10] areas one, two and five, it talks about the moral

[40:13] rock parking area. A couple of things. They show the

[40:16] new parking layout there, which I guess was new. I'd

[40:19] never seen that before. And I'm just wondering if in

[40:23] coming up with the quantity of parking spots, did you

[40:26] use the zoning code, what, 17, 27, 110 about parking

[40:32] widths to come up with your quantity of parking spaces.

[40:36] They're supposed to be nine foot wide parking spaces. Yes.

[40:42] We adhere to the size standards. This is a conceptual

[40:47] drawing. So, um, obviously when you're actually laying out a

[40:51] parking lot, you would make sure that it's exactly right.

[40:54] But that, that is what we were using to understand

[40:56] how many spaces could be included. Um, will they be

[41:01] reusing those concrete piles that are out there right now.

[41:06] And I tell you right now, um, somebody, you know,

[41:09] got high centered on one the other night. And when

[41:12] the tow truck guy came out, he said, he's had

[41:16] 50 people like that this year. They don't see them.

[41:19] And they drive up onto him and get stuck. I

[41:21] can't speak to that, but I think this would be,

[41:24] uh, there'd be some redesign happening. Are you going to

[41:27] reuse those columns. Committing member Donald, your way ahead of

[41:31] us here with, um, the kind of engineering details. I

[41:33] know you have an engineering background. This is very much

[41:36] kind of high level conceptual, but certainly like those types

[41:40] of details will have to be addressed at some point

[41:43] when an actual project is scoped out and designed, but

[41:45] we're still at a very high level with the Waterfront

[41:47] Master plan. And it also mentioned about constructing and access

[41:53] stare form the parking lot down to the beach level.

[41:56] And what I recommended at one time is that you

[41:58] get the existing revetment. And if you just place those

[42:01] rocks that you have a flat level surface with each

[42:03] of the rocks, you can make a stairway of stepping

[42:06] down to that beach just by rearranging some of the

[42:09] rocks that are already there. I'd be a lot simpler

[42:11] to do a lot less expensive. Just an idea.

[42:25] On the, uh, market plaza street ends. You show three

[42:29] locations where you want to widen the sidewalks. Who does

[42:34] that with the city be obligated and make those whitenings

[42:37] or a developer that comes in and does improvements make

[42:40] who does a physical whitening of the sidewalks. It would

[42:44] be a developer, if there was a proposed development of

[42:47] an adjacent lease cider private property. Yeah, it's only half

[42:55] right now. Um. Let's see. Back to

[43:06] character area six. Um, just a question, does that, so

[43:11] I'm guessing the current zoning allows for storage. And I

[43:16] don't see a description of storage. In the descriptions. And

[43:23] I'm hoping that. Storage isn't going to be included as

[43:26] we move forward. It seems like a little bit of

[43:28] a waste of space. Just that's just a comment. Um,

[43:33] the second thing is I would encourage folks to take

[43:37] a look at the Harvard Tarous project in Port San

[43:40] Louis. That was a 14 or 15 acre tank site

[43:43] in Port St. Louis that was very industrial and it's

[43:47] been changed completely. And to, uh, I think I've said

[43:50] this before, but I'll just, I'll repeat myself. It's been

[43:53] changed to a glamping and camping area. Um, with amenities,

[43:57] recreation amenities and tent camping and all sorts of things.

[43:59] So, um, you can do some amazing things with property.

[44:06] Um, let's go to character areas one, two and five.

[44:09] You don't need to, um, move the screen. When we

[44:15] talk about the moral rock parking, um, area in your

[44:18] description, A2 and A3, um, and this is kind of

[44:21] a little tiki tacky, but it seems like that could

[44:23] be one description because we talk about, um, the parking

[44:27] area in a natural context through the use of rocks,

[44:30] wood ballards, cables. And then in A3, we talk about

[44:33] enhanced maintenance accessibility, um, improved service and restripe. And I'm

[44:37] just. Thinking that restriping dirt. Is probably what. So sorry.

[44:47] Am I a header behind you? Sorry, we're trying to,

[44:50] I know you said not to pull up a slide,

[44:51] but we did anyway. Before our slides so we can

[44:54] follow along. It's slide 26. If you want to go

[44:57] there.

[45:09] Or I can just talk about it.

[45:28] Sorry. Now that we have it in front of us,

[45:29] could you repeat your question one more time? Or your

[45:34] comment? Yes. Um, and on slide 26 on character areas

[45:38] one, two and five, were you talking about the moral

[45:41] rock parking lot? Um, uh, it seems like A2 and

[45:44] A3 might be able to be combined into one point

[45:47] because you talk about, uh, improve the parking area in

[45:51] a natural context with bollards on and on. And then

[45:55] in the second A3, you talk a little bit about,

[45:57] um, enhanced maintenance, improved surface and restripe. And it seems

[46:01] like an odd thing to restrict. If we're not going

[46:03] to do, um, some sort of surfacing. And so anyway,

[46:07] just a thought. That's a thought. And then the final

[46:09] comment I have is not on this, but on the

[46:11] last market, um, market plaza area, I love the idea

[46:17] of putting in, making a comment, even emotion, um, about

[46:21] some sort of people mover instead of an elevator. Because

[46:25] I think in my head, um, elevators are kind of

[46:28] utilitarian, but the, you know, funiculars and cool people movers.

[46:33] So, um, maybe I like the idea of having that

[46:36] ability, but maybe it's just specify or not specify exactly

[46:40] an elevator. And that's it. Thanks. For the funcular. Thank

[46:47] you. A couple, a couple of questions. First, that would

[46:51] be that, um, do I understand these drawings are strictly

[46:56] conceptual to generate discussion and comments that, that they're just

[47:03] ideas and things from what's on what we've been presented

[47:07] and what reality might be could be completely different. So.

[47:14] So yes, so let me break it down into the

[47:18] different, different parts. So there is the land use concepts

[47:22] on city owned land, like the old treatment plant site.

[47:27] So those are conceptual and use concepts. And we can't

[47:30] plan out all the details of exactly what would ultimately

[47:34] make sense on those sites from a, like economic standpoint

[47:36] from a developer and what the city councils desires are

[47:39] when they issue RFP. So that's conceptual. Uh, when we

[47:43] get to the design guidelines, that actually is going to

[47:45] be, um, regulatory. So the design guidelines, those are going

[47:49] to be applied to any future development project in the

[47:52] Waterfront area. So those are, um, those hold more like

[47:57] regulatory weight. Those aren't just conceptual. Those are real design

[47:59] guidelines that will be applied. To development. And then the

[48:04] aspect of the infrastructure roadways, uh, public amenities. And those

[48:09] are, um, those are. Also, um, conceptual. They're a little

[48:15] bit more, a little bit more precise, but those are,

[48:18] um, conceptual, the types of infrastructure that would be needed

[48:21] to support future development on the Waterfront. And it really

[48:26] would depend on, you know, funding and what types of

[48:28] development projects that we see come in. So I have

[48:35] a clear. So these drawings are, they're strictly conceptual. In

[48:42] other words, for an example of the layout in the

[48:44] drawings of what is at the bottom of embarketeral and

[48:47] beach street, is that conceptual or is that the approach

[48:52] to eliminate that problem there at that, that intersection? That

[48:57] would be the city's official plan on how to eliminate

[48:59] that problem at that intersection. That would be the city's

[49:03] official plan. That would be the, essentially the circulation plan,

[49:07] um, to address the issues with that intersection on what's

[49:11] drawn here? Yes. Okay. But again, it's drawn out of

[49:16] conceptual level. So, um, of course, you know, when the

[49:19] city gets to the point of, you know, getting ready

[49:21] to go out to bid at that point, we're going

[49:24] to have much more precise engineered detailed plans. But it's

[49:28] the conceptual plan at this level. Mike.

[49:39] I'll move on. My question about, uh, the clamping area,

[49:42] the RV part. So the existing LEC there has five

[49:47] years left on their lease. So in this conceptual plan,

[49:51] the cities take it back and put out for RFP.

[49:56] The whole area there, or the more doom still. Get,

[50:02] in other words, what it looks like is one big

[50:03] giant project there eliminating morodunes trader part. So this is

[50:12] a conceptual plan. Um, it's not really looking at any

[50:15] particular leaseholder at, at this time. Um, so and I

[50:20] can't really get into any specifics on lease negotiations with

[50:23] any leaseholder. But this is more the long - term

[50:25] plan and any, you know, qualified developer could propose when

[50:31] we do release an RFP. And my final question be,

[50:36] there will be a draft master Waterfront Master Plan come

[50:40] out that we'll be able to comment on and maybe

[50:42] fine tune when we get there or not. Yeah. No,

[50:48] good question. So, um, in November, we actually, we have

[50:54] a date set the week before Thanksgiving. November 17th is

[51:01] the plan date to have a public workshop here in

[51:06] this room for, uh, unveiling, um, the wampax recommended Waterfront

[51:12] Master Plan. So we're going to take all the input

[51:14] we get from you put that together into a draft

[51:17] waterfront master plan that we're going to present at the

[51:19] workshop on November 17th. And then that will get forward

[51:23] onto planning commission in January. And there will be an

[51:27] opportunity to public on that draft plan before the first

[51:29] planning commission meeting. Thank you. Wait, just a follow -

[51:36] up specifically on that before that plan is presented as

[51:40] the WAMPAX recommended master plan. Will we have a chance

[51:44] to review and comment on that master plan. So that

[51:49] is the goal of the November one pack meeting where

[51:53] we would present, I'll call it like the initial draft

[51:58] plan just to get kind of confirmation. And that is

[52:00] the direction of your recommendation. Thanks, Mary. Anybody else, any

[52:09] follow - ups? James. Thank you. You know, on the,

[52:13] um. On the power plant site, we can specify some

[52:19] of these roads like that would go to Quintana. I

[52:23] mean, we can design that into that property. So if

[52:28] they're going to, uh, improve that property or do anything

[52:31] with that property. We have, uh, access to a right

[52:38] away, so to speak, to get those roads in. Yeah.

[52:44] So let's, uh, let's think about that. So. We're anticipating

[52:49] at some point in the future. There will be a

[52:51] development application again on the vistra property. Let's say it's

[52:57] an application for a resort, which is allowed in the

[53:00] visitor serving commercial zoning district. Um, that would be a

[53:05] development project that would, um, definitely have impacts on circulation

[53:11] on the waterfront. And so we would have a legal

[53:16] right and actually have an obligation to negotiate with the

[53:20] developer and say in order for us to address the

[53:22] impacts of your project, we need another roadway connecting to

[53:25] Quintana main highway one. And we'd like to see your

[53:29] plan show right away for that, that connection. And in

[53:33] fact, we have that planned right away already shown in

[53:36] the Waterfront Master Plan. This is what we've decided that

[53:38] we want to see here when the site developed. So

[53:40] that absolutely is something we have the authority to do.

[53:44] Good. And that can be, and that's what I'm getting

[53:45] at that we can put that here in this plan

[53:47] that the access. Right. Thank you. Anyone

[53:57] else. So now we're going to move on to, uh,

[54:04] public comment. Uh, I do want to comment on a

[54:08] couple of correspondence that we received as committee members. And

[54:12] Betty, I want to thank you for your correspondence. You

[54:14] do a lot of homework for me that I don't

[54:15] have to do. And then, uh, we've got a letter

[54:20] from a chamber and also letter from the master lease

[54:23] holders association. And before I comment on, I want to

[54:27] emphasize that I don't belong to either of them. So

[54:30] I have no bias in this, but I do appreciate

[54:32] your letters. I think they were well written. And I

[54:35] think they, they bring out points that, uh, both the

[54:39] chamber and the master organization that I think this committee

[54:43] has talked about over and over again for the last

[54:45] year and a half or so. So I do appreciate

[54:47] those, those letters. And they are red. I don't think

[54:50] I'm supposed to comment on them in writing, but I

[54:52] can comment on them today. So. Anyone, uh, with public

[54:56] comment, now's the time we're going to make it five

[54:59] minutes. You have five minutes because it's kind of a

[55:01] two part thing. So you have five minutes today. So

[55:05] welcome to the microphone state your name. And you have

[55:08] five minutes. Thank you.

[55:19] Thank you. Um, Betty Windholtz, I do want to note

[55:24] that I'm kind of hearing a mixed message that this

[55:27] is conceptual, but at the same time we can ask

[55:30] for a road now that we'll be there later. So

[55:33] my concern is on the plaza thing that even though

[55:38] it says it's not, um, this is what could be

[55:42] done in case of. But if it's in the plan

[55:47] by feeling it will in the future be interpreted as

[55:50] what will be. And so that becomes really kind of

[55:54] crazy to me, you know, we're, we're saying just maybe

[55:59] this is what we'll do. But if it's in the

[56:01] plan five years from now, some planning commission is going

[56:04] to say, Oh, but look at what they put in

[56:06] there. We have to do it this way. So I

[56:08] think language is going to be really important. And you

[56:11] need to pay attention to that if you would. I

[56:15] really don't like the idea of the harbor walk going

[56:18] down to the target rock. Um, that's where people pull

[56:22] in their cars where people go between their cars and

[56:25] the squirrels or the rocks and the otters to look.

[56:29] And if you put a walkway between the cars and

[56:32] the water, I think that's really breaking up people's access

[56:36] and continuity. And so I would prefer that you not

[56:40] extend the harbor walk past where it is right now.

[56:44] Um, I, I really object to the glamping being where

[56:47] it's moved. I don't think you all ask for that.

[56:51] And, um, and even though it's probably the more, uh,

[56:55] place for rich camping. That's nice. But Morodues is in

[57:00] the negotiation right now. Uh, the RV park. I think

[57:03] that's really uncomfortable. Um, to put this plan on top

[57:09] of their property. And it's not their property. It's our

[57:12] property. But there are leasing over that property right now.

[57:17] So I, I would rather have the glamping backward originally

[57:20] was not where the consultant chose to put it. Um,

[57:25] I, I had consistently heard that we don't want to,

[57:30] um, get rid of parking at the street ends. And

[57:34] the compromise on that little subcommittee was, well, we won't

[57:37] get rid of those unless we have something somewhere else.

[57:40] And my position is you don't get rid of what

[57:43] you got. You add to it. You don't want to

[57:48] make one for one exchange on your parking because we

[57:50] don't have enough parking. You want what you've got. Plus

[57:54] you want to create more. So I don't, I hope

[57:57] you will not go along with the plan to, um,

[58:01] put widen the sidewalks and get rid of parking. Um,

[58:06] did that, did that. I'm going to maintain my concern

[58:09] about the back, the bike lane going all the way

[58:12] down the embarcadero. I don't know where you're going to

[58:14] put that. You can't put bikes on that sidewalk. I

[58:17] mean, it's just too narrow. And unless you're going to

[58:21] get rid of parking. So I think that you need

[58:23] to look at that more specifically if you would. What

[58:28] else. And the whole, well, that's not necessarily. Oh, yes.

[58:37] And I don't think we should commercialize Coleman Park. Whether

[58:41] that's with a concession stand or a doc or whatever,

[58:44] that's just really low key recreation. So I would hope

[58:49] that you would take out that doc and the suggestion

[58:52] that we have concession stands there. And then this is,

[58:59] in a sense, petty, but, uh, the working Waterfront, I

[59:02] think should look like a working raw defront. It shouldn't

[59:04] have furniture. It shouldn't have this and that, you know,

[59:08] that make it look pretty. I want it to look,

[59:11] you know, rough and masculine. Um, and then the Guideline

[59:17] on to, um, the last point, which is about the

[59:20] design guidelines that we aren't talking about today, but have

[59:23] been introduced today. And when they talk about mass and

[59:26] scale, I hope it's with the understanding that we're not

[59:29] looking for mass and scale, but that's what we want

[59:33] to look at in terms of fit, that we're not,

[59:37] that, and certainly I prefer that idea over the architecture.

[59:40] But that we're not looking to expand and make things

[59:43] huge. We're going to be in scale with already what

[59:48] is. Thank you. Thank you. Eric Meyer again

[59:57] speaking as this private citizen. I'm going to expand on

[1:00:00] my earlier points just a bit based on the testimony

[1:00:03] of you guys earlier. Um, Shariza's comment about the elevator

[1:00:08] with the Andrea's changes calling it a people mover or

[1:00:12] something else. Just a mechanical device is a perfect example

[1:00:15] of something that I have no idea what your opinion

[1:00:18] is now. I know Sharisses and I generally know Andreas,

[1:00:21] but I don't know the opinion of the committee. And

[1:00:24] staff doesn't know the opinion of the committee and the

[1:00:26] consultants don't know the opinion. So if you do have

[1:00:27] a suggestion about something like that, you need to codify

[1:00:31] any to memorialize it. And I'm going to, I'm just

[1:00:33] pounding that in. We need a motion where you guys

[1:00:36] vote and you say, this is what we want. And

[1:00:38] the same thing goes with like I've heard differing opinions

[1:00:41] from staff, from the consultants at the public meetings and

[1:00:44] from yourselves with respect to the street ends. What I've

[1:00:47] heard from you and what I've heard from the public

[1:00:49] and what I've proved from staff and the consultants are

[1:00:51] three different things. I have no idea the hierarchy of

[1:00:54] how those things lay out. And I'm really love to

[1:00:56] hear from you as a body to vote on some

[1:00:59] of these things specifically so that we have a clear

[1:01:01] understanding can carry it forward. Thanks. Thank you.

[1:01:20] Hello, Kindall Welch, president of the Moral Bay Maritime Museum.

[1:01:24] And I just want to follow up with what Eric

[1:01:27] Myers has just spoken about. The maritime museum board would

[1:01:32] appreciate it if your committee could memorize expanding the museum's

[1:01:38] footprint at our current location. And also, uh, recommend that

[1:01:43] the city negotiated a longer lease with us. Thank you.

[1:01:49] Thank you.

[1:02:01] Hi, my name is Margaret Carmen and I want to

[1:02:03] do a public service announcement and say that person that

[1:02:06] got stuck on the boulders on the parking lot in

[1:02:11] the dark at the lock. She couldn't get anybody to

[1:02:13] come until she could figure out what they address is.

[1:02:18] And she found out the address is Coleman Drive. If

[1:02:21] any of you are stuck down there and you're calling

[1:02:23] AAA, they want to know the address. And she kept

[1:02:27] saying the rock. And they go, you can't say the

[1:02:30] rock. Okay. That's all I'm going to say about that.

[1:02:33] Um, okay. I want to say a really very much

[1:02:36] agree with everything this windholt said. And I love that

[1:02:41] the glamping in Avila, that was just an area that

[1:02:46] was never anything else. And it was a great place

[1:02:48] for it. And I just think where you're saying you

[1:02:51] want to put it on the RV part. Let people

[1:02:55] have some places they can afford to come over here.

[1:02:58] And then they eat in the places and drink and

[1:03:02] buy things in the stores. And I just think that's

[1:03:05] not the right place. And, um, I agree very much

[1:03:09] with not commercializing Coleman Park. We have a natural wonder,

[1:03:15] the rock and the ocean. And these cutesy little places

[1:03:19] to see it and commercializing, it takes away from people

[1:03:23] going, wow, I'm coming tomorrow bay to see something that

[1:03:26] I can't see anywhere else. So don't take away from

[1:03:30] that. And I heard you talking about that it would

[1:03:35] have to, um, change the zoning on market. Why don't,

[1:03:40] it seems like let's change the zoning now on market

[1:03:43] plaza site. So a developer can't apply for a ridiculous

[1:03:47] project. And then it's hard to talk it down. It

[1:03:51] reminds me of Reggie's cottages and they get torn down.

[1:03:55] And then all this stuff gets put up. That's just,

[1:03:58] okay. The other thing I want to say is it's

[1:04:01] not a good idea to put bikes in people on

[1:04:04] the same path. If you're going to have a biking

[1:04:07] on the road, let it be on the road. Cause

[1:04:10] I always speak as a 46 year chiropractor. People move

[1:04:15] a little bit. Here's the bike. Nobody's paying attention. And

[1:04:18] they get injured. Don't put bikes and pedestrians on the

[1:04:22] same trail. And let's see. Please, I'm going to say

[1:04:29] it again. Don't get rid of the street in parking.

[1:04:32] And this is what I keep harping on. It's never

[1:04:35] mentioned. We really need to have guidelines about LED lighting

[1:04:41] and white blue bright LED lighting at night. And what

[1:04:45] it will do to the ambience of the whole area.

[1:04:48] And what it will do to the marine animals. And

[1:04:51] the birds. Thank you. Thank you. Anyone else in the

[1:05:00] audience here. Is there anybody in the queue. Yes, sir.

[1:05:06] There's one raised hand in the queue. Judy Lynn, go

[1:05:08] ahead. Hello commissioners. I'm Judy setting.

[1:05:18] Can you hear me? Yes. Oh, thank you. Um. I

[1:05:27] really want to speak to the moral dunes. And I

[1:05:32] am also a little confused about the conceptional plan versus

[1:05:37] something that somebody can go back in the future and

[1:05:40] say, Hey, well, this is what the, you know, with

[1:05:43] the commissioners voted for. But anyway, um, Mauro Dunes has

[1:05:50] been, as you all know, a very consistent. Business for

[1:05:57] our community and their occupancy rate is really pretty high.

[1:06:04] And I'm just wondering if anybody has asked, um, what

[1:06:09] port San Les'new glamping parks occupancy rate is. They're wonderful.

[1:06:17] I love them. I think it's great. Um, and, but

[1:06:22] I, I do wonder, you know, what their occupancy rate

[1:06:26] is year round. And then. I just really want to

[1:06:33] make a plea to the city that they, um, offer

[1:06:38] a longer lease for moral dunes. I feel that that

[1:06:42] entity deserves a longer lease. And it seems like the

[1:06:47] short five years that you're offering is because you really

[1:06:50] want to see something else there. And I would like

[1:06:53] to see you do a longer lease and give the

[1:06:56] owners of Moro Dunes the opportunity to, you know, revamp

[1:07:01] what they have and maybe include more trailers and maybe

[1:07:06] do some glamping, but I feel like they would be

[1:07:09] willing to do that. I don't know that. You have

[1:07:11] to talk with them. But I just think we need

[1:07:14] to be kind - hearted. And recognize how loyal they've

[1:07:20] been for so many years. And the TOT that they've

[1:07:23] provided for our city has been consistent and good. And

[1:07:27] they're wonderful to work for. They've always kept a clean

[1:07:30] business. And they're just a real asset. And let's treat

[1:07:34] them fairly. I'm a little confused about the, um, traffic

[1:07:42] way on the embarcadero. I think it's all still two

[1:07:49] way in your plan. Um, I, I just want to,

[1:07:55] I just want to say that the embarcadero has never

[1:07:58] been a thoroughfare. It really is a slow moving street

[1:08:02] that we all know when we're going to go down

[1:08:05] there. We're going to, we're going to move slow. And

[1:08:08] that includes if we have to slow down for any,

[1:08:11] you know, bicycles or anything like that. I don't know

[1:08:15] that we really have to have bike lanes, you know,

[1:08:19] on both sides of the streets and eliminate all the

[1:08:22] parking. And it seems like you could increase the parking

[1:08:26] that you put in just, um, north on the power

[1:08:31] plant property, just north of where the stacks are. And

[1:08:35] then down at the rock, the parking area to me,

[1:08:40] the design that you have there looks like you have

[1:08:42] shrunk the parking lot. And it's been really sad to

[1:08:48] see for the last 15, 20 years how the parking

[1:08:54] that we used to have on the south side of

[1:08:56] the rock allowed people who don't really get out and

[1:09:02] walk to drive down there and sit and watch the

[1:09:05] boats coming in from the harbor, which is a real

[1:09:08] treat. And we've always, we've always, you know, made sure

[1:09:13] that's happened. And I'm just wondering, does anybody talk with

[1:09:18] parks and rec to see if we can, you know,

[1:09:20] get that back at his shrunk and shrunk and shrunk

[1:09:24] throughout the years. And now it looks like you're shrinking

[1:09:26] it again. So I would like to see that change.

[1:09:31] Um, I would like to see it open up at

[1:09:35] least once or twice a week for the residents. I

[1:09:38] feel like that's something that we've had in the past.

[1:09:41] And we deserve to have again. And then I'm still.

[1:09:49] Hoping you're, you know, keeping all of the in street

[1:09:53] parking. And instead of taking away an parking on the

[1:09:58] embarcadero, you're adding parking. Thank you. Thank you.

[1:10:09] We have someone else. Go ahead and come on up.

[1:10:12] Unless there's someone else in the queue right now. There

[1:10:14] are no more raised hands in the queue. Go ahead.

[1:10:20] Hi, I'm Betsy Garnett Cross and a couple of things

[1:10:24] I've been thinking about. First of all, I don't know

[1:10:27] if I'm the only one who rides a bike around

[1:10:29] here. But when I ride along the embarcadero, I appreciate

[1:10:33] being right there in the middle of the road with

[1:10:36] everybody. Um, I wouldn't want a bike laying or be

[1:10:40] with, um, people mostly because people don't pay attention. Like

[1:10:46] over by, um, beach track, you know, when you go

[1:10:50] by the park there, um, there's a bike lane and

[1:10:55] there's a walkway. And people are always walking in the

[1:10:59] bike lane. And it's very confusing. And I, you know,

[1:11:04] I'm trying to let people know I'm coming. And they

[1:11:07] need to be on the sidewalk. And I've mentioned this

[1:11:10] in the past that it would be nice if they

[1:11:12] were the little symbols were on that bike lane. But

[1:11:15] anyway, um, so bikes I think are great on the

[1:11:19] road glamping. I've never done glamping, but I think, I'm

[1:11:26] assuming it's cheaper than a hotel. So therefore, if people

[1:11:29] don't have an RV, I'm not against glamping, but I'm

[1:11:33] not saying that that's the place to have it. But

[1:11:37] I assume it's cheaper than a hotel. And if you

[1:11:39] don't have an RV or something, it's more affordable. And

[1:11:44] also if it were down close to the bay, it

[1:11:48] would be lovely as opposed to being up at a

[1:11:51] hotel where you had kids. And you had to walk

[1:11:53] down and whatever. Um, and I did at one point

[1:11:59] I mentioned this before, um, at another meeting, Michelle and

[1:12:04] I walked around and we counted how many spaces would

[1:12:07] be eliminated if we got rid of the spots by

[1:12:12] the replaced them with parquettes or whatever you were thinking

[1:12:17] of doing. And there were 20. And that's a lot

[1:12:20] of parking. So anyway, that's my two cents. Thank you.

[1:12:27] Is there anyone else. I'll go ahead and bring it

[1:12:31] back. Committee, uh, Arland, do you have some, would you

[1:12:35] like to? Yeah. If I may, vice chair. So we

[1:12:39] do have a hard stop at five habits meeting after

[1:12:41] us. So we have about 45 minutes, um, kind of

[1:12:45] in line with some comments that we heard during public

[1:12:49] comment, um, pack should get into decisions making mode on

[1:12:54] some of these items. Um, I would recommend kind of

[1:12:59] for the next 45 minutes thinking of a punch list

[1:13:01] of the most important items. And then doing a straw

[1:13:04] pool vote, a straw pool, uh, vote on those so

[1:13:08] we can make an official record that we could pass

[1:13:09] on to planning commission on the sediments of WAMPAC. I

[1:13:14] have four items right now, just from my, from my

[1:13:17] notes that I've heard come up that I would recommend

[1:13:20] OnePack vote on. One is the kind of elevator people

[1:13:27] mover concept. The next one is small, but, uh, noteworthy,

[1:13:32] um, committee member Luker mentioned combining a two and a

[1:13:35] three regarding the Moro Rock parking ADA path. So getting,

[1:13:41] you know, what's the one packs vote on that next

[1:13:44] is a street end parking. Do you repeat that again?

[1:13:49] Yeah. So combining A2A3, that's the idea of the, um,

[1:13:52] the walkway from the rock parking lot down to the

[1:13:57] beach. And the, I think like the maintenance, just committing

[1:14:01] number of Luker mentioned that those, uh, those seem to

[1:14:03] be repetitive and they could be consolidated together into a

[1:14:06] single item. And then street end parking. I do want

[1:14:12] to say on street end parking, um, you know, at

[1:14:15] this point we've had multiple conversations with coastal commission staff,

[1:14:18] um, there is a requirement in our general plan for

[1:14:21] those pedestrian connections. We've drawn something up that we believe

[1:14:25] is a reasonable compromise and contingent on no net loss

[1:14:28] in parking. So that's something that, um, we're going to

[1:14:31] keep in the plan because we've already drawn that up,

[1:14:35] uh, and again, we believe it's a reasonable compromise. Um,

[1:14:38] but it's up to one pack. If you want to

[1:14:41] vote to provide a comment that you don't want to

[1:14:44] see any street ends converted, then that's something we can

[1:14:46] let the planet commission city council know. And then the

[1:14:49] fourth item that comes to mind is, uh, RV camping,

[1:14:52] glamping and whether those should be flipped back to how

[1:14:54] they were originally, or do we keep clamping along the

[1:14:58] creek? We're welcome to talk about the reasoning behind moving

[1:15:01] the clamping along the creek and putting RV camping above

[1:15:05] it where the old wastewater treatment plant site is, um,

[1:15:08] I do want to say in that conversation, it's really

[1:15:10] not appropriate to talk about individual, you know, leaseholders. We

[1:15:14] should be talking about the long - term vision for

[1:15:16] that area regardless of any, um, specifically solder. So those

[1:15:21] are the four items that at a minimum, I think

[1:15:23] wompax should vote on. I'm sure you have several others,

[1:15:26] um, your minds as well. Thank you. So, uh, we'll

[1:15:35] bring it back to committee for comments at this time.

[1:15:40] Okay. Mary, you always get a start. Sorry. All right.

[1:15:44] Um, my comments for character area six regarding the glamping.

[1:15:48] Um, I just wanted to say that glamping does serve

[1:15:51] and underserved customer segment in our community based on the

[1:15:54] analysis done by the economists that we don't have, I

[1:15:58] think any luxury hotels. Um, also I think that we'll

[1:16:03] see potentially additional revenue from people who don't have kitchens

[1:16:07] in their RVs. And they're glamping would be more accessible

[1:16:10] to youth compared to the high purchase cost of RVs.

[1:16:16] I think we also saw in the community survey that

[1:16:19] glamping was, um, very supported. And I just felt like

[1:16:23] calling out those data points because I think a lot

[1:16:25] of youth and family is generally not represented in this

[1:16:29] form because these meetings are scheduled during core working hours.

[1:16:33] Um, my argument, something else to consider for glamping being

[1:16:37] near the edges as I think it could be quieter,

[1:16:41] um, to have glamping along the edges near nature, um,

[1:16:45] because glamping, they wouldn't be running generators and things like

[1:16:47] that RVs. For the character areas one, two and five,

[1:16:53] um, I think that as someone who bikes on, um,

[1:16:57] on that strip to the rock with their children, um,

[1:17:01] I think we should look at making that more bike

[1:17:04] friendly, whether that's clearer signage on the road to share

[1:17:09] the road with bicyclists or some sort of specific path

[1:17:14] for bikes. Um, for the street ends, I feel that,

[1:17:20] um, you know, we've said that we're not supportive due

[1:17:23] to the impact on local businesses and accessibility for residents,

[1:17:29] um, and for me, I personally would like us to

[1:17:33] vote against street ends, because I think we've heard clear

[1:17:36] signal from the community and the community engagement, um, feels

[1:17:41] performative, honestly to me if we hear all of that

[1:17:45] clear signal and don't vote against the street ends. Um,

[1:17:49] and then for me regarding the marketplace plaza design guidelines,

[1:17:53] what I heard the consultant essentially say was like residents

[1:17:57] don't want this, but this is how we do it.

[1:18:00] And then propose guidelines for how to make it work

[1:18:03] with the parking requirement. Um, and so I just wanted

[1:18:06] to flag that, that I'm just not supportive of that,

[1:18:09] that kind of vision. And then, um, yep, that's it.

[1:18:14] Thanks.

[1:18:25] Some comments because of public comment and, um, letters. So

[1:18:30] I'm just going to go and then the preferred alternative.

[1:18:34] So, um, my first comment is, um, areas of open

[1:18:38] area. So if you'd like think about, um, passo, how

[1:18:41] they are in a tascadero, they have those huge areas.

[1:18:45] And they're underutilized. Um, I feel that seating is huge

[1:18:48] for the public enjoyment. So I feel strongly that areas

[1:18:53] that have like picnic tables and other areas for people

[1:18:58] to relax and enjoy nature for a longer period of

[1:19:01] time is much more comfortable than, you know, sitting down

[1:19:05] in the grass. Plus it takes care of both things.

[1:19:09] So you can have a picnic at a table or

[1:19:10] you can have picnic on the ground. So, um, I

[1:19:13] think that, um, some extra seating for public on these

[1:19:17] open areas such as Coleman Park. I'm pro for that.

[1:19:22] I said the elevator said my piece doing a people

[1:19:26] murder down with that. There was a workshop before this

[1:19:29] program started and we were really trying to talk about

[1:19:32] the funicular in a slide. And we had all these

[1:19:36] other different like ways of getting down, um, I think

[1:19:40] that my most important aspect of this is ADA accessibility.

[1:19:44] So and then actually getting it accomplished. So if we

[1:19:47] don't decide what it's going to be a funicula or

[1:19:50] a slide or an elevator, I think this is the

[1:19:53] time to do that now. Um, because you want the

[1:19:57] community backed and you want it to be in the,

[1:20:00] in the document. Um, and then I have been told

[1:20:04] that there's another concept that, um, we want staff to

[1:20:08] look at as far as further research on a one

[1:20:12] way for market street to increase parking up above the

[1:20:15] bluff. So that's just a future food for thought. Um,

[1:20:20] I know that we got shut down with the embarkadero

[1:20:24] mostly because of the activity on there with loading and

[1:20:26] unloading. But if we could create some more parking spaces

[1:20:29] with a one way at market or have some kind

[1:20:32] of resirculation, maybe that's another way to increase parking. Um,

[1:20:38] the sports complex, the map that is out for everybody

[1:20:40] to see. I just look at it and I'm like,

[1:20:42] that's too baseball diamonds. So, um, the really big important

[1:20:48] thing. Yes, it's great that it's open to any kind

[1:20:51] of recreational things, but when you're talking about a sports

[1:20:54] complex that does travel teams and teams having four fields

[1:20:58] of the same type of sport is where you really

[1:21:02] find the money makers. That's when you get like four

[1:21:06] to, um, you get 20 different teams playing at different

[1:21:11] times throughout the day. And so that means about, um,

[1:21:15] 12 teams. They have their families, the coaches. I mean,

[1:21:18] we're talking about 600 visitors in an area that's underutilized

[1:21:22] that wouldn't really take over a lot of demand. But

[1:21:24] then those people, when they go to lunch or they

[1:21:26] go to dinner or they stay at a hotel, they

[1:21:29] will spend thousands of dollars. And this is something that

[1:21:32] if you actually design it, then the, um, document that

[1:21:37] you can get grants for these things. Or you can

[1:21:39] at least show it to a developer and they're like,

[1:21:41] this is pro, you know, the city is pro doing

[1:21:44] this. I got the green light already. So I'm going

[1:21:47] to apply for this. So, um, my next one love

[1:21:51] the fact that you're talking about widening the bridge. I

[1:21:54] love the idea, um, of the, um, shutting off the

[1:21:59] bottom of Beach Street. It makes the storefront area, the

[1:22:03] bakery, the goddess goods, all of the different businesses down

[1:22:06] there much more safe area for them to have people

[1:22:10] sit out. And it's still a beautiful area to look

[1:22:13] right across the bait. But when you have all these

[1:22:15] cars coming and going and coming and going, I think

[1:22:17] it's going to make it calmer area for public enjoyment.

[1:22:21] So I'm happy with that. Um, I mentioned about the

[1:22:24] intersection being more of a square. Rather than a parallelogram.

[1:22:32] Um, I think we're going to talk about roofs and

[1:22:37] I'll put this out there. But we always need to

[1:22:39] talk about bird housing. We don't want to house the

[1:22:42] bird. So when we get on that, I'll elaborate employee

[1:22:47] parking. So we have a lot of spaces that are

[1:22:50] dedicated to hotels at the top of market. And I

[1:22:54] feel that that would be a great place for employees

[1:22:57] to park. And because they're there for eight hours, you

[1:23:01] know, six hours, eight hours, nine hours, um, and if

[1:23:03] that were the case that we could actually allocate that,

[1:23:07] um, employee parking, uh, then we also really need to

[1:23:10] take into consideration that, um, the elevator and some kind

[1:23:14] of form of easier access is really important. And then

[1:23:18] we also need to talk about lighting, um, because you

[1:23:22] don't want an employee to leave at like 9 p.

[1:23:26] m. when it turns into a ghost town down there

[1:23:28] and not have a safe avenue to their cars. Um,

[1:23:33] Coleman vending, I did hear some people talk about, um,

[1:23:37] not wanting, vending at Coleman Park, um, being on the

[1:23:40] harbor advisory board. We were always, you know, it's been

[1:23:43] every single year we've looked into like ways of revenue

[1:23:46] generating and got shut down on one thing, shut down

[1:23:50] on another thing, shut down on another thing. Um, right

[1:23:52] now we have the sauna there, which I think is

[1:23:55] awesome. You know, it's, it's, it generates revenue and it

[1:24:01] creates a new thing that's going on there. That's not

[1:24:03] taking away from other businesses in the area. So there

[1:24:07] is that possibility. And I really would want at least,

[1:24:11] um, maybe we could put something in there that if

[1:24:13] it is a vendor that the harbor advisory board is

[1:24:16] the one who gets to approve those, um, transient leases.

[1:24:21] And there is a, um, a document that we're putting

[1:24:23] in place for transient, um, vendors. So anyway. That's the

[1:24:30] end of my comments. Okay. Thank you. Sorry. You don't

[1:24:39] really have much of a voice today. In terms of

[1:24:42] character area six, um, I don't have a strong preference

[1:24:45] for flipping, but it does seem like some of the

[1:24:46] issues of like having a quieter area, maybe something that,

[1:24:50] um, during like large storm events could be, um, modified

[1:24:53] more easily would be good. I think it's good that

[1:24:55] we're moving parking away from the dunes. I do think

[1:24:58] in the future, like the location of the dunes and

[1:25:00] the creek, like those things are not metestic locations. And

[1:25:03] so I think leaving as much ample space as you

[1:25:05] can to allow, um, for future flooding, um, would be

[1:25:09] good. Um, for a character area, one B5, like the,

[1:25:15] there's a suggestion of the floating dock there. That particular

[1:25:19] stretch along Coleman, um, along Coleman Beach as some of

[1:25:24] the most persistent yograss beds that we have in the

[1:25:26] whole entire bay when we got done to like 13

[1:25:27] acres. Like that's where El Grass was still really persistent.

[1:25:30] So I know a lot of folks like kind of

[1:25:32] walk down and use kayaks, but I just think like

[1:25:35] thinking a little bit about that's the best area maybe

[1:25:37] moving a little bit further south where it's a little

[1:25:39] steeper and not as like, um, dense impacts, not as

[1:25:42] many impacts to, um, that habitat. I think, yeah, anywhere

[1:25:51] we can get ADA access, that seems like a plus

[1:25:53] in terms of like elevator. Um, I think for the

[1:25:56] street ends, it does seem like the skeletons have worked

[1:26:00] pretty hard to like find new areas for parking to

[1:26:02] me. It seems like, um, it could be like a

[1:26:05] phase approach. Or even like maybe keep like Beachtreet and

[1:26:08] more Bay Bovard, but maybe we don't need a person

[1:26:09] than the other ones. But. Um, or like, excuse me,

[1:26:14] like divided in half. And like maybe you can still

[1:26:16] get like five or four spaces that have like one

[1:26:19] area where you can, um, say like maybe it doesn't

[1:26:23] have to be that whole parking lot area. Maybe the

[1:26:25] compromise there. I also think in terms of like walking

[1:26:31] down to Coleman, I do think that that's heavily used.

[1:26:34] And so I think, yeah, being able to have pedestrian

[1:26:35] and bike access all the way down to Carmona is

[1:26:37] good for families and areas where you can, um, sit

[1:26:39] and have lunch. I do think, um, I agree that.

[1:26:42] I think the family representation, you know, hasn't really been

[1:26:45] talked about much in this process. Thank

[1:26:55] you. I'll start with street ends. I think we need

[1:27:01] those street ends. There are multi, we use those for

[1:27:05] everything. I mean, I see delivery trucks use those, you

[1:27:09] know, so that I think that's pretty critical to keep

[1:27:11] that. I like the parking there. I don't think we

[1:27:14] explored the one - way street. Doing a one -

[1:27:18] way street. I think that opens up a lot. You

[1:27:22] know, we can still have the parking there. I don't

[1:27:24] think it's a parking issue. I look at it as

[1:27:25] a circulation issue. I'd like to see better circulation. And

[1:27:30] it does cut down the traffic too. If you have

[1:27:32] that one way, you're cutting down the traffic. You don't

[1:27:35] have traffic on the other way. Either you use front

[1:27:37] street or, you know, I saw in that where they're

[1:27:42] not, they discounted that using front street as a one

[1:27:44] - way and embarcadero as the other. I thought it

[1:27:49] was, cause of parking, but I don't think parking was

[1:27:50] the issue. I thought it was circulation was the issue

[1:27:53] to try to get a better circulation. So you can

[1:27:56] park there and walk across the street with it. You

[1:27:58] know, you're just looking one way. I think it's a

[1:28:00] little bit safer. And you, we could widen the sidewalk

[1:28:03] there. I think as far as the delivery trucks, you

[1:28:11] know, the ways to mitigate some of that, uh, there's

[1:28:16] a lot of deliveries that are AM deliveries that deliver

[1:28:20] early in the morning there. I see a lot of

[1:28:22] trucks there. Before six o'clock in the morning. Actually. And

[1:28:27] so if you move up to talking about the elevator,

[1:28:31] I don't think a fununcular would work there. I think

[1:28:35] past counsel have looked at that. And it's, I don't

[1:28:41] think that's feasible for that area right there. I think

[1:28:44] it would be more of an access. And if you're

[1:28:46] looking at ADA, and you can do a nice elevator

[1:28:50] with a glass elevator so you can, you know, you're

[1:28:52] looking out at the bay as you're going down up

[1:28:55] and down. I think the ways you can do that.

[1:28:56] I think a simple elevator. To move people, kids with

[1:29:01] strollers and all that, uh, even if you put the

[1:29:04] parking up there, employees could use that safely to get

[1:29:08] to the car. As far as the. Harbor walk, I'm

[1:29:15] for that to continue that all the way to target

[1:29:18] rock. So it doesn't impede somebody from parking just before

[1:29:24] that because there is a walkway there right now that

[1:29:27] could be. Rehabbed or improve an improvement. That would be

[1:29:33] an improvement along that all the way to target rock.

[1:29:36] And you can ride your bike there. Because right now

[1:29:38] you've got to go on the street if you're going

[1:29:40] to go out, you know, if you go out to

[1:29:41] the jetty. So I'm in favor of that. Uh, so

[1:29:45] it's a no on street ends. Yes on an elevator.

[1:29:48] Yes on the harbor walk. And. I forget what else

[1:29:54] I had on there. I had, um.

[1:30:07] And as far as the, uh, you're talking about the

[1:30:11] glamping and all that, you know, I don't liked setting

[1:30:16] what ideas come of that instead of making one set

[1:30:21] use for that. I'd like to see if you put

[1:30:23] it out for an RP. Maybe you don't be so

[1:30:26] specific. And you can get more, you know, more ideas.

[1:30:30] And somebody has an idea that, oh, that would be

[1:30:32] perfect there that we haven't thought of that our business

[1:30:35] people. So I don't like the hard set things. I

[1:30:38] want a general. As far as even on, on the

[1:30:43] buildings on the embarcadero on the west side, I think

[1:30:47] it should be a generalization of how did you put

[1:30:51] it mass. So you just set out a mass. And

[1:30:57] that should be the, uh, the guideline. You follow that.

[1:31:02] I call that a silhouette. So if you, however you

[1:31:04] want it, the height and the width. I think that

[1:31:07] would, I think that would encourage more, uh, more people,

[1:31:13] uh, want to invest in moral bay. And I want

[1:31:16] best for moral bay. What's best for more obey is

[1:31:19] what's best for the businesses and moral bay. So let's

[1:31:21] keep that in mind, not just the, uh, amenities that

[1:31:24] we, that we would like. You know, let's, uh, I

[1:31:28] think support business is one of the number one things,

[1:31:32] I think. Thank you. Just to follow up question on

[1:31:36] that, James. Well, one, I think we should do not

[1:31:39] just what's best for businesses, but also residents and also

[1:31:43] the environment. Um, when you're saying keeping it open in

[1:31:47] terms of uses, are you thinking of putting hotel development

[1:31:50] back on the table or are you thinking more in

[1:31:52] just terms of like RV camping, glamping kind of like

[1:31:56] low impact, like that category of use. I'm saying to

[1:32:03] put whatever zone for, let the zoning speak for itself.

[1:32:09] So if we zone it for, well, in that particular

[1:32:11] property, as it's been mentioned, it's a flood zone. So

[1:32:15] you wouldn't be able to put a hotel there. So

[1:32:18] that limits the use of it. So we're already limiting

[1:32:20] the use. I think we want to open it up

[1:32:22] and maybe get some other ideas. What could go in

[1:32:25] there? You know what I mean? So just use the

[1:32:29] zoning. That make sense? Uh, Arylon, can

[1:32:39] you repeat the four things you want us to take

[1:32:43] action on. Well, now it lists up to eight. So

[1:32:50] I've been, I've been taking notes on another ideas. Uh,

[1:32:52] but the four I mentioned where the elevator or people

[1:32:57] mover market plaza. The second one was minor just combining

[1:33:04] the, uh, a two and a three regarding the ADA

[1:33:07] pathway to the beach to the beach. Is that on

[1:33:14] the north side of the rock. Yeah. Okay. Thank you.

[1:33:27] Okay. Let's give me one second to make sure we're

[1:33:32] putting out the correct. Hey, Ray, could you pull up

[1:33:41] the, um, the presentation, please. So it's looking at, um,

[1:33:45] a2 and a3 here. So a2 is improved parking in

[1:33:48] the area in a natural context through the use of

[1:33:50] rocks, wood ballers and cables. And chain or heavy ropes

[1:33:54] to delineate boundaries and a three is enhanced maintenance accessibility

[1:33:59] sea level rise adaptation measures, improved surface and restrict. So

[1:34:04] committee member Luker mentioned these are similar and they could

[1:34:07] be consolidated. That was the second. The third is the

[1:34:13] street end parking discussion, which we've talked about at length

[1:34:16] over the last year. And then the RV camping and

[1:34:20] glamping, if that should be flipped back where we keep

[1:34:24] the RV camping where they're currently is an RV park

[1:34:27] and glapping to the north or keep it as shown.

[1:34:30] And I will note on that. The reasoning behind flipping

[1:34:33] it the way we did is, um, like we heard

[1:34:35] some community members acknowledge, um, the glamping is a more

[1:34:38] environmentally sensitive use that would make more sense along the

[1:34:41] creek. And also, um, that's a better option for circulation

[1:34:45] because it doesn't require the RBs to go all the

[1:34:46] way down to the creek to access the RV camping.

[1:34:51] So those were the four items. And then I think

[1:34:54] when the committee's ready done with your comments, I'll go

[1:34:57] down my entire list with all eight ideas that I

[1:35:00] would like compact a vote on. Regarding the elevator concept,

[1:35:06] it seems to me that that would be, um, beneficial

[1:35:10] to access parking up above, getting people down to the

[1:35:13] embarkadero, especially if it's in ADA issue. The idea of

[1:35:17] a glass elevator would be really nice. Uh, the neckular,

[1:35:21] I guess somebody said that probably wouldn't work. Although that

[1:35:25] it would be an attraction, that's for sure. Like ancient

[1:35:28] flight down in LA. The A2 and A3 combination, um,

[1:35:33] I agree with that, that they all seem to be

[1:35:35] one of the same there. But as far as doing

[1:35:39] something at that parking area, it's not maintained very well

[1:35:44] as it is. Those columns are out there kind of

[1:35:48] are in the way. Um. I don't know what you

[1:35:52] could do out there that would improve the situation. But

[1:35:56] as far as those columns go, if you're going to

[1:35:58] reuse them or leave them in there, I mean, I

[1:36:00] split like a raised pavement markers on the top of

[1:36:03] them. So you can see them at night. The street

[1:36:07] end parking, definitely, I've been again since day one. You're

[1:36:10] eliminating very valuable premier parking places. And nothing can replace

[1:36:15] them in kind. You'll not find something of equal value

[1:36:18] by placing parking somewhere else and taking it away from

[1:36:22] the street end parking. A lot of those parking areas

[1:36:25] have handicapped spaces too. So we would be out of

[1:36:28] compliance with ADA down on the embark and neuro. As

[1:36:32] far as the RV glamping, um, you know, glamping or

[1:36:37] even tent camping would be okay as long as everybody

[1:36:42] understands that the flipling, extending, um, the moral dunes RV

[1:36:48] to that area. I mean, it seems to me that

[1:36:50] that would be revenue generating to do something like that.

[1:36:54] And it's already a use that's there. So it wouldn't

[1:36:57] be a problem. It's set for. Where it's taking over

[1:37:00] the areas where the city yards are and why the

[1:37:03] water treatment plant is. Those facilities, unless you have some

[1:37:08] other place to put them need to belong there. So

[1:37:11] you just can't erase them on your map. They exist

[1:37:15] and they have to be there. Like I said, as

[1:37:17] part of the plumbing of the Water Reclamation facility is

[1:37:20] at those locations, including the outfall that goes to the

[1:37:24] ocean, there's a standpipe, air release valve in the middle

[1:37:28] of what would be that RV parking area. That has

[1:37:31] to stay. It can't be removed. So those are my

[1:37:34] concerns, but the other thing I want to bring up,

[1:37:37] and this was brought up at the beginning by Gene

[1:37:38] Dowdy, what about the water side of the embarkadora? We

[1:37:41] never speak to that, you know, there's going to be

[1:37:43] some, activities who go down there. There's the whale rushing

[1:37:48] vessels. There's the electric boats that go in and out

[1:37:51] of there's a lot of usage. And some of the

[1:37:54] things that you see from that side, from the water

[1:37:57] side of the waterfront. And we've never spoken to that.

[1:38:00] And somehow or another, we've seen to skip over there.

[1:38:02] But as soon as very important that we address that

[1:38:05] too somehow. That's all I have. I'll be very brief

[1:38:11] because I think you already know this about what I've

[1:38:14] said. Um, I'm happy with the people mover. I could

[1:38:17] be okay with an elevator. Um, uh, fine obviously with

[1:38:22] putting together a two and a three and deleting the

[1:38:25] word restripe. Um, I'm not wild about eliminating parking on

[1:38:30] the street ends, but I could live with no net

[1:38:32] loss in the project area. I think that's probably going

[1:38:35] to be on a losing end of a vote though.

[1:38:37] Um, flipping the RV and the glamping, I don't particularly

[1:38:43] think that it's, I'm not overly interested in, it doesn't

[1:38:48] really matter to me as long as all sorts of

[1:38:50] different opportunities can be on that site. So I think,

[1:38:54] um, you know, if we don't specify the creek areas

[1:38:58] only for glamping, if we just open it up, um,

[1:39:02] for RV glamping, tent camping, that sort of thing. So.

[1:39:05] Thanks. Okay. I'll be brief too, because we're starting to

[1:39:12] run out of time. Uh, but, but I'd like to

[1:39:14] comment that the problem at beach and embarcadero isn't just

[1:39:19] traffic. It's, uh, it's like the problem you run into

[1:39:24] at the, out at the morbid high school at lunchtime.

[1:39:26] The people, uh, drag across that intersection. We have a

[1:39:29] lot of people in town, uh, it's, it's about regulating

[1:39:33] the pedestrian flow there as well as traffic because people

[1:39:38] would drag across her and hold up traffic for minutes

[1:39:41] and minutes and minutes a lot of time. So it's

[1:39:42] not just a traffic issue there at beach in Barkett

[1:39:46] Hall. It's a pedestrian issue too. So I don't know

[1:39:48] if just by closing off front street and doing those

[1:39:51] things, it's going to be the answer to that quagmire

[1:39:54] there. I think the answer to regulate the pedestrians as

[1:39:58] well so that you can move the traffic at a

[1:40:02] quicker pace. Um, if you could bring up character proposed

[1:40:08] actions for one, two and five. Maybe that's not just

[1:40:16] a. Okay. Yeah. Ray, can you pull up the slide

[1:40:20] please? Well, yeah, I think. Some of this stuff, not

[1:40:26] just here, but in a couple of places, I think,

[1:40:28] I think for an example, A2 could have just been

[1:40:30] improved parking in area with a natural context. It doesn't

[1:40:33] have to, you don't have to get into what it

[1:40:36] may pertain. I mean, just keep it simple. Uh, A3,

[1:40:41] I think we all talked about sea level rise. And

[1:40:43] I think we all kind of thought we shouldn't have

[1:40:47] to deal with it right now. Uh, and then you

[1:40:50] go down to, uh, B3 on that constructive peculiar for

[1:40:55] approximately 10 tables. How about just construct picnic area. I

[1:41:00] mean, to get so specific, I think it may lock

[1:41:03] you into things later in the future, uh, and then

[1:41:07] concessions. I think concessions here will take away from other

[1:41:15] businesses in the waterfront. Uh, it's a front and center

[1:41:18] spot. If you're going to get a ton of money

[1:41:21] for it, that might be, but you're not, uh, and

[1:41:24] so, so that's a problem with concessions there. I think

[1:41:28] concessions can mean a lot of things can be snow

[1:41:30] cones. And just could mean a lot of things. So

[1:41:34] I just think that when you, when you do something

[1:41:36] like that, that front and center, it's a perfect spot.

[1:41:38] You're going to take away from other canoe and kayak

[1:41:41] remandalis up and down the waterfront. So, and, uh. And

[1:41:47] that's about all I have. Thank you. Okay. If we're

[1:41:55] going to vote in one of the things at street

[1:41:57] parking, um, I just had a question, is it because

[1:41:59] on the actual slide 36 that has all the street

[1:42:02] ends, like for beach street, you lose five spaces, but

[1:42:06] do you have to do that in order for circulation

[1:42:08] to work there? Cause it seems like everyone's talking about

[1:42:10] circulation. And so is that one that we would like

[1:42:13] take out from voting? Is that one that like, we

[1:42:15] want to prioritize circulation over those five spaces? Are we

[1:42:19] voting on all, like all, all of them. Because it

[1:42:24] seems like you need that. Like everyone keeps talking about

[1:42:26] the beach street circulation right there. Is the part. And

[1:42:30] so if we vote no street ends, it seems like

[1:42:33] then we have a circulation problem on beach street. Is

[1:42:35] that correct? Number seven. Onslet page 36. And then the

[1:42:43] more of a boulevard, or sorry. Yeah. On dune street,

[1:42:47] you're actually getting plus two spaces. So it just seems

[1:42:50] like it's a little more nuanced than just like no

[1:42:53] street ends. And I'm not certainly voting for them. I

[1:42:54] don't care honestly that much either way, but it just

[1:42:56] seems like, are we going to have it if we

[1:42:58] say vote no to street ends? Like are we going

[1:43:00] to have a trouble at Beach Street to get the

[1:43:02] actuals like circulation and flow of pedestrians and cars right

[1:43:04] there. So if we're going to make a motion, what

[1:43:09] sounds better we want no street ends lost. Excluding beach

[1:43:14] street because that's how we end up getting the better

[1:43:17] pedestrian flow at the bottom of that stairs or bottom

[1:43:21] of that street. Or would you prefer the motion to

[1:43:25] be more on, we just don't agree with the street

[1:43:31] and conversion at moral bay Boulevard. So first of all,

[1:43:38] in the interest of time, what I was going to

[1:43:39] suggest is, um, I just, instead of doing the whole

[1:43:42] motion and second, I could just go down the list

[1:43:45] and then you could just do a, a straw poll

[1:43:48] vote of support or not on that. Um, you are

[1:43:51] right as far as street end parking. That discussion could

[1:43:55] be a little more nuanced if there is support for,

[1:43:59] um, converting just the beach street end in order to

[1:44:03] fix that intersection. I think that's maybe worth doing a

[1:44:07] vote on. And it sounds like it is from what

[1:44:11] I'm, what I'm hearing. And then of course, so what

[1:44:16] I'm hearing is, okay. So based on what we've heard

[1:44:21] so far, there's not a lot of support for converting

[1:44:25] the street ends into plazas. Um, but instead of just

[1:44:29] having that be the one vote, um, another option is

[1:44:34] to support, um, converting the beach street street end to

[1:44:39] a plaza because that's also necessary to fix that intersection,

[1:44:43] but the rest of the street ends still should not

[1:44:45] be changed. And then Dune Street, you're actually adding two.

[1:44:54] So you're actually going to lose two parking spots if

[1:44:55] you vote no for that one. Yeah. So cards. That's

[1:44:57] what I feel. I feel like beach street and Doon

[1:44:58] Street, it sounds like for the most part, we get

[1:45:01] more circulation and a plaza for Beach Street. We do

[1:45:04] leaves five spaces. But then Dune Street, you're adding two.

[1:45:06] So your net loss is like only three spacious. If

[1:45:09] you say yes to beach and dunes. And it sounds

[1:45:11] like most people don't want to take away the full

[1:45:13] 10 spaces at more Bay Boulevard. So it seems like

[1:45:15] there's more consensus that like 10 spaces a lot. And

[1:45:19] for the arc. Why don't we tackle that one first?

[1:45:23] Um, so first of all, I think everyone understands this,

[1:45:25] but the proposed concept is predicated on no net loss

[1:45:29] of parking. We've talked about that again. Many times. Um,

[1:45:32] so keep that in mind. But I think, um, committee

[1:45:37] member, Garrity has a great point that dunes and beach

[1:45:43] look a little different than the rest of the street

[1:45:44] ends. So the proposal I'm hearing, and I think we

[1:45:49] would like a wand pack vote on is, um, whether

[1:45:54] to. So I'm going to, so. For the street end

[1:46:03] parking lots. For beach and dunes to go ahead and

[1:46:13] convert those into the plazas as shown by staff, because

[1:46:18] again, beach is needed to fix that intersection and then

[1:46:22] dunes will result actually in a net gain in parking

[1:46:25] spaces. But that the wompack support for converting the rest

[1:46:29] of the street ends into a public plaza. So that's

[1:46:34] the, of course, I'm not making a motion, but I

[1:46:37] think that's what I like wack to vote on for

[1:46:39] the record. I think it would be a really clean

[1:46:42] motion if we say we like the plan as is

[1:46:45] except delete the street ends at the bottom of more

[1:46:48] available. That's, yeah, if that's, if you want to make

[1:46:55] that motion, I mean, we can do it that way.

[1:46:57] Our airline, one of the things that I understand about

[1:46:59] the beach street area and Chris is out there is

[1:47:01] that that's dedicated for commercial fishermen to park there. So

[1:47:05] are you eliminating that feature from the commercial fisherman? That's

[1:47:08] something that was something that was addressed in our, um,

[1:47:11] proposed concept where we would have bollards out there. So

[1:47:14] commercial fishermen could still have access to those spaces as

[1:47:16] needed for their operations. Well, then you can't have the

[1:47:19] plaza and the commercial fisherman parking in the same spot,

[1:47:22] can you? So yeah, wouldn't it be for, um, for

[1:47:25] the ballers would be for commercial fishermen to access the

[1:47:28] area for, you know, unloaded equipment, um, but you're right.

[1:47:31] It wouldn't be four, for like long - term parking.

[1:47:36] What would we be voting on then. So the one

[1:47:43] thing I'd like to add to, so we talk about

[1:47:46] net loss of parking, but if you say the flying

[1:47:49] Dutchman and his net loss is five spaces, but those

[1:47:53] five spaces are down at dioxide. It hurts him. Yeah.

[1:47:58] And so, so net loss, it could be different to

[1:48:02] me than it is to Paul. If you understand. So

[1:48:06] no net loss in front of his business, or it

[1:48:08] is net loss of say five. I'm just saying five

[1:48:11] or six spaces, but, but you gain way far away

[1:48:14] from it. It doesn't help him. It still defeats that

[1:48:19] purpose. And so what the, this came up during this

[1:48:21] in the subcommittee meeting and what think they came up

[1:48:23] with is within a 500 foot radius. Um, there should

[1:48:26] be no net loss of argument. That's the first I've

[1:48:29] heard of that. So, uh, and then, uh, as far

[1:48:32] as the street ended beach street and I'll address that

[1:48:34] again, um. I don't know if we have enough information

[1:48:39] to. To digest what could happen there. I mean, there's

[1:48:44] a little drawing here, but I mean, the stuff that

[1:48:46] has to go on there. And I don't know how

[1:48:48] much room is there. I've looked at drawings before, uh,

[1:48:50] for different projects. And when you look down on them,

[1:48:54] Oh, that looks really good. But then in reality you

[1:48:56] put a tape measure on them. They don't fit. And

[1:48:59] so, uh, to say, I think we, to say you

[1:49:03] can develop, you need beach street for that intersection, you

[1:49:07] may. I just don't know by looking at what we

[1:49:09] have here. What's it going to take? So to, to

[1:49:12] have a, uh, a pedestrian plaza there, which is exacerbate

[1:49:17] the problem that we have with people at that, that,

[1:49:20] that area already. I mean, that's the, it's not only,

[1:49:23] it's only, it's not only traffic. It's people moving across

[1:49:26] those intersections that it's a major problem when it comes

[1:49:29] to backing up traffic. I'll just say working with our

[1:49:33] transportation consultant. It's not that we think that there needs

[1:49:37] to be a playground there or some other example of

[1:49:41] different activity. It's clarifying where people are supposed to walk.

[1:49:46] Is part of the redesign. And so that is addressing

[1:49:50] the pedestrians. And then also, Charisse, I'm still a little

[1:49:54] confused whether you think the redesign is where it needs

[1:49:56] to be yet, but I know that with the transportation

[1:49:59] consultant, the way that it's drawn now was to continue

[1:50:04] to allow for the trucks or vehicles to get in

[1:50:07] for fueling. And it may not be able to be

[1:50:10] changed that much more. So just on those two things.

[1:50:13] But yeah, we were thinking about the pedestrian flow. Regardless

[1:50:18] of what, you know, if the plaza, um, because right

[1:50:23] now, as we all know, it's very confusing. For pedestrians

[1:50:26] in that spot. So go ahead. I just said, can

[1:50:30] you clarify, I was listening, but not well, um, about

[1:50:35] the no, no, no, can you about the known net

[1:50:38] loss within 500 feet of the, of, of the street

[1:50:43] end? Is that, can you talk about that a little

[1:50:45] bit. That's it. So that was a discussion topic at

[1:50:50] the parculking and circulation subcommittee meeting. And that's what the

[1:50:55] subcommittee agreed to was support of converting the street ends,

[1:51:01] um, provided that the loss of parking within a 500

[1:51:04] foot radius because that's a typical, you know, walking range.

[1:51:07] Okay. Just one comment before we go deeper on this

[1:51:11] too. If you look at Dune Street, just looking at

[1:51:16] it compared to Google Maps image, the parking seems to

[1:51:20] kind of make the pedestrian access like really close to

[1:51:25] geos. And I don't know if anyone has ever chosen

[1:51:27] to walk right in front of the takeout window there.

[1:51:30] I know I never have, um, because it's just very

[1:51:33] crowded with tourists and very difficult for traffic. So I

[1:51:36] just personally think that aside from the parking issues, there's

[1:51:41] just a lot of other issues with the proposal here.

[1:51:44] And so wouldn't feel comfortable voting for it. So, so

[1:51:50] we're, we're running out of time. And it seems like

[1:51:52] we run out of time every meeting. I don't know

[1:51:56] what we can get accomplished here as, as far as

[1:52:00] votes. I mean, it looks like we do want memorialize.

[1:52:05] Several things, maybe eight or 10 things, it looks like.

[1:52:09] And, uh, I don't know if we can put that

[1:52:10] together in the next. Nine minutes. Maybe you just go

[1:52:14] to some easier. So, and I don't know how to

[1:52:16] roll this. I know you're on a timeline, but, uh,

[1:52:20] this is, this is something that's going to have all

[1:52:23] our names on it for the next 20 years or

[1:52:24] 30 years. And it's really important to try to get

[1:52:26] it right. I'm not saying we're going to get it

[1:52:28] right, but we're going to do our best to get

[1:52:30] it right. So I don't know, can we, uh, can

[1:52:34] I make a question? Go ahead. So one of the

[1:52:37] things that throughout this process, I've been told is that

[1:52:39] we want coastal commission to get this and approve it.

[1:52:44] And one of their big things is the widening of

[1:52:47] sidewalks and public access on the Waterfront. Am I incorrect

[1:52:52] in saying that? That it's that we really do want

[1:52:55] to show that we're broadening the pedestrian area on the

[1:52:59] harbor. It's a requirement of our general plan. So it's

[1:53:02] a requirement of our general plan. So if we just

[1:53:05] hired everybody to do all of this and figure it

[1:53:07] out and then figure other parking spaces, I think that

[1:53:11] that's what we've been asking them to do. So if

[1:53:14] we say no to it, I don't, it's kind of,

[1:53:17] we've got to give and take a little bit. And

[1:53:19] I think getting rid of making a motion to just

[1:53:22] say, um, we like the way that it is except

[1:53:25] for we don't want the moral bay boulevard street end

[1:53:31] to be converted. I think we've accomplished a good amount

[1:53:34] of parking spaces in the other things that the staff

[1:53:38] has done. I agree with exception. I'm doing this for

[1:53:42] this people in more obey, not the coastal commission. Myself.

[1:53:51] Can we just start maybe voting on a few things?

[1:53:55] Yeah. So I mean, this is again, I think the

[1:53:56] most tricky one. And I think the wand pack needs

[1:54:00] to just discuss among yourselves and come up with emotion

[1:54:03] and about on this. And we've been talking about it

[1:54:04] for, for over a year. So I don't think, I

[1:54:07] mean, yes, in a way, it's rushed, but again, we've

[1:54:09] been going over the same concepts for quite some time

[1:54:11] now. And so I think. We haven't had the details

[1:54:16] because I'm looking at this drawing. I don't get it.

[1:54:19] I mean, it looks like you narrowed the road a

[1:54:22] little bit. Is that right? Uh, so there's a, so

[1:54:27] for the street going south on in Barcadero at beach,

[1:54:33] there's a left turn and a straight. And that's going

[1:54:37] to continue like that. There's not a, I mean, it

[1:54:40] looks narrowed. Doesn't look narrow to me. Because you got

[1:54:46] the, you got that, I don't know if it's a

[1:54:48] parklet at the end there on that side. So that's

[1:54:51] what's my hurdle right there. It's like, how does that,

[1:54:56] I can't tell how that's going to work by just

[1:54:58] that little drawing on there. Doesn't make sense to me.

[1:55:01] I can't vote on that. I don't, I don't like

[1:55:05] the way it's. So Arlen, how do we, how do

[1:55:07] we move forward today, uh, and be prepared for the

[1:55:12] next one. I mean, uh, can, can we, uh, obviously

[1:55:16] it looks like we're not ready to vote on revised,

[1:55:19] pervert alternate night. That's what looks like to me. I

[1:55:22] mean, that's what I'm assuming. And then I think it

[1:55:24] looks like there's eight or 10 things that we like

[1:55:26] memorialize. Did you say you had written down some things

[1:55:29] that you wanted to add. Yeah. Could you do that?

[1:55:33] Yeah. So let's see, we went over elevator, the 82,

[1:55:36] a three straight imparking, the RV camping glamping. Um, the

[1:55:40] other one was the one way circulation. I think that

[1:55:43] could be a straightforward one because our circulation and consultants

[1:55:46] said that would not gain any parking spaces or provide

[1:55:48] any real benefit that makes it worth pursuing any further.

[1:55:52] But I did hear some interest in that on the

[1:55:54] committee. So wanted to bring that up. Widening the bridge,

[1:55:57] I put that here. However, that's already shown in the

[1:56:00] plan. So I don't think we actually have to have

[1:56:02] a separate vote on that. I did hear an idea

[1:56:05] from committee member Hanson about employee parking. I believe on

[1:56:08] the top of market, I think was at Pacific and

[1:56:10] market. Parking lot. So I haven't heard from other committee

[1:56:14] members on that idea. And then, um, whether or not

[1:56:17] to continue the harbor walk to target rock. Um, I

[1:56:23] don't need motion to do the employee parking. I think

[1:56:26] that the business is down there can actually work together

[1:56:28] to make that happen, um, just as long as it's

[1:56:31] a safe travel. So, um. If we want to make

[1:56:35] a motion to approve this as is with the other

[1:56:38] edits, the ones that I see, if I could do

[1:56:40] this, get this done is one, um, a glass elevator

[1:56:46] at the base of more obey to embarcadero street level.

[1:56:49] Um, second edit would be combined parking A2 and A3

[1:56:56] and remove the word restripe. And for number three, it

[1:57:00] would be that no street end parkings are converted into

[1:57:07] plazas. Except with the exception of Beach Street, which, um,

[1:57:14] with the exception of beach street, because that's really not

[1:57:16] a plaza, right? It is. Cause it's still has parking.

[1:57:23] Well, all the pedestrian pedestrian connection. It looks like it

[1:57:26] is. So as long as that's not considered applezai, you

[1:57:29] know, the area that they have for the pavers for

[1:57:32] the parking and the fuel. It says it is. It

[1:57:35] says it's a plaza. It says, yeah, public plaza. I

[1:57:38] think the idea is if that, that parking lot exit

[1:57:40] is blocked off so it doesn't go into the beat

[1:57:42] street intersection. What are we going to do with that

[1:57:44] space? I think that's what we would need. Well, I

[1:57:46] think you still need to, whatever you put there, you

[1:57:49] can't put a whole lot because you're going to have

[1:57:52] fuel trucks and, and fishermen loading and unloading. I wouldn't

[1:57:58] consider a plaza. And, um, and I think that those

[1:58:03] are the three main important things. So if we want

[1:58:08] to. I'm wondering if we also, if the broad consensus,

[1:58:12] I've heard before that there was for the expansion of

[1:58:14] the maritime museum. I'm wondering if it would be quite

[1:58:17] easy to just add that as well to codify. Cause

[1:58:19] I think we as a committee had discussed. I don't

[1:58:22] think that's what the committee is here for. We can't,

[1:58:25] we're not supporting businesses or the plan on that. I

[1:58:28] don't think that's, I just don't agree with that. Okay.

[1:58:32] That's fine. Endless. Yeah. No, I was just testing the

[1:58:34] waters because I thought we had kind of a line

[1:58:36] as a committee on that before, but that's fine. We

[1:58:38] don't need a complicated if there's not support. I'll make

[1:58:41] a motion if you want me to. If you want

[1:58:43] to take a hell of a cart and just make

[1:58:45] a motion on the, I'll rephrase it just for notes.

[1:58:49] You want to use that. I'll make a motion. Yeah.

[1:58:51] We'll see if it passes. I hope it does. Okay.

[1:58:53] Um, we approve the, uh, revised plan as is with

[1:58:58] the following exceptions that at the base of moral bay

[1:59:02] boulevard to embroider a street level. We put a viewing

[1:59:07] elevator. Number two, combined parking A2A3 and remove restrict from

[1:59:14] that. And then three no street ends completely converted into

[1:59:20] plazas. One second.

[1:59:30] No. No, because parts of that I like and parts

[1:59:33] of it I don't like the combine at all in

[1:59:35] one. If we could just do a quick, uh, like

[1:59:38] a vote on the elevator, a vote on the harbor

[1:59:40] walk and a vote on that's, you know. Okay. I'll

[1:59:42] make that motion to accept the glass elevator at the

[1:59:46] base of Moral Babel of our to embark at Air

[1:59:48] Street level and to number two, to combine parking A2

[1:59:53] and A3 and remove the word restrict. You like those

[1:59:56] two. I'll second that. Any

[2:00:06] discussed? So by doing that, or agreeing with the actual,

[2:00:11] um, everything. And that also includes the street and plazas.

[2:00:14] No. I'm not agreeing to that. In each one individually.

[2:00:19] Okay. So. Are we setting aside the speed end plaza.

[2:00:27] So are we setting aside the street end plaza part?

[2:00:32] Okay. Yes. So committee member Hanson. Taking the vote.

[2:00:41] Yes. So what's stopping us from. Calling the meeting and

[2:00:48] working on this a little bit somehow and haven't, I

[2:00:51] know you have to have a timeline, but I mean,

[2:00:53] everything we're going to do here, it's now five o'clock.

[2:00:55] We have a hard stop at five. And everything we

[2:00:57] could do is going to be rushed. And that's right.

[2:01:03] I know for prepared to, are we prepared to make

[2:01:08] stopping us right now? It's the fact that we have

[2:01:09] emotional table that we need to do a call on.

[2:01:11] There is a motion on the table. So, uh, got

[2:01:15] second. So all those in favor of, uh, Charissa's motion

[2:01:19] say aye. Aye. Opposed. No. No. So motion passes five,

[2:01:29] two. Let's do a roll call.

[2:01:40] Can we clarify what, what we were actually just voting

[2:01:43] on right now. Is it to, was it the whole,

[2:01:46] the whole. Just two items. It's just feelings on two

[2:01:52] specific changes regarding and it's not saying if you only

[2:01:55] change those two things, then we approve. Okay. Did you

[2:02:01] want to roll call? Yeah. So I'm going to go

[2:02:02] ahead and do, I'll do a roll call vote. Okay.

[2:02:05] On this. So committee member Hanson. Committee member Donnally. Yes.

[2:02:11] Committee member Costanzo. Yes. Many member Garrity? Yes. Committee member

[2:02:16] Luker. No. Committee member Wachowski? Yes. Vice chair talking to

[2:02:21] Zini. No.

[2:02:32] So motion passes. Five to two. So that's the support.

[2:02:39] The revised preferred alternative with those. No. It was, well,

[2:02:48] sorry. My understanding the way it was just explained to

[2:02:50] me was that was specifically voting on two changes. So

[2:02:56] it was at least my vote was not saying if

[2:03:00] you just changed those two things, I support the revised

[2:03:04] alternative. It was just to vote on those specific changes.

[2:03:09] At least that's what I thought was just explained to

[2:03:11] me. And that's what my vote was on. That's what

[2:03:15] I said. My understanding was also. So are we in

[2:03:18] agreement that the only thing that we're still concerned about

[2:03:21] changing and making it a different motion is the street

[2:03:25] ends. So far. Okay. So does anybody else have a

[2:03:30] motion that they want to put out there to the

[2:03:34] one last final concept? I make a motion that we

[2:03:37] not convert any of the street and parkinso or anything

[2:03:40] else that they remain as they are. Aye second.

[2:03:50] Are we voting on just a single item, not the,

[2:03:52] not the whole. Austrians, but not, not the rest of

[2:03:57] the. Okay. We're all clearing that. Okay. All those in

[2:04:02] favor. How about you a roll? I opposed. No. I'm

[2:04:07] going to do a roll call about the fetal mindset

[2:04:09] promozini. So we're at 503. Is it a hard stop

[2:04:14] at five or helped me with this? I mean, half

[2:04:16] starts at 530. I think we can go a few

[2:04:18] minutes over. And you think we can get this done

[2:04:20] fairly and equitably? Uh, yeah, we have one other item

[2:04:24] though. Um, it's creating the submitting for Design Guidelines, but

[2:04:28] let's, we have the motion in second on the table.

[2:04:30] So. Yeah. Okay. I'm going to go ahead and do

[2:04:32] the roll call. Okay. So committee member Donnally. Yes. Committee

[2:04:36] member or vice chair, dog musine. And this is just

[2:04:41] on those two items and not on the whole, the

[2:04:44] one item, excuse me. Yes. Um, committee member Costanzo. Yes.

[2:04:50] And the number Hanson? No. Committee member Garrity. No. Many

[2:04:55] member Luker. Committee member Wachowski. Yes.

[2:05:23] So that was the. Question. No, it doesn't pass, correct?

[2:05:33] No, it. Tastes four. It did. Yeah. Four three. Yeah.

[2:05:40] It passed. Yeah. So it's four three to pass the

[2:05:42] motion. Mr. Lance. So where are we now.

[2:05:53] So now there's the balance of the plan. Just confirmation

[2:05:56] of support for the balance of the revised preferred alternative.

[2:06:03] And when can we memorialize some of the things we've

[2:06:06] talked about. When, when does that come in? If we

[2:06:09] just go right to the vote, then we're not able

[2:06:11] to memorialize the different things we've talked about. As far

[2:06:15] as an emotion. Well, there could be additional motions if

[2:06:18] the items that aren't shown in the preferred alternative or

[2:06:21] weren't covered in those additional motions. We just covered. So

[2:06:30] if I'm following along the right way for us to

[2:06:33] do this right now is that we, um, agree on

[2:06:36] the plan in totality minus the three things that we

[2:06:39] just made motions about. Correct? Correct. I make the motion

[2:06:43] to accept with the previous motions. Can you say that

[2:06:51] again, please? What are we doing? Sorry. We are approving

[2:06:54] the plan as is with the exceptions of the last

[2:06:57] two motions that we made. I second. Yes.

[2:07:08] You're going to do a roll call or you want

[2:07:10] to do this. I'm just ready to go. So can

[2:07:12] you do the motion again, please? The motion is to

[2:07:16] accept the revised plan as is with the exception of

[2:07:20] the previous two motions that we made. And. Where Mary

[2:07:30] seconded. So we just need a roll call. Those in

[2:07:36] favor. I'm going to go ahead and do the roll

[2:07:38] call. So committee member Hanson. Yes. Committee member Wachowski. Yes.

[2:07:51] Committee member Costanzo. Yes. Committee member Donnally. No.

[2:08:01] Member Garrity. Yes. Committee member Luker? Yes. And vice chair

[2:08:10] talking to Zini. No. The motion passes five, two. That's

[2:08:19] the direction, uh, that we need on the revised preferred

[2:08:23] alternative. There's one other item I'm hoping we can squeeze

[2:08:26] in here. And that is forming a subcommittee for the

[2:08:29] design guidelines. So do we have any volunteers that would

[2:08:34] like to be in the subcommittee for the guidelines, I

[2:08:37] guess we can take up to four. Is that what

[2:08:38] it is? I know Steven Peck would like to be

[2:08:40] on it. Can I just ask a question about do

[2:08:43] you do those meetings in person or is it possible

[2:08:45] to Zoom on those meetings. The past subcommittee meetings have

[2:08:49] been in person. It's been helpful to have everyone in

[2:08:52] the room, but I think if the committee member who

[2:08:54] really wants to be on a subcommittee and we can

[2:08:56] accommodate a Zoom participation. I'd like to. Go ahead and

[2:09:06] yeah, I'd like Steven Paul. Who else. Uh, I'd like

[2:09:10] to be an aught too as a planning commission representative.

[2:09:14] It's three enough. Do you need four. It could be

[2:09:17] up to four. Oh, I'd like to do. It if

[2:09:20] nobody else. But I'll have to be probably by Zoom.

[2:09:22] I'm sorry. I'd like to do it probably by Zoom

[2:09:25] though. Okay. If it's September. Okay. So that do what

[2:09:32] we need to have motion on that? No, so subcommittee

[2:09:34] will consist of committee member Donna Lee. Wakowski chairpek and

[2:09:39] committee member Luker. Thank you. So where we at adjournment.

[2:09:48] I think we're ready for you to take a motion

[2:09:51] for a tournament. I'd like to take a motion for

[2:09:53] a tournament place. Move the wee adjourn. All in favor.

[2:09:59] Aye.

Waterfront Master Plan Advisory Committee

Agenda

Transcript