Staff, are we ready to proceed? Thank you. It appears
we have a quorum, so I'll ask the clerk to
call the roll. Committee member Costanzo. Present.
Committee member Donnelly. Committee member Hanson. Here. Committee member Tognazini.
Committee member Wachowski. Here, chairperson Peck. Yes. We are all
here and have a quorum. Thank you. First item of
business is committee announcements. Are there any announcements from the
committee. Seeing none. I just want to give our thanks
to Gene and Melody for their service. Always good to
have people with that perspective and history to sort of
guide the process and wish them certain luck. Next order
business, our director announcements, Director Singwald. Are there any announcements
or presentations under your agenda item. Thank committee members. I'm
Errolment Director. And this is going to yield my director
announcements to our city attorney, Brian Stock, excuse me, to
speak to conflict of interest guidelines. Good afternoon. My name,
Brian Stack, city attorney. I was asked by the director
of the Community Development Department to provide a little overview
of conflict of interest rules and provide maybe a little
insight or guidance on how to potentially handle them as
you encounter it was during your review. I guess as
a housekeeping note, I'm here at wearing my city attorney
hat. So I represent the interests of the city. I
am not providing any individual legal advice to individual members
of this committee, but merely providing guidance from the city's
perspective to try and protect the integrity of this process.
So to the extent that you have any individual concerns,
I'm happy to talk with you. But if there's any
significant level of concern, you would need to seek your
own legal advice. Stepping back, broadly speaking, you know, conflict
of interest rules apply if you are a public official.
That's going to be engaged in making a decision. And
you have a disqualifying financial interest. So the couple of
elements that need to be unpacked. And I won't unpack
all of them north. Do I think I could do
that in a short way that's understandable? But let's assume
your public officials, you are on a committee that's going
to prepare recommendations to the city council regarding a legislative
update. Or what I would consider a legislative update policy
document. So we'll assume that you fall under as a
public official. You know, there may be some gray area
there. And so that's why most of my guidance will
be air on the side of caution. So on this
instance, let's err on the side of caution assume that
our public officials bound by the conflict of interest rules.
So now it goes to disqualifying financial interests. And there's
two main categories I can think of regarding this planning
area. One would be a business, a financial interest in
a business that operates in the plan area and having
a property intra in the plan area. I think to
a large extent, there may be a lot of overlap
because a lot of businesses in this area either lease
or own the property, you know, from which they are
operating a business out. And in preparing for today, and
try and get to the heart of matter, the business
interests and how you get disqualified are the threshold standards.
So if it's more, if your business interests might be
affected by more than a million dollars, that's disqualifying financial
interest. Or if there's going to be a, I believe
it's five percent change in gross revenues.
But it has to be at least 10, 000 dollars
So the math that needs to be done. And it's
also always kind of a subjective question of like, what's
the likely business impact? Uh, so I think it's easier
to follow the property interest rules, distance from the, from
your interest to what you're being asked to weigh in
on. And the regulations by the FPPC fair political practices
commission, uh, they, they do them kind of in 500
tranches within 500 feet, it's presumed to be a disqualifying
interest, uh, unless that there won't be, uh, on, on
that real property invest. In between 500 and a thousand
feet, it would be a disqualifying interest. I think boiling
it down as if it will likely stanchly alter of
that immediate substantially altering traffic levels, use, parking, views, privacy
noise, uh, things of that nature. Anything beyond a thousand
feet, presumed not to be a disqualifying interest unless the
clear enhancing evidence that there would be an impact. So,
um, I think it's most important to think about the
500 foot, anything within that my general recommendation would be
not to weigh in on a product feature that is
within 500 feet real property interest. Anything in between 500
and a thousand feet, if it's going to involve a
change, uh, that is relatively isolated to that area in
traffic, adding more lanes, significantly removing or adding parking, changing
circulation, I would recommend to not weigh in on that
specific chature. And there, if you're, if you're, if you
feel, have a potential disqualifying interest, the recommendation would be
to not vote on that specific component. And instead, uh,
step down from, um, IS. And you can speak as
a member of the public on the issue. And then
we'd ask that you'd leave the room. Have that voter.
And then when it's done, you can come back and
continue to weigh in and vote on, you know, other
items before you. Another overarchy umbrella is, and why a
lot of you are here is because you either have
some say business interest or specialized knowledge or experience with
this area. So it's, there's kind of this like catch
22, it feels like, right? Like we're asked you to
be here, but then also if you have an interest,
you have to be careful. And so there is this
public general exception. So if there's not going to be
unique impacts to your interest, you have the ability to
still weigh in on that. Um, what we're really focused
on or features that would cause unique impacts to your
interest. And in those situations, we would ask or recommend,
uh, that you recruse yourself. You can speak to it
as a member of the public. Uh, and then, you
know, come back into the room once that matter has
been decided. And there is, and again, another wrinkle is
leases are generally treated differently than having like a fee
interest in the property. But like business interests, there's a
subjective nature to it. And with leases, it says, you
know, there would be a disqualifying interest if it may
increase or decrease the potential rental value of the property,
or it may impact your use and enjoyment of the
property. I don't find that very helpful. And so I
tend to go back to, okay, let's follow as if
you own the property foot, use those metrics. Cause I
think they're more helpful and easier to follow. Um, and,
um, that's kind of my short summary, uh, off the
cus or any further follow up, I think to provide
context for when this be implicated. I understand there's planning
topic area - wide. I don't think this conflict of
interest advice is implicated during those discussions. But you may
have cite - specific discussions about, say, should we alter
circulation here? Should we remove parking here? Should we add
parking here? I think those are the site - specific
features where the conflict of interest related may come up.
And where my, you know, recommendation on how to handle
those would come into play. So to start off the
discussion, I know there are some members on the committee
who do have business interests and probably property interest. Could
you tell us a little bit more about substantially if
the action is taking two parking spaces here and putting
them over here in about the same area? Is that
a substantial change? Or there's no net increase or decrease.
So if it's a zero sum, is that a conflict?
And I guess I just want to get that out.
Also, the committee is not concerned with. Zonings or rezonings.
We're not determining that. In some cases, we may say
within this part will be parking. This part will be
a building. Don't know if we're going to get that
granular. But, um. We're sort of putting together the pieces
of the puzzle after the city is already determined with
the land uses are going to be. So could you
speak to that a little bit? So we're clear. Yeah,
I'll take the first one. And what qualifies as a
substantial change or substantially altering is, I think normally guided
by, use your best judgment. I think there's certainly taking
into account the percentage change is a good way often
to look at it. If you're removing two or you're
changing two out of 100 parking spot, I think the
chances that, uh, regulator would find financial is low. If
you're changing two out of four spots, that's 50 percent,
you know, that could be more substantial if that is
a substantial feature of that area, right? If force parking
spot, um, I can, I can give some examples of
where, you know, the FPPC advice letters, which are kind
of a safe harbor provision. So if you do have
any specific concerns, you can always seek advice from the
FPPC and they can issue an opinion letter. And if
it gives you safe harbor from future enforcement action, should
their opinion be, you don't have a disqualifying interest. And
then the later determination that there was, in fact. Uh,
disqualifying interests. So they, they issue letters. And those can
be helpful to provide helpful examples. The recent letters, a
lot of the facts are regarding rezoning or allowing greater
density for new large housing projects. So going from sites
that are 20 units in acre to like 60 over
four or five, 10 acre site. And those properties have
been fit between 500 and a thousand foot from the
public officials residents or business. And the FPPC is generally
said, yeah, we think that's a substantial change because you're
adding a lot more people likely impacts on traffic and
parking. So, uh, I think, um, again, I tend to
come from it from a percentage standpoint. And using your
best judgment on whether this, whether you feel this is
a substantial change or not. I'll open up for the
committee comments and questions. Again, we're not concerned with rezoning.
The property has been zoned. We're not tasked with rezoning.
The densities won't change. There may be some design requirements
that may change because that's part of our task. But
just want to sort of get clear, because I imagine
that the workaround on this is eventually going to be
that I'm conflicted on this issue related to this property.
And we need to create a straw vote around that.
So that anybody who's conflicted on it, uh, won't vote
on it. They can comment on it, but they won't
be able to vote. And then we take another straw
vote on something that we're another member might be conflicted.
And then we sort of put it all together and
move that on. Is that the normal course of action
where we have sort of a Swiss cheese of potential
conflicts? Yes. Uh, sorry. I forgot to mention that concept.
FPPC calls it segmenting. It's definitely an appropriate way to
handle and it would be through the straw vote process.
So you can break down discrete issues. I straw votes.
Do you recuse yourself if you think you have a
conflict from that specific straw vote? And at the end
of all this, you can still vote on the overall
plan, including all the straw votes. Um, so that is
an appropriate way to handle that. As far as I
forgot to answer your second part of the question about
zoning, yeah, I'll defer to the department obviously on the
nature of the scope of this. But it's not, uh,
you know, it's not just land use zoning regulations that
can trigger conflict of interest rules. It can be park
improvements, uh, circulation changes. Any action that the city may
take pursuant to this plan, that can be, that would
be an official decision that could get triggered or would
trigger conflict of interest rule. So it's not just zoning.
It's, it's if we add this beautiful park right here,
that's a site specific feature. Is there a likely impact
to your interest that's between 500 and 1, 000 feet.
As an example. Questions from the committee. Before I accepted,
uh, spot on this committee, I talked to Rob Schultz.
And he has a different perspective than you do. Um,
I'm concerned that you're not going to protect us, that
you're here to protect the city, but you're not protecting
people on the committee. It makes you almost not want
to vote on anything, to be honest with you. If
I may respond, it's by protecting the city, the intent
would it also hopefully protect the committee members, uh, it's
just, I can't give legal binding advice to individual committee
members. Sorry if that was misunderstood. So as far as
I know tonight, we don't have anything on the agenda
that's requires a vote. But we do have things that
require comments and input from stakeholders. So knowing that is
there a point, because we're talking about, um, and CAP
streets and parking, pretty much your example, um, would you
suggest that either of us, any of us that are
up here that have, um, benefits if we get one
more parking space that we should absolutely do public comment
this evening instead of speak when we're supposed to. So
if I may, I think that's actually a good example
where the discussion at this meeting is more high level,
uh, as far as the approach to that specific issue
in general plan policy regarding replacing the parking spaces with
pedestrian connections. I think all the WAMPAC members can certainly
provide comments on that. As far as when this could
become a concern, I actually have one of the slides
in my presentation that lists out the planned agenda items
for future WAMPAC meetings. And June 4th is the WAMPAC
meeting where we plan to present our, um, the preferred
concept plans that we get based on public input from
the workshop number three. And that's when we'll start to
see actual lines on a map showing parking spaces removed
or added or park improvements. The very specific tangible proposals,
um, the chair would most likely want to take a
straw pole and have people who are conflicted out recuse
themselves. And to build on that to the extent that
there's additional time. The city attorney is an official that
can submit a request for an opinion letter from the
FPPC. So I'd be happy to do that. Um, to
provide, you know, they always couch their opinions on, based
on these facts, you know. So the limit on how
much information you can provide them or a different hypotheticals,
but if there's any general overarching questions that you'd like
some opinion on, I'd be happy to do that. Again,
provide some more shirts to the committee members. Um, I,
I would appreciate that any of these future meetings that
you think that there is an obvious conflict of interest,
um, that you give us a heads up, um, specifically.
So we can have the time to write something for
correspondence or have something prepared for public comment to get
it in in three minutes. Thank you.
Thank you, Mr. Stack. There's an item on the gender
of public comment. I will say that tonight, because we're
dealing with multiple action items under when agenda items, we're
going to be expanding that public comment period of five
minutes. So don't feel the need to run out the
clock. If you don't need to, but, uh, want to
make sure everybody has some time to get that, uh,
information in. First action item is the waterfront master plan
advisory committee minutes from January 8. Are there comments or
questions on the minutes as presented. Seeing none is our
motion to approve. I move, we approve second. Sorry. All
those in favor. Aye. Thank you. Any opposed. Thank you.
Item 5b is the background report community workshop number two
and the street and pedestrian connections issue focus. Uh, these
are our main items of business tonight under one agenda
item. And they include the review and comment on the
news sections of the background report. Review and comment on
workshop number two and initial conversations and discussion of implementation
of general plan policy on the treatment of street ends.
We'll start with a presentation on these items of staff
pausing. For committee comments on the presentation material after each
item. Then proceed to public comment on the three items.
And then bring it back to the committee for comments.
Also note in the staff report that requests is to
focus on new material presented. Uh, staff has presented the
material. It's quite voluminous. If you have written comments that
you'd like to submit, that you're not able to get
into night, please do so. Um, those comments will be
reviewed in appropriate modifications rolled into the final background report.
So I want to also note that the appropriate time
for comment on the items is after completion of the
entire staff presentation and public comment. And we'll take each
item, each action item separately. So let's start with presentation.
Director Singwald. Thank you Mr. Chair. So I'm going to
present the first couple of slides. Them in turn number
two are consultant Amy Sinsheimer who's joining us via Zoom
this afternoon. And I'll slide as she presents. So the
agenda as the chair mentioned, first I'm going to start
by about what the goals are for this meeting that
I have a timeline for the next four months of
our waterfront planning journey. And then, uh, Amy is going
to present the background report and workshop number two items
on the agenda. Then I'll wrap it up with the,
uh, issue focused on the three M pedestrian connections to
get that conversation started. So as the chair mentioned, this
is a voluminous agenda packet to help the, uh, committee
get through this, um, meeting as efficiently as possible. I
wanted to start off with outlining the goals for what
will a successful meeting look like at 5 p. m.
when we're likely to wrap up. So first again, as
chairpek mentioned, we'll receive input from one pack members and
the public on sections of a draft background report that
the WOMPAC has not already seen and commented on. And
just as a reminder, the WAMPAC has already commented on
the market study, the transportation background report, the waterfront history
statement and the status of the proposals for the 1996
waterfront master plan. Now, I know you may have comments
that you want to make on some of those other
topics that we've discussed in the past such as the
market study. You're welcome to make those comments. But remember,
we have a limited time in our goals really to
look at the other sections of the background report that
we haven't had a chance to discuss yet. Next, um,
successful meeting will look like the WAMPAC will know what
to expect at the upcoming workshop. Well, we'll know what
to expect for our February 25th community workshop held in
this room at 6 p. m. Amy's going to present
on that. And then we're also going to get into
that topic of the street end pedestrian connections. And what
we hope to get some initial, um, direction and thoughts
from Wampak members and the public on that topic. And
then finally, I wanted to just remind the committee in
public of a message that I made when I first
won pack meeting that we really are one team. I
mean, staff, the consultant, the WAMPAC, the public. Our decision
makers. And I'm certain that we have a shared goal
to get the best possible water for master plan that
really likes the values of the community and honors what
a special place more obey is. And just kind of
keep you there successful and productive medium. And I alluded
to a few minutes ago. What I really want to
convey, I want to convey things from, from this slide.
First, you can see how many columns of public input
we have over the next four months. I've mentioned before
that when we scope this out request for proposals, we
very intentionally made public comment, a critical component of the
scope and maximize public participation. We see that in Mont
Blanca meetings, be that in having five, five workshops planned,
um, our goal is to vet material with the WAMPAC
and the public, of course, who joins the WAMPAC meetings
or watches them, um, before that information is presented at
a workshop. So it's a very, um, involved public process.
So as far as the specifics of this work plan
for the next four months, I call it destination concept
plans. At the first workshop, I use this analogy of,
we're going on a journey together. And for this segment
of the journey, the main focus is concept plans. We
want to develop. The concept plants. So, um, where we
are currently is the February 5th, Juan Pack meeting reviewing
that draft background report, the input that we get from
the WAMPAC today. We are going to use to update
the background report and put together a final background report.
That's the next column over the deliverable. That final background
report will be one of the main items we present
at the February 25th workshop. However, also at the workshop,
we're going to get input from the community on a
draft division statement. And ideas and proposals for the character
areas. Now with the first workshop community members shared a
pretty long list of their ideas and proposals for the
six different character areas, we're going to present those ideas
that we already heard from the community at the first
workshop. And we're also going to, so we're going to
get input from other community members on those ideas and
proposals that we heard previously and we're also taking additional
ideas for, um, the different character areas. And we'll get
input on a draft vision statement. Then we'll present that
information to the WAMPAC on March 5th, the WAMPAC will
help us finalize the vision statement. The vision statement is
really important because it sets the direction for the alternative
concept plans that we develop for each of the sixth
character areas. And once you have the final vision statement,
then the next item is we'll use that to develop
what I'm calling a framework for alternatives. And this is
a way we can get some initial WAMPAC input on
the alternatives that we create before we present those at
a workshop. This will present this framework, which will be
more of a written description of what the alternatives will
include. We'll present that to WAMPAC in April. Once we
maybe make some edits based on WAMPAC, uh, input, we
will finalize placeworks will go and develop those different concept
plans. And we will, uh, unveil those at the public
workshop at number three. And we'll get the public's reaction
and comments on those various alternatives. And we'll then present
the concepts to the WAMPAC along with what we heard
from the public and ask the WAMPAC at the June
4th meeting to begin to decide on the preferred concept
plans for each of the six character areas. I know
that's a lot of information. It's a very involved process.
It is going to be a lot of work over
the next four months. I think that the level of
volume of this agenda packet is pretty much representative of
what you can expect to see the next four months.
So thank you so much for your volunteering. So much
of your time and expertise to this work effort. It
really is. It's a lot. And with that, I will
turn it over to Ms. Sinsheim or a placeworks to
give a presentation on the background report. Good afternoon. Can
you guys hear me all right. Yes. We hear you,
Amy. Excellent. Sorry. I couldn't be there in person today.
Um, as chair PEC said, we'll start with an overview
of, uh, the parts of the background report that haven't
been presented yet. And then pause for the committee before
we go into the next item. So, um, before we
dive into the new sections, though, I actually, would you
advance to the table of content slide. Eryn. Or whoever's
running. Okay. Thank you. So before diving into the more
details, I just want to make sure everyone has a
kind of the concept of how the document is put
together. So you've seen the market scan and the transportation
report. Those are appendices to the main background report. So
you see those there at the end. That's the full
reports for both of those. And then we do have
summaries of both of those within the main report as
well. So, um. Just to touch on where things are
at with the pieces that you've seen already, um, you've
weighed in on the two appendices like Ireland said. And
we have reviewed all the comments on both of those
and made some updates, um, and some examples are there
are some places where the data needed updating or expanding
on one example is in the previous version, the commercial
fishing baseline year was 2014. And we got some good
feedback that that was a year that was had pretty
high catch numbers and didn't really represent a lot of
the surrounding years in terms of the trends. So we
were able to revise that to start in 2012 and
that adjusted the trends, hopefully to be more realistic. Another
example is the rental data, um, along the waterfront. The
initial report did have, um, information from the co -
star data source. And that was all retail properties, not
just the leases along the waterfront. And that's been revised
based on some assistance we got from the harbor department
and data that they have to include the average annual
rents for the lease properties. And so that's now been
included as a call out box on the retail rents
page of the market scan. Um, other edits to both
the market scan and the transportation report or more for
adding context to what's in there. Um, for the market
scan, there was a page that includes information about different
regions outside of the central coast where potential visitors could
be, uh, gained from. And we wanted to make sure
that we clarified that the Fresno, um, metropolitan statistic area.
Actually just included the Fresno area, not the whole central
valley. So there's been some language added to clarify that.
Uh, for the transportation report. There have been some updates
to, um, information about traffic counts and the conclusions related
to the plan mortgate EIR. And also some updates related
to parking and collision discussions, uh, these are just a
few examples. There are things that were commented on that
have not been addressed yet in the edits and they
will be addressed in later parts of the process. For
example, future demand and total square footage for retail and
hospitality uses. That really needs to be tied to the
concepts that Eryn was just mentioning. So the concepts for
the different character areas. Um, in addition, we had some
input about making sure we're looking at the regional salon
of subisco county, um, demand and context. And that will
also be part of that demand analysis. Um, also as
part of the visioning process as we move forward with
that, we'll be looking on looking at local resident preferector.
So as Ireland mentioned, you have also weighed in and
the public has weighed in on the 1996 WMP proposals
as well as the, um, draft history statement. And those
edits have not been made yet, but those will be,
we've noted the feedback and the edits that have been
agreed to and those will be part of the final
background in court. So we can move on to the
next slide. So now we just, uh. Let's see. This
might be a little out of order from what I
have, but that's fine. Uh, we want to. Give a
little more information about the sections that are new that
are in the main part of the background report. So
a lot of this is really, you know, setting the
stage for what are the regulations that are already in
place either at the local level or state regulations.
And the guide, the waterfront, so the existing uses in
range, um, things land use designations and policies as well
as your zoning that's in place. My next slide, please.
And for the California Coastal Act and your local coastal
plan and program apply in this area, uh, the sea
levelized guidance from the coastal commission is being, is reflected
in this report and is what we're using to work
on the C - level rise analysis as part of
the project. There are also regulations related to the tide
lens trust area and the leases. It's included here. The
next slide has the two ordinances, measured D and measure
A24, actually the voter initiatives that are in place in
certain parts of the waterfront. To God in those areas.
Slide, please. We also have details on the landownership mix.
A long waterfront. We have information that you have already
reviewed on the 1996. We have information about other plans.
Good plan, there's our plan that was prepared for the
proposed project at the power plant a few years ago.
And the city's clean from the work we're doing now.
Um, this is the list that has been updated every
meeting since any of the project background report of projects
and efforts that are underway. And then finally, there are
a couple of sections summarizing other efforts and plans, um,
not initiated by initiated by there was a Cali Holly
student project that looked at areas of the waterfront last
year. Uh, the city has the information about and has
been shared. It has some ideas for this plan and
also the 2022 offshore wind study that reached conducted. Is
something that some of the waterfront master plan area. Next
slide, please. So the background report also summer of the
public engagement that occurred earlier last year. Um, as part
of kind of the initial data gathering, uh, and input
on the project. And that included the stakeholder focus groups,
stakeholder interviews. And we've, uh, reported on this previous to
the background report, but now it's, um, memorialized in there.
Next slide, please. And then just a reminder, these are
the sections that have already been looked at by the
WAMPAC. So just to conclude before we pause for your
input and questions, um, so the background report really is
this overview of existing conditions, policies, regulations.
Uh, that will inform the process moving forward in the
actual planning and decisions about what should happen moving forward
in this plan and then in this area. So it
doesn't explicitly limit what the future actions will be. WMP
or state what needs to happen. It's really a technical
study that should support the planning effort. And it doesn't
put any guardrails on what the recommendations should be. So
I just wanted to show that this is, you know,
we're kind of coming to the end of the process
of the data gathering and so that we can move
into the land itself. Next, please.
Asking you to receive this information, let us know if
you have questions or comment, we'll address that in the
final background report. But we're also really looking for, you
know, what do you see as the key takeaways and
implications for where change is more likely to occur in
the planning area and what kind of change that is
needed. And we have some examples here for your consideration.
So we'll stop the, why don't we take a break
there for, uh, committee questions. And again, reminding the committee
that this is your opportunity to ask questions on the
presentation. We'll have a point after public comment. We'll, we
can opine on our issues or opportunities with the background.
Material itself as well as the other pieces. So do
you communs have any questions on the presentation. Great. Thank
you. I just had one question when it goes back
to the existing land uses. You have a map. And
the only six spots, but on number three, the market
street. Are we, doesn't say anything about that. Is that
included in this? Looks like it's marked on the map,
but it doesn't, uh, we're just focusing on the five
and six area. Where the power plant, the old wastewater
plant. Does that make sense? So are we including that
market? Are we deciding on that market street? Is that
part of this. If I may respond, so we had
an item a while back where we asked Wompack to
review the planning area, uh, boundaries. And that does include
inclusion of seven, eight, one market and the surrounding city
on parcels. Yes. I don't have the entire staff report
in front of me in the background report. But as
I seem to recall, there was some mention of the
offshore win. And I mentioned this before about assembly bill
three where the California energy commission is looking at seaport
readiness. I don't know if that means that we're on
the radar screen or not and how that might affect
us or how we could at least. Put some safeguards
in to protect our port from what they want to
do. I know they're really studying heavily up and humbled
right now. But, um, it looks, there's a map and
they're showing different locations for ports. You know, one Nikki
Beach up there earned a delydios property that was named
after his dog, Nikki. There's also one down on the
Holosser ranch drakes. I can't believe they would even think
of putting something there because that's probably going the best
reference parts in the entire city of California. Um, but
we need to be aware of what the California energy
commission might be looking at when they come into our
town. And maybe we should focus on some sort of
safeguards there. Mark, any questions on the presentation itself, other
than the background report. At this time, I don't know.
Mary. Yeah, I had a few questions. First, on page
47 of the background report, um, it discussed it. It
has a comment that most, uh, nearly half the land
and more obey is part of the state park or
the beach. And because of that, the largest land use
in the waterfront master plan area is open space slash
conservation. Um, I was wondering if that is a comment
of Moro Bay or specifically the land that was in
scope for the waterfront master plan update because, um, just
at a quick glance on the map, it seems that
if we limited that comment to the in scope land,
it might not be mostly open space. Yeah. Thank you,
Committee Member Wakalsky. That's a great point. So that would
have to be referencing all of Morvay, not just the
waterfront master plan, plantaria. So we will make sure that
this is corrected. So that's clear. Okay. Thanks. Um, and
then I was another just kind of question. I was
wondering, um, what kind of this source reference or stakeholder
was at the comment on, this is on page 100.
There was, um, a key takeaway that fermented leases, um,
make it difficult to curate future development. And I was
interested behind that takeaway.
So Amy, is that something you can respond to? Do
you have that in front of you. Yeah. Um, I'm
looking for that page, but in the stakeholder interviews. No,
I was just, it's a hundred in the bottom. Left.
I call out that takeaway that is specific to fragmented
leases. And I was just, if you had the source
behind that, um, key takeaway to share. Okay. Is it
page one PDF. Or page 100 agenda package? Yeah. Okay.
One second.
So this end, so, um, I believe this is these
are conclusions that, um, were made as part of the
market scan, you know, based on the analysis. In that
study, but I can follow up with HRNA who did
the details on that. And there they can say about
that. Okay. Thank you. Grace, any questions in the presentation?
Okay. I don't have any questions on the presentation at
this time. Uh, let's have on with the community workshop
presentation. Okay. And I don't even know if you guys
can see me on the video, but I was having
a little bit of Zoom stalling out. So I'm turning
off my video in hopes that that won't happen. More.
Um, yeah, so we're really excited. We're finalizing materials for
workshop number two on February 25th. With the city staff
currently. Um, that'll be in the evening again here, or
where you guys are today at the Best Memorial Building.
I think you've all received the flyer. It didn't make
it into the packet, but it is now out and
available. Um, the goals are to share an overview of
the project. And that's something we did at workshop one,
two, but we want to continue to do that, especially
for those who may not have made it to any
outreach so far. Um, we'll share a summary of input
received. At workshop one. Um, we will have, uh, I'll
get into kind of the proposed agenda or approach in
a minute, but, um, in the middle of the workshop,
we're planning to have a interactive presentation that will focus
on the background report. And the draft vision statement. Excuse
me, and some, um, thoughts on areas of change. So
that's one of the reasons we're hoping to get your
feedback on that question today. Um, and then there will
be an opportunity to initiate some discussion about the street
end opportunity sites as well as to have some feedback
on what we've heard so far about. Proposals for each
character area. Ireland mentioned this at the beginning, uh, but
looking at, you know, what has been talked about so
far to continue from the 1996 plan in addition to
other ideas that we've heard during the process so far.
Next slide, please. As he mentioned, um, we have a
proposed approach or agenda. This is a different approach than
the workshop number one. There is some time for open
house like workshop number one at the beginning and at
the end where there will be some stations. And I'll
describe those on the next slide. But in the middle
about half of the workshop time will be dedicated to,
um, a presentation that will include, um, some interactive discussion
as well as, um, polling using memento meter software. And
that will focus on, you know, providing. A presentation similar
to the one today, but a little more lengthy about
the background report since there hasn't been a public workshop
on that yet, as well as the vision statement. Like
I mentioned before. Uh, so we hope that people will
kind of take the time to roam around the stations
at the beginning. Participate in the presentation and then perhaps
have more to say, um, at some of the stations
after that or just have discussion with staff, project team
and others. Next slide, please. So the stations for the
open house part of the workshop, um, would be that
project overview. Again, this is, um, this is something we
plan to have available throughout the project. The draft vision
statement and receive input on that before we bring it
back to the WAMPAC to discuss. The ideas and proposals
that I mentioned for each character area. Some initial prioritization
about how, um, we might identify which street ends our
opportunities for development or redevelopment. And then we'll have a
children's activity area. Again, uh, like workshop number one. Hopefully
we can get some kids there this time. And I
believe that's the last slide. So before we move on
to the final element of the presentation, are there any
questions from the committee on the presentation. Start with committee
member Watowski. Um, my first question is on the mentometer
survey tool. Um, will you include an optional question to
collect demographic data and will we be able to receive
a readout of the raw data. Um, after the workshop.
Hi, so we're working with the city staff right now
on the presentation. And if, if the city would like
to include demographics question, we're happy to. And I don't
see why there wouldn't be the opportunity to make the
raw data available, at least to the committee. Yeah. I'll
also defer to staff if they want to say anything
else. Um, yeah, thank you, Amy. I would just add
that that's something that we could easily program into mentometer.
Um, that may not be typical question we would ask.
So I'm going to defer to WAMPAC of that's data
that you really want to see. Then we'll put it
in there and we'll collect that data at the next
workshop. All right. My second question is what owned and
non - owned channels are you marketing the workshop. On.
Owned being, um, a city parks in rack Instagram not
owned being next door as an example. I'll start. I
know we are working with a school district, uh, to
get the flyer out. I believe that it's been posted
on all of the city owned channels. And I think
staff mentioned at least one other venue that I'm forgetting
if you guys want to weigh in. Yeah. Thanks Amy.
So we would promote it in the similar fashion as
a last workshop. So that included Facebook, LinkedIn, of course,
the city's Facebook page, City LinkedIn page. I believe we
also put it on next door. The hot topics on
the front of the city webpage and Amy mentioned the
schools. And of course peanut up and down. The embarkadero
in downtown heading out flyers. But as far as like
online, um, forums, those are the main ones. And we're
open to other suggestions as well. And this time we'll
also be forwarding the flyer to our recreation department to
get it in there newsletter. Am I member Hanson any
questions on the presentation. On this side. Yeah. I had
a thought. I don't know if we can do it
in the next workshop or a subsequent workshop. Would it
be nice if we had like a presentation showing a
drone video going down the entire length and then maybe
coming back along the waterfront side, you know, Gene Dowdy
always brought up about, you know, we're not seeing the
water sign of this. And during the presentation, the workshopping
show a little video of going up and down both
sides, everything just to get visual impact of what, what
it all looks like. We don't have to do it
on this next workshop, but maybe on a subsequent workshop,
it's an idea. Well, thank you, Committee member Donnelly. Our
harbor director Chris Munson, he's on it.
Committee member, talk to Zini. Any questions in the presentation?
I have none either. Let's move on to the next
item. So I get to take the next and final
item. So I came up with this terminology issue focus.
We know that this waterfront master plan update is going
to tackle head - on. Some kind of key issues
that have been a hot discussion topics in the community
for a while. One of them is the question of
street and pedestrian connections. So this is really just to
introduce the conversation as Amy mentioned. This will be a
focus of the workshop to get some initial input from
the community on kind of the prioritization of the street
ends that make the most sense to convert into public
spaces. So I, in the next few slides, bar kind
of initial, internal thoughts on this topic and we want
to hear from the WAMPAC and community as we begin
to move forward on this. So here's what we're talking
about. So this slide has a map on the left,
the same map will be used on a large poster
board during the workshop to illustrate the seven street and
parking lots that are referenced in Plan Morro Bay. On
the right, you have, of course, verbatim, uh, policy circulation
2. 2 street and pedestrian connections. This is in our
current general plan. The waterfront master plan will implement the
general plan. That's the most at a high level that's
the most important concept of this planning document is it
must implement the general plan, including this, this policy. So
this is something that needs to happen and the waterfront
master plan is how we get to decide as a
city, how we want to implement this policy. I also
highlighted just some key terms in this policy that are
worth contemplating. One is, because we had past redevelopment projects
where there were conversations on the embarkader where there were
conversations about converting the street and parking lots into a
public plaza, I think that plaza concept versus the pedestrian
connection concept have been little conflated. So I just want
to point out that really we're talking about pedestrian connections
that could be a plaza. A plaza might make sense
uncertain street ends and other street ends that might make
might not make sense. Um, then I highlight here across
the street ends. Really, it's about lateral access. So there's
continuous, you know, pedestrian connectivity along the west side of
embark at Arrow. And again, that may include or may
not include a plaza in the middle or there could
be something else. That's what we get to decide in
our plan as a community. Then I highlighted, including by
relocating, parking from these areas, our interpretation of that is
that we locating the parking out of these areas to
somewhere else on the, uh, the waterfront is required element
of this, of this policy. So I wanted to share
kind of our initial, um, impressions of, you know, what
this means. And I walked the waterfront frequently. And I
do believe that there is a real public purpose being
forwarded by this policy. I think everyone in this room
has walked the waterfront many, many times, you know, when
you're walking on the sidewalk along. The west side of
Embarcadero, when you come to a street end and a
car, you know, is turning in front of you, it
really interrupts the flow and create some safety concerns and
kind of just impact the vibe of walking down the
embarkadero. Now policy talks about, you know, replacing parking. So
I want to be clear that we're not looking to
reach a proposal, whether it be a net loss of
parking spaces. So the waterfront master plan is really the
tool where we're going to develop a circulation concept that
shows through restringing. We've heard conversations about parking structure. Maybe
there are other areas in the waterfront master plan area
where more parking spaces could be generated. The point is
our circulation concepts will have to show how exactly those
lost parking spaces will be replaced in a realistic way.
And then also, as I mentioned, some of the street
end parking lots make sense to be converted to a
public space. Others that may not make as much sense,
um, it's, it's worth discussion. And I think this may
be a topic where there's not everyone's going to agree,
but it's worth discussion on for when we have a
smaller lease site adjacent to a speed of the parking
lot. Does it make sense to expand the available area
of that lease site onto one of the street ends.
Or a portion of, again, we want to put all
the ideas out there and get the public input. Then
finally, as I, you know, mentioned really, we have to
implement the policy, but we get to decide through this
plan how we're going to implement the policy. And I
think some of the most important criteria for that are
financing. So who pays for this? Does it come out
of the city budget. Of course, we all know limited
resources of no resources to really fund this from the
city budget. But do we look at adjacent, at least
site developers, which has been the approach on the liberty
and redevelopment project that went through entitlements. Last year or
a couple of years ago. Um, do we come up
with some in Luffy structure? So financing is an element
to look at in the plan, then design, again, how
do we want each of the three dens to look
and function? So the public plaza expanding adjacent lease site.
Are there areas where we do want to retain sublimited
vehicle access? I mean, to, you'll be realistic looking at
the harbor street end. That is also the, uh, egress
for the Anderson in. So that screened is going to
look different than the moral bay boulevard street end. And
really the plan allows us to look on a case
by case basis to decide as a community, what makes
sense for each of these areas, keeping in mind that
we are going to identify replacement parking. Then finally, a
timing and priority. So like I mentioned, we are going
to ask the public to help us rank the street
ends that make the most sense to convert a public
spaces sooner rather than later. And I already talked about
this. So this will be one of the activities at
the public workshop. So that concludes this part of the
presentation. Thank you, Director. Again, any, I'll start at my
left. Any questions on the presentation material only, not the
evaluation of the issue. James. Yeah. You showed on your
exhibit theory you have dunes street end. I don't know
where the dunes ends at the bluff. So it doesn't
make its way down to the embark and doll. So
I don't know why that's showing. That would be the
parking just adjacent to north of Anchor Park right there.
Think the parking spaces. Geo's parking lot. Yes. At wavelengths
or at. On, on, on, on the west side. So.
It's between anchor park and Giovanni's. Then when you mentioned
Front Street and Moral Bay Builder, that's what one and
the same. That's where the libertine is. That'd be that
parking area. Yes. It was one or the other. What
is it? So it was, it was, it was difficult
for us to determine exactly what was intended by, by
front street. If that was referencing the Morobet Boulevard or
the beach street. The point's, if you look at the
map here, it's pretty straightforward what the street ends actually
are. There have been again, some confusion on what was
intended by the front street street end. Also, um. The,
uh, plan moral bay. I think I asked this one
of the first meetings we had. And you had mentioned
that it was in the Plan Moral Bay, but Plan
Moral Bay says you didn't provide that section, but the
policy says that the city shall conduct a study to
see how to consolidate parking. In essence, to mitigate the
loss. So I don't know what you would do. Does
that make narrowest parking spaces or parking on top of
one another? I mean, how would you consolidate parking to
mitigate the loss? And there's like 45 to 47 parking
spots that would be lost four or five of which
are handicap. So are we going to be out of
compliance with the ADA because we lost handicap parking? Are
we going to really the inventory be actually, I don't
see how you can make up for it for the
loss. So I think that's the beauty of this, this
process. Because so far it's been kind of an abstract
conversation where we hear those very, um, important questions that
we'll have to figure out. And when we get to
June, we're going to have those land use and circulation
concept plans, which will actually show exactly how it would
be affulation alternatives and where there is capacity through restriving
or other ways to increase a number of parking spaces
to make up for these. So we are going to
get there and actually show those on a map. Over
the next several months. And to put in the street
end plazas or whatever you want to call them is
that, would that be considered close to dependent? In other
words, they have to be there in order to function
under the coastal act. I would argue that the parking
is more central. I talked a lot of the businesses
down and this is, Oh, we don't want to lose
that parking. That's what we need for their businesses. So
to put in a plaza instead, again, is it need
to be there in order to function or could a
plausibly put pretty much anywhere else. Why don't we save
that those comments for our valuation and comment, um, at
this point, let's just ask questions on the material, the
three slides on this to clarify those. And we'll have
plenty of opportunity here from the public on this as
well as our own recommendations. That's all I have. Thank
you. Many member Tugnazine, any questions. Yes.
I had a question. If you could remind me, is
there a guidance on what, um, time horizon. We should
be considering in the plans. So there's not, there's not
a timeline guidance in this policy. The timeline for the
waterfront master plant update, I believe is 25 years. And
again, the waterfront master plan is our tool to implement
this policy. So I would say within the time frame
of the waterfront master plan is when we would have
to implement. This policy. Hansen, any questions on the presentation.
My only comment on the presentation is that I did
a deep dive into kind of the legal area where
these are. They show up on maps. It would be
helpful to have the map that was displayed, I think
is the first slide on a much larger basis and
maybe even dimensioned. You can pull the dimensions off probably
a GIS map. But it's surprising to see what actually
is a street end. We sometimes it's a parking lot
sometimes. It looks like a private parking lot. Uh, some
of it is in the Libertines case. Some of that
is on private property. Um, so I guess my ask
on the presentation is that that's kind of at a
high level to fit everything on one slide. But I
would recommend for any presentation you have to the public
that you actually zoom in on what do they just
have a line around where the legal property is. The
city may own property around that, but that may be
a different issue. So let's understand what it is, how
wide it is, how deep it is. Maybe how it
relates to lease sites adjacently sites or so. You got
it. Okay. Thanks. With that, I'll open it up for
public comment. Under the city's rules and special advisory committee
regulations, public equipment opportunity to provide comment on items on
the agenda. Because of the multiple action items covered comments
will be limited to five minutes rather than the customary
three. As always, committee members are encouraged to submit agenda
correspondence prior to the media. And we did probably receive
six or seven pieces of agenda correspondent. So thank you
to that. And as I said at the beginning of
the meeting, don't feel the need to run out the
clock if you have some time. Let somebody else have
it because we're, we're pressed up here to kind of
get out. Hab has to come in. So with that,
I'll open it up for public comment from the floor.
Good afternoon. Uh, my name is Eric Meyer. I'm speaking
as a private citizen. Um, I sent you a letter
which I won't reiterate. Um, I comment to Amy. Hi,
Amy and to staff with respect to the master plans
that should perhaps be also included as reference material background
specifically the pedestrian and bicycle master plan 2011 12.
Uh, and that should be included because it does have
a number of objectives and goals specifically around pedestrian interface
and bicycle connections, uh, and the types of amenities associate
difficult to find you can't get online is I had
to actually ask the director for a link and he's
gracefully sent a link. Uh, so.
That's point one. Point two is in addition to what
I sent you. And I went out and I measured
all these street ends and driftwood through moral bay boulevard
street ends or 69 feet wide curb to curb, uh,
with 90 degree parking. The harbor street one is 56
feet wide. And it's about the bare minimum for 90
degree curb to curb actually a little less than the
pendulum. Um, but the bare minimum is 64 feet curb
to curb for 90 degree. And so I'm, I'm concerned
not only about lateral access, which is accessed parallel to
the waterfront. But the vertical access, if each of those
sidewalks vertically accessing, you know, 90 degrees to the water
are relatively skinny walk. And over time, if we were
redeveloping, we could narrow the parking lanes if we were
to maintain parking. We could narrow them down to the
minimum, which is 60 in a couple of feet on
either. Financially important to do it right now. But as
things are changing, that would be the time to do
it. Um, and then additionally with respect to lateral access
along the west side of, um, if we were to
bounce, uh, at the, uh, across each of those, uh,
Pacific, et cetera, we would narrow the pedestrian travel 20
feet instead of being 60. Because you wouldn't be including
this space right at the edge of the, or the
cars are parked on immediately east of the parked cars.
Uh, if we could do some sort of hybrid situation
by keeping, let's say 80 percent of the parking. That
are next to the harbor walk on each of those
locations. So you could widen up the harbor walk by
at least probably eight feet. I think each space is
nine feet in the spots. And getting the extra eight
feet would give you room for benches and some minor
infrastructure and just make it a much more comfortable adventure.
And we'd still save parking. And because has this has
already been brought up, uh, along Market Street between Harbor
and. Pacific by putting in 90 degree parking there along
one side as has been done down north of Beach
Street in front of the old, um, GNNs. That would
add plus or minus 30 spaces so that maybe it's
10 spaces. We lose on the ambarcuter itself with gain.
An extra 20 by adding the 30 up top. And
my comments to you in my letter were specifically about
a park starting at the Centennial staircase and going down
and including the space, which is the libertine property. And
the more loss of the libertine properties such that you'd
have a 90 degree line of sight straight down to
the bay from moral B boulevard. So it's when a
tourist come from the, as you're a tourist, you're coming
into town to get off at more people of our
due drop down the below or you get to an
orchestre and you go, what do I do? And so
if there was good parking right there and you could
see the water, you'd know to park there. That's the
end of my comments.
Oh good. You want to follow up on Eric. So
I really think, uh, his suggestion on opening up, uh,
where the liberty is now for a view slide into
the bay is excellent. It's something that's lacking has been
removed over the years on the embarkadero where they were
all one store, westside, excuse me. Uh, about that. But
I think dropping the other thing that the city owned
the land, I think like from Coleman Park all the
way up to the wastewater treatment plant that they under
that maybe a hundred wide.
And, uh, that area, if you wanted more, and you
might consider that whole wretch, uh, I believe it could
serve any more out of sight. I don't know. You
go further than you. It's like, you know, boats. And
so visually all you see is really a massive parking
lot. If it could be pushed a little further north
and looked into the property that the zones just north
of where you make the turn out from there north,
uh, maybe that would solve some of the parking issues.
So thank you.
All right. Myers speaking of citizen here. I am super
excited to see these end plazas or whatever the term
is. I've looked at those. I actually used one this
winter for a movie night by the libertine. I have
as many people as I thought. So I think success
and I'm excited to see at least have.
Um, first of all, I want to say that I
think corresponds and I agree with it all whole heart,
including the thing about lighting in Guerrero for. Um, I
remember before she passed away and she loved to come
down to the embarkadero. And to get, uh, handicap spaces,
just not room. And the street ends were usually the
ones where we could find a place where she could
actually access enough walkway to get around. And I think
that's something we have to remember. Our residents are not
all spring chickens. And to be able to have access
easily to the stores. I mean, if you want locals
to be there, you have to make sure that they
can do it comfortably. And the street ends do pride
that. Um, do we need more little parks there? No,
we don't. We have so many parks scenarios around there
that we really don't need more, but we do need
parking and we need a convenient for not only our
tourists who don't know where to go to get places.
But for our residents who do know and want the
convenience of being able to get their evil. So thank
you.
Hi, I'm Margaret Carmen. And I'm glad that we have
an advisory board that we can do. And all that
we have. And I just want to remind you guys
there was something that was reports that said, the board,
you get staff report, which is great, but you don't
have to do everything. And I hope that you'll live
to us. And I'm going to, um, Mr., I'm going
to, I'm going to piggyback on what you said. There's
send an email in, but it didn't get posted because
I'm really computer ignorant. Ms. Winholtz had to put this
email together because I don't know how to do links
and add the emails and all that. But I really
want everybody in the city that has anything to do
with making decisions to please go on this website. It's
called darkSky. org. It's actually all over the world. It's
a, it's an amazing. I couldn't even believe all the
resources they had. But I use some of those links.
But in the, um, background report, there's two places ahead
of that. And this was 11 years of 2015. UC
Davis had law and spent 1. 2 million dollars. This
LED blue city so much. And the public actually made
chain 340, 000 dollars back in 2015. And we are
next, and I'm telling you, as they're waiting, not have
literally it calls for putting domes over the light because
it talks about this website that we have glare because
you've got such a wide area that you're trying to
illuminate with those LED lights. People see less. They have
more problems. And it was interesting. Even at your home,
it talked about, here's this cone. And the people break
in your, in your house shuts height over here in
the shadows, but that's not going to happen. You're not
going to have people hiding on the walkways. But, um,
there's a lot of data on this website about how
these high intensity lights have plants and animals. Life's sleep
and protection from predators. And so please, please, please look
at this website.
And changes before something gets put in. Down the embarcadero
now. And these joints are just shining in your face.
Those of us who are getting cataracts.
So, okay. That's enough about that. And like, because even
the word street in opportunity telling you it's only an
opportunity to make a change. Like what's wrong with like
Ms. Peter said.
Restaurants, those leaseholders are paying a plant that have mobilities
camp bartender their restaurants. They're going to lose income. And
we don't need more parks on the embarkado. It is
a park in itself just being near the ocean and
looking at the rocks. And I was told by someone
else, I haven't looked this up. So excuse me if
I'm wrong, that you, the board could ask the city
council to take this requirement out of the general plan.
So then we're not trying to figure out how we're
going to change something that we're, I mean, wherever you
go where the people, you got to look for cars.
That's just the nature of the world. And I really
hope that you don't decide to make a waste street
or block off the embarcadero. There's not enough room for
that. And you've got a big hill down the hill,
the third street promenade in Santa Monica. And Miss Nancy
Bass wrote you a really good, um, email about people
come to us because we're not the same as everybody
else. And we don't look like Disneyland. And we still
look like beautiful moral bay. And, um. Absurd to talk
about bottles on the embark, Darrell. There's not enough room.
I think you walk on the embarcadera or park and
then walk. Thank you.
Any of them, there we go. I had two handouts
there. Thank you. Uh, good afternoon. Uh, my name is
Ray Ladd. I'm a moral bay resident. We retired from
Dean's office at Cal Poly's College of Architecture and Environmental
Design. Uh, I've attended a few community meetings here in
Maurel Bay. And one of them, or at least at
one of them I noticed that, uh, one of the
goals was to generate revenue for the city for improved
services. And, uh, also I know from reading the paper
and such that one, there was a kind of a
question about remove three stacks or keep them for preservation
purposes. And so the idea I'd like to propose and
that I've proposed three years ago city in an email
would be to preserve one of the power plant smokestacks.
As a moral bay lighthouse. And the goal there would
be to create long - term tourism generated jobs and
revenue for the city. And that would be via admission
fees to the lighthouse, uh, restaurant and hotel occupancy gas
station market and, you know, retail sales taxes. And the
idea for this nautically orientated non - navigational lighthouse could
satisfy both sets of residents, you know, some that want
them all removed and some don't want them at all.
So one would be kept. And I understand the city
doesn't own the property. And there are some constraints on
the site, of course. And, uh, with that in mind,
and in light of the proposal for the battery plant
withdrawn by Vistra, I should say, uh, you know, this
may be open to an alternative redevelopment proposal for the
site. And, uh, that's why I thought I would submit
this idea again that, you know, in light of the
battery plant being eliminated, then maybe this idea might have
a little bit more merit to it. Uh, I'm hoping
moral by his long - term student include the idea
of a moral bay lighthouse. And some points about it,
the tourists could write up the elevator to the top
to enjoy spectacular views and social media opportunities. Uh, the
non - navigational lighthouses in the world. And I've done
some research on it. Moral bays, if it were to
come to fruition would be the world's tallest of those.
And currently one of the stacks is 450 feet. Though
it would be appealing to, you know, families with kids,
uh, it could be also an iconic feature for the
city similar to Seattle's space needle, um, stratosphere, uh, viewing
tower in Las Vegas. And of course, something like the
Eiffel Tower as well that now has lights on it
and that sort of thing. Um, it also could of
course be paired very well ideally with a maritime museum.
That's right below it. Um, the CEO of the Bay
Area Engineering Firm called Overa and Company. Letter research led
some research showing it could cost 36 million dollars to
build one stack in today's dollars. And so we already
have that built. So that's kind of like the community
asset or perhaps a golden goose of sorts. Uh, I
read a local newspaper article that noted after an inspection
report. It's the, uh, one of the stacks could stand
for a hundred years. If it was capped. The cap
in this case might be the lighthouse itself. It would
be designed for capacity, of course, to pay for itself.
Uh, demolition of the stacks though is scheduled for the
close of 2027. It's probably all you all know. Vistra
may not be willing to reopen negotiations, but I feel
they might, if it meant they only had to demo
and remove only two of the three stacks. And there
would be sizable savings for them. And I feel though
that that's one of the biggest obstacles to the ideas
that the current policy is that all three stacks are
removed. I feel the idea needs a champion, someone who,
you know, would support a feasibility study to see if
it's valid as a revenue concept. And perhaps the architectural
preservation grant available that off, you know, with a state.
And if it's deemed self - supporting and beneficial, I
feel there would be a need at that point to
partnership with a developer concessionnaire with a successful track record
of creating a visitor serving destination for May. And in
closing, I know this is a lot to consider. So
I'd like to, um, email with some research links to
your advisory committee. And, uh, I just feel beneficial to
the city and services, you know, for residents and the
business owners to be attracting, uh, tourist - oriented type
of attraction that I know we're not a real industrialized
city and that this maybe would fit because it has
an article fame. So that would be it. Thank you.
Any other public comment from the room. Being none, do
we have anybody in the online queue. Yes, the one
hand raised under the name Judy Lynn. Peace proceed. Sorry,
I'm here. Commissioners. Your work you're doing on this and
the opportunity to speak a little bit longer. I appreciate
that. As most of my comments refer to public input.
And I read something alarming. In the report. That I'll
quote what it said city staff is working with the
California coastal commission to create framework for a moral rock
visitor access enhancement plan to address public safety and maintenance
concerns. The aim is to identify opportunities for improvements to
traffic management, public services, and parking infrastructure. It's on page
77. So I'm asking city staff and the consultants that
before they do anything to remember that it is not
okay to change our way of life. Without the majority
of residents permission. This is why the rock redesign needs.
Its own workshop and not a sticky board. Community input
be the coastal commission is essential. The community is against
city staff assuming that they know what's best for the
redesign of our moral rock parking area. You are wasting
money by having city staff spend time on this before
the community gives input. We want to continue our history
of accessing and serve by driving right up to the
water's edge. Mothers must be able to drive their kids
close to the rock and south rock beaches. Surfers must
be able to park and launch from the parking area.
The elderly and disabled must be able to park at
the water's edge to enjoy the water, surf, and activities
happening on the beach and in the water. So many
of Moro Bay and you don't understand the history of
our way of life. Pavement is not natural. What exists
is in the past our public works department was able
to maintain the parking lot. They worked with the community
members to have dirt dropped off just after a rain.
It was organized timely. Efficient and happened on a regular
basis. For traffic flow, you can utilize the area lanes.
I'm sorry, the extra lanes on the embarcadero between Coleman
Beach. And work on in between Coleman and Beach Street
and work on an additional exit point through the power
plant property. Not seeking community input is how we lost
our ability to own the 100 acre power plant property
and came dangerously close to having a 600 megawatt lithium
balm on our waterfront. Please listen to our community. We
thank you for the workshops, but at the workshops, we
don't have an opportunity to speak. So I would like
to encourage you in an effort to most effectively glean
from the community. Please. Have an open mic. Workshop.
And there's just so much going on the waterfront. It's
such a big area that it would best serve everybody
if you divided it into at least three sections. And
so possibly your second workshop that's coming up, you could
focus on the rock and colombeach. And offer an open
mic where everybody got to come up and say what
they wanted to say about the rock and Coleman Beach.
And it's recorded and it's offered on Zoom so that
people who can't physically come in can offer and put
on Zoom. And then and then of course your other
areas would be a couple other workshops. And I know
this is time consuming for you and it's not how
it's all planned out by the consultants, but it's what
we want. We want my open mic time. And I'm
sorry if that bores you or bugs you are infringes
on what you need to get done, but it's our
community. And we want an opportunity to speak. And then
so, um, this question was asked before, but I don't
think an answer was given. Why does the waterfront boundary
map exclude part of the parking closest to the rock
near the lifeguard station. And then as far as parking
versus plazas, we need the parking spots. And I'm just
these wrap up. Five minutes is up. Five minutes. Yep.
Kind of don't think so, but okay. Thank you everybody.
Any other members or people in the online queue. There
are no more rates. Oh, I'm sorry. Right as I
said that one more hand came Shawnee Briggs. Go ahead.
Thank you. Sorry. I was muted. Uh, thank you for
the opportunity to speak. Um, I'm maybe coming late to
the game, but I'm, I'm here representing local indigenous voice
connected to this region. And, um, I just want to
say that this master plan will shape more obey for
30 years. And it matters who's left out. I'm not
sure if the selenium people were invited to this table
or teach you Yachtyhini were invited. But the indigenous herd.
And, um, I've had the opportunity to work and be
represented through the maritime museum. Very on that. And I
just wanted to kind of. Say thank you for this
planning. And I hoped I don't know invited or not.
I've never heard of it. And we have limited staffing
and capacity and it's hard to do these kind of
public things. Pretty good stake in the game. And most
importantly, I'd like to see that, um, history and tender
ecosystems are featured. In this project. That's all. Thank
you. Anybody else in the online queue. There are no
more raised hands in the queue. Thank you. We'll close
the public comment for now and bring it back forward
to the action. Um, let's break this down by the
individual issue areas that the director has provided. Mr. Chair,
the appropriate time, I'd like to make to the public
comments. Sure. So if I may do that now. So
in regards to the staff working on a paid parking
at the rock program, that is, that is listed in
the current upcoming waterfront initiatives and the speaker accurately read
that off from, from a list. I just want to
clarify, however, that is, uh, an initiative that started for
a short while at the beginning of last year. There
was a staff working group looking at what that might
look like. However, we're not currently working on that. Um,
we put that effort on pause to have that topic
vetted and discussed with the WAMPAC and the community through
this waterfront master plan update process, which of course is
a very, uh, open and public process. Um, also any
proposal. To manage access at moral rock would require coastal
development permit from the coastal commission, which would have a
very involved public process as well. So nothing that's going
to happen in that regard without significant public involvement from
WAMPAC and the community. And ultimately coastal commission. Um, as
far as the workshop format, I just want to, I
think many of the people in this room were at
the first community workshop. And I stood at the front
of the room with the mic 30 minutes urging community
members to take the mic and speak up so we
could take notes and hear their comments and make sure,
um, those are, uh, recorded and carried forward. I'm in
the background report. So that did happen. That will continue
to happen at upcoming workshops. As far as the map
being updated. So yes, we heard from a speaker at
the last WAMPAC meeting. And we have updated the map.
We are in the process. I've given a sense to
Amy to update the map to include the entire moral
rock parking lot. So that was an oversight or fixing
that. And as far as, um, outreach to the, uh,
Native American groups. So this is a general plan amendment,
which under state law, SB 18, we are required to
do formal consultation with all the Native American tribes with
the interest in the area. We are going to initiate
that once we have a draft plan. So we have
an actual plan for them to, um, respond to you
and comment on as we consult with Native American groups.
And we will make sure also that all the Native
American groups, um, that we reach out to them that
they are on our interested parties list so they can
participate in a WAMPAC meetings and community workshops throughout the
entire process. So those are my responses. Thank you. Thank
you, Director. So we'll move on to the committee's discussion
and action. Um, let's start with action item number one.
We're asked to receive and file this report and provide
our individual comments on it. I think the receiving file
is an administrative thing. Do show your approval. Um, so
let's start with, uh, also we make a motion receive
and file. Earlier. We were asked to just share questions
we had on the background report. At what point would
we be able to comment. On the background repair? That's
the next action in about two seconds. So I think
the action that the staff wants collectively is a receiving
file. We'll vote on that. And then move on to
our individual comments on the background report. Then move on
to our individual comments on the. Community workshop. And then
our individual comments on the street end. So we can
just get it together. But I think the only real
action we have as a committee is to vote on
receiving and filing the background port as presented so far.
Does that make sense? Um, so I know that we
probably won't have any time, but if, if there is
a chance to add any new questions or comments about
marketing and circulation, um, I'd like to add that if
we have time, um, but I will make the motion
to accept and receive and file the background. There are
a second to that. All those in favor. Aye. No
opposed. So on that item, now's the time to provide
individual comments on the background report itself. So I'm going
to start at my right. Mr. Chair, before we get
into that, we missed two second that the motion to
receive and file. Receive and file. Thank you. And so
the second list from you. Right. Thank you. File only.
Committee member Watowski, your comments on the background. Sure. Um,
all right. So my first comment was on page 69.
There's a call out that, or sorry. Uh, yeah, page
69. There was a flag that, um, many people think
the power plant site would be a logical location for
renewable energy facility. I don't think the wording of this
really reflects kind of how debated that opinion is within
our community. So, um, would recommend, um, kind of changing
that sentence. My next comment is on page 79 where
it touches upon, uh, the libertine property. That content I
think is now outdated. I would just recommend that we
update that content before the public workshop. Um, my next
comment is on page 89 where the parking inventory. I
don't think this table of parking inventory gives an accurate
representation of the parking that's available to residents or visitors
in more obey. I think a lot of our parking
has been set aside either, um, formally or infarmally for
leaseholders and hotels or has been kind of co -
opted informally by leaseholders, um, Jazz curbs being painted white
trucks full of bikes or scooters, et cetera, being parked
in spots in front of businesses. I think that we
should at least parking inventory that reflects the parking that
has formally been given to, um, lease holders so that
we understand what's actually available for residents or visitors. Um,
page 99, I think a measure D waterfront area may
be overstated both there and in several areas of the
report. Page 107, I would just like us to caveat.
There's information about a study that was done by reach.
And I think it's important context for folks to understand
that, um, reach is a nonprofit but receives lots of
private funding by private interests. And so I would, I
think we should represent that in the way that we
use their data in planning the future of our city.
And my last commenters on age 187 previously provided feedback
regarding the hotel, um. Assessment, uh, it still says that
Morabe has four upscales, which I don't believe, um, is
accurate.
Sorry, I'm trying to locate, but there is minor thing
that, um, on one of the mat to switch for
the triangle lot. And Lila Kaiser. So it is on
the page 54. And Lila Kaiser. So I
can note that later. Some updates on existing leases such
as Krill's dockside. It would be nice to get an
update on 801 because the RFP deadline has closed and
would like to know what's going on with, um, receiving
the applicant. Um. And then.
We'll dater. Um, it says that you guys have the
staff has a moral access enhancement. And so if you
create, um, the ability for other stakeholders within the community
to join that group, um, I would like to know
about, Oh, we can publicly now a great thing to
be a part of. And that's moments for the background.
Committee memory Costanzo. Okay. Mr. Donnelly. No more. Comment. Um.
I'd like to comment that some things have already, I'm
sorry. I like the comment on, uh, page 60, uh,
where it talks about a major D is that major
D was updated in. 2000 major decant be updated without
a vote of the people. So I'm not sure how
it got here. It takes a vote of the people
to do that. So I think that's incorrect. And then,
then another spot that, that Murray brought up talks about,
uh. Much of the Park and Errol being under Major
D. And it's really not. So those are my comments.
Thank you. I have a number of comments and I've
submitted written comments to the staff already. And I'll just
sort of run through the highlights. Um, on specific sections
under regional context, the regional context appears to be the
city of Moral Bay. I think at the very least,
we should be, we should be shown as a stero
bay, maybe even our context navigationally between Monterey and Santa
Barbara. And we serve as a safe harbor for, between
those areas. Um, so maybe just identifying between a stero
bay region between point Bouchon and Barrow, something like a
project area, Director Singwald talked about, including all of the
rock parking lot. We figure 1. 2 sort of inaccurately
shows Area 5 as the Vistra power plant site. It's
kind of the power plant site and then some area
around it. So maybe the lead in the word site.
But I think that for the unformed reader, it's all
of that when it isn't.
Under existing land, I thought there was a latination on
how much of those land uses and how much, in
terms of land area and building area, normally under an
existing land use, Gen, you'd have some reference that there's
in character air on this kind of land use. Uh,
but I didn't see it in there. In fact, I
had to go all the way into the market scan.
There's like a very small table that has our fuse
data on. I think that's key. Each one, how much
of it is vacant? Can we call each of his
parking? I think that I think land use summary. Had
categories that are used by slow cog that aren't recognizable
to me or by the general plan. I think it
refers to downtown slash village lands in moral base speak.
So, you know, translating your crosswalking that I think would
be very helpful. On the plan more obey.
Out, I think for the reader dish into the Plan
Moral Bay. Let's just set those forward. If those are
things that are driving the plan, say what they are
full text and everything. Uh, I also want, I think
the pussy for the build out suggests how much of
the master plan ought to be based on the build
out calculants that are in the general plan. And so
how much of whatever the general plan is proposing needs
to be accommodated in this geographic area. So add a
table for general plan land use. And I think it
was with, within these graphics that because there was a
mask put over one of the graphics, Lila carries her,
even though it was parking recreation was shown as a
different color as another piece. So it almost looked like
it wasn't that triangle around Morrow Creek. It was something
else. And for me, it was. Not usable. I'd also
suggest for the reader who wants to really focus in
that we call out all the street names. I think
Morvay Boulevard isn't all that aren't shown. I know that's
a small issue, but map reading is a really important
part of this plan. I agree with some of the
other comments about on measure D.
I think that, uh, it has its own issues in
terms of applicability, but the, uh, repeated reference in measure
and in the market scan that area depends on measure
D. In fact, we've taken the provisions of measure D
and they're in our zoning ordinance that won't be changed.
Beating. Under zoning, uh, list of
land use restrictions. What does that, when the reader looks
at for the visitors serving commercial, what does that mean?
What put in there? Under.
I was, uh, I agree with the, uh, it actually
states that the waterfront is within the state granted tidelands.
That's nowhere near. And so there ought to be in
the discussion of the Tidelands a real map, the map
that's promulgated by the state mission, uh, because in some
areas, the council has probably appropriately so that want to
apply those, those conditions. Uh, I think one of our
commenters talked about the land continuation of the embark around
tomorrow Creek. That's referred to as hard for fee lands
or city feelands that were litigated 60 years ago. Let's
have everybody have understanding of what applies to what. Because
in the Tidelands, you can't do certain things. That you
can do other things. So we need to sort of
provide a list of kind of the can and can't
in the area. I think there needs also needs to
be a really good kind of how this land can
be. The current master plan has a really good summary
of the land in the 60s and 70s. Uh, it
really helped me as initial reader when I first approached
this much understanding. Oh, now I know what's going on.
Now I know Pitkin lease. Now I know why this
line is where it is. So you reintroducing that in
an act is really helpful. Statement on Measure D was
update. Quite frankly, I think when we have a C
statements like that in the background, it creates suspicion. About
what else is wrong in there. That's a pretty glaring
error. And it's something that. Should be.
Under landownership. Again, I think there's a lot more work
that needs to be done on there. Uh, there are
some, that relates to the tide lens, the original patent
for the Franklin Riley. Pace with PGN easements and fix
back a little bit. You've tried the front of Gafko
and away from the front door because that's the line
of the Tidelands. Divergence and goes into the water. So
for us understanding what you can do and what you
can't do in that geography is really important. Um, let's
see.
I thought it was in the downtown specific planet is
to take those regulations and guidelines move those into the
waterfront, the way we were talking. You don't have to
smart enough to remember why it's probably a practice item.
Um, in the transportation report, I actually thought that was
stated. I still have some requests. Is like beach harbor
and issues.
Again, I thought ways. You know, they're A24 in addition
to locking in the land use on the power plant.
Also the sort of talk about that. Uh, there's a
description on page 65 of that background report of having
massive potential for visitation. It's not very helpful to those
who are concerned about what we're proposing to read words
like massive without the, uh, the data. I think there
was a comment from Mr. Meyer about when the pedestrian
bike master plan. I think it was a 1971 plan.
Uh, that's missing. There's also our more recent local road
safety plan that actually has some things prescribed added in.
There's an inclusion of some work by Cal Poly students
that probably is very good, but I don't think it
has, it belongs in here. In my, my viewpoint, uh,
maybe this is just me, but the background sort of
the foundation, it anchor what we're going to talk about
now. That may be an interesting going up starting point
for another discussion, but it isn't a community, it isn't
a policy. Probably the same thing about the Central Coast
engineering sighting issue. Have to
disappoint. Is it even anointing? Could you do it. And
take exercise. I didn't have any comments on the stakeholder
focus groups or the stakeholder interviews.
So, uh, again, I, um. There are many things we
have to so that I think we're telling what is
the measure D, the tide lens, you know, those sorts
of reference. And so they, they understand the lay of
the land. And it's complicated stuff. And so, uh, I
don't think the ready to represent that and the other
items I talked about. So, um. Is there, Director Single,
are there any other comments that you wanted to ask
about the background portal? Yeah. Thanks for the opportunity. So.
Thank you for your very detailed comments on the background.
Like you said, Chair Peck, it is not only the,
you know, culmination of all of our church and outreach
over the past several months, but also it is the
foundation for the plan moving forward.
So with that important, that it's a hundred percent accurate.
I'll make sure that the plan is a hundred percent
accurate and that we address comment updated in communication.
Action item number two is on workshop more comments on
that we provided some of those under our. Comments on
the presentation. Are there any additional comments that anybody want
to make on the workshop. It's, uh, Mary. I just
have a comment that I don't need did a good
enough job marketing.
Drop. And I really think that we need posed owns
from, I would expect that as part of their contract
and that we implement that, um, for example, the previous
meetings, um, I think we can do a better job
such as posting it on the Morbec website, things like
that. So I would just ask the consultant to kind
of, you know, increase the focus there. Um, and then
additionally, it sounds like they're open to including an optional
demographic question as part of the next workshop. And I
would just ask the city to try to implement that.
Because I think we need to have a poll. Are
we reaching the DIFI non - white elderlys segments of
our community? And are we having success in here? All
those voices.
All right. Um, I did want to suggest possibly because
of listening recording booth. The message actually be tabbed and
summarized of information that I think is vital for, um,
people to be informed about is that beautiful amended all
of these items cost money. So require maintenance, um, funds
to go towards replace them after 20, 30 years, depending
on what it is. Um, so as far as some
of these workshops go, I know that we want to
say, say whatever you want, um, but I'd like to
draw attention. It is more viable and more likelymented. If
Zine is that we create either pays for itself or
funds the maintenance for its future, um, candios ideas, but
pay forum, they're never really going to happen. So if
we can, um, at least have some sort of try
and think of something that would either enhance revenue, um,
but still give us what we want.
No, not really. I think the comments that are remade
and that's what I would do. I thought that there
should have been a, those well attended. I think there,
you know, and, and I'm not a big fan of
the, uh. Sticky note. I don't know how you. And
there was like eight for like moral bay rock parking
lots. Like, what was that represent? It didn't, it doesn't,
it was just a, uh, you know, it was just
a suggestion. It didn't dig deep enough to get anything,
you know, anything to honor on that. I don't know.
So that was my comment. Thank you. Paul.
I just like speak at public workshop shops come here
in public comment about lighting. Is it right time to
say something about? I agree. I think they have to
be, it's real important. But there's been projects that have
eliminated lighting on the waterfront was there. It's gone. Uh,
Coast Guard station and Beach Street, 15 light standards and
five or six of them are not even lit. So
I think that they were properly lit. I don't think
they're intrusive and they've been there for many, many years.
Uh, and I think if we just maintenance, I think
it's PGNE is responsible for that. Uh, and just, uh,
did that lighting the Sarah? I think it's inviting on
the waterfront when we are at, when all the lights
are led up down there. Right now it's just because
like I said, five or six out of 15 or
90. So. I think my comment
is, uh, it would be useful to have a pin
map for whoever's commenting. It'd be useful to know. Are
we getting all of our comments from the beach track
or heights or North Morea Bay, just as a matter
of curiosity? Because blast things out on social media, but
meeting a small subgroup. And that might enforce just hearing
the same. And we're missing some. Maybe there's some area
around the school. Because there are areas of town that
are more family content. There's so many areas that are
more on vacation oriented.
And it would be also interesting to know, don't live
in town. When you talked about the dation, that's workshop.
But sometimes you'll get folks coming. Not
be nice to know that. So who are we reaching?
How are we doing it.
These things cost money. So maybe you give them presents
a dollar. I think a four of them, or they've
only got 10 of them and the city's money, uh,
otherwise. So be nice to sort of be what's in,
where are they willing to spend money on. To make
work.
Uh, anything else that you'd like to get from the
group, but demographine location. We built with Amy after, after
the compact, would like to see that. So we'll, we'll,
um, and we could always do more outreach. So we'll,
um, we'll start with going to take advantage. Thank you.
Our final item is designed and redesigning street ends in
the master plan. There are no specific proposals before us.
I think the idea is to just get some, I
guess what called programming information, issue areas that we need
to address. Design proposals we brought back at a later
date. So keep your comments at a high level and
not site specific as possible. And I'll start to my
left with. Many memory custo.
You know, that's a, then you can do with that.
I think it's, uh, it would be good to look
at that. But removing parking, I mean, that's the biggest
issue is having parking. I think there are some to
do. Not because of the harbor walk. That goes on
the other side of a lot of those. So, you
know, there's access there. So we're moving parking. I don't,
I don't see how that. S to how that would
help. Or is there a need for that? I mean,
do we need little parklets all the way down there?
I don't, I don't think there's be a need for
that. I don't know what the use would be and
how that would help the development of the, uh, embarcadero.
Ready to go eight coats of dependency. The census eventually
is going to have to go the coast of commission.
I have a say kickback. We put something that was
not a priority function. And maybe we should need, like
I said, I talked to the business down there and
they rely on parking being there. And if you eliminate
that, it's going to hurt them. So that's going to
consider. Even if
you just relocate it, I think you're making a mistake.
Um, I understand that we make them, but then there
becomes a thing of maintenance. If these are all little
parklets, uh, parklets and barely enough city staff take care
of the ones we have right now, especially during the
summertime. So it'll probably, if you have six or seven
on street ends, I believe you'll have to have a
staff member. Taking care of those alone. So I think
you have that issue too. But, but no, I'm always,
part important to every business, especially parking for older people
that, that like to pour, they're going to shop or
what they're going to eat. Uh, so I have a,
you know, the concept is to just relocate them someplace
else. I would, uh, especially on the end of the
water via, I think it'd be really tough on some
of those businesses.
Okay. So this is stake here to my heart. Um,
especially, um, being a representative of the Embarcadera Master leaseholders.
And I was hoping that maybe you can get up
page 243 of the agenda. So I can, um, speak
on, on that. So, um, before she gets that one,
um, one comment that somebody made is, uh, the libertine
being removed. I'm also on the harbor advisory board. And
I've had revenue for the harbor because our harbor is
the most awesome thing that we have. Um, it's healthy.
We want to keep it healthy. We want to keep
the infrastructure. Take care of vetment walls. Um, if we
keep removing, uh, properties that are revenue driving, funding the
harbor, um, we're going to be even more hard right
now. And it's not, and it's not great. Um, so,
um, I would say if you lose libertine, you decrease
the revenue that can go towards harbor infrastructure. And so
as far as the street ends right now, we have
a really limited amount of parking, especially in the area
where they utilize the street ends the most. My suggestion
would be to do, um, porous pavers with different colored
pavers in as the delineators between the parking spaces, um,
I had wanted to do a movie night for a
really long time, um, and working with Cal and the
friends of Morabe Harbor. We were able to put that.
But there is something weird about sitting in a, in
an oil filled parking while you're trying to enjoy with
your kids. So if we made it more of a
decorative thing, and I think that that would also be
something that could be affordable for the different leaseholders as
they develop to pay for that type of, of area,
because it's not going to be utilized all the time.
We could have festivals. We can have, um, different events,
street vendors, um, but in when the time when we
don't have anything going on, it would be nice for
it to be a pretty or parking lot. Um, absolutely
positively, mostly handicap and loading would be my suggestion. I
will say that as far as, um, what the note
said with grays in and libertine, as far as them,
uh, failing to take over those leaseholds that they were,
their primary reasons were based on the fact that they
were not viable anymore, um, doing these parklets. And it's
true, um, but also with, with the libertine, um, he,
if he was going to do that kind of a
larger scale improvement, he wanted to make it something that
generated revenue for him because it costs so much to
do it and to maintain it. And unfortunately he could
not secure a long - term lease to do day
events. So, um, just wanted to put that note out
there. Do you have that page at all. Yeah. So
Ray, if you could please display my screen. And also
while I have the mic just want to do a
time check, have starts at 530. Okay. Yes. I'm going
to be quick. So, um, I just want to point
out if you look at room at area one, the,
I cut it in half north and south. And anyway,
in area one, there's 292 parking spaces. So 186 in,
if you have the one to the north and half
the one to the south, um, and there are about
five restaurants, charter boats, couple recreation in the South part,
you have like 30 hotel rooms, four restaurants, three gifts
and two charter boats. But as you keep going down,
the amount gets less. So if you just go to
like section four in section four, you have six restaurants.
Um, the libertine, which could possibly be mixed use eventually,
um, three dessert stores, seven gift shops, eight hotel rooms,
one wine bar, three boat recreational activities and one jewelry
store. And in that quadrant, there's 54 parking spaces. I
did lump it all together, whether it was loading and,
and handicap, uh, just to be brief on this. And
then if you go to section six, you have four
restaurants, nine gift, one clothing, one service give to two
nonprofits. That's where Marina Square is. That quadrant has 30
spaces. So at this point in time, the EML would
absolutely request that you not remove any parklet. And that
are not remove any parking. Um, in the street ends,
um, and that right now we already have a deficit
of parking. So if you restripe, rearrange things to increase
more parking. Great. But still, even after that, we'll still
have a deficit of parking spaces. So, um, if it
does in fact happen that we're ever at a point
where we have too many, then maybe contemplate, um, changing
these to parklets. Yeah. Um, so for me, I started
with what problem are we trying to solve. And if
the only thing that we're, if the only reason we're
really doing this is to align with the general plan.
And that doesn't align with what we're hearing from the
community. Then my first thought is that we should, um,
try to raise to city council whether or not there's
a opportunity to change the requirement. If there isn't, um,
then my second thought would be tried to minimize how
we meet the requirements. So I like the idea of
the bulb idea of kind of bringing the sidewalk to
the end of the parking spaces to minimize, um, the
street ways that, um, pedestrians are crossing. I do think
that if we are required or are interested in a
street - end opportunity, then the centennial park opportunity to
me is the most compelling because of the view corridor
and also kind of like pedestrian corridor that we have
there. Which also based on kind of the performance of
trying to get someone to develop the libertine, um, could
meet an opportunity that the city has as well. Thank
you. I agree with most of the comments from my
fellow committee members, uh, and I think the primary person,
we should keep our eye on the prize. What rather
than focusing on solutions about whether we're going to convert
all these or where they need plazas. The requirement or
their question the general plan is to enhance lateral access.
Make the sidewalks connect better, make the harbor rock connect
better. And if you think of that as sort of
an Oreo cookie, we're talking about the outer layers. We
don't need to presume what's on the inside. What's on
the inside could be an expansion of adjacent lease space.
I think that there was a commentary about there are
a couple of them that are like 25 or 30
feet wide that are unusable without some addition on them.
And I think we heard some comments from Mr. Meyer
that while we're doing that, let's also think about the
vertical access. Because when somebody's walking along the embarkadero, they're
saying, so the water's over there. That's where I want
to go. So, uh, I support the idea of redevelopment.
Expansion adjacent lease bases, retention to some parking, we're feasible.
As well as conversion for some plazas, pet plazas, I
can think of around Gio's parking lot. Or anchor park
is that gets a lot of pedestrian uses, a sea
lion area. Uh, viewing area. And they sort of cram
into the edge of the parking. I can see expanding
that piece out. Or the beach street street end is
where everybody goes to see the acute otters. But they
have to walk through a parking lot to get there.
Maybe we expand out the viewing area for the otters.
And maybe some of that goes back to the, uh,
adjacent leasehold as well. Uh, don't necessarily support carte blanche
conversion of public clauses. I agree that, uh, let's do
something significant at the center. Uh, that's probably, uh, centennial
plaza. And I also agree that as we work through
that, we need to have a feasible plan to, uh,
to replace the parking if it needs to be displaced.
And it needs to be probably of the same location
and quality. So if it isn't on the street end,
it's based on, uh, providing some diagonal parking on the
embarkadero. And it can be done with succeed degree parking.
You can actually add spaces in front of everybody's business.
So rather than having a parking space on the side,
maybe have one that's dead into your business. But I
think before we go forward and say, well, we'll figure
that out later on. Let's figure that out a piece
out right now. And say when we do this, we're
going to do this other thing. Or do it ahead
of time. Because I don't think there's going to be
a lot of confidence that you'll get around to it
when you get around to it. So it's got to
be part of the same project or be done ahead
of time. I also think that we need to be
able to identify, in addition to the dimensions, what are
the constraints that we're dealing with. I can think of
the Hofbrow has its only exit to a public way
as its main door out to a street end, which
is a public way. If we change that to something
else, then they don't have the same exiting. Capacity. Some
of the trash cans are pushed all the way to
the back to the site because currently they're at the
end of the street ant. I think that's libertine has
their trash can at the end. So how are we
going to roll that trash can all the way out
to the street so it can be picked up. I
think the example was given of Anderson in that actually
relies on the street and for its circulation. So before
we go too far forward of, you know, doodling things
on what we can do. I think it's really important
to show. What are the current constraints. And possibly also
in terms of fire department access. Is that needed to
get to the second story of a, of a lease
base. So, uh, once we do that, maybe it becomes
a little, a little more focused, but I think we're
going to find out that maybe it isn't as. Open
a palate as we think it might be. So before
we ask people to sort of do that, let's say,
well, you can't do that. You can't do that. You
can't do that. And here's how we're going to solve
the parking problem. Anyway, those are my comments on the,
uh, the street end issue. Anything to follow up on
there? I'd like to, I think this comment will keep
coming up. So I'd like to address the comment of,
could the city council just eliminate that policy so we
don't have to deal with it. So the city council,
of course, has the authority to amend the general plan
going through the required process. Then the next step would
be to send that amendment to coastal commission for certification.
Coastal commission will say no. And so I'd rather take
that six to nine months of that process would take
and work with the waterfront master plan to figure out
how we can tailor that policy implementation in a way
that works for the community. Okay. Thank you. Uh, that
concludes our deliberations. I want to thank everybody for their
comments and for the public for being concise. I was
worried that we were going to blow past 530 pretty
quickly. But we got done on time. And, uh, with
that, I'll entertain an emotion to adjourn. I'll motion to
adjourn. Mark second, all those in favor. Aye. Thank you.
Good evening, everybody. I hope some of the rubs are.