[3:53] Staff, are we ready to proceed? Thank you. It appears
[3:57] we have a quorum, so I'll ask the clerk to
[3:59] call the roll. Committee member Costanzo. Present.
[4:09] Committee member Donnelly. Committee member Hanson. Here. Committee member Tognazini.
[4:17] Committee member Wachowski. Here, chairperson Peck. Yes. We are all
[4:22] here and have a quorum. Thank you. First item of
[4:26] business is committee announcements. Are there any announcements from the
[4:30] committee. Seeing none. I just want to give our thanks
[4:35] to Gene and Melody for their service. Always good to
[4:40] have people with that perspective and history to sort of
[4:43] guide the process and wish them certain luck. Next order
[4:48] business, our director announcements, Director Singwald. Are there any announcements
[4:53] or presentations under your agenda item. Thank committee members. I'm
[5:02] Errolment Director. And this is going to yield my director
[5:06] announcements to our city attorney, Brian Stock, excuse me, to
[5:10] speak to conflict of interest guidelines. Good afternoon. My name,
[5:17] Brian Stack, city attorney. I was asked by the director
[5:20] of the Community Development Department to provide a little overview
[5:24] of conflict of interest rules and provide maybe a little
[5:27] insight or guidance on how to potentially handle them as
[5:31] you encounter it was during your review. I guess as
[5:34] a housekeeping note, I'm here at wearing my city attorney
[5:37] hat. So I represent the interests of the city. I
[5:40] am not providing any individual legal advice to individual members
[5:42] of this committee, but merely providing guidance from the city's
[5:46] perspective to try and protect the integrity of this process.
[5:49] So to the extent that you have any individual concerns,
[5:52] I'm happy to talk with you. But if there's any
[5:55] significant level of concern, you would need to seek your
[5:57] own legal advice. Stepping back, broadly speaking, you know, conflict
[6:03] of interest rules apply if you are a public official.
[6:06] That's going to be engaged in making a decision. And
[6:09] you have a disqualifying financial interest. So the couple of
[6:14] elements that need to be unpacked. And I won't unpack
[6:16] all of them north. Do I think I could do
[6:19] that in a short way that's understandable? But let's assume
[6:23] your public officials, you are on a committee that's going
[6:26] to prepare recommendations to the city council regarding a legislative
[6:30] update. Or what I would consider a legislative update policy
[6:34] document. So we'll assume that you fall under as a
[6:40] public official. You know, there may be some gray area
[6:42] there. And so that's why most of my guidance will
[6:45] be air on the side of caution. So on this
[6:47] instance, let's err on the side of caution assume that
[6:49] our public officials bound by the conflict of interest rules.
[6:52] So now it goes to disqualifying financial interests. And there's
[6:58] two main categories I can think of regarding this planning
[7:02] area. One would be a business, a financial interest in
[7:05] a business that operates in the plan area and having
[7:09] a property intra in the plan area. I think to
[7:15] a large extent, there may be a lot of overlap
[7:18] because a lot of businesses in this area either lease
[7:22] or own the property, you know, from which they are
[7:24] operating a business out. And in preparing for today, and
[7:29] try and get to the heart of matter, the business
[7:33] interests and how you get disqualified are the threshold standards.
[7:37] So if it's more, if your business interests might be
[7:39] affected by more than a million dollars, that's disqualifying financial
[7:43] interest. Or if there's going to be a, I believe
[7:46] it's five percent change in gross revenues.
[8:02] But it has to be at least 10, 000 dollars
[8:04] So the math that needs to be done. And it's
[8:07] also always kind of a subjective question of like, what's
[8:09] the likely business impact? Uh, so I think it's easier
[8:12] to follow the property interest rules, distance from the, from
[8:17] your interest to what you're being asked to weigh in
[8:21] on. And the regulations by the FPPC fair political practices
[8:27] commission, uh, they, they do them kind of in 500
[8:30] tranches within 500 feet, it's presumed to be a disqualifying
[8:33] interest, uh, unless that there won't be, uh, on, on
[8:38] that real property invest. In between 500 and a thousand
[8:41] feet, it would be a disqualifying interest. I think boiling
[8:47] it down as if it will likely stanchly alter of
[8:51] that immediate substantially altering traffic levels, use, parking, views, privacy
[8:58] noise, uh, things of that nature. Anything beyond a thousand
[9:02] feet, presumed not to be a disqualifying interest unless the
[9:05] clear enhancing evidence that there would be an impact. So,
[9:08] um, I think it's most important to think about the
[9:12] 500 foot, anything within that my general recommendation would be
[9:16] not to weigh in on a product feature that is
[9:18] within 500 feet real property interest. Anything in between 500
[9:25] and a thousand feet, if it's going to involve a
[9:28] change, uh, that is relatively isolated to that area in
[9:32] traffic, adding more lanes, significantly removing or adding parking, changing
[9:36] circulation, I would recommend to not weigh in on that
[9:39] specific chature. And there, if you're, if you're, if you
[9:48] feel, have a potential disqualifying interest, the recommendation would be
[9:52] to not vote on that specific component. And instead, uh,
[9:57] step down from, um, IS. And you can speak as
[10:01] a member of the public on the issue. And then
[10:03] we'd ask that you'd leave the room. Have that voter.
[10:05] And then when it's done, you can come back and
[10:07] continue to weigh in and vote on, you know, other
[10:09] items before you. Another overarchy umbrella is, and why a
[10:15] lot of you are here is because you either have
[10:20] some say business interest or specialized knowledge or experience with
[10:24] this area. So it's, there's kind of this like catch
[10:27] 22, it feels like, right? Like we're asked you to
[10:29] be here, but then also if you have an interest,
[10:31] you have to be careful. And so there is this
[10:33] public general exception. So if there's not going to be
[10:36] unique impacts to your interest, you have the ability to
[10:40] still weigh in on that. Um, what we're really focused
[10:43] on or features that would cause unique impacts to your
[10:48] interest. And in those situations, we would ask or recommend,
[10:52] uh, that you recruse yourself. You can speak to it
[10:54] as a member of the public. Uh, and then, you
[10:59] know, come back into the room once that matter has
[11:02] been decided. And there is, and again, another wrinkle is
[11:09] leases are generally treated differently than having like a fee
[11:13] interest in the property. But like business interests, there's a
[11:23] subjective nature to it. And with leases, it says, you
[11:27] know, there would be a disqualifying interest if it may
[11:30] increase or decrease the potential rental value of the property,
[11:34] or it may impact your use and enjoyment of the
[11:35] property. I don't find that very helpful. And so I
[11:38] tend to go back to, okay, let's follow as if
[11:40] you own the property foot, use those metrics. Cause I
[11:43] think they're more helpful and easier to follow. Um, and,
[11:48] um, that's kind of my short summary, uh, off the
[11:52] cus or any further follow up, I think to provide
[11:55] context for when this be implicated. I understand there's planning
[11:59] topic area - wide. I don't think this conflict of
[12:03] interest advice is implicated during those discussions. But you may
[12:06] have cite - specific discussions about, say, should we alter
[12:10] circulation here? Should we remove parking here? Should we add
[12:12] parking here? I think those are the site - specific
[12:15] features where the conflict of interest related may come up.
[12:20] And where my, you know, recommendation on how to handle
[12:22] those would come into play. So to start off the
[12:27] discussion, I know there are some members on the committee
[12:30] who do have business interests and probably property interest. Could
[12:35] you tell us a little bit more about substantially if
[12:40] the action is taking two parking spaces here and putting
[12:43] them over here in about the same area? Is that
[12:46] a substantial change? Or there's no net increase or decrease.
[12:52] So if it's a zero sum, is that a conflict?
[12:55] And I guess I just want to get that out.
[12:57] Also, the committee is not concerned with. Zonings or rezonings.
[13:04] We're not determining that. In some cases, we may say
[13:07] within this part will be parking. This part will be
[13:10] a building. Don't know if we're going to get that
[13:12] granular. But, um. We're sort of putting together the pieces
[13:17] of the puzzle after the city is already determined with
[13:20] the land uses are going to be. So could you
[13:22] speak to that a little bit? So we're clear. Yeah,
[13:27] I'll take the first one. And what qualifies as a
[13:31] substantial change or substantially altering is, I think normally guided
[13:38] by, use your best judgment. I think there's certainly taking
[13:42] into account the percentage change is a good way often
[13:44] to look at it. If you're removing two or you're
[13:47] changing two out of 100 parking spot, I think the
[13:50] chances that, uh, regulator would find financial is low. If
[13:55] you're changing two out of four spots, that's 50 percent,
[13:59] you know, that could be more substantial if that is
[14:03] a substantial feature of that area, right? If force parking
[14:05] spot, um, I can, I can give some examples of
[14:08] where, you know, the FPPC advice letters, which are kind
[14:12] of a safe harbor provision. So if you do have
[14:15] any specific concerns, you can always seek advice from the
[14:19] FPPC and they can issue an opinion letter. And if
[14:22] it gives you safe harbor from future enforcement action, should
[14:25] their opinion be, you don't have a disqualifying interest. And
[14:27] then the later determination that there was, in fact. Uh,
[14:30] disqualifying interests. So they, they issue letters. And those can
[14:36] be helpful to provide helpful examples. The recent letters, a
[14:41] lot of the facts are regarding rezoning or allowing greater
[14:47] density for new large housing projects. So going from sites
[14:52] that are 20 units in acre to like 60 over
[14:58] four or five, 10 acre site. And those properties have
[15:02] been fit between 500 and a thousand foot from the
[15:04] public officials residents or business. And the FPPC is generally
[15:09] said, yeah, we think that's a substantial change because you're
[15:11] adding a lot more people likely impacts on traffic and
[15:15] parking. So, uh, I think, um, again, I tend to
[15:20] come from it from a percentage standpoint. And using your
[15:24] best judgment on whether this, whether you feel this is
[15:27] a substantial change or not. I'll open up for the
[15:29] committee comments and questions. Again, we're not concerned with rezoning.
[15:35] The property has been zoned. We're not tasked with rezoning.
[15:41] The densities won't change. There may be some design requirements
[15:45] that may change because that's part of our task. But
[15:52] just want to sort of get clear, because I imagine
[15:55] that the workaround on this is eventually going to be
[15:57] that I'm conflicted on this issue related to this property.
[16:02] And we need to create a straw vote around that.
[16:06] So that anybody who's conflicted on it, uh, won't vote
[16:10] on it. They can comment on it, but they won't
[16:11] be able to vote. And then we take another straw
[16:13] vote on something that we're another member might be conflicted.
[16:16] And then we sort of put it all together and
[16:18] move that on. Is that the normal course of action
[16:21] where we have sort of a Swiss cheese of potential
[16:25] conflicts? Yes. Uh, sorry. I forgot to mention that concept.
[16:28] FPPC calls it segmenting. It's definitely an appropriate way to
[16:31] handle and it would be through the straw vote process.
[16:35] So you can break down discrete issues. I straw votes.
[16:39] Do you recuse yourself if you think you have a
[16:41] conflict from that specific straw vote? And at the end
[16:43] of all this, you can still vote on the overall
[16:45] plan, including all the straw votes. Um, so that is
[16:48] an appropriate way to handle that. As far as I
[16:50] forgot to answer your second part of the question about
[16:53] zoning, yeah, I'll defer to the department obviously on the
[16:56] nature of the scope of this. But it's not, uh,
[16:59] you know, it's not just land use zoning regulations that
[17:03] can trigger conflict of interest rules. It can be park
[17:06] improvements, uh, circulation changes. Any action that the city may
[17:12] take pursuant to this plan, that can be, that would
[17:17] be an official decision that could get triggered or would
[17:21] trigger conflict of interest rule. So it's not just zoning.
[17:25] It's, it's if we add this beautiful park right here,
[17:28] that's a site specific feature. Is there a likely impact
[17:31] to your interest that's between 500 and 1, 000 feet.
[17:36] As an example. Questions from the committee. Before I accepted,
[17:44] uh, spot on this committee, I talked to Rob Schultz.
[17:47] And he has a different perspective than you do. Um,
[17:50] I'm concerned that you're not going to protect us, that
[17:57] you're here to protect the city, but you're not protecting
[17:59] people on the committee. It makes you almost not want
[18:01] to vote on anything, to be honest with you. If
[18:07] I may respond, it's by protecting the city, the intent
[18:12] would it also hopefully protect the committee members, uh, it's
[18:15] just, I can't give legal binding advice to individual committee
[18:19] members. Sorry if that was misunderstood. So as far as
[18:27] I know tonight, we don't have anything on the agenda
[18:30] that's requires a vote. But we do have things that
[18:34] require comments and input from stakeholders. So knowing that is
[18:40] there a point, because we're talking about, um, and CAP
[18:45] streets and parking, pretty much your example, um, would you
[18:49] suggest that either of us, any of us that are
[18:53] up here that have, um, benefits if we get one
[18:55] more parking space that we should absolutely do public comment
[18:59] this evening instead of speak when we're supposed to. So
[19:04] if I may, I think that's actually a good example
[19:06] where the discussion at this meeting is more high level,
[19:10] uh, as far as the approach to that specific issue
[19:13] in general plan policy regarding replacing the parking spaces with
[19:17] pedestrian connections. I think all the WAMPAC members can certainly
[19:20] provide comments on that. As far as when this could
[19:23] become a concern, I actually have one of the slides
[19:26] in my presentation that lists out the planned agenda items
[19:30] for future WAMPAC meetings. And June 4th is the WAMPAC
[19:36] meeting where we plan to present our, um, the preferred
[19:41] concept plans that we get based on public input from
[19:45] the workshop number three. And that's when we'll start to
[19:48] see actual lines on a map showing parking spaces removed
[19:51] or added or park improvements. The very specific tangible proposals,
[19:56] um, the chair would most likely want to take a
[19:59] straw pole and have people who are conflicted out recuse
[20:02] themselves. And to build on that to the extent that
[20:06] there's additional time. The city attorney is an official that
[20:10] can submit a request for an opinion letter from the
[20:13] FPPC. So I'd be happy to do that. Um, to
[20:17] provide, you know, they always couch their opinions on, based
[20:20] on these facts, you know. So the limit on how
[20:22] much information you can provide them or a different hypotheticals,
[20:25] but if there's any general overarching questions that you'd like
[20:29] some opinion on, I'd be happy to do that. Again,
[20:32] provide some more shirts to the committee members. Um, I,
[20:36] I would appreciate that any of these future meetings that
[20:39] you think that there is an obvious conflict of interest,
[20:42] um, that you give us a heads up, um, specifically.
[20:45] So we can have the time to write something for
[20:48] correspondence or have something prepared for public comment to get
[20:51] it in in three minutes. Thank you.
[21:05] Thank you, Mr. Stack. There's an item on the gender
[21:11] of public comment. I will say that tonight, because we're
[21:13] dealing with multiple action items under when agenda items, we're
[21:18] going to be expanding that public comment period of five
[21:20] minutes. So don't feel the need to run out the
[21:23] clock. If you don't need to, but, uh, want to
[21:26] make sure everybody has some time to get that, uh,
[21:28] information in. First action item is the waterfront master plan
[21:36] advisory committee minutes from January 8. Are there comments or
[21:41] questions on the minutes as presented. Seeing none is our
[21:47] motion to approve. I move, we approve second. Sorry. All
[21:56] those in favor. Aye. Thank you. Any opposed. Thank you.
[22:05] Item 5b is the background report community workshop number two
[22:10] and the street and pedestrian connections issue focus. Uh, these
[22:14] are our main items of business tonight under one agenda
[22:17] item. And they include the review and comment on the
[22:20] news sections of the background report. Review and comment on
[22:23] workshop number two and initial conversations and discussion of implementation
[22:27] of general plan policy on the treatment of street ends.
[22:32] We'll start with a presentation on these items of staff
[22:35] pausing. For committee comments on the presentation material after each
[22:39] item. Then proceed to public comment on the three items.
[22:43] And then bring it back to the committee for comments.
[22:46] Also note in the staff report that requests is to
[22:48] focus on new material presented. Uh, staff has presented the
[22:52] material. It's quite voluminous. If you have written comments that
[22:57] you'd like to submit, that you're not able to get
[22:59] into night, please do so. Um, those comments will be
[23:06] reviewed in appropriate modifications rolled into the final background report.
[23:13] So I want to also note that the appropriate time
[23:16] for comment on the items is after completion of the
[23:20] entire staff presentation and public comment. And we'll take each
[23:23] item, each action item separately. So let's start with presentation.
[23:30] Director Singwald. Thank you Mr. Chair. So I'm going to
[23:32] present the first couple of slides. Them in turn number
[23:35] two are consultant Amy Sinsheimer who's joining us via Zoom
[23:39] this afternoon. And I'll slide as she presents. So the
[23:46] agenda as the chair mentioned, first I'm going to start
[23:49] by about what the goals are for this meeting that
[23:52] I have a timeline for the next four months of
[23:55] our waterfront planning journey. And then, uh, Amy is going
[23:59] to present the background report and workshop number two items
[24:03] on the agenda. Then I'll wrap it up with the,
[24:05] uh, issue focused on the three M pedestrian connections to
[24:08] get that conversation started. So as the chair mentioned, this
[24:14] is a voluminous agenda packet to help the, uh, committee
[24:18] get through this, um, meeting as efficiently as possible. I
[24:21] wanted to start off with outlining the goals for what
[24:25] will a successful meeting look like at 5 p. m.
[24:28] when we're likely to wrap up. So first again, as
[24:32] chairpek mentioned, we'll receive input from one pack members and
[24:35] the public on sections of a draft background report that
[24:38] the WOMPAC has not already seen and commented on. And
[24:41] just as a reminder, the WAMPAC has already commented on
[24:45] the market study, the transportation background report, the waterfront history
[24:48] statement and the status of the proposals for the 1996
[24:52] waterfront master plan. Now, I know you may have comments
[24:55] that you want to make on some of those other
[24:57] topics that we've discussed in the past such as the
[24:59] market study. You're welcome to make those comments. But remember,
[25:02] we have a limited time in our goals really to
[25:04] look at the other sections of the background report that
[25:06] we haven't had a chance to discuss yet. Next, um,
[25:12] successful meeting will look like the WAMPAC will know what
[25:15] to expect at the upcoming workshop. Well, we'll know what
[25:18] to expect for our February 25th community workshop held in
[25:21] this room at 6 p. m. Amy's going to present
[25:24] on that. And then we're also going to get into
[25:28] that topic of the street end pedestrian connections. And what
[25:32] we hope to get some initial, um, direction and thoughts
[25:34] from Wampak members and the public on that topic. And
[25:39] then finally, I wanted to just remind the committee in
[25:43] public of a message that I made when I first
[25:45] won pack meeting that we really are one team. I
[25:48] mean, staff, the consultant, the WAMPAC, the public. Our decision
[25:52] makers. And I'm certain that we have a shared goal
[25:55] to get the best possible water for master plan that
[25:58] really likes the values of the community and honors what
[26:01] a special place more obey is. And just kind of
[26:04] keep you there successful and productive medium. And I alluded
[26:13] to a few minutes ago. What I really want to
[26:17] convey, I want to convey things from, from this slide.
[26:19] First, you can see how many columns of public input
[26:22] we have over the next four months. I've mentioned before
[26:25] that when we scope this out request for proposals, we
[26:29] very intentionally made public comment, a critical component of the
[26:33] scope and maximize public participation. We see that in Mont
[26:36] Blanca meetings, be that in having five, five workshops planned,
[26:40] um, our goal is to vet material with the WAMPAC
[26:44] and the public, of course, who joins the WAMPAC meetings
[26:46] or watches them, um, before that information is presented at
[26:49] a workshop. So it's a very, um, involved public process.
[26:54] So as far as the specifics of this work plan
[26:57] for the next four months, I call it destination concept
[27:00] plans. At the first workshop, I use this analogy of,
[27:04] we're going on a journey together. And for this segment
[27:07] of the journey, the main focus is concept plans. We
[27:11] want to develop. The concept plants. So, um, where we
[27:16] are currently is the February 5th, Juan Pack meeting reviewing
[27:19] that draft background report, the input that we get from
[27:22] the WAMPAC today. We are going to use to update
[27:26] the background report and put together a final background report.
[27:29] That's the next column over the deliverable. That final background
[27:32] report will be one of the main items we present
[27:36] at the February 25th workshop. However, also at the workshop,
[27:41] we're going to get input from the community on a
[27:45] draft division statement. And ideas and proposals for the character
[27:48] areas. Now with the first workshop community members shared a
[27:52] pretty long list of their ideas and proposals for the
[27:54] six different character areas, we're going to present those ideas
[27:58] that we already heard from the community at the first
[28:00] workshop. And we're also going to, so we're going to
[28:02] get input from other community members on those ideas and
[28:04] proposals that we heard previously and we're also taking additional
[28:08] ideas for, um, the different character areas. And we'll get
[28:11] input on a draft vision statement. Then we'll present that
[28:14] information to the WAMPAC on March 5th, the WAMPAC will
[28:18] help us finalize the vision statement. The vision statement is
[28:22] really important because it sets the direction for the alternative
[28:27] concept plans that we develop for each of the sixth
[28:30] character areas. And once you have the final vision statement,
[28:35] then the next item is we'll use that to develop
[28:38] what I'm calling a framework for alternatives. And this is
[28:40] a way we can get some initial WAMPAC input on
[28:44] the alternatives that we create before we present those at
[28:48] a workshop. This will present this framework, which will be
[28:51] more of a written description of what the alternatives will
[28:54] include. We'll present that to WAMPAC in April. Once we
[28:59] maybe make some edits based on WAMPAC, uh, input, we
[29:03] will finalize placeworks will go and develop those different concept
[29:08] plans. And we will, uh, unveil those at the public
[29:12] workshop at number three. And we'll get the public's reaction
[29:15] and comments on those various alternatives. And we'll then present
[29:20] the concepts to the WAMPAC along with what we heard
[29:23] from the public and ask the WAMPAC at the June
[29:26] 4th meeting to begin to decide on the preferred concept
[29:30] plans for each of the six character areas. I know
[29:33] that's a lot of information. It's a very involved process.
[29:36] It is going to be a lot of work over
[29:38] the next four months. I think that the level of
[29:42] volume of this agenda packet is pretty much representative of
[29:45] what you can expect to see the next four months.
[29:48] So thank you so much for your volunteering. So much
[29:51] of your time and expertise to this work effort. It
[29:53] really is. It's a lot. And with that, I will
[29:59] turn it over to Ms. Sinsheim or a placeworks to
[30:02] give a presentation on the background report. Good afternoon. Can
[30:07] you guys hear me all right. Yes. We hear you,
[30:10] Amy. Excellent. Sorry. I couldn't be there in person today.
[30:14] Um, as chair PEC said, we'll start with an overview
[30:18] of, uh, the parts of the background report that haven't
[30:21] been presented yet. And then pause for the committee before
[30:26] we go into the next item. So, um, before we
[30:30] dive into the new sections, though, I actually, would you
[30:33] advance to the table of content slide. Eryn. Or whoever's
[30:39] running. Okay. Thank you. So before diving into the more
[30:48] details, I just want to make sure everyone has a
[30:51] kind of the concept of how the document is put
[30:54] together. So you've seen the market scan and the transportation
[30:58] report. Those are appendices to the main background report. So
[31:02] you see those there at the end. That's the full
[31:05] reports for both of those. And then we do have
[31:07] summaries of both of those within the main report as
[31:10] well. So, um. Just to touch on where things are
[31:14] at with the pieces that you've seen already, um, you've
[31:19] weighed in on the two appendices like Ireland said. And
[31:22] we have reviewed all the comments on both of those
[31:25] and made some updates, um, and some examples are there
[31:29] are some places where the data needed updating or expanding
[31:34] on one example is in the previous version, the commercial
[31:40] fishing baseline year was 2014. And we got some good
[31:43] feedback that that was a year that was had pretty
[31:47] high catch numbers and didn't really represent a lot of
[31:51] the surrounding years in terms of the trends. So we
[31:54] were able to revise that to start in 2012 and
[31:59] that adjusted the trends, hopefully to be more realistic. Another
[32:04] example is the rental data, um, along the waterfront. The
[32:09] initial report did have, um, information from the co -
[32:13] star data source. And that was all retail properties, not
[32:17] just the leases along the waterfront. And that's been revised
[32:21] based on some assistance we got from the harbor department
[32:24] and data that they have to include the average annual
[32:28] rents for the lease properties. And so that's now been
[32:33] included as a call out box on the retail rents
[32:35] page of the market scan. Um, other edits to both
[32:41] the market scan and the transportation report or more for
[32:45] adding context to what's in there. Um, for the market
[32:49] scan, there was a page that includes information about different
[32:54] regions outside of the central coast where potential visitors could
[32:59] be, uh, gained from. And we wanted to make sure
[33:04] that we clarified that the Fresno, um, metropolitan statistic area.
[33:11] Actually just included the Fresno area, not the whole central
[33:14] valley. So there's been some language added to clarify that.
[33:18] Uh, for the transportation report. There have been some updates
[33:22] to, um, information about traffic counts and the conclusions related
[33:27] to the plan mortgate EIR. And also some updates related
[33:31] to parking and collision discussions, uh, these are just a
[33:35] few examples. There are things that were commented on that
[33:40] have not been addressed yet in the edits and they
[33:43] will be addressed in later parts of the process. For
[33:46] example, future demand and total square footage for retail and
[33:50] hospitality uses. That really needs to be tied to the
[33:53] concepts that Eryn was just mentioning. So the concepts for
[33:56] the different character areas. Um, in addition, we had some
[34:01] input about making sure we're looking at the regional salon
[34:04] of subisco county, um, demand and context. And that will
[34:09] also be part of that demand analysis. Um, also as
[34:15] part of the visioning process as we move forward with
[34:17] that, we'll be looking on looking at local resident preferector.
[34:23] So as Ireland mentioned, you have also weighed in and
[34:27] the public has weighed in on the 1996 WMP proposals
[34:31] as well as the, um, draft history statement. And those
[34:36] edits have not been made yet, but those will be,
[34:39] we've noted the feedback and the edits that have been
[34:43] agreed to and those will be part of the final
[34:46] background in court. So we can move on to the
[34:52] next slide. So now we just, uh. Let's see. This
[35:02] might be a little out of order from what I
[35:03] have, but that's fine. Uh, we want to. Give a
[35:06] little more information about the sections that are new that
[35:10] are in the main part of the background report. So
[35:12] a lot of this is really, you know, setting the
[35:15] stage for what are the regulations that are already in
[35:17] place either at the local level or state regulations.
[35:28] And the guide, the waterfront, so the existing uses in
[35:31] range, um, things land use designations and policies as well
[35:36] as your zoning that's in place. My next slide, please.
[35:48] And for the California Coastal Act and your local coastal
[35:53] plan and program apply in this area, uh, the sea
[35:58] levelized guidance from the coastal commission is being, is reflected
[36:03] in this report and is what we're using to work
[36:05] on the C - level rise analysis as part of
[36:08] the project. There are also regulations related to the tide
[36:13] lens trust area and the leases. It's included here. The
[36:18] next slide has the two ordinances, measured D and measure
[36:24] A24, actually the voter initiatives that are in place in
[36:28] certain parts of the waterfront. To God in those areas.
[36:34] Slide, please. We also have details on the landownership mix.
[36:51] A long waterfront. We have information that you have already
[36:55] reviewed on the 1996. We have information about other plans.
[36:59] Good plan, there's our plan that was prepared for the
[37:02] proposed project at the power plant a few years ago.
[37:05] And the city's clean from the work we're doing now.
[37:19] Um, this is the list that has been updated every
[37:23] meeting since any of the project background report of projects
[37:29] and efforts that are underway. And then finally, there are
[37:37] a couple of sections summarizing other efforts and plans, um,
[37:42] not initiated by initiated by there was a Cali Holly
[37:45] student project that looked at areas of the waterfront last
[37:48] year. Uh, the city has the information about and has
[37:52] been shared. It has some ideas for this plan and
[37:57] also the 2022 offshore wind study that reached conducted. Is
[38:03] something that some of the waterfront master plan area. Next
[38:08] slide, please. So the background report also summer of the
[38:14] public engagement that occurred earlier last year. Um, as part
[38:19] of kind of the initial data gathering, uh, and input
[38:22] on the project. And that included the stakeholder focus groups,
[38:26] stakeholder interviews. And we've, uh, reported on this previous to
[38:32] the background report, but now it's, um, memorialized in there.
[38:37] Next slide, please. And then just a reminder, these are
[38:41] the sections that have already been looked at by the
[38:46] WAMPAC. So just to conclude before we pause for your
[38:54] input and questions, um, so the background report really is
[38:58] this overview of existing conditions, policies, regulations.
[39:09] Uh, that will inform the process moving forward in the
[39:12] actual planning and decisions about what should happen moving forward
[39:17] in this plan and then in this area. So it
[39:20] doesn't explicitly limit what the future actions will be. WMP
[39:28] or state what needs to happen. It's really a technical
[39:32] study that should support the planning effort. And it doesn't
[39:35] put any guardrails on what the recommendations should be. So
[39:41] I just wanted to show that this is, you know,
[39:44] we're kind of coming to the end of the process
[39:46] of the data gathering and so that we can move
[39:49] into the land itself. Next, please.
[40:00] Asking you to receive this information, let us know if
[40:04] you have questions or comment, we'll address that in the
[40:07] final background report. But we're also really looking for, you
[40:10] know, what do you see as the key takeaways and
[40:12] implications for where change is more likely to occur in
[40:17] the planning area and what kind of change that is
[40:21] needed. And we have some examples here for your consideration.
[40:27] So we'll stop the, why don't we take a break
[40:30] there for, uh, committee questions. And again, reminding the committee
[40:33] that this is your opportunity to ask questions on the
[40:36] presentation. We'll have a point after public comment. We'll, we
[40:40] can opine on our issues or opportunities with the background.
[40:46] Material itself as well as the other pieces. So do
[40:50] you communs have any questions on the presentation. Great. Thank
[40:55] you. I just had one question when it goes back
[40:59] to the existing land uses. You have a map. And
[41:05] the only six spots, but on number three, the market
[41:09] street. Are we, doesn't say anything about that. Is that
[41:13] included in this? Looks like it's marked on the map,
[41:16] but it doesn't, uh, we're just focusing on the five
[41:19] and six area. Where the power plant, the old wastewater
[41:23] plant. Does that make sense? So are we including that
[41:26] market? Are we deciding on that market street? Is that
[41:29] part of this. If I may respond, so we had
[41:33] an item a while back where we asked Wompack to
[41:36] review the planning area, uh, boundaries. And that does include
[41:39] inclusion of seven, eight, one market and the surrounding city
[41:43] on parcels. Yes. I don't have the entire staff report
[41:53] in front of me in the background report. But as
[41:55] I seem to recall, there was some mention of the
[41:58] offshore win. And I mentioned this before about assembly bill
[42:02] three where the California energy commission is looking at seaport
[42:05] readiness. I don't know if that means that we're on
[42:08] the radar screen or not and how that might affect
[42:11] us or how we could at least. Put some safeguards
[42:16] in to protect our port from what they want to
[42:19] do. I know they're really studying heavily up and humbled
[42:23] right now. But, um, it looks, there's a map and
[42:28] they're showing different locations for ports. You know, one Nikki
[42:32] Beach up there earned a delydios property that was named
[42:35] after his dog, Nikki. There's also one down on the
[42:38] Holosser ranch drakes. I can't believe they would even think
[42:41] of putting something there because that's probably going the best
[42:44] reference parts in the entire city of California. Um, but
[42:48] we need to be aware of what the California energy
[42:53] commission might be looking at when they come into our
[42:55] town. And maybe we should focus on some sort of
[42:58] safeguards there. Mark, any questions on the presentation itself, other
[43:06] than the background report. At this time, I don't know.
[43:10] Mary. Yeah, I had a few questions. First, on page
[43:19] 47 of the background report, um, it discussed it. It
[43:23] has a comment that most, uh, nearly half the land
[43:27] and more obey is part of the state park or
[43:29] the beach. And because of that, the largest land use
[43:32] in the waterfront master plan area is open space slash
[43:35] conservation. Um, I was wondering if that is a comment
[43:41] of Moro Bay or specifically the land that was in
[43:46] scope for the waterfront master plan update because, um, just
[43:52] at a quick glance on the map, it seems that
[43:54] if we limited that comment to the in scope land,
[43:59] it might not be mostly open space. Yeah. Thank you,
[44:03] Committee Member Wakalsky. That's a great point. So that would
[44:06] have to be referencing all of Morvay, not just the
[44:09] waterfront master plan, plantaria. So we will make sure that
[44:13] this is corrected. So that's clear. Okay. Thanks. Um, and
[44:21] then I was another just kind of question. I was
[44:29] wondering, um, what kind of this source reference or stakeholder
[44:35] was at the comment on, this is on page 100.
[44:41] There was, um, a key takeaway that fermented leases, um,
[44:47] make it difficult to curate future development. And I was
[44:50] interested behind that takeaway.
[45:00] So Amy, is that something you can respond to? Do
[45:02] you have that in front of you. Yeah. Um, I'm
[45:06] looking for that page, but in the stakeholder interviews. No,
[45:13] I was just, it's a hundred in the bottom. Left.
[45:16] I call out that takeaway that is specific to fragmented
[45:20] leases. And I was just, if you had the source
[45:24] behind that, um, key takeaway to share. Okay. Is it
[45:28] page one PDF. Or page 100 agenda package? Yeah. Okay.
[45:35] One second.
[45:51] So this end, so, um, I believe this is these
[45:55] are conclusions that, um, were made as part of the
[45:58] market scan, you know, based on the analysis. In that
[46:01] study, but I can follow up with HRNA who did
[46:04] the details on that. And there they can say about
[46:08] that. Okay. Thank you. Grace, any questions in the presentation?
[46:16] Okay. I don't have any questions on the presentation at
[46:18] this time. Uh, let's have on with the community workshop
[46:22] presentation. Okay. And I don't even know if you guys
[46:28] can see me on the video, but I was having
[46:30] a little bit of Zoom stalling out. So I'm turning
[46:32] off my video in hopes that that won't happen. More.
[46:36] Um, yeah, so we're really excited. We're finalizing materials for
[46:40] workshop number two on February 25th. With the city staff
[46:44] currently. Um, that'll be in the evening again here, or
[46:49] where you guys are today at the Best Memorial Building.
[46:53] I think you've all received the flyer. It didn't make
[46:55] it into the packet, but it is now out and
[46:58] available. Um, the goals are to share an overview of
[47:03] the project. And that's something we did at workshop one,
[47:07] two, but we want to continue to do that, especially
[47:10] for those who may not have made it to any
[47:12] outreach so far. Um, we'll share a summary of input
[47:16] received. At workshop one. Um, we will have, uh, I'll
[47:22] get into kind of the proposed agenda or approach in
[47:26] a minute, but, um, in the middle of the workshop,
[47:29] we're planning to have a interactive presentation that will focus
[47:33] on the background report. And the draft vision statement. Excuse
[47:39] me, and some, um, thoughts on areas of change. So
[47:44] that's one of the reasons we're hoping to get your
[47:45] feedback on that question today. Um, and then there will
[47:50] be an opportunity to initiate some discussion about the street
[47:55] end opportunity sites as well as to have some feedback
[48:00] on what we've heard so far about. Proposals for each
[48:04] character area. Ireland mentioned this at the beginning, uh, but
[48:08] looking at, you know, what has been talked about so
[48:11] far to continue from the 1996 plan in addition to
[48:15] other ideas that we've heard during the process so far.
[48:20] Next slide, please. As he mentioned, um, we have a
[48:27] proposed approach or agenda. This is a different approach than
[48:30] the workshop number one. There is some time for open
[48:35] house like workshop number one at the beginning and at
[48:38] the end where there will be some stations. And I'll
[48:41] describe those on the next slide. But in the middle
[48:44] about half of the workshop time will be dedicated to,
[48:48] um, a presentation that will include, um, some interactive discussion
[48:54] as well as, um, polling using memento meter software. And
[48:59] that will focus on, you know, providing. A presentation similar
[49:03] to the one today, but a little more lengthy about
[49:06] the background report since there hasn't been a public workshop
[49:10] on that yet, as well as the vision statement. Like
[49:16] I mentioned before. Uh, so we hope that people will
[49:19] kind of take the time to roam around the stations
[49:23] at the beginning. Participate in the presentation and then perhaps
[49:27] have more to say, um, at some of the stations
[49:30] after that or just have discussion with staff, project team
[49:35] and others. Next slide, please. So the stations for the
[49:41] open house part of the workshop, um, would be that
[49:45] project overview. Again, this is, um, this is something we
[49:49] plan to have available throughout the project. The draft vision
[49:52] statement and receive input on that before we bring it
[49:56] back to the WAMPAC to discuss. The ideas and proposals
[50:02] that I mentioned for each character area. Some initial prioritization
[50:08] about how, um, we might identify which street ends our
[50:14] opportunities for development or redevelopment. And then we'll have a
[50:19] children's activity area. Again, uh, like workshop number one. Hopefully
[50:23] we can get some kids there this time. And I
[50:25] believe that's the last slide. So before we move on
[50:32] to the final element of the presentation, are there any
[50:36] questions from the committee on the presentation. Start with committee
[50:40] member Watowski. Um, my first question is on the mentometer
[50:46] survey tool. Um, will you include an optional question to
[50:50] collect demographic data and will we be able to receive
[50:54] a readout of the raw data. Um, after the workshop.
[51:02] Hi, so we're working with the city staff right now
[51:04] on the presentation. And if, if the city would like
[51:07] to include demographics question, we're happy to. And I don't
[51:11] see why there wouldn't be the opportunity to make the
[51:15] raw data available, at least to the committee. Yeah. I'll
[51:21] also defer to staff if they want to say anything
[51:24] else. Um, yeah, thank you, Amy. I would just add
[51:26] that that's something that we could easily program into mentometer.
[51:32] Um, that may not be typical question we would ask.
[51:36] So I'm going to defer to WAMPAC of that's data
[51:38] that you really want to see. Then we'll put it
[51:40] in there and we'll collect that data at the next
[51:42] workshop. All right. My second question is what owned and
[51:48] non - owned channels are you marketing the workshop. On.
[51:55] Owned being, um, a city parks in rack Instagram not
[51:59] owned being next door as an example. I'll start. I
[52:09] know we are working with a school district, uh, to
[52:12] get the flyer out. I believe that it's been posted
[52:16] on all of the city owned channels. And I think
[52:20] staff mentioned at least one other venue that I'm forgetting
[52:26] if you guys want to weigh in. Yeah. Thanks Amy.
[52:27] So we would promote it in the similar fashion as
[52:30] a last workshop. So that included Facebook, LinkedIn, of course,
[52:35] the city's Facebook page, City LinkedIn page. I believe we
[52:38] also put it on next door. The hot topics on
[52:44] the front of the city webpage and Amy mentioned the
[52:48] schools. And of course peanut up and down. The embarkadero
[52:54] in downtown heading out flyers. But as far as like
[52:56] online, um, forums, those are the main ones. And we're
[52:59] open to other suggestions as well. And this time we'll
[53:02] also be forwarding the flyer to our recreation department to
[53:05] get it in there newsletter. Am I member Hanson any
[53:13] questions on the presentation. On this side. Yeah. I had
[53:20] a thought. I don't know if we can do it
[53:22] in the next workshop or a subsequent workshop. Would it
[53:25] be nice if we had like a presentation showing a
[53:28] drone video going down the entire length and then maybe
[53:32] coming back along the waterfront side, you know, Gene Dowdy
[53:35] always brought up about, you know, we're not seeing the
[53:37] water sign of this. And during the presentation, the workshopping
[53:40] show a little video of going up and down both
[53:43] sides, everything just to get visual impact of what, what
[53:48] it all looks like. We don't have to do it
[53:49] on this next workshop, but maybe on a subsequent workshop,
[53:53] it's an idea. Well, thank you, Committee member Donnelly. Our
[53:57] harbor director Chris Munson, he's on it.
[54:07] Committee member, talk to Zini. Any questions in the presentation?
[54:10] I have none either. Let's move on to the next
[54:11] item. So I get to take the next and final
[54:16] item. So I came up with this terminology issue focus.
[54:22] We know that this waterfront master plan update is going
[54:25] to tackle head - on. Some kind of key issues
[54:28] that have been a hot discussion topics in the community
[54:30] for a while. One of them is the question of
[54:33] street and pedestrian connections. So this is really just to
[54:36] introduce the conversation as Amy mentioned. This will be a
[54:40] focus of the workshop to get some initial input from
[54:43] the community on kind of the prioritization of the street
[54:46] ends that make the most sense to convert into public
[54:49] spaces. So I, in the next few slides, bar kind
[54:53] of initial, internal thoughts on this topic and we want
[54:56] to hear from the WAMPAC and community as we begin
[54:59] to move forward on this. So here's what we're talking
[55:03] about. So this slide has a map on the left,
[55:08] the same map will be used on a large poster
[55:11] board during the workshop to illustrate the seven street and
[55:15] parking lots that are referenced in Plan Morro Bay. On
[55:19] the right, you have, of course, verbatim, uh, policy circulation
[55:24] 2. 2 street and pedestrian connections. This is in our
[55:28] current general plan. The waterfront master plan will implement the
[55:33] general plan. That's the most at a high level that's
[55:36] the most important concept of this planning document is it
[55:38] must implement the general plan, including this, this policy. So
[55:42] this is something that needs to happen and the waterfront
[55:45] master plan is how we get to decide as a
[55:47] city, how we want to implement this policy. I also
[55:51] highlighted just some key terms in this policy that are
[55:55] worth contemplating. One is, because we had past redevelopment projects
[56:00] where there were conversations on the embarkader where there were
[56:03] conversations about converting the street and parking lots into a
[56:06] public plaza, I think that plaza concept versus the pedestrian
[56:10] connection concept have been little conflated. So I just want
[56:13] to point out that really we're talking about pedestrian connections
[56:16] that could be a plaza. A plaza might make sense
[56:18] uncertain street ends and other street ends that might make
[56:21] might not make sense. Um, then I highlight here across
[56:25] the street ends. Really, it's about lateral access. So there's
[56:29] continuous, you know, pedestrian connectivity along the west side of
[56:33] embark at Arrow. And again, that may include or may
[56:36] not include a plaza in the middle or there could
[56:39] be something else. That's what we get to decide in
[56:40] our plan as a community. Then I highlighted, including by
[56:43] relocating, parking from these areas, our interpretation of that is
[56:48] that we locating the parking out of these areas to
[56:51] somewhere else on the, uh, the waterfront is required element
[56:56] of this, of this policy. So I wanted to share
[57:00] kind of our initial, um, impressions of, you know, what
[57:04] this means. And I walked the waterfront frequently. And I
[57:10] do believe that there is a real public purpose being
[57:13] forwarded by this policy. I think everyone in this room
[57:17] has walked the waterfront many, many times, you know, when
[57:19] you're walking on the sidewalk along. The west side of
[57:21] Embarcadero, when you come to a street end and a
[57:25] car, you know, is turning in front of you, it
[57:27] really interrupts the flow and create some safety concerns and
[57:30] kind of just impact the vibe of walking down the
[57:33] embarkadero. Now policy talks about, you know, replacing parking. So
[57:41] I want to be clear that we're not looking to
[57:46] reach a proposal, whether it be a net loss of
[57:48] parking spaces. So the waterfront master plan is really the
[57:51] tool where we're going to develop a circulation concept that
[57:54] shows through restringing. We've heard conversations about parking structure. Maybe
[57:59] there are other areas in the waterfront master plan area
[58:02] where more parking spaces could be generated. The point is
[58:05] our circulation concepts will have to show how exactly those
[58:09] lost parking spaces will be replaced in a realistic way.
[58:14] And then also, as I mentioned, some of the street
[58:17] end parking lots make sense to be converted to a
[58:19] public space. Others that may not make as much sense,
[58:23] um, it's, it's worth discussion. And I think this may
[58:26] be a topic where there's not everyone's going to agree,
[58:30] but it's worth discussion on for when we have a
[58:32] smaller lease site adjacent to a speed of the parking
[58:35] lot. Does it make sense to expand the available area
[58:37] of that lease site onto one of the street ends.
[58:42] Or a portion of, again, we want to put all
[58:44] the ideas out there and get the public input. Then
[58:49] finally, as I, you know, mentioned really, we have to
[58:51] implement the policy, but we get to decide through this
[58:54] plan how we're going to implement the policy. And I
[58:57] think some of the most important criteria for that are
[59:00] financing. So who pays for this? Does it come out
[59:03] of the city budget. Of course, we all know limited
[59:08] resources of no resources to really fund this from the
[59:11] city budget. But do we look at adjacent, at least
[59:13] site developers, which has been the approach on the liberty
[59:16] and redevelopment project that went through entitlements. Last year or
[59:20] a couple of years ago. Um, do we come up
[59:22] with some in Luffy structure? So financing is an element
[59:25] to look at in the plan, then design, again, how
[59:27] do we want each of the three dens to look
[59:29] and function? So the public plaza expanding adjacent lease site.
[59:33] Are there areas where we do want to retain sublimited
[59:35] vehicle access? I mean, to, you'll be realistic looking at
[59:39] the harbor street end. That is also the, uh, egress
[59:43] for the Anderson in. So that screened is going to
[59:45] look different than the moral bay boulevard street end. And
[59:50] really the plan allows us to look on a case
[59:51] by case basis to decide as a community, what makes
[59:54] sense for each of these areas, keeping in mind that
[59:56] we are going to identify replacement parking. Then finally, a
[1:00:01] timing and priority. So like I mentioned, we are going
[1:00:04] to ask the public to help us rank the street
[1:00:08] ends that make the most sense to convert a public
[1:00:09] spaces sooner rather than later. And I already talked about
[1:00:15] this. So this will be one of the activities at
[1:00:17] the public workshop. So that concludes this part of the
[1:00:19] presentation. Thank you, Director. Again, any, I'll start at my
[1:00:26] left. Any questions on the presentation material only, not the
[1:00:30] evaluation of the issue. James. Yeah. You showed on your
[1:00:35] exhibit theory you have dunes street end. I don't know
[1:00:40] where the dunes ends at the bluff. So it doesn't
[1:00:43] make its way down to the embark and doll. So
[1:00:46] I don't know why that's showing. That would be the
[1:00:48] parking just adjacent to north of Anchor Park right there.
[1:00:53] Think the parking spaces. Geo's parking lot. Yes. At wavelengths
[1:00:59] or at. On, on, on, on the west side. So.
[1:01:04] It's between anchor park and Giovanni's. Then when you mentioned
[1:01:09] Front Street and Moral Bay Builder, that's what one and
[1:01:11] the same. That's where the libertine is. That'd be that
[1:01:14] parking area. Yes. It was one or the other. What
[1:01:22] is it? So it was, it was, it was difficult
[1:01:24] for us to determine exactly what was intended by, by
[1:01:27] front street. If that was referencing the Morobet Boulevard or
[1:01:32] the beach street. The point's, if you look at the
[1:01:37] map here, it's pretty straightforward what the street ends actually
[1:01:40] are. There have been again, some confusion on what was
[1:01:44] intended by the front street street end. Also, um. The,
[1:01:53] uh, plan moral bay. I think I asked this one
[1:01:57] of the first meetings we had. And you had mentioned
[1:02:00] that it was in the Plan Moral Bay, but Plan
[1:02:02] Moral Bay says you didn't provide that section, but the
[1:02:06] policy says that the city shall conduct a study to
[1:02:09] see how to consolidate parking. In essence, to mitigate the
[1:02:12] loss. So I don't know what you would do. Does
[1:02:16] that make narrowest parking spaces or parking on top of
[1:02:20] one another? I mean, how would you consolidate parking to
[1:02:23] mitigate the loss? And there's like 45 to 47 parking
[1:02:27] spots that would be lost four or five of which
[1:02:30] are handicap. So are we going to be out of
[1:02:33] compliance with the ADA because we lost handicap parking? Are
[1:02:37] we going to really the inventory be actually, I don't
[1:02:40] see how you can make up for it for the
[1:02:42] loss. So I think that's the beauty of this, this
[1:02:44] process. Because so far it's been kind of an abstract
[1:02:47] conversation where we hear those very, um, important questions that
[1:02:52] we'll have to figure out. And when we get to
[1:02:54] June, we're going to have those land use and circulation
[1:02:57] concept plans, which will actually show exactly how it would
[1:03:01] be affulation alternatives and where there is capacity through restriving
[1:03:07] or other ways to increase a number of parking spaces
[1:03:10] to make up for these. So we are going to
[1:03:12] get there and actually show those on a map. Over
[1:03:15] the next several months. And to put in the street
[1:03:18] end plazas or whatever you want to call them is
[1:03:22] that, would that be considered close to dependent? In other
[1:03:24] words, they have to be there in order to function
[1:03:27] under the coastal act. I would argue that the parking
[1:03:31] is more central. I talked a lot of the businesses
[1:03:34] down and this is, Oh, we don't want to lose
[1:03:36] that parking. That's what we need for their businesses. So
[1:03:39] to put in a plaza instead, again, is it need
[1:03:42] to be there in order to function or could a
[1:03:45] plausibly put pretty much anywhere else. Why don't we save
[1:03:48] that those comments for our valuation and comment, um, at
[1:03:52] this point, let's just ask questions on the material, the
[1:03:56] three slides on this to clarify those. And we'll have
[1:03:59] plenty of opportunity here from the public on this as
[1:04:01] well as our own recommendations. That's all I have. Thank
[1:04:05] you. Many member Tugnazine, any questions. Yes.
[1:04:18] I had a question. If you could remind me, is
[1:04:20] there a guidance on what, um, time horizon. We should
[1:04:23] be considering in the plans. So there's not, there's not
[1:04:30] a timeline guidance in this policy. The timeline for the
[1:04:36] waterfront master plant update, I believe is 25 years. And
[1:04:42] again, the waterfront master plan is our tool to implement
[1:04:44] this policy. So I would say within the time frame
[1:04:47] of the waterfront master plan is when we would have
[1:04:49] to implement. This policy. Hansen, any questions on the presentation.
[1:05:00] My only comment on the presentation is that I did
[1:05:04] a deep dive into kind of the legal area where
[1:05:07] these are. They show up on maps. It would be
[1:05:10] helpful to have the map that was displayed, I think
[1:05:14] is the first slide on a much larger basis and
[1:05:16] maybe even dimensioned. You can pull the dimensions off probably
[1:05:20] a GIS map. But it's surprising to see what actually
[1:05:25] is a street end. We sometimes it's a parking lot
[1:05:30] sometimes. It looks like a private parking lot. Uh, some
[1:05:34] of it is in the Libertines case. Some of that
[1:05:36] is on private property. Um, so I guess my ask
[1:05:40] on the presentation is that that's kind of at a
[1:05:43] high level to fit everything on one slide. But I
[1:05:46] would recommend for any presentation you have to the public
[1:05:49] that you actually zoom in on what do they just
[1:05:51] have a line around where the legal property is. The
[1:05:56] city may own property around that, but that may be
[1:05:59] a different issue. So let's understand what it is, how
[1:06:03] wide it is, how deep it is. Maybe how it
[1:06:05] relates to lease sites adjacently sites or so. You got
[1:06:09] it. Okay. Thanks. With that, I'll open it up for
[1:06:16] public comment. Under the city's rules and special advisory committee
[1:06:20] regulations, public equipment opportunity to provide comment on items on
[1:06:24] the agenda. Because of the multiple action items covered comments
[1:06:28] will be limited to five minutes rather than the customary
[1:06:31] three. As always, committee members are encouraged to submit agenda
[1:06:36] correspondence prior to the media. And we did probably receive
[1:06:38] six or seven pieces of agenda correspondent. So thank you
[1:06:41] to that. And as I said at the beginning of
[1:06:44] the meeting, don't feel the need to run out the
[1:06:47] clock if you have some time. Let somebody else have
[1:06:50] it because we're, we're pressed up here to kind of
[1:06:52] get out. Hab has to come in. So with that,
[1:06:56] I'll open it up for public comment from the floor.
[1:07:04] Good afternoon. Uh, my name is Eric Meyer. I'm speaking
[1:07:06] as a private citizen. Um, I sent you a letter
[1:07:09] which I won't reiterate. Um, I comment to Amy. Hi,
[1:07:13] Amy and to staff with respect to the master plans
[1:07:16] that should perhaps be also included as reference material background
[1:07:21] specifically the pedestrian and bicycle master plan 2011 12.
[1:07:32] Uh, and that should be included because it does have
[1:07:34] a number of objectives and goals specifically around pedestrian interface
[1:07:39] and bicycle connections, uh, and the types of amenities associate
[1:07:43] difficult to find you can't get online is I had
[1:07:45] to actually ask the director for a link and he's
[1:07:48] gracefully sent a link. Uh, so.
[1:08:05] That's point one. Point two is in addition to what
[1:08:07] I sent you. And I went out and I measured
[1:08:09] all these street ends and driftwood through moral bay boulevard
[1:08:14] street ends or 69 feet wide curb to curb, uh,
[1:08:18] with 90 degree parking. The harbor street one is 56
[1:08:21] feet wide. And it's about the bare minimum for 90
[1:08:26] degree curb to curb actually a little less than the
[1:08:29] pendulum. Um, but the bare minimum is 64 feet curb
[1:08:33] to curb for 90 degree. And so I'm, I'm concerned
[1:08:36] not only about lateral access, which is accessed parallel to
[1:08:39] the waterfront. But the vertical access, if each of those
[1:08:42] sidewalks vertically accessing, you know, 90 degrees to the water
[1:08:47] are relatively skinny walk. And over time, if we were
[1:08:52] redeveloping, we could narrow the parking lanes if we were
[1:08:55] to maintain parking. We could narrow them down to the
[1:08:58] minimum, which is 60 in a couple of feet on
[1:09:00] either. Financially important to do it right now. But as
[1:09:05] things are changing, that would be the time to do
[1:09:07] it. Um, and then additionally with respect to lateral access
[1:09:11] along the west side of, um, if we were to
[1:09:15] bounce, uh, at the, uh, across each of those, uh,
[1:09:21] Pacific, et cetera, we would narrow the pedestrian travel 20
[1:09:25] feet instead of being 60. Because you wouldn't be including
[1:09:29] this space right at the edge of the, or the
[1:09:31] cars are parked on immediately east of the parked cars.
[1:09:37] Uh, if we could do some sort of hybrid situation
[1:09:40] by keeping, let's say 80 percent of the parking. That
[1:09:47] are next to the harbor walk on each of those
[1:09:50] locations. So you could widen up the harbor walk by
[1:09:53] at least probably eight feet. I think each space is
[1:09:55] nine feet in the spots. And getting the extra eight
[1:09:59] feet would give you room for benches and some minor
[1:10:01] infrastructure and just make it a much more comfortable adventure.
[1:10:04] And we'd still save parking. And because has this has
[1:10:07] already been brought up, uh, along Market Street between Harbor
[1:10:11] and. Pacific by putting in 90 degree parking there along
[1:10:16] one side as has been done down north of Beach
[1:10:21] Street in front of the old, um, GNNs. That would
[1:10:28] add plus or minus 30 spaces so that maybe it's
[1:10:32] 10 spaces. We lose on the ambarcuter itself with gain.
[1:10:35] An extra 20 by adding the 30 up top. And
[1:10:39] my comments to you in my letter were specifically about
[1:10:42] a park starting at the Centennial staircase and going down
[1:10:46] and including the space, which is the libertine property. And
[1:10:50] the more loss of the libertine properties such that you'd
[1:10:53] have a 90 degree line of sight straight down to
[1:10:55] the bay from moral B boulevard. So it's when a
[1:10:58] tourist come from the, as you're a tourist, you're coming
[1:11:00] into town to get off at more people of our
[1:11:02] due drop down the below or you get to an
[1:11:04] orchestre and you go, what do I do? And so
[1:11:07] if there was good parking right there and you could
[1:11:09] see the water, you'd know to park there. That's the
[1:11:12] end of my comments.
[1:11:38] Oh good. You want to follow up on Eric. So
[1:11:40] I really think, uh, his suggestion on opening up, uh,
[1:11:44] where the liberty is now for a view slide into
[1:11:48] the bay is excellent. It's something that's lacking has been
[1:11:53] removed over the years on the embarkadero where they were
[1:11:56] all one store, westside, excuse me. Uh, about that. But
[1:12:00] I think dropping the other thing that the city owned
[1:12:04] the land, I think like from Coleman Park all the
[1:12:07] way up to the wastewater treatment plant that they under
[1:12:10] that maybe a hundred wide.
[1:12:25] And, uh, that area, if you wanted more, and you
[1:12:28] might consider that whole wretch, uh, I believe it could
[1:12:34] serve any more out of sight. I don't know. You
[1:12:37] go further than you. It's like, you know, boats. And
[1:12:44] so visually all you see is really a massive parking
[1:12:48] lot. If it could be pushed a little further north
[1:12:52] and looked into the property that the zones just north
[1:12:56] of where you make the turn out from there north,
[1:13:00] uh, maybe that would solve some of the parking issues.
[1:13:02] So thank you.
[1:13:29] All right. Myers speaking of citizen here. I am super
[1:13:32] excited to see these end plazas or whatever the term
[1:13:35] is. I've looked at those. I actually used one this
[1:13:37] winter for a movie night by the libertine. I have
[1:13:40] as many people as I thought. So I think success
[1:13:42] and I'm excited to see at least have.
[1:14:07] Um, first of all, I want to say that I
[1:14:09] think corresponds and I agree with it all whole heart,
[1:14:13] including the thing about lighting in Guerrero for. Um, I
[1:14:17] remember before she passed away and she loved to come
[1:14:20] down to the embarkadero. And to get, uh, handicap spaces,
[1:14:25] just not room. And the street ends were usually the
[1:14:28] ones where we could find a place where she could
[1:14:31] actually access enough walkway to get around. And I think
[1:14:35] that's something we have to remember. Our residents are not
[1:14:39] all spring chickens. And to be able to have access
[1:14:43] easily to the stores. I mean, if you want locals
[1:14:46] to be there, you have to make sure that they
[1:14:47] can do it comfortably. And the street ends do pride
[1:14:51] that. Um, do we need more little parks there? No,
[1:14:54] we don't. We have so many parks scenarios around there
[1:14:57] that we really don't need more, but we do need
[1:15:01] parking and we need a convenient for not only our
[1:15:04] tourists who don't know where to go to get places.
[1:15:06] But for our residents who do know and want the
[1:15:09] convenience of being able to get their evil. So thank
[1:15:12] you.
[1:15:24] Hi, I'm Margaret Carmen. And I'm glad that we have
[1:15:28] an advisory board that we can do. And all that
[1:15:36] we have. And I just want to remind you guys
[1:15:39] there was something that was reports that said, the board,
[1:15:43] you get staff report, which is great, but you don't
[1:15:46] have to do everything. And I hope that you'll live
[1:15:49] to us. And I'm going to, um, Mr., I'm going
[1:15:52] to, I'm going to piggyback on what you said. There's
[1:15:56] send an email in, but it didn't get posted because
[1:15:58] I'm really computer ignorant. Ms. Winholtz had to put this
[1:16:02] email together because I don't know how to do links
[1:16:05] and add the emails and all that. But I really
[1:16:07] want everybody in the city that has anything to do
[1:16:11] with making decisions to please go on this website. It's
[1:16:15] called darkSky. org. It's actually all over the world. It's
[1:16:19] a, it's an amazing. I couldn't even believe all the
[1:16:21] resources they had. But I use some of those links.
[1:17:02] But in the, um, background report, there's two places ahead
[1:17:07] of that. And this was 11 years of 2015. UC
[1:17:11] Davis had law and spent 1. 2 million dollars. This
[1:17:15] LED blue city so much. And the public actually made
[1:17:20] chain 340, 000 dollars back in 2015. And we are
[1:17:25] next, and I'm telling you, as they're waiting, not have
[1:17:28] literally it calls for putting domes over the light because
[1:17:33] it talks about this website that we have glare because
[1:17:37] you've got such a wide area that you're trying to
[1:17:39] illuminate with those LED lights. People see less. They have
[1:17:43] more problems. And it was interesting. Even at your home,
[1:17:47] it talked about, here's this cone. And the people break
[1:17:50] in your, in your house shuts height over here in
[1:17:53] the shadows, but that's not going to happen. You're not
[1:17:55] going to have people hiding on the walkways. But, um,
[1:17:59] there's a lot of data on this website about how
[1:18:02] these high intensity lights have plants and animals. Life's sleep
[1:18:08] and protection from predators. And so please, please, please look
[1:18:12] at this website.
[1:18:24] And changes before something gets put in. Down the embarcadero
[1:18:28] now. And these joints are just shining in your face.
[1:18:31] Those of us who are getting cataracts.
[1:18:43] So, okay. That's enough about that. And like, because even
[1:18:47] the word street in opportunity telling you it's only an
[1:18:51] opportunity to make a change. Like what's wrong with like
[1:18:54] Ms. Peter said.
[1:19:07] Restaurants, those leaseholders are paying a plant that have mobilities
[1:19:10] camp bartender their restaurants. They're going to lose income. And
[1:19:14] we don't need more parks on the embarkado. It is
[1:19:17] a park in itself just being near the ocean and
[1:19:20] looking at the rocks. And I was told by someone
[1:19:23] else, I haven't looked this up. So excuse me if
[1:19:26] I'm wrong, that you, the board could ask the city
[1:19:31] council to take this requirement out of the general plan.
[1:19:35] So then we're not trying to figure out how we're
[1:19:37] going to change something that we're, I mean, wherever you
[1:19:40] go where the people, you got to look for cars.
[1:19:43] That's just the nature of the world. And I really
[1:19:45] hope that you don't decide to make a waste street
[1:19:49] or block off the embarcadero. There's not enough room for
[1:19:52] that. And you've got a big hill down the hill,
[1:19:54] the third street promenade in Santa Monica. And Miss Nancy
[1:19:58] Bass wrote you a really good, um, email about people
[1:20:04] come to us because we're not the same as everybody
[1:20:06] else. And we don't look like Disneyland. And we still
[1:20:09] look like beautiful moral bay. And, um. Absurd to talk
[1:20:16] about bottles on the embark, Darrell. There's not enough room.
[1:20:20] I think you walk on the embarcadera or park and
[1:20:23] then walk. Thank you.
[1:20:34] Any of them, there we go. I had two handouts
[1:20:42] there. Thank you. Uh, good afternoon. Uh, my name is
[1:20:46] Ray Ladd. I'm a moral bay resident. We retired from
[1:20:50] Dean's office at Cal Poly's College of Architecture and Environmental
[1:20:53] Design. Uh, I've attended a few community meetings here in
[1:20:57] Maurel Bay. And one of them, or at least at
[1:21:00] one of them I noticed that, uh, one of the
[1:21:01] goals was to generate revenue for the city for improved
[1:21:06] services. And, uh, also I know from reading the paper
[1:21:10] and such that one, there was a kind of a
[1:21:13] question about remove three stacks or keep them for preservation
[1:21:17] purposes. And so the idea I'd like to propose and
[1:21:20] that I've proposed three years ago city in an email
[1:21:24] would be to preserve one of the power plant smokestacks.
[1:21:28] As a moral bay lighthouse. And the goal there would
[1:21:33] be to create long - term tourism generated jobs and
[1:21:37] revenue for the city. And that would be via admission
[1:21:40] fees to the lighthouse, uh, restaurant and hotel occupancy gas
[1:21:45] station market and, you know, retail sales taxes. And the
[1:21:49] idea for this nautically orientated non - navigational lighthouse could
[1:21:56] satisfy both sets of residents, you know, some that want
[1:21:59] them all removed and some don't want them at all.
[1:22:01] So one would be kept. And I understand the city
[1:22:04] doesn't own the property. And there are some constraints on
[1:22:08] the site, of course. And, uh, with that in mind,
[1:22:12] and in light of the proposal for the battery plant
[1:22:16] withdrawn by Vistra, I should say, uh, you know, this
[1:22:20] may be open to an alternative redevelopment proposal for the
[1:22:24] site. And, uh, that's why I thought I would submit
[1:22:28] this idea again that, you know, in light of the
[1:22:31] battery plant being eliminated, then maybe this idea might have
[1:22:35] a little bit more merit to it. Uh, I'm hoping
[1:22:38] moral by his long - term student include the idea
[1:22:40] of a moral bay lighthouse. And some points about it,
[1:22:43] the tourists could write up the elevator to the top
[1:22:46] to enjoy spectacular views and social media opportunities. Uh, the
[1:22:52] non - navigational lighthouses in the world. And I've done
[1:22:55] some research on it. Moral bays, if it were to
[1:22:58] come to fruition would be the world's tallest of those.
[1:23:02] And currently one of the stacks is 450 feet. Though
[1:23:05] it would be appealing to, you know, families with kids,
[1:23:08] uh, it could be also an iconic feature for the
[1:23:11] city similar to Seattle's space needle, um, stratosphere, uh, viewing
[1:23:18] tower in Las Vegas. And of course, something like the
[1:23:20] Eiffel Tower as well that now has lights on it
[1:23:23] and that sort of thing. Um, it also could of
[1:23:26] course be paired very well ideally with a maritime museum.
[1:23:30] That's right below it. Um, the CEO of the Bay
[1:23:34] Area Engineering Firm called Overa and Company. Letter research led
[1:23:39] some research showing it could cost 36 million dollars to
[1:23:44] build one stack in today's dollars. And so we already
[1:23:47] have that built. So that's kind of like the community
[1:23:50] asset or perhaps a golden goose of sorts. Uh, I
[1:23:53] read a local newspaper article that noted after an inspection
[1:23:57] report. It's the, uh, one of the stacks could stand
[1:24:00] for a hundred years. If it was capped. The cap
[1:24:09] in this case might be the lighthouse itself. It would
[1:24:11] be designed for capacity, of course, to pay for itself.
[1:24:15] Uh, demolition of the stacks though is scheduled for the
[1:24:17] close of 2027. It's probably all you all know. Vistra
[1:24:21] may not be willing to reopen negotiations, but I feel
[1:24:25] they might, if it meant they only had to demo
[1:24:27] and remove only two of the three stacks. And there
[1:24:30] would be sizable savings for them. And I feel though
[1:24:33] that that's one of the biggest obstacles to the ideas
[1:24:36] that the current policy is that all three stacks are
[1:24:39] removed. I feel the idea needs a champion, someone who,
[1:24:44] you know, would support a feasibility study to see if
[1:24:47] it's valid as a revenue concept. And perhaps the architectural
[1:24:52] preservation grant available that off, you know, with a state.
[1:24:56] And if it's deemed self - supporting and beneficial, I
[1:24:59] feel there would be a need at that point to
[1:25:02] partnership with a developer concessionnaire with a successful track record
[1:25:08] of creating a visitor serving destination for May. And in
[1:25:13] closing, I know this is a lot to consider. So
[1:25:15] I'd like to, um, email with some research links to
[1:25:19] your advisory committee. And, uh, I just feel beneficial to
[1:25:23] the city and services, you know, for residents and the
[1:25:26] business owners to be attracting, uh, tourist - oriented type
[1:25:32] of attraction that I know we're not a real industrialized
[1:25:36] city and that this maybe would fit because it has
[1:25:38] an article fame. So that would be it. Thank you.
[1:25:48] Any other public comment from the room. Being none, do
[1:25:52] we have anybody in the online queue. Yes, the one
[1:25:59] hand raised under the name Judy Lynn. Peace proceed. Sorry,
[1:26:08] I'm here. Commissioners. Your work you're doing on this and
[1:26:16] the opportunity to speak a little bit longer. I appreciate
[1:26:19] that. As most of my comments refer to public input.
[1:26:28] And I read something alarming. In the report. That I'll
[1:26:36] quote what it said city staff is working with the
[1:26:39] California coastal commission to create framework for a moral rock
[1:26:43] visitor access enhancement plan to address public safety and maintenance
[1:26:49] concerns. The aim is to identify opportunities for improvements to
[1:26:54] traffic management, public services, and parking infrastructure. It's on page
[1:26:59] 77. So I'm asking city staff and the consultants that
[1:27:07] before they do anything to remember that it is not
[1:27:11] okay to change our way of life. Without the majority
[1:27:14] of residents permission. This is why the rock redesign needs.
[1:27:22] Its own workshop and not a sticky board. Community input
[1:27:29] be the coastal commission is essential. The community is against
[1:27:34] city staff assuming that they know what's best for the
[1:27:37] redesign of our moral rock parking area. You are wasting
[1:27:42] money by having city staff spend time on this before
[1:27:45] the community gives input. We want to continue our history
[1:27:51] of accessing and serve by driving right up to the
[1:27:55] water's edge. Mothers must be able to drive their kids
[1:27:59] close to the rock and south rock beaches. Surfers must
[1:28:04] be able to park and launch from the parking area.
[1:28:08] The elderly and disabled must be able to park at
[1:28:11] the water's edge to enjoy the water, surf, and activities
[1:28:15] happening on the beach and in the water. So many
[1:28:20] of Moro Bay and you don't understand the history of
[1:28:22] our way of life. Pavement is not natural. What exists
[1:28:27] is in the past our public works department was able
[1:28:31] to maintain the parking lot. They worked with the community
[1:28:35] members to have dirt dropped off just after a rain.
[1:28:41] It was organized timely. Efficient and happened on a regular
[1:28:46] basis. For traffic flow, you can utilize the area lanes.
[1:28:53] I'm sorry, the extra lanes on the embarcadero between Coleman
[1:28:57] Beach. And work on in between Coleman and Beach Street
[1:29:03] and work on an additional exit point through the power
[1:29:06] plant property. Not seeking community input is how we lost
[1:29:12] our ability to own the 100 acre power plant property
[1:29:16] and came dangerously close to having a 600 megawatt lithium
[1:29:20] balm on our waterfront. Please listen to our community. We
[1:29:26] thank you for the workshops, but at the workshops, we
[1:29:31] don't have an opportunity to speak. So I would like
[1:29:34] to encourage you in an effort to most effectively glean
[1:29:39] from the community. Please. Have an open mic. Workshop.
[1:29:51] And there's just so much going on the waterfront. It's
[1:29:54] such a big area that it would best serve everybody
[1:29:58] if you divided it into at least three sections. And
[1:30:02] so possibly your second workshop that's coming up, you could
[1:30:07] focus on the rock and colombeach. And offer an open
[1:30:12] mic where everybody got to come up and say what
[1:30:15] they wanted to say about the rock and Coleman Beach.
[1:30:18] And it's recorded and it's offered on Zoom so that
[1:30:21] people who can't physically come in can offer and put
[1:30:25] on Zoom. And then and then of course your other
[1:30:30] areas would be a couple other workshops. And I know
[1:30:34] this is time consuming for you and it's not how
[1:30:37] it's all planned out by the consultants, but it's what
[1:30:39] we want. We want my open mic time. And I'm
[1:30:43] sorry if that bores you or bugs you are infringes
[1:30:47] on what you need to get done, but it's our
[1:30:50] community. And we want an opportunity to speak. And then
[1:30:55] so, um, this question was asked before, but I don't
[1:30:59] think an answer was given. Why does the waterfront boundary
[1:31:03] map exclude part of the parking closest to the rock
[1:31:08] near the lifeguard station. And then as far as parking
[1:31:13] versus plazas, we need the parking spots. And I'm just
[1:31:22] these wrap up. Five minutes is up. Five minutes. Yep.
[1:31:34] Kind of don't think so, but okay. Thank you everybody.
[1:31:43] Any other members or people in the online queue. There
[1:31:48] are no more rates. Oh, I'm sorry. Right as I
[1:31:50] said that one more hand came Shawnee Briggs. Go ahead.
[1:31:54] Thank you. Sorry. I was muted. Uh, thank you for
[1:32:01] the opportunity to speak. Um, I'm maybe coming late to
[1:32:05] the game, but I'm, I'm here representing local indigenous voice
[1:32:09] connected to this region. And, um, I just want to
[1:32:15] say that this master plan will shape more obey for
[1:32:17] 30 years. And it matters who's left out. I'm not
[1:32:24] sure if the selenium people were invited to this table
[1:32:27] or teach you Yachtyhini were invited. But the indigenous herd.
[1:32:34] And, um, I've had the opportunity to work and be
[1:32:37] represented through the maritime museum. Very on that. And I
[1:32:42] just wanted to kind of. Say thank you for this
[1:32:47] planning. And I hoped I don't know invited or not.
[1:32:50] I've never heard of it. And we have limited staffing
[1:32:55] and capacity and it's hard to do these kind of
[1:32:58] public things. Pretty good stake in the game. And most
[1:33:03] importantly, I'd like to see that, um, history and tender
[1:33:06] ecosystems are featured. In this project. That's all. Thank
[1:33:16] you. Anybody else in the online queue. There are no
[1:33:22] more raised hands in the queue. Thank you. We'll close
[1:33:27] the public comment for now and bring it back forward
[1:33:29] to the action. Um, let's break this down by the
[1:33:32] individual issue areas that the director has provided. Mr. Chair,
[1:33:38] the appropriate time, I'd like to make to the public
[1:33:40] comments. Sure. So if I may do that now. So
[1:33:45] in regards to the staff working on a paid parking
[1:33:53] at the rock program, that is, that is listed in
[1:33:56] the current upcoming waterfront initiatives and the speaker accurately read
[1:34:02] that off from, from a list. I just want to
[1:34:04] clarify, however, that is, uh, an initiative that started for
[1:34:10] a short while at the beginning of last year. There
[1:34:13] was a staff working group looking at what that might
[1:34:16] look like. However, we're not currently working on that. Um,
[1:34:20] we put that effort on pause to have that topic
[1:34:25] vetted and discussed with the WAMPAC and the community through
[1:34:27] this waterfront master plan update process, which of course is
[1:34:30] a very, uh, open and public process. Um, also any
[1:34:34] proposal. To manage access at moral rock would require coastal
[1:34:40] development permit from the coastal commission, which would have a
[1:34:43] very involved public process as well. So nothing that's going
[1:34:45] to happen in that regard without significant public involvement from
[1:34:50] WAMPAC and the community. And ultimately coastal commission. Um, as
[1:34:56] far as the workshop format, I just want to, I
[1:34:59] think many of the people in this room were at
[1:35:01] the first community workshop. And I stood at the front
[1:35:03] of the room with the mic 30 minutes urging community
[1:35:08] members to take the mic and speak up so we
[1:35:10] could take notes and hear their comments and make sure,
[1:35:13] um, those are, uh, recorded and carried forward. I'm in
[1:35:16] the background report. So that did happen. That will continue
[1:35:19] to happen at upcoming workshops. As far as the map
[1:35:24] being updated. So yes, we heard from a speaker at
[1:35:27] the last WAMPAC meeting. And we have updated the map.
[1:35:33] We are in the process. I've given a sense to
[1:35:35] Amy to update the map to include the entire moral
[1:35:37] rock parking lot. So that was an oversight or fixing
[1:35:40] that. And as far as, um, outreach to the, uh,
[1:35:45] Native American groups. So this is a general plan amendment,
[1:35:50] which under state law, SB 18, we are required to
[1:35:55] do formal consultation with all the Native American tribes with
[1:35:59] the interest in the area. We are going to initiate
[1:36:02] that once we have a draft plan. So we have
[1:36:06] an actual plan for them to, um, respond to you
[1:36:09] and comment on as we consult with Native American groups.
[1:36:12] And we will make sure also that all the Native
[1:36:15] American groups, um, that we reach out to them that
[1:36:17] they are on our interested parties list so they can
[1:36:19] participate in a WAMPAC meetings and community workshops throughout the
[1:36:23] entire process. So those are my responses. Thank you. Thank
[1:36:28] you, Director. So we'll move on to the committee's discussion
[1:36:34] and action. Um, let's start with action item number one.
[1:36:39] We're asked to receive and file this report and provide
[1:36:41] our individual comments on it. I think the receiving file
[1:36:48] is an administrative thing. Do show your approval. Um, so
[1:36:52] let's start with, uh, also we make a motion receive
[1:36:56] and file. Earlier. We were asked to just share questions
[1:37:03] we had on the background report. At what point would
[1:37:06] we be able to comment. On the background repair? That's
[1:37:09] the next action in about two seconds. So I think
[1:37:12] the action that the staff wants collectively is a receiving
[1:37:17] file. We'll vote on that. And then move on to
[1:37:20] our individual comments on the background report. Then move on
[1:37:24] to our individual comments on the. Community workshop. And then
[1:37:28] our individual comments on the street end. So we can
[1:37:30] just get it together. But I think the only real
[1:37:33] action we have as a committee is to vote on
[1:37:36] receiving and filing the background port as presented so far.
[1:37:41] Does that make sense? Um, so I know that we
[1:37:47] probably won't have any time, but if, if there is
[1:37:50] a chance to add any new questions or comments about
[1:37:54] marketing and circulation, um, I'd like to add that if
[1:37:58] we have time, um, but I will make the motion
[1:38:00] to accept and receive and file the background. There are
[1:38:06] a second to that. All those in favor. Aye. No
[1:38:10] opposed. So on that item, now's the time to provide
[1:38:16] individual comments on the background report itself. So I'm going
[1:38:21] to start at my right. Mr. Chair, before we get
[1:38:24] into that, we missed two second that the motion to
[1:38:27] receive and file. Receive and file. Thank you. And so
[1:38:31] the second list from you. Right. Thank you. File only.
[1:38:36] Committee member Watowski, your comments on the background. Sure. Um,
[1:38:43] all right. So my first comment was on page 69.
[1:38:47] There's a call out that, or sorry. Uh, yeah, page
[1:38:52] 69. There was a flag that, um, many people think
[1:38:56] the power plant site would be a logical location for
[1:38:59] renewable energy facility. I don't think the wording of this
[1:39:04] really reflects kind of how debated that opinion is within
[1:39:09] our community. So, um, would recommend, um, kind of changing
[1:39:14] that sentence. My next comment is on page 79 where
[1:39:19] it touches upon, uh, the libertine property. That content I
[1:39:24] think is now outdated. I would just recommend that we
[1:39:27] update that content before the public workshop. Um, my next
[1:39:35] comment is on page 89 where the parking inventory. I
[1:39:39] don't think this table of parking inventory gives an accurate
[1:39:42] representation of the parking that's available to residents or visitors
[1:39:47] in more obey. I think a lot of our parking
[1:39:49] has been set aside either, um, formally or infarmally for
[1:39:56] leaseholders and hotels or has been kind of co -
[1:40:01] opted informally by leaseholders, um, Jazz curbs being painted white
[1:40:11] trucks full of bikes or scooters, et cetera, being parked
[1:40:16] in spots in front of businesses. I think that we
[1:40:19] should at least parking inventory that reflects the parking that
[1:40:23] has formally been given to, um, lease holders so that
[1:40:27] we understand what's actually available for residents or visitors. Um,
[1:40:33] page 99, I think a measure D waterfront area may
[1:40:37] be overstated both there and in several areas of the
[1:40:41] report. Page 107, I would just like us to caveat.
[1:40:48] There's information about a study that was done by reach.
[1:40:52] And I think it's important context for folks to understand
[1:40:55] that, um, reach is a nonprofit but receives lots of
[1:41:01] private funding by private interests. And so I would, I
[1:41:07] think we should represent that in the way that we
[1:41:10] use their data in planning the future of our city.
[1:41:14] And my last commenters on age 187 previously provided feedback
[1:41:20] regarding the hotel, um. Assessment, uh, it still says that
[1:41:27] Morabe has four upscales, which I don't believe, um, is
[1:41:30] accurate.
[1:41:46] Sorry, I'm trying to locate, but there is minor thing
[1:41:50] that, um, on one of the mat to switch for
[1:41:53] the triangle lot. And Lila Kaiser. So it is on
[1:42:01] the page 54. And Lila Kaiser. So I
[1:42:11] can note that later. Some updates on existing leases such
[1:42:18] as Krill's dockside. It would be nice to get an
[1:42:25] update on 801 because the RFP deadline has closed and
[1:42:30] would like to know what's going on with, um, receiving
[1:42:33] the applicant. Um. And then.
[1:42:50] We'll dater. Um, it says that you guys have the
[1:42:57] staff has a moral access enhancement. And so if you
[1:43:01] create, um, the ability for other stakeholders within the community
[1:43:07] to join that group, um, I would like to know
[1:43:10] about, Oh, we can publicly now a great thing to
[1:43:12] be a part of. And that's moments for the background.
[1:43:20] Committee memory Costanzo. Okay. Mr. Donnelly. No more. Comment. Um.
[1:43:30] I'd like to comment that some things have already, I'm
[1:43:34] sorry. I like the comment on, uh, page 60, uh,
[1:43:38] where it talks about a major D is that major
[1:43:41] D was updated in. 2000 major decant be updated without
[1:43:50] a vote of the people. So I'm not sure how
[1:43:52] it got here. It takes a vote of the people
[1:43:55] to do that. So I think that's incorrect. And then,
[1:43:57] then another spot that, that Murray brought up talks about,
[1:44:00] uh. Much of the Park and Errol being under Major
[1:44:03] D. And it's really not. So those are my comments.
[1:44:06] Thank you. I have a number of comments and I've
[1:44:12] submitted written comments to the staff already. And I'll just
[1:44:15] sort of run through the highlights. Um, on specific sections
[1:44:22] under regional context, the regional context appears to be the
[1:44:25] city of Moral Bay. I think at the very least,
[1:44:27] we should be, we should be shown as a stero
[1:44:30] bay, maybe even our context navigationally between Monterey and Santa
[1:44:36] Barbara. And we serve as a safe harbor for, between
[1:44:39] those areas. Um, so maybe just identifying between a stero
[1:44:45] bay region between point Bouchon and Barrow, something like a
[1:44:49] project area, Director Singwald talked about, including all of the
[1:44:52] rock parking lot. We figure 1. 2 sort of inaccurately
[1:44:57] shows Area 5 as the Vistra power plant site. It's
[1:45:01] kind of the power plant site and then some area
[1:45:03] around it. So maybe the lead in the word site.
[1:45:09] But I think that for the unformed reader, it's all
[1:45:13] of that when it isn't.
[1:45:25] Under existing land, I thought there was a latination on
[1:45:30] how much of those land uses and how much, in
[1:45:33] terms of land area and building area, normally under an
[1:45:36] existing land use, Gen, you'd have some reference that there's
[1:45:39] in character air on this kind of land use. Uh,
[1:45:45] but I didn't see it in there. In fact, I
[1:45:46] had to go all the way into the market scan.
[1:45:48] There's like a very small table that has our fuse
[1:45:51] data on. I think that's key. Each one, how much
[1:46:01] of it is vacant? Can we call each of his
[1:46:02] parking? I think that I think land use summary. Had
[1:46:07] categories that are used by slow cog that aren't recognizable
[1:46:09] to me or by the general plan. I think it
[1:46:12] refers to downtown slash village lands in moral base speak.
[1:46:16] So, you know, translating your crosswalking that I think would
[1:46:20] be very helpful. On the plan more obey.
[1:46:31] Out, I think for the reader dish into the Plan
[1:46:34] Moral Bay. Let's just set those forward. If those are
[1:46:36] things that are driving the plan, say what they are
[1:46:40] full text and everything. Uh, I also want, I think
[1:46:48] the pussy for the build out suggests how much of
[1:46:52] the master plan ought to be based on the build
[1:46:56] out calculants that are in the general plan. And so
[1:46:59] how much of whatever the general plan is proposing needs
[1:47:04] to be accommodated in this geographic area. So add a
[1:47:08] table for general plan land use. And I think it
[1:47:11] was with, within these graphics that because there was a
[1:47:15] mask put over one of the graphics, Lila carries her,
[1:47:18] even though it was parking recreation was shown as a
[1:47:20] different color as another piece. So it almost looked like
[1:47:23] it wasn't that triangle around Morrow Creek. It was something
[1:47:26] else. And for me, it was. Not usable. I'd also
[1:47:34] suggest for the reader who wants to really focus in
[1:47:37] that we call out all the street names. I think
[1:47:40] Morvay Boulevard isn't all that aren't shown. I know that's
[1:47:43] a small issue, but map reading is a really important
[1:47:46] part of this plan. I agree with some of the
[1:47:53] other comments about on measure D.
[1:48:04] I think that, uh, it has its own issues in
[1:48:07] terms of applicability, but the, uh, repeated reference in measure
[1:48:13] and in the market scan that area depends on measure
[1:48:17] D. In fact, we've taken the provisions of measure D
[1:48:22] and they're in our zoning ordinance that won't be changed.
[1:48:27] Beating. Under zoning, uh, list of
[1:48:37] land use restrictions. What does that, when the reader looks
[1:48:40] at for the visitors serving commercial, what does that mean?
[1:48:42] What put in there? Under.
[1:48:53] I was, uh, I agree with the, uh, it actually
[1:48:58] states that the waterfront is within the state granted tidelands.
[1:49:01] That's nowhere near. And so there ought to be in
[1:49:05] the discussion of the Tidelands a real map, the map
[1:49:07] that's promulgated by the state mission, uh, because in some
[1:49:11] areas, the council has probably appropriately so that want to
[1:49:15] apply those, those conditions. Uh, I think one of our
[1:49:18] commenters talked about the land continuation of the embark around
[1:49:23] tomorrow Creek. That's referred to as hard for fee lands
[1:49:27] or city feelands that were litigated 60 years ago. Let's
[1:49:31] have everybody have understanding of what applies to what. Because
[1:49:33] in the Tidelands, you can't do certain things. That you
[1:49:38] can do other things. So we need to sort of
[1:49:40] provide a list of kind of the can and can't
[1:49:43] in the area. I think there needs also needs to
[1:49:49] be a really good kind of how this land can
[1:49:53] be. The current master plan has a really good summary
[1:49:57] of the land in the 60s and 70s. Uh, it
[1:50:06] really helped me as initial reader when I first approached
[1:50:08] this much understanding. Oh, now I know what's going on.
[1:50:10] Now I know Pitkin lease. Now I know why this
[1:50:12] line is where it is. So you reintroducing that in
[1:50:16] an act is really helpful. Statement on Measure D was
[1:50:22] update. Quite frankly, I think when we have a C
[1:50:25] statements like that in the background, it creates suspicion. About
[1:50:31] what else is wrong in there. That's a pretty glaring
[1:50:33] error. And it's something that. Should be.
[1:51:10] Under landownership. Again, I think there's a lot more work
[1:51:13] that needs to be done on there. Uh, there are
[1:51:15] some, that relates to the tide lens, the original patent
[1:51:22] for the Franklin Riley. Pace with PGN easements and fix
[1:51:27] back a little bit. You've tried the front of Gafko
[1:51:32] and away from the front door because that's the line
[1:51:34] of the Tidelands. Divergence and goes into the water. So
[1:51:38] for us understanding what you can do and what you
[1:51:40] can't do in that geography is really important. Um, let's
[1:51:47] see.
[1:52:02] I thought it was in the downtown specific planet is
[1:52:06] to take those regulations and guidelines move those into the
[1:52:09] waterfront, the way we were talking. You don't have to
[1:52:16] smart enough to remember why it's probably a practice item.
[1:52:33] Um, in the transportation report, I actually thought that was
[1:52:37] stated. I still have some requests. Is like beach harbor
[1:52:40] and issues.
[1:52:52] Again, I thought ways. You know, they're A24 in addition
[1:52:59] to locking in the land use on the power plant.
[1:53:02] Also the sort of talk about that. Uh, there's a
[1:53:07] description on page 65 of that background report of having
[1:53:10] massive potential for visitation. It's not very helpful to those
[1:53:15] who are concerned about what we're proposing to read words
[1:53:19] like massive without the, uh, the data. I think there
[1:53:26] was a comment from Mr. Meyer about when the pedestrian
[1:53:33] bike master plan. I think it was a 1971 plan.
[1:53:38] Uh, that's missing. There's also our more recent local road
[1:53:42] safety plan that actually has some things prescribed added in.
[1:53:50] There's an inclusion of some work by Cal Poly students
[1:53:53] that probably is very good, but I don't think it
[1:53:56] has, it belongs in here. In my, my viewpoint, uh,
[1:54:00] maybe this is just me, but the background sort of
[1:54:02] the foundation, it anchor what we're going to talk about
[1:54:05] now. That may be an interesting going up starting point
[1:54:15] for another discussion, but it isn't a community, it isn't
[1:54:19] a policy. Probably the same thing about the Central Coast
[1:54:22] engineering sighting issue. Have to
[1:54:31] disappoint. Is it even anointing? Could you do it. And
[1:54:36] take exercise. I didn't have any comments on the stakeholder
[1:54:40] focus groups or the stakeholder interviews.
[1:54:52] So, uh, again, I, um. There are many things we
[1:54:59] have to so that I think we're telling what is
[1:55:02] the measure D, the tide lens, you know, those sorts
[1:55:05] of reference. And so they, they understand the lay of
[1:55:07] the land. And it's complicated stuff. And so, uh, I
[1:55:11] don't think the ready to represent that and the other
[1:55:15] items I talked about. So, um. Is there, Director Single,
[1:55:23] are there any other comments that you wanted to ask
[1:55:26] about the background portal? Yeah. Thanks for the opportunity. So.
[1:55:34] Thank you for your very detailed comments on the background.
[1:55:37] Like you said, Chair Peck, it is not only the,
[1:55:41] you know, culmination of all of our church and outreach
[1:55:44] over the past several months, but also it is the
[1:55:46] foundation for the plan moving forward.
[1:55:59] So with that important, that it's a hundred percent accurate.
[1:56:03] I'll make sure that the plan is a hundred percent
[1:56:05] accurate and that we address comment updated in communication.
[1:56:18] Action item number two is on workshop more comments on
[1:56:21] that we provided some of those under our. Comments on
[1:56:24] the presentation. Are there any additional comments that anybody want
[1:56:27] to make on the workshop. It's, uh, Mary. I just
[1:56:37] have a comment that I don't need did a good
[1:56:40] enough job marketing.
[1:57:01] Drop. And I really think that we need posed owns
[1:57:06] from, I would expect that as part of their contract
[1:57:09] and that we implement that, um, for example, the previous
[1:57:14] meetings, um, I think we can do a better job
[1:57:18] such as posting it on the Morbec website, things like
[1:57:20] that. So I would just ask the consultant to kind
[1:57:24] of, you know, increase the focus there. Um, and then
[1:57:27] additionally, it sounds like they're open to including an optional
[1:57:31] demographic question as part of the next workshop. And I
[1:57:36] would just ask the city to try to implement that.
[1:57:40] Because I think we need to have a poll. Are
[1:57:43] we reaching the DIFI non - white elderlys segments of
[1:57:47] our community? And are we having success in here? All
[1:57:50] those voices.
[1:58:31] All right. Um, I did want to suggest possibly because
[1:58:34] of listening recording booth. The message actually be tabbed and
[1:58:38] summarized of information that I think is vital for, um,
[1:58:42] people to be informed about is that beautiful amended all
[1:58:45] of these items cost money. So require maintenance, um, funds
[1:58:49] to go towards replace them after 20, 30 years, depending
[1:58:54] on what it is. Um, so as far as some
[1:58:57] of these workshops go, I know that we want to
[1:59:00] say, say whatever you want, um, but I'd like to
[1:59:04] draw attention. It is more viable and more likelymented. If
[1:59:12] Zine is that we create either pays for itself or
[1:59:15] funds the maintenance for its future, um, candios ideas, but
[1:59:20] pay forum, they're never really going to happen. So if
[1:59:22] we can, um, at least have some sort of try
[1:59:26] and think of something that would either enhance revenue, um,
[1:59:30] but still give us what we want.
[1:59:50] No, not really. I think the comments that are remade
[1:59:52] and that's what I would do. I thought that there
[1:59:53] should have been a, those well attended. I think there,
[1:59:58] you know, and, and I'm not a big fan of
[2:00:00] the, uh. Sticky note. I don't know how you. And
[2:00:07] there was like eight for like moral bay rock parking
[2:00:11] lots. Like, what was that represent? It didn't, it doesn't,
[2:00:14] it was just a, uh, you know, it was just
[2:00:17] a suggestion. It didn't dig deep enough to get anything,
[2:00:22] you know, anything to honor on that. I don't know.
[2:00:23] So that was my comment. Thank you. Paul.
[2:00:40] I just like speak at public workshop shops come here
[2:00:44] in public comment about lighting. Is it right time to
[2:00:47] say something about? I agree. I think they have to
[2:00:48] be, it's real important. But there's been projects that have
[2:00:53] eliminated lighting on the waterfront was there. It's gone. Uh,
[2:00:57] Coast Guard station and Beach Street, 15 light standards and
[2:01:01] five or six of them are not even lit. So
[2:01:02] I think that they were properly lit. I don't think
[2:01:05] they're intrusive and they've been there for many, many years.
[2:01:08] Uh, and I think if we just maintenance, I think
[2:01:11] it's PGNE is responsible for that. Uh, and just, uh,
[2:01:15] did that lighting the Sarah? I think it's inviting on
[2:01:18] the waterfront when we are at, when all the lights
[2:01:22] are led up down there. Right now it's just because
[2:01:25] like I said, five or six out of 15 or
[2:01:28] 90. So. I think my comment
[2:01:38] is, uh, it would be useful to have a pin
[2:01:41] map for whoever's commenting. It'd be useful to know. Are
[2:01:44] we getting all of our comments from the beach track
[2:01:47] or heights or North Morea Bay, just as a matter
[2:01:50] of curiosity? Because blast things out on social media, but
[2:01:55] meeting a small subgroup. And that might enforce just hearing
[2:01:59] the same. And we're missing some. Maybe there's some area
[2:02:03] around the school. Because there are areas of town that
[2:02:06] are more family content. There's so many areas that are
[2:02:09] more on vacation oriented.
[2:02:23] And it would be also interesting to know, don't live
[2:02:25] in town. When you talked about the dation, that's workshop.
[2:02:29] But sometimes you'll get folks coming. Not
[2:02:40] be nice to know that. So who are we reaching?
[2:02:43] How are we doing it.
[2:03:11] These things cost money. So maybe you give them presents
[2:03:14] a dollar. I think a four of them, or they've
[2:03:16] only got 10 of them and the city's money, uh,
[2:03:19] otherwise. So be nice to sort of be what's in,
[2:03:23] where are they willing to spend money on. To make
[2:03:25] work.
[2:03:57] Uh, anything else that you'd like to get from the
[2:03:59] group, but demographine location. We built with Amy after, after
[2:04:06] the compact, would like to see that. So we'll, we'll,
[2:04:09] um, and we could always do more outreach. So we'll,
[2:04:12] um, we'll start with going to take advantage. Thank you.
[2:04:18] Our final item is designed and redesigning street ends in
[2:04:23] the master plan. There are no specific proposals before us.
[2:04:28] I think the idea is to just get some, I
[2:04:30] guess what called programming information, issue areas that we need
[2:04:33] to address. Design proposals we brought back at a later
[2:04:38] date. So keep your comments at a high level and
[2:04:41] not site specific as possible. And I'll start to my
[2:04:44] left with. Many memory custo.
[2:04:54] You know, that's a, then you can do with that.
[2:04:57] I think it's, uh, it would be good to look
[2:04:59] at that. But removing parking, I mean, that's the biggest
[2:05:02] issue is having parking. I think there are some to
[2:05:04] do. Not because of the harbor walk. That goes on
[2:05:09] the other side of a lot of those. So, you
[2:05:13] know, there's access there. So we're moving parking. I don't,
[2:05:16] I don't see how that. S to how that would
[2:05:18] help. Or is there a need for that? I mean,
[2:05:21] do we need little parklets all the way down there?
[2:05:24] I don't, I don't think there's be a need for
[2:05:25] that. I don't know what the use would be and
[2:05:28] how that would help the development of the, uh, embarcadero.
[2:05:51] Ready to go eight coats of dependency. The census eventually
[2:05:55] is going to have to go the coast of commission.
[2:05:56] I have a say kickback. We put something that was
[2:05:59] not a priority function. And maybe we should need, like
[2:06:02] I said, I talked to the business down there and
[2:06:03] they rely on parking being there. And if you eliminate
[2:06:06] that, it's going to hurt them. So that's going to
[2:06:09] consider. Even if
[2:06:19] you just relocate it, I think you're making a mistake.
[2:06:26] Um, I understand that we make them, but then there
[2:06:30] becomes a thing of maintenance. If these are all little
[2:06:32] parklets, uh, parklets and barely enough city staff take care
[2:06:38] of the ones we have right now, especially during the
[2:06:41] summertime. So it'll probably, if you have six or seven
[2:06:44] on street ends, I believe you'll have to have a
[2:06:47] staff member. Taking care of those alone. So I think
[2:06:51] you have that issue too. But, but no, I'm always,
[2:06:56] part important to every business, especially parking for older people
[2:07:00] that, that like to pour, they're going to shop or
[2:07:02] what they're going to eat. Uh, so I have a,
[2:07:06] you know, the concept is to just relocate them someplace
[2:07:09] else. I would, uh, especially on the end of the
[2:07:13] water via, I think it'd be really tough on some
[2:07:15] of those businesses.
[2:07:28] Okay. So this is stake here to my heart. Um,
[2:07:32] especially, um, being a representative of the Embarcadera Master leaseholders.
[2:07:37] And I was hoping that maybe you can get up
[2:07:39] page 243 of the agenda. So I can, um, speak
[2:07:44] on, on that. So, um, before she gets that one,
[2:07:52] um, one comment that somebody made is, uh, the libertine
[2:07:58] being removed. I'm also on the harbor advisory board. And
[2:08:04] I've had revenue for the harbor because our harbor is
[2:08:09] the most awesome thing that we have. Um, it's healthy.
[2:08:12] We want to keep it healthy. We want to keep
[2:08:13] the infrastructure. Take care of vetment walls. Um, if we
[2:08:18] keep removing, uh, properties that are revenue driving, funding the
[2:08:24] harbor, um, we're going to be even more hard right
[2:08:28] now. And it's not, and it's not great. Um, so,
[2:08:31] um, I would say if you lose libertine, you decrease
[2:08:35] the revenue that can go towards harbor infrastructure. And so
[2:08:43] as far as the street ends right now, we have
[2:08:47] a really limited amount of parking, especially in the area
[2:08:52] where they utilize the street ends the most. My suggestion
[2:08:57] would be to do, um, porous pavers with different colored
[2:09:02] pavers in as the delineators between the parking spaces, um,
[2:09:07] I had wanted to do a movie night for a
[2:09:09] really long time, um, and working with Cal and the
[2:09:12] friends of Morabe Harbor. We were able to put that.
[2:09:15] But there is something weird about sitting in a, in
[2:09:19] an oil filled parking while you're trying to enjoy with
[2:09:21] your kids. So if we made it more of a
[2:09:24] decorative thing, and I think that that would also be
[2:09:27] something that could be affordable for the different leaseholders as
[2:09:32] they develop to pay for that type of, of area,
[2:09:37] because it's not going to be utilized all the time.
[2:09:39] We could have festivals. We can have, um, different events,
[2:09:43] street vendors, um, but in when the time when we
[2:09:46] don't have anything going on, it would be nice for
[2:09:48] it to be a pretty or parking lot. Um, absolutely
[2:09:52] positively, mostly handicap and loading would be my suggestion. I
[2:09:58] will say that as far as, um, what the note
[2:10:02] said with grays in and libertine, as far as them,
[2:10:06] uh, failing to take over those leaseholds that they were,
[2:10:11] their primary reasons were based on the fact that they
[2:10:13] were not viable anymore, um, doing these parklets. And it's
[2:10:19] true, um, but also with, with the libertine, um, he,
[2:10:24] if he was going to do that kind of a
[2:10:27] larger scale improvement, he wanted to make it something that
[2:10:31] generated revenue for him because it costs so much to
[2:10:34] do it and to maintain it. And unfortunately he could
[2:10:37] not secure a long - term lease to do day
[2:10:42] events. So, um, just wanted to put that note out
[2:10:45] there. Do you have that page at all. Yeah. So
[2:10:50] Ray, if you could please display my screen. And also
[2:10:53] while I have the mic just want to do a
[2:10:54] time check, have starts at 530. Okay. Yes. I'm going
[2:10:58] to be quick. So, um, I just want to point
[2:11:02] out if you look at room at area one, the,
[2:11:06] I cut it in half north and south. And anyway,
[2:11:10] in area one, there's 292 parking spaces. So 186 in,
[2:11:20] if you have the one to the north and half
[2:11:22] the one to the south, um, and there are about
[2:11:27] five restaurants, charter boats, couple recreation in the South part,
[2:11:31] you have like 30 hotel rooms, four restaurants, three gifts
[2:11:35] and two charter boats. But as you keep going down,
[2:11:39] the amount gets less. So if you just go to
[2:11:41] like section four in section four, you have six restaurants.
[2:11:46] Um, the libertine, which could possibly be mixed use eventually,
[2:11:50] um, three dessert stores, seven gift shops, eight hotel rooms,
[2:11:54] one wine bar, three boat recreational activities and one jewelry
[2:11:59] store. And in that quadrant, there's 54 parking spaces. I
[2:12:03] did lump it all together, whether it was loading and,
[2:12:06] and handicap, uh, just to be brief on this. And
[2:12:10] then if you go to section six, you have four
[2:12:13] restaurants, nine gift, one clothing, one service give to two
[2:12:16] nonprofits. That's where Marina Square is. That quadrant has 30
[2:12:21] spaces. So at this point in time, the EML would
[2:12:25] absolutely request that you not remove any parklet. And that
[2:12:31] are not remove any parking. Um, in the street ends,
[2:12:35] um, and that right now we already have a deficit
[2:12:39] of parking. So if you restripe, rearrange things to increase
[2:12:42] more parking. Great. But still, even after that, we'll still
[2:12:46] have a deficit of parking spaces. So, um, if it
[2:12:50] does in fact happen that we're ever at a point
[2:12:54] where we have too many, then maybe contemplate, um, changing
[2:12:57] these to parklets. Yeah. Um, so for me, I started
[2:13:06] with what problem are we trying to solve. And if
[2:13:12] the only thing that we're, if the only reason we're
[2:13:14] really doing this is to align with the general plan.
[2:13:18] And that doesn't align with what we're hearing from the
[2:13:20] community. Then my first thought is that we should, um,
[2:13:25] try to raise to city council whether or not there's
[2:13:28] a opportunity to change the requirement. If there isn't, um,
[2:13:32] then my second thought would be tried to minimize how
[2:13:35] we meet the requirements. So I like the idea of
[2:13:39] the bulb idea of kind of bringing the sidewalk to
[2:13:43] the end of the parking spaces to minimize, um, the
[2:13:48] street ways that, um, pedestrians are crossing. I do think
[2:13:54] that if we are required or are interested in a
[2:13:59] street - end opportunity, then the centennial park opportunity to
[2:14:03] me is the most compelling because of the view corridor
[2:14:08] and also kind of like pedestrian corridor that we have
[2:14:11] there. Which also based on kind of the performance of
[2:14:16] trying to get someone to develop the libertine, um, could
[2:14:20] meet an opportunity that the city has as well. Thank
[2:14:27] you. I agree with most of the comments from my
[2:14:30] fellow committee members, uh, and I think the primary person,
[2:14:35] we should keep our eye on the prize. What rather
[2:14:39] than focusing on solutions about whether we're going to convert
[2:14:42] all these or where they need plazas. The requirement or
[2:14:46] their question the general plan is to enhance lateral access.
[2:14:49] Make the sidewalks connect better, make the harbor rock connect
[2:14:52] better. And if you think of that as sort of
[2:14:55] an Oreo cookie, we're talking about the outer layers. We
[2:14:59] don't need to presume what's on the inside. What's on
[2:15:02] the inside could be an expansion of adjacent lease space.
[2:15:05] I think that there was a commentary about there are
[2:15:07] a couple of them that are like 25 or 30
[2:15:08] feet wide that are unusable without some addition on them.
[2:15:16] And I think we heard some comments from Mr. Meyer
[2:15:19] that while we're doing that, let's also think about the
[2:15:21] vertical access. Because when somebody's walking along the embarkadero, they're
[2:15:26] saying, so the water's over there. That's where I want
[2:15:29] to go. So, uh, I support the idea of redevelopment.
[2:15:37] Expansion adjacent lease bases, retention to some parking, we're feasible.
[2:15:42] As well as conversion for some plazas, pet plazas, I
[2:15:45] can think of around Gio's parking lot. Or anchor park
[2:15:49] is that gets a lot of pedestrian uses, a sea
[2:15:52] lion area. Uh, viewing area. And they sort of cram
[2:15:55] into the edge of the parking. I can see expanding
[2:15:57] that piece out. Or the beach street street end is
[2:16:02] where everybody goes to see the acute otters. But they
[2:16:04] have to walk through a parking lot to get there.
[2:16:07] Maybe we expand out the viewing area for the otters.
[2:16:11] And maybe some of that goes back to the, uh,
[2:16:15] adjacent leasehold as well. Uh, don't necessarily support carte blanche
[2:16:20] conversion of public clauses. I agree that, uh, let's do
[2:16:23] something significant at the center. Uh, that's probably, uh, centennial
[2:16:29] plaza. And I also agree that as we work through
[2:16:34] that, we need to have a feasible plan to, uh,
[2:16:36] to replace the parking if it needs to be displaced.
[2:16:39] And it needs to be probably of the same location
[2:16:42] and quality. So if it isn't on the street end,
[2:16:45] it's based on, uh, providing some diagonal parking on the
[2:16:50] embarkadero. And it can be done with succeed degree parking.
[2:16:53] You can actually add spaces in front of everybody's business.
[2:16:56] So rather than having a parking space on the side,
[2:16:59] maybe have one that's dead into your business. But I
[2:17:02] think before we go forward and say, well, we'll figure
[2:17:04] that out later on. Let's figure that out a piece
[2:17:07] out right now. And say when we do this, we're
[2:17:10] going to do this other thing. Or do it ahead
[2:17:12] of time. Because I don't think there's going to be
[2:17:13] a lot of confidence that you'll get around to it
[2:17:16] when you get around to it. So it's got to
[2:17:18] be part of the same project or be done ahead
[2:17:20] of time. I also think that we need to be
[2:17:27] able to identify, in addition to the dimensions, what are
[2:17:32] the constraints that we're dealing with. I can think of
[2:17:36] the Hofbrow has its only exit to a public way
[2:17:40] as its main door out to a street end, which
[2:17:42] is a public way. If we change that to something
[2:17:46] else, then they don't have the same exiting. Capacity. Some
[2:17:51] of the trash cans are pushed all the way to
[2:17:53] the back to the site because currently they're at the
[2:17:55] end of the street ant. I think that's libertine has
[2:17:58] their trash can at the end. So how are we
[2:18:01] going to roll that trash can all the way out
[2:18:03] to the street so it can be picked up. I
[2:18:05] think the example was given of Anderson in that actually
[2:18:10] relies on the street and for its circulation. So before
[2:18:14] we go too far forward of, you know, doodling things
[2:18:17] on what we can do. I think it's really important
[2:18:19] to show. What are the current constraints. And possibly also
[2:18:24] in terms of fire department access. Is that needed to
[2:18:28] get to the second story of a, of a lease
[2:18:32] base. So, uh, once we do that, maybe it becomes
[2:18:36] a little, a little more focused, but I think we're
[2:18:39] going to find out that maybe it isn't as. Open
[2:18:44] a palate as we think it might be. So before
[2:18:47] we ask people to sort of do that, let's say,
[2:18:49] well, you can't do that. You can't do that. You
[2:18:51] can't do that. And here's how we're going to solve
[2:18:53] the parking problem. Anyway, those are my comments on the,
[2:18:56] uh, the street end issue. Anything to follow up on
[2:19:01] there? I'd like to, I think this comment will keep
[2:19:04] coming up. So I'd like to address the comment of,
[2:19:07] could the city council just eliminate that policy so we
[2:19:09] don't have to deal with it. So the city council,
[2:19:14] of course, has the authority to amend the general plan
[2:19:17] going through the required process. Then the next step would
[2:19:20] be to send that amendment to coastal commission for certification.
[2:19:24] Coastal commission will say no. And so I'd rather take
[2:19:27] that six to nine months of that process would take
[2:19:30] and work with the waterfront master plan to figure out
[2:19:32] how we can tailor that policy implementation in a way
[2:19:36] that works for the community. Okay. Thank you. Uh, that
[2:19:42] concludes our deliberations. I want to thank everybody for their
[2:19:45] comments and for the public for being concise. I was
[2:19:48] worried that we were going to blow past 530 pretty
[2:19:50] quickly. But we got done on time. And, uh, with
[2:19:54] that, I'll entertain an emotion to adjourn. I'll motion to
[2:20:00] adjourn. Mark second, all those in favor. Aye. Thank you.
[2:20:07] Good evening, everybody. I hope some of the rubs are.