 Okay, okay, I'm gonna call the piece 2020 meeting of the city planning Order, I'm sorry for the delay Did we have a roll call, please? Commissioner Conway here Commissioner Spellman your Spellman I'm here. I'm here. Thank you Commissioner Dawson Nielsen here Greenberg Here Maxwell chair shifrin You need unmute yourself Sean I'm here muted for a second. Okay, there's nobody absent with Are there any statements of disqualification? None will go to oral communications. This is a time for Excuse me anyone To speak on an item that is not on tonight's agenda. So it is Validly before the planning commission Do we have anybody who wants to speak during oral communications? There are attendees in the queue any Attendee who wishes to speak at oral communications. Can you please press star 9? So that I know you wish to address the commission and then do they have to Push star 6 to speak They'll be queued by zoom Okay, not everybody has that issue I don't see anybody raising their hand to address the commission at oral communication Okay, I'm gonna move on Unless there's somebody who does want to still be heard no one Let's move to the next item on the agenda, which is approval of the minutes Does anyone on the commission want to make a comment about the minutes being none Is there anybody in the audience who's listening in who would like to comment on the minutes from October 1st Being none would somebody like to make of or hearing none somebody like to make a motion to approve the minutes I'll make a motion Commissioner Spelman when you second it sure I'll second Motioned by commissioner Greenberg second by commissioner Spelman to Approve the minutes could we have a roll call vote please? Commissioner Conway Hi Spelman Hi Dawson Nielsen Hi Greenberg Hi Maxwell and here you did you call in Shawn? He did not his head in the affirmative I Want to make sure that he can speak so that if he does want to say something later on he able to do so Can you hear me now? Yeah? Thanks. Okay Must be my ear buds. Did you want to register your vote? Thank you chair shifrin Hi Okay, the minutes are approved unanimously. We now move on to public hearings The first is the Santa Cruz Wolf masterplan and environmental Nation and the way the process will follow is that we'll hear a staff report or reports We'll then have an opportunity for commissioners to ask questions Not make comments of statements hopefully and then we'll open it up to the public For people to testify and then bring it back to the commission for consideration and action Unless somebody would object to that approach that's how we're going to do it. So can we start with a staff report? Dave you're muted and you hear there we go. Yeah, I got you And you're also your your notes pages are showing. I'm not sure if that's your intent. Do you have two screens there? Yeah, let's go to the other screen, but there's no notes there. So Let me put it on the full screen since it's your team. Thank you for having me this evening My name is David McCormick. I'm the asset and mess development manager with economic development for the city of Santa Cruz I oversee it pretty much a city-owned properties that are used to in partnership with the private enterprise non-profit and otherwise put to community use so the Santa Cruz Wolf masterplan began a bit before my time in 2013 when the city acquired or secured a grant from the economic development administration to To figure out our comprehensive plan for the war That was that grant was originally for rehabilitation work after the 2011 tsunami But the economic development administration informed the city that they needed a master plan for any further funding and so that's what they chose to fund to move forward Tonight I want to just kind of give a little bit of a recap of the historic commission meeting last night and the topics that they engaged And then dive into you know, why we have a master plan or why we've been developing one what the goals are why it's needed Then into the details the master plan as well as the EIR and Matt plan design standards and our policies and design Should be policies and design standards section So as I mentioned last night We brought the work master plan EIR to the Historic Preservation Commission They were asked to evaluate the plan on its merits as regards Historic resources of the war as well as some input on the design standards So that we can ensure that the goal of the master plan in bringing back more of the historical character of the work Is in line with the cultural and historic sensitivities that the Historic Preservation Commission is charged with So under CEQA an impact to a historic Resource is considered a physical demolition destruction relocation or alteration of a resource Such that it would no longer be eligible for listing on the California register of historic resources So currently the work is eligible under Certain criteria on the California register as well as on our it's listed on our local historic building survey And may also be eligible under the national register of historic places The California register has identified seven aspects of integrity And this is what the Historic Preservation Commission was evaluating And it's just a little bit a good background as we get into what the plan is and why it's important to protect this community resource So those aspects are location The setting that it's in and that it shapes its design integrity The materials that's made from workmanship the overall feeling of the place that relates to its history and its association with its historic past the What the Commission? Well, what's the EIR and the historic reports that went into it found is that under the California register the work It's character defining features relate to its location. It's setting the location being that it has never moved It's always been in that location the setting in its relationship to the beach the end of Pacific Avenue the Monterey Bay Some of which has changed but overall the works relationship has been consistent Also important is that signature L shape where it bends the end kind of into the oncoming ways It's wooden materials the work is one of the longest wooden works in the world certainly the longest on the Pacific coast and likely longest on any coast of the United States as far as wooden works go It's near its original length. It lost about 45 feet in the middle of the century in the 1960s when the original warehouse building was taken down Largely due to deterioration and neglect But most importantly out of all of this is that it's historic value is derived from its continued function as a work And so that's really what we're talking about tonight It's how the master plan will help us ensure the work continues to be a war and Continues stand for generations to come and then Facing the significant challenges in that regard the master plan provides us opportunities to help ensure that it'll be sustainably As I mentioned just an overview of the original work at top, that's what it looked like after it was built And that's what it looks like today as you can see there's been a number of expansions on the war At least four or five depending upon how you you know, I would discreet those individual Expansions are but a number of times will revisit that later Also important for the historical review that they conducted was understanding that the period of significance for the war The master plan relates it to its original role as related to the bay the maritime and the commercial fishing That really transformed the Santa Cruz economy and helped in its early economic development making Santa Cruz what it is today and so from a historical perspective, it's that period that is really the target of Of sort of capturing its its history, although having been there over a hundred years It's got a lot of history to tap into and it will continue to build history as we go forward and we're all part of that From its beginning it's also important to note that it was first overwhelmingly supported by the community standards in 1913 when the bonds are voted on over 95% of the community supported it And it was originally envisioned as a as a commercial war there to support commerce and economic development Today, it's more of a recreational and tourist destination, but still has a very important commercial Aspect and we rely on those partnerships with local businesses to help keep the war standing and funding city operations on the war And lastly, it's important to note that Within the work historical analysis Those those character defining features relate specifically to the work structure itself The building the contemporary elements about the work the buildings the decking the roads lighting and utilities all of that is Doesn't relate to the historical period of significance It's been created well after and so they don't have a they're not contributing elements to its history Doesn't mean they're not cherished or loved as they are, but they they have a different standing under the Sequa and the historic preservation kind of rules Given all of that the historic preservation commission approved a number of motions last night Really to to one support the master plan and help it move forward with the staff recommendations that are in your staff report tonight Together with a few alterations that they felt would really help improve the Our efforts to bring back that historical character and and the feeling of the work has relates to it So first and foremost they recommended that historic alteration permits heard by the HTC of the Historic Preservation Commission Be required for certain projects. They also looked at having new buildings reviewed by a historical architect To see that they come they aligned with the Secretary of the Interior standards rehabilitation of historical features They also wanted to really emphasize that with the proposed cultural buildings the landmark building the gateway the pavilion And really anywhere else that the opportunity presents itself We should be looking to really convey that work history and ideally find a home for a warf museum That relates to that history and speaks to it And lastly they suggested Reducing the overall height of those landmark buildings to 35 feet from staffs recommendation of 40 And that 40 foot is consistent with the current zoning which was established to its own public process in the general plan So they felt that going a little bit below that is warranted in this case As I imagine we might hear some kind tonight A little more detail on that so specifically as late to the historic alteration permit They wanted that the new cultural buildings those three I just mentioned as well as the entrance gate and any modifications to the work structure Should require an alteration permit. I think there's There's also it appears That they may have also intended that to relate to any buildings over 3,000 feet, which is in the second item But you know pending approval of the minutes of their next meeting, I think we'll clarify that But what they did also say is that any building over 3,000 feet should be reviewed by historic officer tax for consistency with those rehabilitation standards I mentioned And again the dimension of the work history museum and the net reduction of the landmark building heights from 40 to 35 feet So That sums up the the historic preservation Commission action on this item and now we can kind of get into the planning Commission Topics here. So first and foremost is why are why are we pursuing a master plan? What's wrong with the work and why do we need to do this? The first thing is that the the 1998 Beach South of Laurel comprehensive plan which Outlined all development in the war from beach area called for objective standards for the work We needed clear guidelines of what new development should look like and how we can reinforce its character and We just don't have that The coaster Commission likewise wanted updated regulatory and permitting framework Sadly the last plan we have for the war was found in the 1980s Beach area plan So it's over and the design framework. It's over 40 years old now And when I show it to you in just a minute, you'll see how drastically different that plan is than the work We have today, even though it did lead to some really really great improvements like the commons area via Gora The buildings around those like world leaders and rainings are now or Bonnie's gifts and surf life All those improvements came from that plan But the vast majority of that plan was never never developed Because you know subsequent community process Changed the master plan. That's part of the process And certainly what we expect would probably happen with this one as well Supposing gets approved The next item is the the work master plan acknowledges that the work has a number of roles to play It's a feature of historical significance It's a community a recreation community resource It preserves habitat and open space values and it's a real estate asset that really sustains or works to sustain itself Through the revenues it generates as well as attracting visitors to the the work in each area And finally once again the work master plan is a framework and guidance for what a new development should look like But it doesn't prescribe what that development will be it just creates opportunities for us to explore and develop as we go forward And one more item is it's really the critical piece here is that it's needed for any grants funding So we know the work has a lot of needs And for years we have not been able to compete with other Asian cities and agencies Because generally a state and federal programs need approved environmental documents and master plans for competitive grant seeking And we just don't have that So here is that nineteen eight beach area plan This is the book they called for the wharf to look like As you can see it's almost kind of like the Pacific Garden Mall meets the wharf There's a lot of geometric shapes that kind of played out on the surroundings of it There's kind of a strange key shape extension at the end of the wharf that was in that plan And while you know, we have no intention of pursuing Anything under this plan at this point we would really like to move forward with the plan we're talking about tonight This is the framework we have to work from 40 years old and it doesn't fit the needs of the wants of the community today And it's not really sensitive to the historic Nature of the wharf So getting into more about the master plan our ultimate goal is really about creating a more sustainable wharf That means balancing our social responsibility to the history and the culture and and public access around the wharf it means creating economic opportunities for Businesses in our community, but also ensuring that the wharf is financially sustainable that it's able to generate enough revenues to pay for itself So that it doesn't continue to draw down on the general fund particularly the time of crisis that we face today And then of course the wharf in many ways functions as a an artificial reef We know there are dozens and probably many many more different types of species that live and cause a wharf home Whether throughout the year or at different times We know the marine mammals like the otters and sea lions and And dolphins and things that will swim near the wharf We know there's a number of bird species, mollusks, ground fish, I mean the list goes on And we have an obligation to to ensure that what we're doing on the wharf is Sensitive to them and helps sustain it for their habitat going forward As part of that we've been in our collaboration with the UCFT over the years with the Green Wharf program Which is I believe spearheaded on the city side largely by Tiffany Weis West City's climate program managers But we've been able to explore pilot solar projects wind projects and other other green and sustainability projects on the wharf to that The next goal is really about creating a wharf that'll be more resilient. We know the climate is changing We know that the Pacific storms are getting stronger and the waves are creating earth Transferring more energy into the wharf structure Even as it ages so we need to be very mindful of what we do to the wharf Yeah, and that it will be Creating a more resilient Defensible space that is stronger and enableable to withstand these forces Similarly, the coronavirus has highlighted some real sensitivities economically for the wharf Three of our businesses today are closed indefinitely. Although they all hope to reopen Jildes under new management But they are still waiting for The sort of economic circumstances and the virus to get under control to a point where it's financially You know feasible So we have to think about as we're we're building forward on the wharf How are we insuring that we're able to sustain our legacy businesses these local partners that have been there for decades? We hate to see them go and we want to find ways to to ensure that it works for the city but also for them And and to think that it can't happen here. It already has Back in 1941 there was a series of fires that broke out on the wharf put out by fishermen with with You know water hoses underneath today. We have a sprinkler system But if you can imagine, you know in the height of summer getting a fire truck out there with all the cars That's part of the challenges that the wharf master plan is trying to address and figure out solutions to Likewise the picture at the bottom left shows you what the end of the work looks like Before the old warehouse going to take down taken down or around the same time You can see how the stringers and caps and pylons had started to fail and that's how we lost About 45 feet from the end of the wharf It also led to new opportunity when the warehouse building came down the wildlife conservation board created the the fishing park at the end which is now very popular for a sea lion being hauled so you know the property of the wharf is a state of change in the The Sort of inhospitable Pacific Ocean The wharf adapts and grows with news with the needs And to that regard the exhibit at the top shows a little bit about all the various changes that have happened on the wharf It's not a hundred percent There's a few changes that are happened within some of these spaces. This generally shows you How the wharf is grown from its original shape into the work, you know today With each one it's created more economic opportunity that's gone into sustaining the war as well as increasing public access To the the Monterey Bay and businesses and right now though, there's a greater need than what I mentioned earlier You know, I talked about The regulatory framework that we need the ability to go after outside funding, but the fact of the matter is the wharf has Has not been able to sustain itself for a long time In the chart I'm about to show you at least the last six years have been running at a deficit And would be even more so if it weren't for some insurance proceeds from the tsunami The two years where it almost bounces out had over nearly eight hundred thousand dollars in insurance proceeds That went into repairs That buoyed its financials Looking at crunching the numbers going back a bit farther, but it's a little trickier So we really Yeah, at a time where the city is facing Budget shortfalls likely to last into 2028 We've got to find opportunities to help balance the books on our public facilities like the wharf Additionally the wharf has an infrastructure backlog of 12 to 14 million dollars estimated in today's dollars These are things that haven't been addressed over the years and gradually grow weaker and more dangerous until we're able to fix them As I mentioned the work business is struggling from coronavirus But even before that the city had been trying to balance the books by raising rent out there since at least 2010 And in the process the businesses have struggled against the rent increases, but also rising costs of labor materials products food costs Insurance utilities you name it everything's getting more expensive And likewise their prices have done makes more expensive and less accessible to many in our community Just as they try to sustain their bottom lines So we've got to find ways to spread that burden and to bring an outside funding master plan is critical to that As I mentioned here's a bit of a picture of what the wharf revenues and expenses have looked like over the past six years As you can see the balance in red has generally been below Below zero and it's been subsidized by the general fund This includes the the three wharf operations that are built to the wharf the wharf account and the general fund and that's the the wharf maintenance and operation the parking Out there on the wharf and the marine rescue all those are credited against the revenues that the wharf generates And those two years in the middle where it almost balances out Those are those two years where we were bullied by insurance About a hundred thousand dollars in the grant Likewise the city has tried to invest in capital projects at least then it's been able But even the total amount there is well short of our infrastructure backlog, which has continued to grow over the years The two two largest expenditures there are that wharf master plan, which as I mentioned the economic development administration Urges us to do in order to become eligible for other funding. It simply wouldn't fund a rehabilitation project In light of our tsunami disaster without a plan in place And then the other big expenditure is that wharf beach intersection around about all of that that was done Big facelift for the beach area, but not a whole lot for the structure Diving into that infrastructure backlog a little bit And I just you know it some people say that we're trying to create a crisis here But I think it's more about opening people's eyes the reality if you've been out there even just walking the wharf You probably have been rattled by the the crumbling pavements and sort of uneven them walkways And and maybe you've seen some rotten various places that stuff happens. The wharf crew does the best they can to keep up with it They do a great job, but they can't do it alone And so the wharf engineering reports that was done in 2014 as part of the master plan Really did a holistic evaluation of the wharf It had they went and did core samples of pylings. They investigated virtually every every piece of that structure and identified full things that are they're positive and reassuring as well as things that You know, we'll continue to go over time until they hit a tipping point So the backlog as I mentioned is it was also age wear and deferred maintenance where we haven't been able to fund the type of maintenance That's required It includes the cost to rehab rehab existing structures including what you see there and it was originally estimated at 11.6 million in 2014 but the escalated for inflation. It's likely over 14 million today a key piece of It is really reinforcing failing members to improve the lateral stability of the wharf and I'll talk about that a little bit but it's also good to keep in mind that while we understand that this is a Infrastructure problem that we have to deal with Right now. It's really it falls on us Grants for rehab are incredibly rare Almost every funding agency at the same federal level wants to see new construction That's sort of the growth machine mentality that's out there Not necessarily what we want But it's the reality by bringing in new projects We can bring in funding from the outside that will help shore up the critical infrastructure that's there today So in the work engineering study or engineering report they did a bit damage assessment looking at the status of various features Looking at the structural design Where they've got you know reinforced stringers underneath to for the heavy traffic areas and a little bit broader and the more open left vehicle oriented spaces They did visual inspection that a core sample Overall, they found the pylons were in good condition only about five percent of the lesson five percent need to be replaced However It's not the pylons only really support the structure itself The structure is critical to holding them all together and to resisting the sheer force of the waves Other weaknesses identified in the engineer report include those the deterioration of caps and stringers and tech rod Corroded hardware it noted that towards the end of the war Sections about the of it fifty percent or more of the hardware are you know severely corroded and we need replacement Similarly a frames where we span across Across bailing piles to keep up the structure above namely under buildings Those are vulnerabilities that we we have to dress every every so often As well as fans that are under ten feet or sorry over ten feet Just the pictures of what kind of some of that stuff looks like up at the top left you can see where a cap that supports the cross braces or I Get stringers in touch You can see how it's bailing around the bolts that hold it together. This is not uncommon It can be Quite structural or strong for a long time But you know who's to say when it fails and and part of the work crews job to stay up on these things To the extent they have resources The a-frame should see them in the top right Where there's like a failing pile and it's difficult to replace because maybe there's a building on top They've got to spread the weight from above off to the nearby piles And that's one of the approaches that we do to keep the war standing without disrupting the Above-deck part of the war But that can only be done for so long and it generally leads to the buildings having a Like fan of between 40 and 60 years much less back in the day when the buildings were less sturdy other vulnerabilities in the bottom left you can see where Splices to those major beams sometimes they were made without having a Piling to support them underneath just a weakness on the bottom right you can see what that should look like for the maximum strength These are the sorts of things that fit into that infrastructure backlog But it also gives you a little bit of an idea what the work crews up against as far as maintaining over 4,400 piles And a half mile long structure out in the ocean with a very limited budget The big thing we're worried about though is that shear force And what's the work master plan is looking to do through its expansion is really to broaden it Broaden the work a little bit and to give it more lateral stability and strength against this force So when waves come up against the sides of the war for the end of the war They push on and the the pilings are not like a building on land. They shift and move You can see it when you go out there and see the sort of the pavement cracking along these straight lines That's typically what's happening as the deckboards shift and move underneath And so it happens over time. It's part of life on the work And you know originally the work wasn't paid so it could flex a bit more But as the the waves get stronger and the forces get tougher and the work gets older There's a need to make it more resilient to strengthening these aspects This is just one example as I mentioned you can see in the pavement those lines where We're aware that it kind of almost perfectly along those 12 in course But with the shear forces and then the traffic coming across you can see how it warps in places How over time it shifts and continues to shift in different directions We need we need the resources to go out and address these issues and the easiest way to get them And the most promising is to be able to have a plan and environmental report in hand that we can go after funding agencies for and to those that say that the Issues on the work while there's you know while they can be addressed and it's not a critical failure at this time They're they're pervasive on the top you can see where there's where the report identified cap and strainer damage Where you saw unsupported slices? Those are just supplemental weaknesses that could at any time build with the damage piles and the A frames and other things you see on the bottom you know and kind of in the bottom right It's about two-thirds down on the bottom. You can see all those purple lines That's underneath the Miramar site. That's why we're working diligently to secure outside funding From the Economic Development Administration to rehabilitate those piles So that we can rebuild on that site But as I mentioned over time, that's just reality on the warfare been barred by logs and trees that washed down in the winter the wave forces and a natural in like Marine boards that dig in and eat the piling Those things happen. It's part of life on the work But it we don't have the resources to keep up with it at this time So putting that stuff behind us and getting into what's exciting about the plan or what it brings and what raises some concerns for some people Is what is the work master plan first and foremost? It was developed to a public process Before my time So I'm just conveying the record that I have from that But I understand it involved a quite a number of community meetings outreach newspaper articles advertising and An event that it was It was revealed at the redraft report was highlighted at the 100th anniversary of the work in 2014 and got a lot of feedback then Secondly, it's a framework. It's not a prescription. It just basically sets opportunity sites It calls for Some vision of what they could be but they're really there for the community to decide upon going forward Those buildings that are there it proposed in the master plan the gateways of a billion The landmark building any of those are left at a very program Programmatic level Which means that they're they're not going to go out and be built tomorrow Like I said, the city doesn't have the funds for it. We don't have stakeholders in place for it There's a whole long community process that will need to come Around those but by approving the master plan we create the opportunity for that to happen and for those discussions to evolve As well as the fundraising to go with it So in that regard it sets rules and goals and guidelines and really what we're excited about is that it increased Increases public access by two and a half acres Giving more people a more comfortable way to be out there on the work. It's a better experience the ocean environment And under the coastal submissions per view to really increase our access of this coastal resource So the public process and visioning process began in August the 2013 There were a series of eight stakeholder and focus group meetings for the 1400 mailings We're sent out to nearby property owners and stakeholders or residents property owners and stakeholders There was ongoing stakeholder engagement on certain aspects and there were updates provided to city council planning commission Parks and Recreation Commission After the after that period a draft was prepared in April of 2014 When the draft was finished, they held a milestone meetings, which was advertised in a twice weekly ad in the Sentinel press release to over 75 me Alice was sent again the mail notices a Briefing paper on the master plan was released through the Santa Cruz neighbors organization Web page was posted and then a scale model of the wharf master plan improvements was provided at the 100th anniversary celebrations of the work And so there's a lot of visibility that was gained at that time and a public process that you know today the staff has been Protective of not that we don't feel like there's more improvements to make to the master plan It's really about respecting the work that went into creating it in the first place and making sure that we're in a public forum before we make any Changes or other suggestions to it Going into from from that that that process We entered into the environmental review process on October 28 2014 The city council accepted the master plan engineering report and they direct the staff to prepare an environmental review Flash an initial study under sequel and so for those who don't know the sequel of the California Environmental Quality Act and it's intended to reveal potential negative impacts of negative or positive impacts of a Any proposed project on the environment? So staff went ahead and had that prepared Do deck was our consultant on it and I believe I'm joined today by Stephanie Strelow from due deck who is our environmental consultant as well as I should have mentioned John Bachi who's our work supervisor and it has spent more than 30 years on the work. I keep being standing So with the medicaid mitigated next deck released in March of 2016 It went out to public comment and was brought back for initial revision And then released again for public comment When that closed the planning commission recommended unanimously recommended approvals a master plan and the mitigated neg deck or negative declaration Related initial study and then in November 22nd 2016 Subsequent to a strong community outreach or sorry strong community. I Had to take the opposition but Urging by the public that we conduct a full EIR Staff changed their the recommendation on the dais with city council to Instead of moving forward master plan in the initial study at that time to prepare a full EIR A notice of preparation was issued the following May in 2017 and a scoping session was held in June Scoping session helps set what the target to study are for an EIR And at that meeting and Comments that were sent in around it Help frame up what we'll see in the EIR to come An administrative draft that's the internal review of the EIR was prepared in October 2017 and circulated between departments however Due to some changes and council dynamics up in 2018 and a retirement and myself being hired on in late 2018 it's just been a bit of a you know learning curve and and Some delays that were unintended So beginning in March of 2020 We issued the the public For the notice of completion and the availability of the draft EIR for public comment and extended that review period for additional 14 days Basically to the the nearly the full extent Recommended under this equal guidelines Following the comments we received in that draft EIR Our consultant prepared comments in concert with the city and we had issued the availability of the final EIR in September of 2020 and Then yesterday we were at the preservation Commission Discussing this very topic and today we're here. So We'll keep going there So moving on to the work master plan report Is just a little summary of what the the master plan proposes versus what was there before these numbers from Norm's presentation, so they're close to write commercial uses currently are down about seven thousand square feet because We took down the mirror while building But overall the work today is about seven point five acres and it's The proposed expansion will bring another two and a half acres of that is a vast majority of it is public access space There's commercial infill and a little bit of retail use growth But all of that is really proposed within the existing building footprints are very close to It's not intended to take up any of the new public space That's out there And overall the the new commercial would be between 20 and 30 percent growth is the Maybe up to a third What's new in the in the work master plan a number of things the first item is the gateway entrance So this improvement is about alleviating some of the traffic congestion on work on Beach Street Creating a more efficient queuing people to come on to the work and creating some self-pay options for people to get off the work more quickly It would also include a gateway signage or it could However, that signage hasn't been fully developed and would be really subject to additional community process In the work master plan and EIR there's there's a sign proposed with a certain dimension that's more of a Giving it wet giving it some framing to study Through that community process. There's no commitment that has to be quite as large as proposed in the master plan One of the items that we're really excited about is this this eastern promenade This is a pedestrian bicycle connection that would expand public access out to the war to sustainable transportation It would extend the work up to about 30 26 feet Which would include additional fishing area and people along the the eastern side of the war as well as the the bikeway and Which doubled as a emergency vehicle access? So as I said before you can imagine trying to get a fire truck out there in the heat of summer when the place Pass this would make that much easier in an emergency Alongside the eastern promenade is a proposed small boat landing So today there's a I want to see there's about five davits out there that serve a variety of five davits and Landing the server variety of function But which do not provide adequate accessible access to the ocean So if you've got special needs new wheelchair things like that. It's very difficult to use those Which makes it difficult for our commercial partners to be sustainable on the wharf And we really haven't been able to support maritime operations from the wharf be they fishing whale watches You know any of those sort of uses Well without more accessible landings The small boat landing would consolidate the more human-powered A boat travel and so we're talking about the kayak rentals the boat rentals the fishing boat rentals And potentially, you know thingies and things from private vessels would be able to land there With more easy access to the wharf This would consolidate those uses which is free up more deck-based fishing and sightseeing As well as again providing that university accessible access to the water That promenade we continue down along eastern side and extend down to the nearly the end of the wharf meant to correct that What it says down below the next item is the the field with the field landing those are really Ledgers there they're lateral bracing and that the seals today love to see them out there laying on them But they would be more significantly Created in shoring up the end of the wharf and so the hope is that you get increased Designers hope is that you get increased sightseeing potential of the sea lions by having a little more favorable Ledgers, but it's really about strengthening up the wharf so that that ends Can hold up to the forces were we're increasing the basin As I mentioned, there's a south landing proposed or I alluded to the south landing is for for larger vessels According to the the master plan that design X for that boat We're really designed for Equivalent to like a Coast Guard rescue vessel the Coast Guard cutter No more than about 110 feet long Intended for for research vessels bay cruises like the Omeos or the Chardonnay Well-watching fishing charters and potentially commercial fishing We know that in speaking with some of the business owners out there and others But there's a real desire to see more of the fishing, you know more connection to the fishing industry that's recovered And that it needs more opportunities to kind of you know bring the ocean to table Experienced to Santa Cruz and the visiting public It's something our restaurants want it's something the fishing our fishing industry wants And we really feel like it would bring more of the historical feel of the wharf back there if we can support that One day I want to clarify and I'll clarify again later the South landing is in no way intended to service any sort of ocean liner or Traveling cruise ship industry nothing of the sort One we don't think that the the depth of that area are really supportive of it. You can't even imagine what the Regulatory hurdles are and the thing just doesn't have any interest in that certainly the community doesn't refer to them And it's not something that was ever intended in the master plan and we've tried to clarify that in staff recommendation You know, we don't want to prohibit the sort of dinner cruises and things that are on a smaller scale that That we currently have but we certainly do not want You know voyage and vessels coming to Santa Cruz Coming up next is these stepped-over look at the end. So as I mentioned with the new ledgers There's a hope that we'd also supplement that with more of a terrorist overlook that would create sort of amphitheater Seating a little closer to the water Giving you a more intimate experience of the war and some different viewing angles down towards where we hope to see lines We'll find a you know And in British, I wouldn't say new home already there, but one that's a little bit more supportive to them Well also strengthening the work Probably the most contentious item is the landmark building that's proposed And so this is intended to bring or the designers intent was to bring back Sort of a focal feature at the end of the work that was reminiscent of the old original warehouse that was built at the end of the work so well originally surf fish are shipping and then eventually fishing and And it came down in the 60s. It was sort of an art deco-ish utilitarian warehouse That was very iconic at the end of the war and the designers intent was to create something of that magnitude that would stand out against other Other improvements on the work while providing a cultural hub and destination So the thought is that that building could support Potentially a museum whether it be one for you know work history or serving or any number of Things that such Santa Cruz has to celebrate and that would be developed through additional community outreach and discussion and really coalition building Or it could be something like like a makers market or an Abbott square type thing It's really a flexible placeholder for us to determine over the next 20 30 years What happens when the end of the war has to be redeveloped? As I mentioned buildings have to come down every 50 or 60 years to replace piling things underneath them There will be an opportunity over the life of this plan to revision what happens at the end of the war this Provides the environmental review and one potential aspect of what that could be Without specifying that that's what it has to be Also at the end of the work is You know shoring it up further there'd be a little bit more of an extension on the west side providing a more 360-degree circuit This part of it would be at grade Just really extending it out for more of foot space and and fighting And then it would continue And then as you go back towards the common area where the stage is today There's a proposal to have a pavilion structure. This would really create more of a 360 day a year event venue potentially for community events concerts Really whatever the community wants to do out there But in a way that we can use it throughout the year, which would help supplement work revenues You know currently most of the revenue of the work is generated during the summer when we have tourist crowds have come in a Lot of the businesses rely on that funds of those funds to get them through the winter when it's really sustained by locals And so by creating opportunities for 360 day a year Visitation the hope is that we'll be able to you know sustain the business is better and sustain the work in perpetuity And then along the back side here is the supposed Western walkway. So this one would actually be recessed a little bit closer to the water Intended to not walk to use the restaurant But really what it is is that the resilience measure it's intended as a buffer to protect the the pylons underneath the building So that they it could fail first It would be designed in a way that would have flowed through paneling So whereas much of the work today is in if a hard wooden or paved structure This one would be more permeable allow the force of the ways to go through it while still being very walkable You know and close the bowl in inclement weather But again, it's there to intercept the logs and things that are damaging to the building pile As well as the coast commission really really wanted to see 360 degree 360 degree travel around the work for maximum public access And the last thing here is the welcome center so down near where the the boat rental squad is today and the Marcella There's an idea of creating a better sense of arrival as people come on to the war having sort of a welcome center that creates a Welcoming place people to come in and get oriented to what their experience is and wants to see out there Really do encourage them to go and explore the entire length of the work and see what it has to offer The match of plan anticipates that it might also be a home for community groups Like the open water swimmers being proximate to the small boat landing It would provide easy access for them to get down underneath the work perhaps with changing rooms and planas Things that would really help support that that active organization. It's in the work in each area but again, you know the programming of these any of these structures and You know what they will be it's subject to community engagement and Everyone deciding what what you come next So a little more detail on these at the top you can see a section view of what an expanded widest and work would look like You can see what one rendering of one of the buildings would be it's got a little bit of an awning here With a more open layout so you can sort of see from the street straight through the space and out You've got the the lower western walkway and a blow up there You can see it's below grade and then I would have these pilings here that would be Smaller and easier to replace the ones that would be under the building So while you know, the hope is it doesn't you know, it doesn't break immediately The idea is that it's there as as the the easiest thing to repair Because we don't want to disrupt businesses or have to take them down because it was increasingly harsh storms And then on the eastern side, we've got this eastern promenade So there you're looking at this bikeway that would be for you know, walking and and travel Currently it shows a very generous size it could be It would really be size based on what's needed for for emergency access as well as as for what the public wants But along the left side of it on the eastern edge of the work You can see these seating areas and spaces for the fishermen and sightseers to really just get comfortable and hang out And enjoy the the work for what it is And on the opposite side by the parking we've got some seat walls there That will help ensure that we have less cars driving into the water It's happened many times before on the war and Really, it's a good thing to try and stop that And up top here, you can just see what one potential scheme is for the The small boat landing So it's gotten through a series of ramps that we'd be able to provide Basically wheelchair access or universal access down to the water grade It would have the appropriate listing structures Davits for for rental boats It may have other support resources or rental facility And and there's a number of layouts that were explored in the development of the master plan So some some designs call for for a kind of switch backing under the work So it doesn't build out so far from it That would all be part of a subsequent community engagement and design process And those resilience improvements I mentioned So again the emergency access using that eastern promenade That would it would really help if in the event of a fire or got a bit of a terrorist attack or something else that could happen The small boat or the small boat landing in the south landing could serve as evacuation points Should there be a failure on the war for an event that limits access They would provide universal access to rescue vessels And the western walkway as I mentioned would itself become a barrier to marine debris Helping ensure those wayward redwood trees don't go knocking out pylons under our buildings They're accessible landings as I mentioned you can see them at top the what they they might look like And some pictures at bottom showing kind of what we are we currently have At the very far right you can see the public landing number two across from segnaros that Never really recovered from the tsunami unfortunately And it's generally dominated by sea lions But it between the obsolete david at the top and the The access challenges It just hasn't been able to be used The other landings the kayak rentals one and the best public landing number one still usable but not accessible in You know as we really should be trying to provide So within the master plan there's also three new cultural buildings. These are the ones that Is that the historic mission recommended we we've maximized their height at about 35 feet the master plan originally called for 45 or rather up to 45 and then after the The EIR was prepared staff kind of looked at the the alternatives and and couldn't find a compelling reason why we'd need 45 So we felt that 40 feet, which is consistent with the current zoning for the area Just seemed like a cleaner Cleaner point to put it With the understanding that it provides flexibility, but that City doesn't have to build up to that high. It would really be dictated at a design level once the project Started to gather hold and you know proposed with the community support Oh, and that's uh at the picture on the bottom left of the landmark building You can see sort of the step terrace how it might relate to those ledgers for the the sea lions might like down there Um and that that landmark building as it was proposed in the master plan was really intended to harken back to the original warehouse that was out there As I mentioned it was originally for free shipping and passenger travel But you know it came down in the 1960s despite being a very iconic feature on the war To help illustrate what these scale challenges were when the master plan was developed they had a They had a scale model of of the improvements prepared and they displayed it at the 100th anniversary of the the work master or of the work Um and people were able to look at it engaged with really what does this mean as far as as You know if we went to the heights that were proposed Additionally in the master plan there is limited new commercial proposed Namely it's looking at filling in and building up a little bit of the spaces that are already there to some businesses Mostly restaurants would have the opportunity to maybe go to two floors And which would help generate more revenues and sustain those businesses but also provide you know expanded views of the bay Other infill is kind of around opportunity sites where there's strange eaves and buildings or or a little bit of space by the commons And it also proposes certain liner uses that I'll get into more detail a little bit later Um, lastly the yeah, lastly the entrance gateway This is uh, what the master plan kind of shows It has a more firm structure to sort of define the entrance and a sense of arrival But it also doubles security measure that beam that goes across the top is really there to house Roll gates and things that can be brought down Both after the work closes at 2 a.m As well as in the event in emergency and climate weather We secure the work as needed The signage at the top again while the master plan shows dimensions for the purposes of the sequel and analysis Those dimensions are very much in flux and would be subjects with the signage design itself To a community engagement process that cities committed to The master plan outlines the number of policies and always those are kind of hard to read Probably on most people's screens But they're really intended to not only increase the resiliency of the work But to bring it back to its more historical character and to celebrate that unique physical and cultural landmark It provides opportunities for For better wayfinding and orientation There's just a whole breadth of different policies within the master plan I encourage people to read them and see how they feel about it There's also design standards in the master plan These are intended to shape how buildings and renovations to buildings will grow So that we we've got more design intent as far as Leading the work in a direction that that seems cohesive and which is in keeping with its historical character So again, you know, I welcome comments from the planning commission on this You know, certainly our intent is to preserve and enhance the the historic feeling of the work Although creating more economic opportunity and sustainability in the process With those design standards, there's a call for more building transparency So you kind of look back at the the work of yesteryear and a lot of those spaces really opened up right into the Into the public Promenade and sidewalks so people could just kind of engage with the businesses and and the activity within You know, we still see that today in stagnaros or a firefish with their exhibition kitchen and then they're great glass walls We want to see more of that going forward with with new development and renovation A lot of the buildings that were built back in the day have a lot of blank walls And that's something that's wants to be discouraged So again along those lines are these liner uses So where today we might have a blank wall outside of jubas or you know where miramar was That would have been hiding walk-in freezers and restrooms and sort of unsightly back of house operations The master plan is calling for pushing those back a little bit Masking them with more street frontage activity So it might be a walk-up oyster bar or a gift shop that you can engage with right away But really activating every square inch of that promenade You know or walk I guess that there's eastern promenade known by the businesses. I'm not sure what to call it But really activating every every step of the way so that you feel excited about being on the work And you want to continue walking down it You know today a lot of people don't walk the entire length of the work and it impacts businesses and their viability So we really want to to encourage it through an exciting environment Second floor uses like restaurants, you know, they could come in a variety of forms It might be something like the workhouse out on the capitol of work where it's very open Very fluid and not fully enclosed. It could be something like Stegnaros, which has that really great Almost like a cruise ship view out over the end of the work Or it could be, you know, any number of things it's up to imagination But it's really about creating opportunities for for sustaining the businesses and more, you know, public access to the coastal resource A signage the guidelines or the design standards talk about You know more of this sort of heraldic Tain signage the blade signage That you can sort of see from a distance and it's more engaging as you walk down the pedestrian way See some of that today down at Stegnaros and the various other places It also limits the size and scale of major signage up on the buildings It's just I think a one and a half foot maximum height and a 20 foot length and some other specifics Um There was I think something moved Oh, I okay, that's it. Let me just fix that. Um Back here. All right, there's a misplaced slide. Um So, uh the eir The ir uh through the coping session designated a number of topics for further investigation after the initial study Uh, those relate to aesthetics aesthetic impacts biological and resource impacts Cultural resource impacts, which I mentioned earlier with the historic preservation commission and their analysis geological hydrology and water quality impacts as well as transportation traffic and parking and water and energy So diving into the ir and what uh, what was studied additionally and the findings We'll just give a little overview on those things before we get into public comment Or into questions by the commission So aesthetics, uh under sequa aesthetic, uh, there are certain thresholds that we met to to, uh, qualify as a substantial impact um First and foremost A project has to have a substantial adverse effect on the scenic vista They have to substantially damage scenic resources, uh, including but not limited to what you see there Um and in non urbanized areas are certain additional or alternative requirements as well as in urban areas As far as how it applies to existing zoning and other regulations and then, um Create a new source of white or glare that would affect the day or nighttime views in the area so, um Aesthetic seems, uh It could be, you know could seem to be somewhat of a subjective, uh standard without Without a baseline objective threshold established And to the extent that Santa Cruz has one it is in the, um In our local coastal plan and our general plan where we've designated significant view sheds So this was adopted by the by the city with the general plan And it it looks at significant panoramic views that are out there in the beach area as well as, um As well as, you know visual landmarks and things there So the extent that uh, that dudek our environmental consultant was able to to align with this in analysis of the aesthetic impacts on the wharf Or with the wharf master plan. That's basically what they did Um, so as you can see where the points are of viewing that they proposed Or that are in this document, uh dudek essentially went to replicate those through their photo simulations that were taken, um both from the beach area the beach Down in the wharf and uh off of the sort of bluffed by uh sea bright beach there. All right. I think it might have been off the bluff um They followed that up with a uh, what's called a photo simulation So they had a local architect sort of scale out what those buildings might look like Um from these various vantage points. So this is looking from west cliff. You can see at top You know what the wharf looks like today and and what it might look like if those buildings were built to their maximum heights um to landmark down the right the events pavilion you can see with that lower western walkway might look like as uh as a slight change from the uh from the piling as you can see today This is looking from main beach. Um, what it might have looked like What one, you know version of an entrance gate might look like what an expanded lifeguard station might look like Gateway welding, you know, again one model of the small boat landing All of it is subject to design and and further community engagement So what you see there is only the maximum extent in the master plan. It is not necessarily what will be built Um, just looking from cowl beach at the same sort of layout On the left, you can see what the landmark buildings might look like the gateway building Again, the standard the life station and the uh entrance gates Uh, and then lastly looking from override sea bright, uh, kind of what that what that might look like Um, and you can kind of imagine what these uh, you know, particularly with landmark building looks harkening back to today's path. Um You know, that's a one shot of what the wharf looked like probably in the 1950s Um, towards the end and you can see there's some some second-story buildings already there on the wharf Um, the historic landmark building kind of dominating the end of the wharf Um But you know, it's a different change than it is today Uh, the next topic is the biological resource. Um, so namely the the EIR found that there could be potential impacts from noise disturbance and disruption in nesting Uh, bird nesting Um, as a result it recommends certain mitigation measures including, uh, developing a hydroacoustic marine and mammal monitoring plan Um, and so that's really looking at ambient noise levels as a result of construction and various other things and developing Plans to minimize those impacts on the animals Uh, and to avoid that. Um, and it recognizes the number of potential steps that might be included in there Um, but that's a mitigation measure that would be developed within your construction Uh, it also recommends a soft start for construction when you're doing pile driving and things So kind of give a warning shot with a pile driver Let it wait let the animals disperse and then you begin your work Um, supposing there's any of that are impacted in the first place Uh, also looks at options like a push and block which would soften the sounds and the vibrations of the pile driver As well as a bubble curtain that emits an underwater curtain of bubbles to mitigate noise So they know a lot of different options. We've been working with the uh, the various state and federal agencies for the past two years on Just maintenance permits for this type of work And what's proposed the IR is very much aligned with what those agencies have generally required And and have been you know seeking As we go forward i'm just maintenance And then as far as the birds go it recommends a pre-construction biological survey So um getting a biologist or out there to assess where nests are within the realm of proposed construction project If bird nests are found one avoiding them You know as long as possible But setting a strict buffer around those birds and I believe in the IR it's generally 100 to 150 feet from a nest depending upon species In order to ensure that the nests go undisturbed and that's in in compliance with the migratory bird tree yet Um, just a little example of what that kind of looks like This was the the bird study that was done in 2017 about two different species of birds that are common on the wharf If we were to look at those nesting sites and apply a 100 foot buffer, you can see what that would do as far as You know restricting maintenance and construction work on the wharf Which you know doesn't happen in a vacuum. We don't have the luxury of avoiding Piled rising and maintenance work out there. And so We have to be very very Strategic around how this work is done to minimize impacts on umberg as we go forward Similarly impacts the sea life. We mentioned the aesthetic impacts creating glare and lighting and things The work master plan would would help buffer in a book and limit the the ambient light leakage into the ocean And from the structures both through the hooding and the design of the Um moving forward we've got the the geology and hydrology and water Um, so the there's certain secret thresholds for this, which is largely about avoiding You know loss of structures in life due to the faults and earthquakes and seismic activity as well as modifying drainage patterns in negative ways that impact rivers and streams and oceans and minimizing any Potential leakage or release of pollutants into things like the ocean And so in the IR they identified some potential impacts from from development. All are very incidental and would not be a Necessarily they would not necessarily occur with construction But there's always a likelihood that you might have an equipment leak or a drop materials that fall in the water Or or a you know uncover some old materials that may be under the sand as I like a We didn't find any but say there was a car that drove off that was never dug out Maybe it's got some oil that came out. So the best sort of stuff that could happen whenever you start stirring around We did do an underwater survey with the magnetometers and scuba diving and did not find any significant structures or historical resources But you just never know and so the EIR was really trying to anticipate that and divide mitigation members measures So really what it recommends is is creating a floating boom around construction to contain anything that might get out Whether it's a piling or you know wrapping or whatever And containing wherever vehicles and equipment are fueling keeping a containment on that so that if there's leakage that's built out it was built into a you know a pan or plastic sheeting or something and then Make demanding a work stopper to the event that we do find any Any un intended leaks or or You know dispersions of materials that shouldn't be there And providing time for for the city can to consult with the department talks of substances control and and find the right solutions to that problem The next issue is transportation traffic and parking so this was The EIR studies what the proposed improvements would do as far as potentially increasing traffic and parking Um to as a result of the work master plan There's the thresholds that have to be met in order to actually create a significant impact Where the work master plan doesn't substantially increase parking on the war It creates between 40 and 60 spaces by restricting the existing footprint of parking But they studied Existing in historic traffic levels and parking levels in the war and determined that it wouldn't rise to the level of substantial impact It also would result in increased emergency access versus inadequate And it would encourage more sustainable transportation like biking and testing And then as far as sequel land use so it will the proposed land use changes on the war to increase to commercial or or Community buildings will those conflicts with existing land use plans or divide and establish community Um in the literal sense. No, I think the You know metaphorically you might have a little bit of division between what people see at this point Um, but really the master plan again is about creating opportunities for us to have those really meaty discussions about what we should build and why And to create those opportunities for us to sustain the work going forward Um, and then it also requires also requires a study project alternatives So what are alternative designs and things that might have a reduced Environmental impact So the the no project alternative is always required by t-equa and two additional projects alternatives were proposed And studying the ir Reduced the width of the east promenade by about 12 feet which would make it Basically not usable for emergency access, but would reduce the extension of the work on that side And it would also recommend the the reduced height to 40 feet versus 45 on the community building Which is what staff ended up going with our recommendation mainly because it aligned with the existing zoning and You know and previous public process in our garden and then the last item was a modified project Which would eliminate the western walkway and again reduce the heights of the buildings to 40 feet Okay, for more information on the warf master plan and the documents you seen today You can go to the link right there It's also in the staff report There's Virtually anything that's been studied on this project as well as the master plan itself the engineering report all of that Um Upcoming EIRD I'm going to change that to november 2020 is the life and council date We haven't yet determined what date that would be it's really contingent on You know planning commissions feedback tonight And then supposing that council does eventually approve the master plan in some form There would be a 30 day challenge period after the sequence certified All right, I'll leave it up to planning commission Questions. Thank you for for bearing with me through all that Okay, thank you very much for a very comprehensive presentation of the walk master plan and it's EIR We're going to start first with questions from commissioners Maybe you could share your screen david and oh, yeah, okay. Thank you Do commissioners um, what I would suggest is you raise your hand. I think if they should be is there something there? Click on that will show that your hand is raised so Just do it on the video, but uh, there are questions from commissioners before we throw it open to the public Yes commission spellmen Yeah, I just have a couple of quick questions one When this came before us back in 2016, I think one of the interesting components to the proposed improvements out there was dealing with the trash And there was a whole system designed around that and I thought there was a big tie-in between potential erosion and destruction of the surface of the wharf and that system and I guess Was that what's happened to that? Is that still a part of this? You could answer that and then And my second question would be for the gentleman who is here Representing the wharf who works for the city out at the wharf. I'm sorry. I didn't I didn't catch his name at the beginning I've got this one general question for him that would be You know as somebody who's out there every day What is your big concern? Regarding the long-term viability of the wharf David do you want to go ahead? I'll go ahead and answer the first question and then I'll leave you to John Babachi to really highlight the second So I didn't uh, there's a bit of an oversight as far as the trash collection and the stormwater collection Those are you know key parts of the sustainability of the wharf However, they didn't really arise in the public comments and I was running short on time So I didn't get to put that in the presentation The master plan does call for the potential for a A pneumatic trash collection system that would centralize trash collection Into a system that would ship it down towards the end of the wharf and off into an off-site collection center We've had some discussions with a vendor that's created these in other places named on the east coast in europe And they've had discussions at the boardwalk about how feasible it would be for them as well To sort of consolidate trash collection in the entire beach area This would allow us to free up space on deck that's currently for trash impactors and You know an open waste bin things like that that are really kind of degrade the experience on the wharf Although it's a substantial capital improvement that would need to be figured out It's also discussions public works and their refuse team about how it works for them And sort of studying and learning more about it So but it's something we're really excited about Similarly stormwater collection would be consolidated into a central central drainage and treatment Channels so that we'd have less runoff ending up in in the ocean less debris getting washed off the deck And along those lines Staff has already implemented a number of changes to try and reduce Debris and trash getting to the ocean So john's team has been if you've been out there recently along the the railings They've been installing mesh along the bottom lengths of them so that windblown trash and stuff will get caught on deck rather than ending up in the ocean Uh, similarly the the city's carbon or climate adaptation fund supported A pilot project that we're looking to bring forward of one of our one or two of our our existing businesses To test out a a point source Aerobic digester system So it's kind of a next phase garbage digester or garbage disposal That takes organic waste and it dissolves it down and using natural enzymes and processes And a very small amount of water It basically dissolves food waste down into particles Less than half a millimeter in size That can then be flushed down the drain to the wastewater treatment facility And dealt with as any other organic waste So again, that will reduce the presence of of organic material on the work That'll reduce potential workforce injuries and it'll make us a more sustainable Operation because we'll have to truck off all that Okay, thank you. Um, mr. Bambati could you want to answer the second question, please? Could you please repeat what what are the things that concern me the most day to day up on the wharf? There are a few things the first of which is that We're getting a lot of corrosion in our fasteners on the wharf a lot of corrosion that's also causing The joists to open up on top and exposing them to wood fungus And the danger in this is that the wharf continues to look really solid and the piles are in good shape But that doesn't mean that the wharf is in great shape What the decking does is it serves as a shear panel And it it sort of Contains the movement of the wharf and big events big storm events When you lose that you can start to get independent movement in large areas of the wharf and and and the damage can compound Really quickly and become much more expensive to fix The other concern that I have is that We're really not Accommodating the number of people that that want to visit the wharf in in the summer We've got this wonderful rail trail that That is being built the first section in the west side that's going to Terminate actually right there at the base of the wharf. Well, it won't terminate but that first section will And this is going to provide a lot of opportunity for bicycle traffic And I think this is really a real saving grace For the economy of the wharf Which which brings another concern that sustainability In the ocean really means being able to Grow and and and and move with With time And if you can't pay for yourself If you can't pay the bills you you don't live whether it's whether it's biologically economically and so We need to grow we need to grow to Accommodate the neighborhood that's grown up around us really we haven't done anything substantial on the on the wharf for almost 40 years Meanwhile the our neighborhood is grown substantially The the east walkway Or the east promenade here really Goes to a lot of these issues and that it does provide room The width of it provides additional stability for the wharf It represents a good grant opportunity because it's a it's a public access feature and an emergency access feature and The width will provide a lot of stability for the wharf and when we tie this new section into the old section A lot of the decking that really needs to be repaired there will be addressed and so That and the other thing that I've always one of the things that has really disappointed me over my time at the wharf is that we lost Our charter business and and we lost Our fishing vessels dropping fish off at the wharf and I just think that's really critical to the heritage of the wharf to get those things back That's what a wharf is. We're our tagline is that we're the gateway to the Monterey Bay And to truly be that we need to bring back those businesses Okay, thank you. Any other questions commissioners spellman That's it. Thank you. Appreciate that other commissioners Commissioner Dawson are you're muted so Go ahead Okay Yeah, thank you for presentation. I just had a question around the aesthetic Evaluation so the the photo simulations were looking in And I didn't see any any photo simulations Based on being actually on the wharf looking out and around and how the development would affect those Did I miss that or was that not included in the analysis? Not sure if that was done. I'm going to defer to stephanie sterlo on that She may know why or why why it was done or if it was done And or if not Tiffany Yes, good evening The standards the thresholds for significant significance for aesthetics impacts Really look at whether or not a structure would block scenic views Or disrupt the visual quality of the area So we really focused on those views as opposed to views looking out. I'm not sure What features of the wharf Would be significant from the wharf. We did respond to a comment that's in the final EIR and looked at The end of the wharf and from the end of the wharf, you can't really see the beaches Because of the existing development on the wharf. So we did look at that component that aspect of it Thank you. Commissioner Dawson a follow up or No, I'll just say this in my comments. Thank you Other commissioners have questions Yes, Commissioner Nielsen So I have a question. I guess this is for David. Um For the western walkway, it sounds to me like what you're In terms of how you presented that that it's primarily a structural element or a way to stop I guess debris from hitting the Hitting the wharf piling. Is that is that true? I mean is that basically what it is? Is it it's meant to To be a weight break or or something like that It's a multi-purpose improvement It certainly is there to provide a greater access around the wharf and a better experience of You know the wharf structure itself, which is one of the historic elements But it's also there as that buffer Right, so for the long-term sustainability and resilience of the wharf having a buffer on the outside will reduce the likelihood of impacts to structures that are supporting buildings and as a consequence businesses and people That are in those businesses it'll reduce that vulnerability But at the same time it's it's there to increase public access Around the wharf and our experience of various aspects of the wharf Is that access in any way? Intended to be used for emergency access also Or that just is it just for pedestrian access? I don't think it's substantial enough for like an emergency vehicle. You know certainly a lifeguard or or You know a firefighter or something might use it if they needed to but I don't think it was It's not of such size that it could be used for a vehicle of any sort okay And then you mentioned the the increased parking That is being generated through the plan And but what I also and I also read I did I make I'm just what I read was that there is There was no expansion of this master plan in terms of any car use So basically what you're saying is that added parking is happening solely through parking re-striping it's looking at largely it's looking at One utilizing the the space that's freed up from going to a more sustainable garbage collection system So by removing those those storage spaces But it's also looking at creating more parallel or not parallel perpendicular end in parking versus the angle parking that's there today It's a more efficient layout apparently you know, I'm not a parking designer, but Apparently they did the math and they got more spaces Okay, but but there's no but but the the warp is not in essence the warp is not being expanded at all for parking in right, okay Um, I also I have a question. Um, this might be for the planning director. Um, this is it's kind of more of a process question um So as part of our materials that we received Um for this meeting we we got a letter that was addressed to us from the Chair So i'm curious in my seven years on on planning commission. I've never experienced that so i'm just curious Is that a is that normal? I mean, is that is is that just part of a normal process? Um, thanks for asking that question commissioner nielsen. Um, Is not I would say part of a normal process. Um, uh chair shifrin had it requested to do that as part of last Meeting when this was continued and When this was continued as part of last meeting technically there could have been discussion as part of that and so Given that there could have been discussion During that noticed public hearing Even though it was only planned for continuance. We we did allow that to move forward Chair shifrin will attest to the To the fact that we've had discussions with our city attorney about uh, his desire to present Letters to the commission and the position that we and the city attorney have taken is that When Those letters are if a letter is presented in advance That can have the effect of precluding others From communicating with one another because it then becomes a series of communications in which everyone is aware of One commissioner's stance on an issue Thus we have uh, been reticent to allow for commissioner's comments to come out in advance of the hearings However, um, given this unique situation where there was a continuance We we did feel it was warranted at that time given that you know, there could have been commission discussion but you know, I do like to uh, take a cautious approach to the brown act And I encourage you all to do the same That is why at the last meeting when that Letter was released and we we mentioned that it would be released to encourage each of you to not Communicate with one another in order to avoid any brown act issues and You know, we could get into that separately at a a different a different discussion. There are some Um intricacies to that evaluation, um, that You know commissioner or excuse me chair shifrin and the attorney and I spent You know an hour talking back and forth and I spent an hour talking with the attorney about before that So, you know, given that that's not agindized. We can't get into a detailed conversation about that when I say that That you know, given those unique circumstances of it of it being heard at the last meeting and and when Commission discussion could have actually occurred at that last meeting given that it was a noticed item We we felt it warranted to go ahead and release it at that time Okay, thank you for your explanation Well, uh, my questions are done. Thank you Well, let me respond to that if I could One of the frustrations I've always had when I sit not sit on a public body Is getting information at the meeting? It's sort of it's hard to think about You know what you want to do When you're looking at the written information and you're trying to deal with public testimony And you're trying to respond to Concerns that other commissioners have or that you have and so from my perspective it's helpful For commissioners to be able to do whatever other members of the public can do Which is make their thoughts known in advance of the meeting as a planning director says That our city attorney unlike other Councils take a very strict view and the planning director take a very strict view of The brown act You know, so I think it it's while it's unusual I think I would benefit from hearing some of the concerns that The other commissioners would have on staff reports Before the meetings I could think about them rather than having to deal with them at the meeting and maybe continue to continue the item So it's strange to me that commissioners are essentially less able to present their Perspectives in a thoughtful way than members of the public But as the planning director said that's not on our agenda tonight, so it's not worth pursuing but I just wanted to give a sense of what my you know My concerns are so other commissioners have questions I have a few questions myself. I wanted to I spoke about the height um, the height issue is one My understanding from the draft dir that the current height Or I don't know the average height or maximum height is 27 feet. Is that correct? That's my understanding. Um, you know, probably based on the plans for those buildings You know things don't always build exactly the plan, but And is it true that the historic warehouse building was only 30 feet high? It was about 30 feet high The proposed landlocked building originally was going to be significantly higher than um, the historic building As currently recommended by staff. It's still significantly higher You know a 25 percent higher and it's definitely higher than the existing Average height or maximum height. So is that am I understanding that correctly? That's correct and there's a couple reasons for it. Um, again the the designers intent was to create a focal element that would Sort of emit the the grandeur Uh of day's path in relation to the now Larger built form on the work So where stagnaro's is now a two-story building in larger in order to stand out against it the designer said hey We need a you know a substantially larger building It also the larger emblem provides The interior space height while allowing the the needs to evolve based on what the community would want If there was a second floor perhaps that was wanted Okay, let me um Clarify that what actually is happening with approval of the master plan You talked about Essentially being a framework and guidance But it does have a legal Uh, uh a legal status as well. Am I not correct that essentially if the City would want to do a project that was substantially different From what's in the master plan? It would have to redo the environmental document. Is that not the case? Not necessarily the entire Environmental document, but they would have to amend it or tear off of it if they were to vary from it substantially similarly Um, where almost every improvement proposed in the master plan is only at a program level The exception being the gateway structure not the signage and the uh the east promenade which a project level under the sequel EIR Uh, any anything else proposed in the master plan will need additional environmental review once it advances to a higher level of design But and so I'm glad you mentioned that because it didn't come out in your presentation Um, am I correct that for those two project level? Uh, those two project level analyses. There is no As long as they adhere to what's in the draft EIR and the master plan There is no Additional environmental review that they'll have to be subjected to That's the gateway those topics promenade Yeah, nothing yet. We're building the entrance gates. Um, but yeah, that's that's not exactly true At the local level, there's no further sequel necessarily involved to them just unless they change substantially from what's proposed But there's still very significant environmental review and regulatory processes for any improvements on the ocean So we'll be working with uh with NOAA the u.s. Army Corps of Engineers the, um Was it nymphs the national John you remember that it's without abbreviation is I always forget it National marine fishery service national marine fishery I mean there's there's a half dozen state and federal agencies that we still have to work through um all subject to potential comment and and public engagement or public feedback and appeal Uh before we could even poke to break down on a project. So that's an That raises an interesting question because one of the strengths I saw in the EIR and in the The analysis was that there weren't any negative comments or critical comments from these regulatory agencies And I really think the staff should be complimented for working as closely with them as you have because I know it with other projects they can be tough in terms of Criticizing what the city is proposing to do and in a particular project. So I think It's it's a little surprising what you're saying is that I would have assumed that as part of the EIR here A lot of the concerns if not the significant concerns of those agencies have already been taken care of so that the city could be Based on adoption of the master plan and the EIR the city can move forward and implement these projects I know there is there's going to be more sub review and but You know, it's in the truth that the mitigations that are in the EIR are considered adequate by these agencies In terms of the particular project that are Project level I'd say the the jury's still out on that. I say that they are generally consistent with what they've required in the past and what they generally want As I mentioned, we've been in close negotiations with many of these agencies for two years now just trying to get maintenance permits While spending handily on emergency permits to drive a few piles So while we're still Trying to figure out what the regulations will be for any improvements in the master plan, which we haven't really begun What's in the mitigation here is very in line with what they're required for for the sort of maintenance work and the things that Are similar to that sort of improvement Well, let me just say in my experience the regulatory agencies look over these documents very very carefully And if the secret document is saying this is a project Level analysis for the gateway and for for the entrance and for east and promenade If they had problems with the mitigations or the analysis They would have said so. So don't I don't think you should underestimate the success that you that this process represents in terms of the willingness of the regulatory agencies to Not be, you know, be essentially supportive of the the EIRs analysis I certainly hope so and fingers crossed. We've got a great team between dudak John and and our engineers at Moffitt and nickel So hopefully uh, hopefully you're right and we've done it all You know, right. I think we've got a great team on it well, I just I just want to emphasize that because you know that The if the council adopts the master plan they are setting certain Boundaries in terms of what can and can't be done during the future of the at the future of the mall if the if the Council ultimately agrees with the star preservation commission and sets the height at 35 feet That's as high as it's going to be possible to go And that's you know, so these decisions are not simply a framework or guidance. They are setting policies that Will need to be followed And so I just think it's Important to recognize that the city is making a commitment to this plan by adopting it Adopting the EIR My final question is really for I mean straight straight low and it's based on a letter we received from the Sierra Club Regarding the biological analysis And I wonder if you've seen that letter and could comment on their concern I had a hard time understanding But it seemed to be that the the biologists cited or the biologists Statement cited in the fire Final EIR wasn't adequate because it wasn't clear who the person was and What the evidence was could you respond to that please? Was this a letter that came in after the final EIR? Yes I have not seen that maybe Dave can email it to me right now and I can get back to you on that Well, I would just say that you know, we're making a recommendation to the council. I was Suggest that when The the plan gets to the council. Maybe there'd be some kind of a written response to it Since it is challenging the environment to document Okay, I will just say quickly there were five biologists that worked on the different pieces about the draft and final EIR right Yeah, I might ask test or lee. I'm not sure if I have that exact letter so If she might be able to to send that over to step in the Just trying to find the red one the the email was Thank you If there are no quite okay emission needle soon I I do I just um, I think um, some of the chair's questions. Um, I have a Fall up to that. Um It's just based on the height building height. So based on um, just thresholds of significance Is building height specifically included as as one of those things or is it? um, or does it more have to do with the potential obstruction of scenic views I think I defer to Stephanie on that but I understanding is it's largely the scenic views And someone's objective Yes, it's mostly um obstruction of the scenic views. Although one of the standards does look at Visual compatibility in an urban setting that is also tied to consistency with local regulations That address scenic quality And so we we did discuss that a little bit in the EIR with regards to Um height limits, but there aren't really any specific Regulations that address scenic quality specifically so with that, I mean comparing I mean, it's you can't draw. There's no correlation of really drawing a You know comparison of the existing building to the proposed Building height at 45 feet um Yes, and no, I mean the sequel guidelines are kind of the basis for our standards of significance and those were amended a couple of years ago And so the question of formally was the guidelines that dealt with um It's basically whether a project would substantially degrade the scenic quality of the site or surrounding area And we would look at structures in terms of their overall massing scale height to make that kind of determination and that That criteria has changed a little bit In the sense that it says in an urbanized area It's whether or not the project would conflict with applicable zoning and other regulations governing scenic quality So in the EIR we we actually did though. We looked at the overall Um massing and scale or scale of these new buildings in relation to the surrounding areas As we would have under the former threshold as well as to set the Any conflict with regulations governing the scenic quality Okay, and um So it's so so somewhat in a way, I mean from what kind of what I'm hearing it's kind of subjective I think it is subjective in terms of like, you know, what people, you know As they look at those as they look at the um the photo simulations of you know, what what would be an appropriate height For those buildings is it is subjective So I guess the other question I have is uh, is there a threshold in terms of um And uh, you know, what is considered being what's considered obstructing a scenic view Like is there a way to I mean, is there some sort of threshold that that's placed in terms of how much of a view is being blocked Especially with these panoramic panoramic views, um Um, there's a very, you know, obviously a very wide scenic view um And so I just wonder if is there some sort of Threshold or criteria that you know, you did, you know, if it gets beyond that certain percentage that um that it's considered um to be substantial Fortunately, there's not again somewhat of a more objective topic of all the topics we review in the EIR The question the threshold, uh, is whether or not a project would have a substantial adverse effect on the scenic vista and so With that in mind There's nothing in the local coastal plan or any of the city's plans or regulations that further define How much the friction of an ocean view would be More significant than others So we try to look at the whole of it, you know, the panoramic views that are visible from the key spots and You know in the context of the background mountains and the ocean views and Um Where these new buildings might be blocking something and I think the address that Yeah, clearly from the end of the world, there's gonna be some blockage of views So have most of the ocean view available in that panorama And like I said, I think that's a the shoreline views from the end of the war for already somewhat blocked by the dolphin and You know the sea lion holes and restrooms and things like that So it's not like that. It's entirely pristine views looking back from the war You know, of course it changes but you still have a circuit around the buildings that you could view from Mission Nielsen is your follow-up question. Yeah, I'm here. No, that's good. That answers my question. Thank you Are there any other questions from commissioners? Uh, senior let's open it up to uh, public comments Um How is this gonna work? Okay, so we have seven attendees on the line any member of the public that wishes to address the commission at this time Please press star nine That will put you in the queue. Please do that now so that you're all lined up When I call the first uh, the last four numbers of your phone number You will be on Live to speak with the commission So again, please press star nine to indicate that you wish to address the commission And let me just suggest that um If you're willing give your name and you'll have three minutes to provide your testimony Okay chair at this time It appears that there's one person of the seven that have indicated that they wish to address the commission so, um If you would like me to start I can allow Number 2174 to address the commission Okay, sounds good They have to unmute themselves Okay, yep Welcome Thank you. Good evening commissioners. My name is julian greenside The agenda report states that the city cannot apply for grants until the plan and eir are approved That is not accurate the city secured an 850,000 grants from the federal department of commerce without a plan and eir There are numerous grants available to restore and renovate historic structures none of which require a plan or eir The agenda report gives to the impression that the wharf is in poor shape in their words approaching a slow boil I'm very pleased that at least this evening It is acknowledged that the engineering report showed that 91 of the pilings are in excellent or good shape The the concerns expressed by mr. Bombachi are real the corrosion and the joints and the roadway needs fixing none of those important Renovations need this master plan or an eir By the way, and this is confirmed by the engineering report The wharf was not damaged by the 1989 earthquake because of its flexibility To shore it up as though flexibility is a problem should be of concern and the wharf did not suffer damage from the tsunami The agenda report states the wharf has been losing money for the past five out of six years To make this claim staff includes the cost of the lifeguards and marine rescue Both of which are funded by and fall under the fire department and should not factor into a discussion of wharf finances With the eir the city's response to sequel based public comments fail to defend the city's position That this massive project beyond construction will have no or less than significant impacts just two examples Pigeon geelamots fly each year from Puget Sound to their nesting sites under the wharf While the city acknowledges that the lower western walkway will likely Significantly impact the birds access from that side The city claims the birds will still have access from the east and the south And that because the wharf will be increased by 33 that habitat under the wharf will be similarly increased There is no statement nor supporting document from the biologists to support this claim The only work the biologists did was to count the number of species and locate the nest The eir fails to respond to the public comment that the lower deck to the south The new boat landings outriggers and associated visitors to the east Will likely deter the birds from those vantage points as well And thus is a significant impact that requires mitigation Beyond geel if I could just finish my my sentence here Beyond geelamots the impact of the lowered western walkway is dismissed as not significant in the eir Which fails to follow secretary of the interior standards for guiding constructions How will sea lions and nesting birds adapt to this lower walkway with hundreds of people entering their territory What loss to the public of the snowy egrets that perch on the west side railings? What loss to the historical character of your statement in conclusion? This eir is not legally defensible Your motion this evening should be to send it back for revision prior to city council deliberation. Thank you Thank you there anyone else that press star nine I uh, don't see that anyone. Oh, there's one. Okay. So there's one and there are more of you on the line So please all of you who wish to speak please press star nine now so that we don't have unnecessary confusion and delay There's one hand and this is Last four numbers six seven six six which i'm allowing to speak now Okay, welcome. Please. Uh, give us your name and you have three minutes Hello Fred Geiger here. Can you hear me? Okay? Yes. Go ahead Thank you About four things i'm hoping the commission will look into on this situation There's some things that are just really silly and and not really what we want as a result for the benefit of the community The first one is the the sea light viewing port You know these cost the city nothing they cost our visitors nothing There are a link for people to in their mind come to Santa Cruz and see some nature and have a nice time And you know experience some of what Santa Cruz has to offer Uh, just covering them over it would just be silly. I mean, what's the point? Like I said, they don't even cost anything So number one, I hope you'll certainly act on that Uh, the second thing that I think is troubling and misdirected is the walkways Down lower, uh towards the ocean. We know in 1979, I believe capital award two buildings on the end Were completely destroyed by waves We know now that with global warming we're having higher seas and bigger storms that walkway down there Is subject to these weather events if it comes loose you have these huge pieces of Wood smashing into the pier to the pilings of the pier That's if no one's there to get killed. Uh, just be pure damage But that's certainly something that that is not Why it's planning to create a situation where the pier could suffer severe damage Another issue I hope you'll look into is the Non cruise ship landings. We keep being assured these giant landings are not for cruise ships, but well, what are they for? You know, they said they're for what marine Research vessels will which what ream research vessels nambari has their own place Monterey aquarium has their own place I don't think it's in the interest of Santa Cruz to have thousands of people literally or the environment Santa Cruz Charging down the warp a certain business community members might like that. I don't think that would Created an attractive wharf for any other Potential visitors and customers. So let's get rid of these These landings that aren't for cruise ships, but don't seem to be for anything else We're getting assurances from the staff that they're not But we also were told by the manager of the wharf at the original EIR hearing that cruise ships couldn't enter the marine sanctuary Which we found out is completely untrue. They do and can come to Monterey. They have dumped raw sewage just a couple hundred yards off of the harbor in Monterey and they pollute the air drastically with unregulated diesel emissions So let's make sure they can't come if they're being we're being told they're not going too well If they're not going too, why do we have to have planning that allows them to later? That's double-talk and as is the grandeur of the buildings that are oversized and not in harmony with the Environment and the ambiance of the wharf if we're not going to build big buildings Let's say we can't build big buildings. I don't think people come to Santa Cruz To admire the grandeur of overly large structures. That's not what Santa Cruz is about So let's put it in writing a reasonable limit that's in harmony with what we have on the wharf already And so that it gets out of change and ignored later on down the road So I hope you look at these four points and Make sure that we're not going to get led down the path that's going to have some Dileterious effects on the wharf and on the businesses and on tourism and on the residents of sanitary. Thank you Thank you Does anybody else have their hand up? Not at this time. This would be the oh, there's one Good everyone who's waiting to speak to the commission, please press star nine now I'm gonna get the It's at a regular public meeting that people wait until dramatic finish, right? I have two now The next speaker Actually has his name Charles Byron Okay, um, you have up to three minutes Oh, thank you. It's probably pretty brief. It's my name is Charles. My name is Tended on the wharf and I just wanted to say that I support the the project and I think it would be positive for the community overall and As well as having some flexibility to design a great destination at the end of the wharf would be excellent and It is a place where people come and have been coming for generations and generations and to create a little more growth and a little bit more Um, newness and freshness there would be wonderful The cloud status I think you should support it. Thank you Okay, there is another speaker on the line Uh last four numbers zero six six five Welcome, uh, please introduce yourself and you have up to three minutes. You need to unmute star six I mean Yeah, I think there you go. Okay Can you hear me now? Yeah, you're ready to Well, thank you. Uh, this is carmela white trial and um, I have uh been interested in this For a project for a long time and I have to be honest about it It's been a hard time a hard thing to wade through all the material that uh and and ups and downs uh and ins and outs of this for such a long period of time And I lost kind of lost track of it at some point But recently I talked to Dave McCormick and had a really nice conversation about the project and basically I support it And I'm happy that it's happening and I also have some issues So, um, I'm going to refer to the um The document the only document that I could actually find because Dave said that the original one was 500 page So I I only got to the final copy of the EIR plan Which I think is 200 pages and I have to say I read every single page And then I was really confused It's a lot of material. So here I am Asking now for a more specific consideration On the uh aesthetic part of this plan regarding the destination landmark building that will As far as I'm concerned be too far high and will cover much too much of the war Square footage. Um, I feel kind of like the work itself is a destination and um There are many people that feel like this building is out of scale For the rest of the warf buildings and it will dominate the landscape of the ocean But it will also dominate the landscape of the actual warf itself Um, many of the letters from citizens reflected the lack of support for this building Because it's too large and too dominant Why put this into the plan if it seems like the the coastal commission Also has issue with the lack of consistent scale so the response Notes in their notes, uh, their comments, um, that Um, Mr. McCormick made Uh, they sent their letter to him That um, it is being included in the plan for a possible future development That does not guarantee that it will actually not be developed and become an eyesore Taking up valuable open space that people have come to the war for I dare say people generally do not come to the warf to be enclosed in a large warehouse They can go to Costco for that Um, I feel the planning commission should respect the opinion of the residents of Santa Cruz And not put this in if it actually seems to be Part of the project that a lot of people aren't happy with It is, um, I was shocked when I saw the elevations. I couldn't find them anywhere online So I just saw them tonight and I have to say I was visibly shocked to see how How big it is and how much of the uh foot print it covers So I want to also say something about the infill Um possibilities of the war that we're not building a city on the war We're trying to keep a low slung Building the way it has been so that the um The natural features of the ocean are the the um focus and not a lot of buildings Although I do totally support the fact that this this, um This warf is also a shocking area and it's also a restaurant area So I love the fact that it has commercial purpose I and I think that that destination building should be turned into more commercial space if that's our goal with lower um height and more variety And not such a huge dominant Landscape object. I I'm just feeling very strong So again, I do support the improvements that need to be made to the war And I look forward to future opportunities for public input I know these are required, but they need to be listened to Responded to and generally taken into consideration Partly because I've seen too many instances in Santa Cruz Where the city council takes the plan and just Runs with it No matter what the citizens Have to say about it and I know aesthetics are subjective But I also know a lot of people don't Like the size and scope of that one building So thank you very much for listening to me and Thank you to all of you for being so patient Tonight to go through this in such great detail. I do definitely appreciate your work I also appreciate all the work that went into the To this plan the er I our plan itself was is a very good document. So thank you I'm gonna Who wishes to speak to the commission I don't see any raised hands if there's any one of you six that wish to address the commission Now is the time to press star nine And I've got nothing. Okay. Um based on that. I'm going to close the public hearing And bring the matter back to the commission for Uh comments first and then action What commission nielson I actually before I have comments. I actually have a couple of questions a couple more questions. Um, Just based on some public testimony um the This is for um, this is for david Um, so for the other for for the existing commercial buildings that are on the war What is the what's the maximum? Um height that's allowed currently I think it's under the existing zoning of 40 feet. Um But lee could probably confirm that Yes, I believe that's accurate and then uh, so the existing zoning allows 40 feet and then um, you know, there are There's an ability to um Go higher through separate processes either through a pd or I believe That the zoning also allows like certain architectural projections above that um, you know minor minor things so, um Or if if uh, if one of the existing commercial buildings were to Um be built does it does that need to go through a public process? Or is that is that already just covered within the zoning and they can build it up to the 40 foot height? Two things I would say to that. Um, they could go up to the 40 foot height and um, they could Um Go through an administrative review process that would not trigger a public hearing Um, however Are a new building of of any substantial size Would likely trigger a community meeting under our Roughly two-year-old now Council policy on community outreach and So there may be a community meeting and there may not be a public hearing Um, I will say this was a point of Discussion last night as part of the history preservation commission's deliberations with respect to What items are referred to them and go through a historic alteration permit? And there are different perspectives surrounding that in relation to whether the The warf itself is a historic site or whether it's just a structure. Um, and there was You know, probably 45 minutes of discussion about that last night So I don't know that we need to rehash all of that but suffice to say that, you know, there could be a historical duration permit There would likely be at least a community meeting And if they wanted to go higher through plan development, for example, then that would certainly trigger a public hearing So Long answer to a short question Okay, but higher when you when you say higher you mean higher than the 40 foot higher than the 40 feet You can use a plan development permit to go higher than 40 feet And That would trigger a public hearing That would also have its own sequel analysis associated with it and we would be evaluating That for height, you know, this is again absent the the current We'd be evaluating that for aesthetic impacts and so forth associated with height Okay, thank you Reiterate with that that again part of the impetus between the coast commission and our own internal processes for updating the master plan Because what the old master plan in effect now is calling for may not be what the community really wants Okay, uh, but but this but this master plan is not calling for those for those building heights to be uh to be lower like they existed for Well, I guess that's the question Or is the I don't I don't recall seeing in the master plan that there was any discussion around the the the commercial buildings Aside from the three new buildings that are being proposed would be brought down to a lower height It calls for a 35 foot maximum on the other ones Oh, it does Okay, yeah, maybe I missed Okay, I guess I missed that. Okay. So so basically based on this um Okay, so based on this, um master plan then 35 foot would be the maximum for the commercial buildings and staff currently right now Is supporting a 40 foot high limit for the three other Buildings, correct. So I have um one additional question And just sorry, I want to give you a complete response on that because um, I also want to verify here I believe that um This and Dave you may know off the top of your head. I'm sorry. I was trying to scroll here onto um Our gis. Um, is this part of the uh, uh coastal commission's original permit jurisdiction? Uh, yeah, because it's a little water coastal commission Yeah, I think it's on top of the water. They have ultimate jurisdiction, right? So the the uh, other answer to that question. Sorry. I was I was referring to our permit But the coastal commission would do a permit uh as well for that for the For the coastal development permit. Sorry. I left that out originally. Yeah, okay So that would happen regardless right for for any new structure on the wharf Yeah, and I I'm going to verify that as I uh pull up the gis here, but um I I will leave it there and if I don't come back and correct myself that is the response That's been our our experience in discussions with them Okay, great. Thank you. They view that as as their territory Our coastal program does not apply ahead of theirs Got that. That's what I would expect. I wanted to verify and realize that left. Okay understood um, then the the other question I have Goes back to the western walkway question, um In terms of the um Setting these the the lower walkway with the with the with the additional set of pilings that are are there to protect The wharf is this a technique? uh, that has been used elsewhere, um that you know of like in terms of um Setting pilings out to protect the wharf, but also creating a lower walkway um in addition to that I'm gonna I'm gonna punch that to john I could think anecdotally that I've seen it in some places not in a structure of the scale But john had a good answer about how you know other wharf masters and stuff view our wharf Yeah, a lot of other wharfs View our wharf as we're the big dog in the state. They looked us for answers They have a lot of confidence in what we do But I will say this that that Guard piles fender piles however you want to describe dolphins as well We have three piles driven together a rope around them There's some sort of containment at the top. These are all very common Structures around around wharfs and so It's something that's commonly done to incorporate a walkway You've we've certainly seen it and in in water fronts It's it's not there particularly To protect the wharf. It's just often to bring a a walkway down closer to the water But um It generally we like to look for the two first and three first When it comes to doing a structure and this accomplishes several things Okay, thank you I want to just follow up on your first been to just clarify it's the Council supports the hpc recommendation for 35 foot height limit for all the buildings Does that become the standard? And essentially adopting the wolf master plan is adopting as I understand it the general plan for the wolf and so if the decision is to have a 35 foot height limit that Becomes the the requirement. Is that not the case? Or is that I think I'd punch the lee on that but uh, typically, uh, You know, you'd have to bring the zoning in line with it and it would have to be incorporated into the master plan of the general plan, but Let lee speaks about What I would say to that is um, you know, it's it's a council policy document And if we're bringing something forward it needs to be consistent with the council adopted council policies Unless it's accompanied by a modification to that. So if the council, you know, ideally we would have it Um, we would have our zoning consistent with that But if there's something in the master plan that deviating from that and more restrictive Then um, we would look to have project compliance with that more restrictive standard Okay, thank you. Other commissioners have uh comments Yes, commissioner greenberg. You seem to be muted. You can't be heard Commissioner greenberg. We can't hear you. It must be her phone. Um, we cannot hear you. I'm so sorry. Okay. Can you hear me now? Yes, okay So this is again a question about the lowered walkway and the degree to which following up on the public comments The issue of sea level rise in relation to this and whether this has been studied and perhaps in in coordination at all with the resilient coast initiative um happening um along you know wet with and um and the boardwalk area That's my first question and the second question was about another question from the public around sea life viewing And the reasons for which there couldn't be similar opportunities for people to Look down and view sea life within the work and the way that it had been done and whether Conceivably that to be built into or maintained within the structure of a building that would go on the end of the work Those are my two questions. Thanks Yeah, john look at you. You are prepared to see that bow rise one. Um Um Yes, that was all that was all looked at and we are compliant with the uh with In our coastal planning um, we've done all of the sea life uh sea level rise calculations and um our plan is is is well supported uh with regards to the to the Sea lion viewing areas, which were originally developed as fishing accesses And in the old fishing park on the end of the war uh Those have been moved Many times over the years and we've we've maintained them and there's no reason to expect that we couldn't maintain them Uh, whether we built the landmark building or not the landmark building who was originally when it was in the master plan took Sort of took into account that the dolphin would still be there. Um, the underpinnings of the dolphin are such now that Perhaps or perhaps not there's there would be an opportunity to incorporate that business into the building There's a lot of things that could happen there Um, but you could certainly maintain the the viewing ports If if if everybody feels like that's a really important. Yeah, you could you could definitely do that Yeah, I would just add to those two things. Uh, people sea level rise is evaluated in the engineering report As well as changing weather conditions, I believe And in the the secret document under the hydrology section As far as the sea life viewing if you look at staff's recommendation I think item six is a commitment to either preserve or relocate to an equal or or better location those those viewing ports I think the the widening of the end of the war As well as potential changes to how it's laid out with buildings that are there or could potentially be there in the future Gives us a lot of opportunity to find key locations for that But we're committed to preserving that element. Um, people seem to love it. Um, I know I love it. It's fun to go to so Why get rid of what's not broken? Other comments or questions by commissioners, uh, commissioner Dawson Thank you for the report. Um, I just wanted to kind of go over three general areas. Um, that I'm really thinking about I'm not surprisingly the height is one of those. Um it's uh Also hearing from the north preservation commission that um, 35 feet is their recommendation Although the zoning does allow up to 40 feet. It says in the report that the average is 27 feet So the increase that the staff is, um Supporting is significant. I mean 40 feet versus 27 feet is pretty significant. So I'm much more supportive of something just for all the buildings at 35 foot limit, um to be in line with the historic preservation commission The aesthetic analysis in sequa There's been some discussion about the subjectivity of that But I think there's just basic logic as well that goes along with those analyses And the footprint shown in the photo simulations Um Certainly to me appears significant and another part of the aesthetics that wasn't Analyzed and I think needs to be part of this discussion And I hope that my fellow commissioners would also take this under consideration is um I think one of the commentators actually brought it up that that the ocean is Uh part of the experience of the wharf and the fact that there's no analysis of what it's going to be like To stand on the wharf and how that's going to change As the footprint of the building change. I'm very supportive of the walkways I do have some concerns about putting people closer and closer to the sea lions because Although they are used to having people around That that could change their behavior getting people closer down to them But generally speaking I think improving access to the wharf allowing people to Go out makes a lot of sense But the the building footprints I have really can I have real concerns about and I I think it's really going to affect That feeling you have when you stand on the wharf of I've been on a lot of boats in my life for work And you really feel like you're kind of on a boat except the lack of the movement You're really surrounded by the ocean you're surrounded by Um the birds and the sea life and then the viewing courts also allow people to kind of get a feeling and see The sea stars and the mussels on the wharf So I think that that's something that we need to think about maintaining in the landmark building I think really is going to prevent that And and using the reasoning of there used to be a warehouse to store things out on the edge of the wharf For a reason to rebuild something that large to me also doesn't stand up from a sequa standpoint So I have real concerns that the sequa Um analysis of the IRR is not going to stand up with the aesthetic findings and that there are significant impacts that Need to be considered I'm much more supportive of 35 foot height Um, and I really don't think we need the landmark building at all and that would be a way to move this plan forward Um, we really do need to move it forward and we could remove the landmark building as part of this And change the design standards to 35 feet and possibly continue to move this forward. Um, and I'll look at that for now Other commissioners have comments I've got uh commissioners Spelman go ahead Yeah, thank you Yeah, I do want to um, you know, thank the public and their comments for this process. This is a very complicated Issue anybody that's delved into these documents and really dug in and started to understand them Realizes that, you know, there's there's a ton of work here A ton of questions and opportunities All couched in, you know, how do we save this precious resource that we have? Um, so I think in the big picture for me Um, I would find it irresponsible if we can't find a way to Approve the a master plan and the EIR to support it I think there's been a lot of good discussion to add some fine tuning to the language to Let's say protect people's interests in and seeing potentially less development out there I'm in support of that idea Um, I do think there are some problematic Components to the overall layout of the let's call it ultimate build out And I think it does relate back to Uh, the experience of being on the wharf and how you engage, you know with the ocean environment there We've you know, it's essentially a one-sided street, right with open space to the south or to the east And buildings along the northern edge in a pretty substantial row of buildings uninterrupted Why don't we propose Interrupting that experience so that you could actually engage with views of cowl's beach and West cliff and and those elements getting down to the western promenade the lowered walkway Um I think more opportunities to actually experience being out in that ocean environment are As important if not more important than Just filling up the commercial space so to speak um So I I think there's Room in the plan to allow for that. I think it could be as simple as describing A motivation to increase that aesthetic Experience for the wharf But I think there should be some language that that does highlight that um I did The historic preservation commission's comments sort of resonated with me. It sounds like Um requiring the historic alteration permits is already in play So I don't think that's a new item. I think Putting concrete words to describe Some sort of a wharf museum or historical Component to the plan is an important one. And I think that's something that we should include um I'd also on the on the height issue. So 45 feet does seem substantial Given the footprint of the let's call it the destination Project at the end of the wharf um I can understand the motivations for wanting the You know in the large sense Place the biggest structure, you know at the end and have some differentiation between that and the rest of the buildings on the site But in this case where we're talking about you know The best view the end of the wharf the most potential to block You know views back and forth and sideways and everything else It's already the destination. I don't think having the extra bulk in mass is necessarily going to You know put the cherry on top so to speak Um, I think a much more in scale. It's already the biggest building By itself out there. I think There's plenty that can happen in that and and not have to be that big of a structure from a height standpoint um I do want to recognize the public comment We had few speakers tonight, but there were many voices in the comments for the eir as well as You know Petitions that have circulated etc. I don't think for myself. I have come to an understanding that the bird habitat specifically the pigeon Viamots, hopefully I'm saying that right has been vetted or that that answer that question has been answered By the eir consultant tonight. So I think that for sure needs to be short up if it wasn't specifically addressed I think that's the problem um And then I want to thank I think it was fred geiger who you know made some very astute Simple comments even called them silly But of course we have to preserve The sea life viewing portals right whether they're where they are now or in another location We need to include that in the master plan that It will be preserved in some location moving forward um I also have this Because we're starting to talk about not Including cruise ships. I mean, I think it's obvious that we don't want to include cruise ships But we haven't really specified What it is we do want to encourage or or to Allow to to engage with the war. So I think we need to do that I think we need to have a a little bit clearer understanding on on what that is I don't I don't have an answer right now, but I do remember Um 2016 when we talked about this there was discussion about you know I don't know what the right term is but shuttle sort of vessels that potentially could Engage from the Monterey Bay aquarium and and the wharf um I'm on the fence about that. I don't know that I don't know that we're trying to create a destination for We've lost you commission a spellman. We can't hear you. Sorry about that. Can you hear me now? Yes Thank you. Yeah, my dear bud died on me um Sorry, I think I was did you hear I was on the point about which type of See-going vessels we want to allow to come to the To the wharf, um, you know, this is a complicated question, right? What what what do we want to encourage? um I it certainly resonates that Having a viable, you know fishing connection local fishermen bringing Yeah fish to sail on the wharf to the restaurants. I mean, I think that's a no-brainer and that's a very easy Accommodation where where does it go beyond that? How far does it go beyond that? um I don't have an answer for that, but I think it's one that should have some clarity and some discussion around mutual opportunities You know, and then I think as others have said so far, there are many I think improvements From this master plan that are going to be immensely beneficial to the general public um Getting better circulation Getting surfaces that work for people walking out there people biking out there The fishermen to engage and have you know places to sit and relax and do their thing out there Separate the vehicles out there and make that a more safe environment. Those are you know, Those are amazing opportunities if we as a community have to wear with all to implement all of these things and um Do some of the innovative things like get rid of trash In an ecological way, right? This could be You know an example for for many other places if if we're able to do this, right? I think the you know the level of thought that's going into this plan is Is pretty remarkable and I think commendable Um, what else do I have? Yeah, and I'm in general conformance with the proposed staff changes regarding You know toning down that entrance time Certainly sounds like that was a concept and not a design when it was presented and certainly we want to be able to Um sort of control and get the right people putting eyes on what the right solution is for that entry time um Yeah, so that's those are my thoughts tonight Thank you other commissioners um commission neilson again So I first off I uh, I do want to um thank staff um and all the consultants for very in-depth master plan and support and all the supporting materials Uh, it's this is obviously a very complex project um That's out over the water. So it makes it even that much more. Um, you know challenging. Um, and so I really appreciate um How I like to really put together and it was um You know, it was it was in-depth and it was a lot to get through but I did appreciate all the all the effort And the time that's put into it and you know throughout all the years. So Um, I just wanted to thank Everybody for that as well as the as well as public Input in public comment. It's always important Um to hear what um what the public has to say about these things because it is these are all things that are done for the public So I'd like to thank the public uh as well um I am in support of the of this master plan. Um, and uh, and with that I'm glad actually that the plant master plan from 1980 was not implemented. Um, I I don't think I'd ever seen that image before. Um, but um, but that was that was quite a departure, um, but so anyway, I I I do like the one that we're that we're looking at right now. Um, I Am uh, I'm in favor of what commissioner Spelman brought up in terms of the concept of breaking up That row of commercial buildings that was that's an interesting thought. Um, it It reminds me of discussions that we had When we discussed the downtown plan in terms of how far Do we want people to be walking before, you know, they have these uninterrupted? Buildings before there's a place to be able to get through and I think This idea of getting through to those to that western walkway is an interesting one. Um, so I I I would I'd like to see something like that worked in it if it makes sense. Um The um In terms of the uh, the landmark building. Um, I'm not I I'm in favor of the landmark building. Uh, I don't want to see it removed Um from this master plan um I am understanding of um of people's comments around the height of the building. Um I'm I'm in favor of the building being at a 40 foot height that staff Has been recommending um In the reason why is that I think if if the rest of the buildings are um Are um Allowed to be at a height of 35 feet. I think there does need to be some hierarchy established among um, certain buildings Now I I So that that's all to say I also hear what um, what commissioner summon said about that building kind of standing alone So if it came down to it and you know, we you know, I could be persuaded to go down to 35 feet on that building. Um And If it meant that we could still keep the building, I'm not interested in removing that building from this plan um to me in terms of the um The work master plan that kind of the most important thing to me is is that the work has the ability to To to continue to live on and it can that it can continue to be used Um, I think that really is the most important part to me like There is um, they're in order to do this There's some substantial changes that need to happen to the work in order for it to be viable for the next 100 years and beyond that and um And you know, a lot of those things um have to do with um You know the structure of it and then it also has to do with the economic viability of the businesses There's there's a lot of things that need to change um And from what the work is today, and I know that people Really love the work the way it is But in order for it to be viable and for it to be able to to go on There are changes that need to happen um And and you know and a lot of them are in this master plan and so they to me the key benefits of this master plan In my mind Are one that is providing the necessary repairs and upgrades to maintain the work Obviously that that that's a most priority for public For public safety and just for the you know, the longevity of the work um The the second thing creating a the defined circulation Path for the for biking and walking that in having that being separated from car traffic um That that to me that is one of the biggest moves um on this on this plan that I think makes the most sense um and the um The section that that um that david brought up that shows the entire cross section of the of the wharf Really tells the entire story of what is happening um With these changes in in terms of you have the car circulation And that's buffered from this uh biking and walking section where and then there's also this Lower section for that that's even separated from that for fishing um, and then on the other side you have the the western walkway um And and everything in it, you know, it makes sense or or well My mind it makes sense, but it also has a purpose everything has its purpose For why it was done that way or how it's why it's designed that way and so i'm very um I'm just i'm i'm very excited to to see this and i'm i'm excited to see this this move forward um The the other piece that that I that I think is really interesting is that that there's an increased A parking capacity that's happening without actually expanding the wharf for parking. Um, I think that's great Um, it just makes a lot of sense. Also all the bike parking that's um being um added all that is great and um the more we can get people um out onto that wharf Without being in the car is is fantastic um The upgraded parking kiosks. I think I think that's a great Great thing. It's gonna in my mind. It will decrease the congestion Around getting in and out. Um, and also the fact that it's moving more to the wharf It also provides us the opportunity or Decreases the opportunity for that traffic to be backing up into that roundabout which I think is a Which is a great idea because I could see that being Being in problem um Increasing access to recreational activities. Um, I think is It's a fantastic piece of this. I mean you get the fishing there's central for fishing. There's uh Kind of in ocean swimming activities The the ability to take a boat out to go whale watching the bike in the running and the walking that that can all happen On um within this plan. Um, I think are great benefits To um to the public um and then um I think embracing the public oriented activities on the wharf. I think is a so we're talking we've been talking a lot about um these these new buildings and um And you know, there's been discussion around You know creating a large box and that's what really cost goes for or whatever and so that that's me. Um, the landmark building to me is uh Is really this placeholder for this opportunity for all kinds of different activities and um, some of them can be Actually built into the building and I think some of them Can be just curated, you know You know throughout season or you know, or whatever I just I mean, I think it just provides this opportunity for public gathering And I think that's what all three of those new buildings under new structures Are really providing is this place for for the public to Be on the work, but also gather at a um in a particular location and and you know For whatever the event Might be and I think it's I think that's important. I think that's an important piece to this plan um I think the improvement of the commercial storefront is also Extremely important. Um, especially when we're talking about Views, I mean the the whole idea to be in a restaurant and and And you can't if you if there's these blank walls that don't allow this view out It's just it doesn't make any sense and the and then in addition, you know, we shouldn't be um We shouldn't be putting the uh the functional aspects Of uh of the buildings on the On the perimeter so like meaning like the walk-ins or the storage rooms or you know, whatever those should not be placed On that public side Of the building. Um, so I I think that you know, this plan is Is really showing some some great ideas Especially and in addition with the liner uses um getting these smaller Um businesses out on the out on the work to break up some of the you know potential larger Pieces so you make it a little bit more affordable. Um for these businesses to come in Open up And you know make and have a go at it and you know, maybe it's something that they would expand for You know, take that take that concept and go to a larger Um building or or into a larger space in the future. Um, I think it's um, I think it's a great a great idea so Anyway, with all this I just I think that the the these are the key elements that That are within this plan are the key elements that are going to provide the bright future For the work as the as a benefit as a public benefit with the social environmental and economic strategies that That will you know for those that will work play and gather on the work so um, so I'm excited. Thank you. Um, I have a member of comments I want to start with a question. It kind of follows up on something commissioner spellman said I wonder if uh, the environment consultant could you respond to the Testimony we had regarding the nesting That was sort of critical of the analysis of the in the eir I wonder if We could get a response to that Sure um Can you trust it both in the this is the regards to the west side walkway? I think there was a regard to the nesting in the biotic um, the biotic study that indicated that there would That you know the walkways wouldn't prevent wouldn't prevent nesting and The argument that if they actually would and that there was no Evidence that that the walkways Wouldn't prevent it. So I just I wasn't clear on the question, but okay, um So just to preface this um, sometimes technical biological reports are prepared and appended to an eir And sometimes the biologists prepare the eir section directly and that's what we did in this case So the person first of all we had um, gary kittleson and brian moore local biologists who did the nesting survey at the war and then dave compton who is a biologist with Over 20 years experience that dudak Wrote all of the impact sections Setting in the impact sections related to the bird nesting and then we had another biologist from dudak michael henry to prepare the lean biology um setting impact And there were a couple others on some special issues. So with regards to the nesting we did report dave Often reported that the lowered walkway indeed could affect nesting in that area However, the thing to remember is that this is a war if it's a structure They're also nesting in other areas in the region um In greater numbers than that war And the expansion the expansion of these promenades. It's creating the same under the war of conditions that currently exist and there's no reason to Things that words wouldn't be able to use those areas. So based on dave is a um Or anthologies, that's his area of expertise and he also reviewed this with gary kennelson. So They didn't think that that because the offset with these promenade was actually creating more habitat in the sense that the morph is created Providing habitat and that it would not have an adverse effect on The ability of the birds to nest there. There would still need to be you know pre-construction nesting surveys There's a full mitigation included on how that would be done and what would be done if the birds are found and Where they're found and buffers and that kind of thing um And then I think the other there was another question that came up in the public comments Is his rest along with this in the final eir and that had to do with The boat landing I think there was a comment that the boat landings might and the activity might adversely affect the nesting and again, they looked at that and There's already existing boat landings these five of them along the east side of the war so there's already activity there and more or less Small boat landing of consolidating what's already there on one location And there's still plenty of open area along the wharf where there wouldn't be any landing and The the south landing is new but again Together they represent a relatively small part of the whole war so there's and also there's some existing activity there already so for those reasons they concluded that um That would not have an adverse effect on the nesting In fact, can I just add one more observation from the the eir? On section on page 4.2-9 regarding the nesting species It notes that pigeon gallimots are cliffside cavity nasters in their native habitat I would presume that in a cliffside habitat. There's not multiple ways of entry They're typically approaching from one side Just an observation One would think so Does that answer your question? Yeah, I did I did David did you were you making a statement or a question? I wasn't quite sure of the impact No, it's just Just my observation that you know currently they've got a very favorable multiple entry point But in their native habitat and where they normally live It would seem that they'd typically approach from one side and that even with a restricted access on potentially the west side Their native behavior would probably work But it's only my observation. It's not based on any science or well, but I think it's useful the the Response from Australia that talked about the biologists and their analysis do provide expert testimony and Would be considered. I think substantial evidence that would document The findings in the EIR. So I kind of wanted to just get that on the record. So It's clear and let me say that Overall, I'm a very strong supporter of the off master plan Maybe not as impatient as staff to see it move forward But I've been waiting for it to happen for a number of years because I think it is very important improvement Not only in terms of the long-term Viability of the war but also in terms of providing additional opportunities for members of the public to enjoy the ocean and some of the wildlife that Is there My concern with the landmark building is twofold One is I don't really I think it's unnecessary and I don't I don't I don't I think it's a track from the war rather than adds to it but even a bigger concern of mine is that I sort of follows from the comments that Commissioner Dawson made I think the EIR's analysis of the impact the aesthetic impact of proposed building even at 40 feet Which is a 50 increase over the Average height would be considered a significant impact and my concern is that to the extent that the plan is approved with problems with adequacy of the EIR it's subject to A lawsuit that could significantly delay it I don't see the need for including the landmark building in the Wolf master plan at this time As staffer says it's probably not going to happen very quickly anyway And there are so many other projects that need to be done the walkways the other buildings the our walk entrance I don't think there's any need to include it at this point if after those other projects are implemented and it seems like it would make sense to You know really provide some kind of a structure at the end of the wall It's not that difficult to come forward with a project and In my view and an amendment to the plan that will allow that to happen So I just want to really emphasize that my biggest concern with the The proposed landmark building and why I think it needs to be eliminated from the plan at this time is that it will Make the plan itself And it's vulnerable through an inadequacy in the EIR Saying that I support actually all the recommendations of the star preservation commission And would hope that in any motion to recommend approval of the master plan It would include the recommendations from the star preservation commission and you know from my perspective the 35 foot height limit was sort of a Critical change. I did want to thank the staff for some of the changes that they particular changes they made to the master plan Looking at page 15 of the staff report where it deals with cruise ships And the proposed new language eliminates the sort of Let's clear language of is not intended to serve as a terminus and just takes that out and says it will not serve as a terminus I think commissioners spellman Raised some concerns about well, what would be allowed the staff report or the staff presentation indicate the kinds of research thresholds and you know Whale watching and some of the abilities But I think that what I understood the major public concern was it's not going to be ocean It's not going to be cruise ships. And I think that that was made that Change to on page 23 does make that clear although On page 11. I think it would Be useful to add the same language under section 3 paragraph 7 where it says construct a landing Facility for docking at the bayward and for science education research sport fishing and whale watching But take them and but it will not serve as a terminus for ocean Cruise ships are any time it's not to provide nor to provide more for extended periods So I would suggest adding the left of the language that staff recommends to that section of policies So that there would be internal consistency then In terms of the entrance sign I think The language that the staff came up with that takes out the specifics Is really good. I think it really does solve the problem in the language that's good about having an attractive Entrance sign centrally located atop the parking gates designed to be visible The distance while keeping with the character of the wall as developed is a very Desirable change I would recommend though that the that the drawing in the master plan That shows a possible Gate, which I think is on page Page 36 It shows an 80 foot sign. I think that should be deleted from the plan the EIR analysis Would set the limits of what could be Could be approved It doesn't need to be in the plan. I think it just is going to be confusing to the public misleading And to the extent that people don't trust What the council is likely to do having it there in all its glory Is going to make people unhappy. So I think it's That would be really desirable to And I would hope that when we take action on this we include a recommendation to just delete that page with that That drawing because I think it's one unnecessary To misleading and in a way inconsistent with the proposed language that staff has added which I think is You know very desirable language Beyond that the only recommendations I always going to make would Would be to support the 35 foot height limit For all the buildings. I think the wharf has a you know I I walk on the beach the main beach and the seabright beach a lot And there's a sort of character to the wharf that you When you're walking in terms of just gives a certain impression of The you know What's going on there and I think it gives the Wharf of character that really is in keeping with a kind of community that we have and limiting the height of the new buildings to 35 feet and eliminating the landmarks building would be Really be worthwhile changes to make in the Recommendations to the council So those are my Oh, yes commissioner Conway. Did you have comments? Yes, I did. Thank you Um First of all, I um thank thank you all for your comments. I really um as always appreciated all of them And I especially want to thank david for really Making it very clear very complicated report. And I also want to thank mr. Bambachi For maintaining the wharf for us All these years under trying circumstances One thing that's really clear through this process is that Santa Cruz really loves this wharf and If we want to have a wharf, which is obviously do We need to have a plan and uh, this is this is long overdue I know the city's been getting pressure for a long time from agencies, especially coastal the coastal commission urging adoption of a plan And We need to have approved environmental documents and a master plan In order to get the kind of funding that we need To be able to support this plan. So there's a lot to love in this plan The year round youth It it gives us a chance for it really to be economically vibrant and what I would say is even economically viable I think that the balance between public open space and commercial space To allow us to keep this work is is really important. It's a resilient plan I really appreciate the sensitivity to the historic youth and also just how treasured this wharf is by our community Historically and as has been said by a number of people The circulation and the safety biking out there walking out there visiting the sea lions Boating, you know around it swimming around it Um, it's just it's a really important place um, I Like commissioner nielsen. I am in favor of the landmark building Um, I don't know that it'll get built But I think that it it's aspirational. I think that the potential uses out there Could really be amazing And I also I thought 45 feet I understand the difference and I understand the I like to the you know that sort of deco references With some pertinences. I thought they seemed kind of high also I'm not in favor Of reducing it to 35 feet at best this time. I haven't heard a compelling reason To set a limit that's less than the current zoning however Whatever building does come forward it's going to receive And also certainly deserve intense public scrutiny Does it fit in does it add to both the use and the appearance of the wharf and I think That those things are important And uh, I also maybe more than anything the ability to Um adequately maintain this treasured resource is really the compelling overarching reason Um to support it um chair shifrin uh suggested that we should Uh Or ask if if um if there was someone going to make a motion, which I'm certainly willing to make um if we would consider including the Recommendations of the hpc I'd like to ask that they be um put up for Better review. We haven't had a lot of time with those There was one of those that I think would be a real mistake to include only one stuck out with me And I believe that there was something about a building any bigger than was it 3 000 square feet um should add Uh additional layers of bureaucracy And that just seems way too small to be practical Um if I got that right Um, and I feel um if if I did get that one right My objection to it Um is that it is going to make it harder More expensive and far more time consuming Um to um some of the vibrant businesses. We're trying to open out there Um and again, I love so many of the ideas about use of the commercial space Especially the ones that you know, it's built out. It can come in. It can come out Um, thank you for putting that back up Did you get the right one on your end? Uh, I I don't see it Okay And yeah, and they're kind of finalizing the the minutes. So this is basically Uh paraphrasing but getting the key element to what they said So, well in anything that we do tonight, we're going to be sending to council. So if Some of the language is is finalized Okay, um I'm all right with letter a I um really strongly disagree with letter b I loved um letter c to encourage the development of a work history museum and And other interpretive materials Um, and um, and I guess I didn't notice that this is part of that of that Um, I am not in favor of reducing the landmark building Um below the current zoning However, I'm also not um, you know to 35 feet. I don't think it's necessary. I don't think it's helpful I think it um hamstring A future project that I think it's fairly likely to not go over 35 feet, but I'm not in favor of it So I I think everybody has spoken I suggest for moving forward on this and that somebody make a motion to approve this I was actually I was just about I was in the middle of doing that to a different Express of and then what we could do is people could make Our motions to amend and we could vote on the motions. Yeah Yeah, I was going to I was actually just trying to do that church to friend I was going to move the staff recommendations and include Two of the recommendations from the historic The preservation commission sorry, I got into county language for a minute and I don't see him again. I believe it was Uh letter Thanks for putting it back up um including um the uh first And third um letter a and letter c from the hpc recommendations That would be my motion Is there a second? I think that motion Okay, uh, you want to take that down so we can sort of see each other Is there anyone who would make a motion? Oh, yes commissioners Dawson Is this time to make an amendment to that motion? Need a second We got a second second that I I'm sorry uh, it's been motion and seconded to approve the f recommendation with, uh, um Recommendations a and c from the historic preservation commission Mission endorsing that you want to make an amendment uh suggest an amended motion Yeah, I would like to amend that motion uh to remove the two sections that um On page 11 and page 12 that talk about constructing a new landmark building Like to remove both of those sections and also add the hpc Uh recommendation letter d for 35 foot limit to all building heights Could we separate those? Those two issues Have motion To delete the landmark building from the master plan. Is that your the intention of the motion? Sure Is there somebody who would second that motion? We should the max well Again, I I think that not having it in the master plan at this time We'll make it a stronger plan legally And given the public opposition to that uh to that building And so, um, I'm I'm also in support. I'm in support of the motion Commission spellman. Did you want to speak to the motion the the motion? Yes, please Um, no, I'm not in support of eliminating it from the plan um Again, I think this is uh, it's an opportunity. Yes. It's a big footprint on the current plan But all we're doing is allowing for The potential project there in the future what it is and what the use of it is and the scale of it Um, I think it would be a big mistake to just wipe it out of the plan So I won't be in support of that point And like what most will say on that point. Yeah I didn't hear the last thing you said. I'm sorry No, I was going to comment on the height, but I will wait for that to come up again Okay, commissioner greenberg You're still muted. I'll get the hang of this. Um, I would agree with commissioner Spellman on this. I think that there could that we're creating the opportunity I think is a good way of thinking about it and I really um hear the concern about the experience of the wharf Being one that you're out on the ocean like on a boat I think there are ways of designing this building Both the siting of it and the building itself that could maintain potentially some of that feeling I'm thinking of like the bow of a ship, you know, that you could come around and there could be seating areas You know in front of that building the building itself could have more kind of sight lines You know, I'm not an architect, but I could imagine that there are ways of having to be more permeable I also like the idea That while the other spaces are mainly, you know purely commercial Like to be more of a public space potentially with more opportunity for gathering I like the idea potentially of there being a fish market there Um a sustainable, you know fish market and that's not in the in anything I was reading But I know that fish markets have been eliminated from a lot of cities around the world And are very popular and we are a you know, have a fish fishing industry there So I think that in addition to which there could be other public uses of that space And it could be covered so it could be you know year-round so I think That there's a lot of opportunity for that building and that if we can preserve that potential While maintaining some of these concerns about the aesthetics of it the experience of it That we could you know balance balance these these competing concerns I I support The you know preservation of that in the plan. Thank you Are there other commissioner comments? So this is a motion to amend the plan by deleting the The landmark building at this time Um, can we have a roll call vote please? Commissioner Conway No Spellman No Dawson Yes Nielsen No Greenberg No Maxwell Um, you are muted uh commissioner Maxwell Yes Schifrin Yes The motion fails four to three Um, did you want to make your uh other emotion to amend to limit the uh height of buildings to 35? Commissioner Dawson So are you making a motion and why don't you say I am I'm making a motion to include the hpc Uh recommendation letter d to have um the motion aligned with that recommendation for 35 foot height limits for all the buildings Is there a second the motion? I thought I saw our hand up Well, I'm going to second it for discussion um, I think it's again important to keep the scale of the Um of the buildings on the wall So that they are consistent and there's a you know the character of the walk is Maintained increasing the building uh height by 50 percent Is not going to it's not in my mind going to do that I think it creates a significant impact on the sequel For the plan and I think it's Will Make a major change your All right, did anybody else want to speak to this motion? Push in the open my um Sorry, am I okay? Um, I yeah, I just agree with that. I I don't I I haven't heard anything tonight any testimony from um from stephanie Trilo about The fact that um the height going You know from the average height of 27 feet up to 40 feet is uh a significant impact um, the significant impact is based off of uh in the scenic view and um, I don't see that this you know the the You know restricting this height um down to 35 feet is going to make um is going to make a change and the The other thing is that I feel strongly about the fact that certain buildings need to have a a hierarchy um on that wharf um and these particular um proposed buildings um Would fall into that category in my opinion and um, and so I think Just setting a blanket height for all buildings on the wharf. I think is a is a bad strategy um, especially, you know as uh as such a development happens along that wharf And those in those commercial buildings get up to that 35 foot height Um, I think you know, I think it's going to be a missed opportunity By just setting all building heights at 35 feet doing uh commercial spellman Yeah, I would I would Sort of echo those comments as well I think keeping it to the current zoning standard and reducing it from 45 to 40 as as staff has recommended is appropriate here I think the reality of building on that wharf is going to Be a huge challenge to putting large buildings on it So I don't see all of a sudden the proposed commercial area in this master plan being built out to 40 feet So again, I think it's a parameter. It's a It's a guideline per se that's in play and I think having some flexibility which I believe probably will never be reached is is Needs to be in there at this point and you know Everything will be going through a very scrutinized process including, you know, coastal development permit, etc So there's not going to be you know a rush to develop out here Well, I agree that there won't be a rush But as we see with the down development in the downtown if the plan allows it That's what's recommended So Is there any other comments from commissioners? Let's have a roll call vote, please Commissioner Conway Could you state exactly how this motion reads? I believe it says it's reduced from 40 to 35 It's to add the hpc recommendation To have a 35 foot height limit And I'll say no Spellman No Dawson Yep Nielsen No Greenberg No Maxwell No Different The motion fails Five to two I would ask I suggested a change in the policy On the section three The policies to make it clear that to provide the same language That's in the That staff is recommended later in them later in the plan In that section as well the would staff have any Objections to doing that There it You're talking about the the cruise ship language moving it up in the Yeah, I don't think staff would have any any Objection to that. I would I would Ask one clarifying question based upon commissioner smellman Discussion about clarifying what types of boats would go there And I think later on in the in the master plan. There's some pretty good clarity about Whale watches dinner trueses sunset those that types of stuff But we've had some discussion about fishing boats commercial fishing boats and that is not currently in the plan So if that's something you would want to consider putting in the plan or clarifying I might suggest you include that in your your Your motion So why don't we separate those two issues? So you're saying you don't have a problem putting the language that's later in the plan earlier in the plan You know, I think it would be very consistent with our intent not to have Really our our commitment not to have cruise ships Overnight ocean liner type vessels at the war So would the maker of the motion the seconder Accept that as a friendly amendment I wanted to hear um, john. Did you have a comment you wanted to make about the fishing boats? Yeah, I just I just wanted to add some clarity about about the top landing is just to kind of calm some jitters um Because we're a open ocean kind of a landing rather than a behind the breakwater um You need to over build a landing somewhat to so it's not a maintenance project all the time In other words, you build it to to accept a larger vessel than what you anticipate Just just so that it doesn't put a lot of stress on the war If it doesn't put a lot of stress on on on the landing Uh, you just you just build it to a standard that you know, you're not going to get to The the the both the largest both that we thought of when when we designed when we look at the design concept for that landing was the the tall ships that come in the the lady washington and and uh Uh Why and see uh those those two because they have an ocean uh science program So I thank you for that. Yeah Thank you for that clarification Um, I'm it's acceptable to me. Is it acceptable to the second day? Yes Okay, so the motion would include that change now. Do you want to add fishing boats? to the To the list of in section three it says section three on page 11 Actually under section three it says construct a landing facility for the docking at the eastern bayward and for science education research sports fishing and whale watching did um The david suggested maybe adding commercial fishing is that something that The maker of the motion the second would like to add You know, um, I have a little bit of a concern. I like the idea that a commercial fishing boat could land and You know participate in the sort of economy of the wharf in that way But it also feels like we've got our our fishing boat infrastructure if you will Um at the harbor and I feel like it's kind of a big thing to To throw in I guess I'd like to say does the language as it's included here in the general plan Would it preclude a fishing boat if it's not included in the language of the adopted master plan um Is there a finding that could be made because it seems to me that some further analysis than Rowing kind of throwing it in I see advantages to it, but I'm a little concerned about it Um, yeah, Stephanie my It looks like commissioner neilson has a comment Well, I just have a quick question. I mean is it do we do we need to include every possible Boat that's gonna land here. Can we just prohibit a certain type or certain types of boats so that we're not we're not You know stuck with This language that says only these boats can come here I think we I think that the it's from what I'm hearing and what I understand from the public is that There's there's very specific things. They don't want so let's let's let's Let's prohibit those things rather than trying to list off every possible thing that's going to show up Yeah As uh commissioner conway said it wouldn't preclude commercial fishing boats, but We wouldn't be you know kind of prescribing that they would be coming Um, and are you concerned commissioner conway that there could be some issue with the harbor in some fashion? Well, um Just that um, I just I just think that it's something that we'd want to be thoughtful about and maybe it's not a big deal Right. It sounded like staff feels like it's okay to say a fishing boat could tie up Um, you know sell some fish Um, and you know move on they're not going to birth there obviously Um, so maybe it's not a concern Um, and yeah Okay, okay. It's sounding like this is not a uh, uh, it isn't necessary to add this Uh additional language and it might be confusing or it might Uh need some more study to make it a Actually That it's going to be there. Yeah, so the final Request that I would make and I guess I'm asking staff about taking out that illustration from the plan that shows the entrance as inconsistent with additional language that was I think I've supported that staff Is now recommending I think you know personally, I think it's good to have some examples of what uh, it could be. Um I understand the the target that it financially has become My suggestion would be maybe to take out the dimensions and add more examples So that it's not the dominant image, but it's more a Collage of different types of entry signage Um to start the conversation But if it needs to go and that's the happy with that So with that could that be a recommendation that uh illustration in the Um and the master take out the dimensions and provide other alternatives Is that acceptable to the maker of the motion? In the second, yeah I think it might be but I have a question. I I don't think designs just get You know cranked out super quickly is it would having further Sort of sketches of design slow the process down Um, I I get I agree with the point of having examples To know what we're thinking about but I think you know those designers work long and hard. It doesn't just happen quickly Well, my yeah, that could be a that's my question step if that was approved It wouldn't it wouldn't have to have to be there in the at the time It's approved The designer did provide a couple of different examples. So you saw sort of the bluish line In one of the the renderings for the aesthetics But if we if you were open to it We could include a couple of those and then just some inspirational images from other places Um, is that you know, we're more artsy or whatnot I like that that's acceptable to the maker the acceptable acceptable to the second Yes Okay, does anybody uh, do any of the commissioners have any other amendments? They would like to make to the motion on the floor I Yes commissioners. I would like to somehow attempt to describe An amendment that would encourage breaking up The massing of the commercial buildings so that we We get away from just the long street of continuous facade I don't want to limit it per se, but I think I would encourage so that folks looking at this Would at least understand that there was some concern and potential there to You know create a different experience if we were able to break that up I think my my motion would be to or my amendment would be to encourage Raking the long run of commercial buildings to have connections to the West side Of the of the wharf As you as you would travel down the commercial section so That could be potentially put in under the design standards for building form Would be adding a sentence What it says now is For inline commercial establishments along the western edge of the wharf buildings are encouraged To balance individual identity with an effective form that's simple straightforward and appropriate to maritime setting Breaking up of the of the mass of buildings should be encouraged Does that capture what you want to say I think it could be more purposeful. I'm not asking to you know, have a building and then not a building I think it could be one or two Right. I'm asking I'm leaving it open ended specifically, but That's it. I mean it's a hard one to try and wrap your Thought around mission in the old sin. Did you have suggestions language that you could propose? I'm not well, I'm not sure if I do yet, but I I think I might I would want to know from john what his thoughts are on this before we Start making those changes because there could be specific things that we're not considering Can I speak to that? Yes. Yeah, please Is there's kind of a practical consideration in that long row of buildings and that it serves as a windbreak during inclement weather The master plan actually looks at kind of putting in awning out over part of the sidewalk And and this is just kind of looking at the sustainability of of the wharf and trying to Weatherize some of the commerce out there a little bit And so I'm I'm not completely opposed the idea of no spaces in those buildings at all But they do serve a practical purpose Uh and keeping and keeping the weather down and giving people a place to walk out there when it's not great And and you and also, please consider that you would have the west walkway And that the master plan does call for a see-through Seeing through the buildings it does make a lot of specifics about that So your so your view Is not going to be this block of buildings the way it is now Thank you. I'm fine with that. I'm I'm fine removing my amendment. I'm good with the way we have it Are there any other amendments commissioners would want to make to the motion on the floor? Am I going to be able to remember them? Um the clerk has the motion. Yes Okay, does any member of the commission want the motion repeated? So do they feel they understand it? Okay, assuming they do let's have a roll call vote Mr. Conway Hi Bellman Hi Dawson No Nielsen Greenberg Hi Maxwell Schifrin Hi The motion passes six to one Thank you all very much. Can we Move right along going to come out since we're all at home I assume people could take a break when they need to Chair I want to say very much for their presentation I want to thank the members of the public for testimony testifying And Let's move on to item number three Which is an amendment to title 24 to amend Chapter 2416 the inclusionary housing requirements And I'm not going to read the whole thing that's on our agenda Mr. Greenberg, did you have something you wanted to say? No, I was just waving to the folks who are leaving. Chair Schifrin. This is the clerk. We may want to preemptively entertain a motion to extend the meeting to adjourn at a time certain Because it's 20 to 11 and you're supposed to adjourn at 11 with that absent that motion How long does staff report this has been before us before? If we could have it I'm not sure how much Well The members of the public who are waiting to speak on this There are three members of the public none of which have Raised their hands at this point But we haven't asked for public comment To be on the safe side why not somebody make a motion to Extend if necessary the meeting till 11 30 I'll make that motion to extend the meeting till 11 30. Is there a second? I'll second it Is there any need for discussion Adrienne, uh, I don't know if we need a roll call vote or not. So Um Does anybody vote would anybody vote no? Okay, so I'll say the motion passes. Hopefully we won't be here that long And let's ask for a staff report on item number three Good evening chair and commissioners. Can you can everyone hear me? Yes Excellent I'm Jessica. Do you wait? I'm with the housing division at the city. Um, what you see before you Uh, what you see before you is an updated staff recommendation to amend the inclusion Inclusionary ordinance based on direction from the 7th september 17th planning commission meeting I'll go into more detail on these updates in a minute But first I want to walk you through the steps taken after the september 17th planning commission meeting We compared the latest housing authority payment standard rent With the state hd moderate income rents and confirm that there is roughly a 200 to 500 dollar event difference between The two rent tables the rent from the two rent tables And while the studio one and two bedroom unit rents are higher for the modern income rent The three bedroom payment standard rent is higher So after reaching out for feedback from the housing authority and the development community We met with the housing subcommittee to come up with the following updates to further encourage renting to tenant based subsidy holders Uh in the definitions section we wanted to clarify how moderate income rent is calculated This definition is based on the state standard formula Then based on how the updates flow through the other amended sections It seemed clearer to define the payment standard unit rent for that five percent of the inclusionary units That must be offered to tenant based subsidy holders first And if no one is available then the rent will be either of the payment standard rent or the moderate income rent Whichever is lower So while the tenant based subsidy holder definition has not changed since we last met We did add a definition for a payment standard unit for further clarification Section seven hasn't changed since we last met And in section nine Nothing has changed except for redefining these units as payment standard units And to reiterate these units will be always rented to available Subsidy holders first and then as one becomes vacant it will go through the exact same process with the housing authority Okay, then in section nine c this describes the process for determining the payment standard rent for a subsidy holder versus a non subsidy holder And again, nothing has changed in this section other than that And finally in the the the concepts of the rest of section nine haven't changed except for Encouraging owners to free up low-income units for low-income households by placing subsidy holders In payment standard units when one becomes available All right, so to wrap up here is the staff recommendation being presented before you tonight I'd like to open it up to the subcommittee members to see if they'd like to speak and then respond to any questions Commissioner Conway, I know you're the chair of the subcommittee. I don't know if you'd like to speak first Um, well, I'd like to thank staff and also the committee members Obviously, this has been a really bumpy time to try to develop you know policy and I really appreciate the time that that both staff And commissioners put into it You know, this was this additional five percent is really meant to be a compromise between continuing to Deed restrict as many units As we can and also providing A little bit of room that may or may not make projects more viable But I think it was an honest attempt To do that appreciated everybody's feedback Um, I as I've stated before and I'll state it again um, the Goal of constructing housing is one of the really important purposes I don't believe we undertook this with the thoughtfulness that it merits But I really appreciate where we landed in terms of You know trying trying to seek a compromise. So thanks to everybody That's all I have to say whether members of the committee want to Say anything commissioners spellman Yeah, just quickly. I mean I I agree with What julie said there I do think it was a compromise I do think the end of the day the language that we have put into this ordinance Is the right language and the fair language to encourage the use of the vouchers and to You know protect I think moving forward How that would be used So I'm I'm in support of this recommendation Uh, could I ask uh, Jessica to give us back the uh, maybe close the shared screen? I can see why other commissioners I can only see a few commissioners Hey commissioner greenberg. Did you want to add anything? You're the other member of the subcommittee Yeah, um, I just wanted to um, you know voice my appreciation to subcommittee and the staff for their help with this And to commissioner dawson who brought this to our attention And the deliberation that we had that helped us to Kind of recognize that it could be unclear, you know that it wasn't our intention to create any kind of You know incentives let's say for Um the people's you know, there's for Landlords not to find section eight tenants. And so I think this really strengthens The ordinance in a really important way given that there wasn't really language in the ordinance previously because of you know, when it was put into practice At a time when moderate income tenants Were not anticipated to be covered by the ordinance in the same way So there weren't there wasn't a specification For a rental level. So I think just clarifying the ordinance Um is really helpful and will really strengthen it and ensure that either section eight tenants will be You know that there won't be as much of it as an incentive not to rent to section eight tenants And we and and also the importance of having predictability In terms of developers, you know going to lenders and so forth Will also be maintained because of the kind of stipulation of the Of the similar level section eight tenants So I appreciated all the deliberations and thoughtfulness that went into this. It's not perfect Inclusionary ordinances never are and they can only do so much But I do think that we strengthened it in an important way And so I appreciate, you know, everyone's participation in this. Thank you. Thank you. I do other commissioners have questions Before I open it up to the public Being none, um Are there members of the public who would like to speak on this item? If so, please give us your name and you have up to three minutes But first you have to press down so you can get into the queue There's one person but they haven't um Indicated that they'd like to speak at this time This is a public hearing so anybody who wants to speak Um, this is the time to do it. We don't uh, still no one? Nope Close the public hearing and bring it back to the uh, uh commission Let me just say how much I appreciate the work of the subcommittee and uh, uh, the staff here I think the the proposed amendment really Goes as about as far as it could to try to Uh, uh attain the objectives that were set for it. So, um, you know, I was not particularly happy to have it Sent back to the committee. I appreciate the fact that the work was done quickly um, and got back here and that If the ordinance is um, uh, the proposed ordinance is better than What so other commissioners have uh, comments Commissioner Dawson I just would like to Echo those Thanks to everyone. This was a long road and I just want to thank everybody for working so hard It really is complicated and but I really feel that the work you All have done It's also just the the conversations among us as commissioners throughout this process has really resulted in a very I think A very impactful ordinance that is going to do what is intended to do so I don't know if there's fairly discussion, but if there isn't I'd like to make a motion To support the ordinance There's a second I'll second it So there's a motion And a second to approve the staff recommendation and recommend the amended ordinance to the city council that that Reflect what the motion was Yes, and is there any further discussion on it? Seeing one, uh, can we have a roll call vote, please? Mr. Conway You're muted you uh, commissioner Conway Hi Spellman Hi Dawson Hi Nielsen Hi Greenberg Hi Maxwell Chair Schifrin Hi, well again, thanks. I think it's meaning the staff Are any information or evening? It's definitely evening now Say night Yeah, good night commissioners Um, I'll make this quick because it is late. Uh Um At your upcoming meeting you've got one item. Uh, that is on um, 11 five Uh, it is a single family house on carbonara That will be coming before you and I think that came before you before and has since gone through some additional environmental review And we'll be back in front of you on 11 five. That's the only thing we have scheduled so far. And then, um, I We are targeting, um later in november to have some of the, um Objective standards work come to you. We're we're pushing to get it there. It may Move to the first meeting on december 3rd But hopefully we'll have that first check in with the test bits and the outreach strategy on 11 19 Along with the housing matters item on coral street um, and then, um, finally, um, we had five items this week From planning, um at the commission. I'll run through them quickly Um, the zoning ordinance cleanup and parking items that you recommended at your previous meeting The first reading was approved at council. Um, this week The beekeeping ordinance that you, um, recommended approval of In august That was continued when it went to council because of the fires Some members of the beekeeping community were not able to make the meeting on august 25th We continued it that was approved. Um, they made a couple of tweaks. Um, very briefly instead of a Three-foot setback from the property line. They said from the front property line They said a 10 foot setback from the right of way Not from the property line So kind of split the baby there kind of a middle ground So if the pedestrian if there's no curb good or in sidewalk it'd be 10 feet from the Sorry, if there's no sidewalk it'd be 10 feet from the curb Back just to provide separation there and they also actually made it a little bit easier for The rear yard by only allowing or requiring one of four Criteria to be met Then the there was a general plan amendment and rezoning Consideration for 101 felix that the council expressed Adopted a resolution expressing non support for that If the developer chooses to move forward having received that That indication of non support for uh from the council It would come before you but we did bring it in front of the council to get an early read And that was the the council's uh position on that and finally, um, we got a um a clearance from the council to apply for a Uh Reap grant and it's a regional early action program Grant it's a guaranteed grant and that would Provide $300,000 towards an expansion of the downtown plan area And so we indicated that we would go back to council and give them a heads up on the outreach You know, we probably won't be starting this for some months. Um, you know Probably in the february timeframe at the earliest going back to council, but We would want to do outreach and And figure out what those boundaries would be as one of the first steps and A council ask that we report back to them before we commence that outreach so Lots of things happening and uh, you guys know about many of them because they're on your plates as well And so thank you all for the work. Just wanted to report on Some of those actions as they move forward Okay, thank you. Any questions Okay, we'll move on to the subcommittee advisory body oral reports. Um, I don't have one from the resilience study We had one. Is there anything else from the housing subcommittee? You know, I could just check in and just note that um, one of the really pressing issues when The increasing the inclusionary percentage went forward was real concern on the part of the school district And they they do continue to be very concerned. But of course, um, kovat has thrown them You might say off their game as much as anybody So I appreciate staff's efforts to continue to Active the liaison with the information that we've been seeking And we do expect to we have two additional meetings scheduled Um at which point we expect our our work to conclude at this subcommittee that's it Did I just ask if the subcommittee is looking at considering an option that would provide separate standard for public agencies That are constructing housing for their own employees We uh, yeah, um, and I know that we're we're not agendized more than an update Um, but I I think it's fair to say that as part of our update We're looking at different funding opportunities that are available to employer sponsored housing being undertaken by public serving agencies Um as part of a broad discussion So we are certainly looking at funding opportunities and their requirements Okay, um Any items referred to future agendas by the commissioners Yes, I I think uh, well, yeah, I was just thinking based on the conversation that we that we were having earlier regarding commissioners communicating with commissioners via Emails letters or, you know, whatever it might be. I think we I think that should be something we discussed Um on a future agenda Okay, so it would be an item to talk about the brown act requirements for uh commission communications with Commissioners and the public I would say yeah, I mean I yeah, uh specifically regarding I guess providing of commissioners, um voicing opinion about items to come before the commission prior to that item happening Well, I would add that's fine, but I think from my perspective. It's not just prior to but even at the meeting Um, I've been told I can't even uh, submit something to staff and have it added to public correspondence that commissioners would see as part of the agenda material So I guess that would be prior to meeting, right? That would be prior to the to the meeting so, I mean if that's if there is some intention to to Have that I just think there needs to be some uh discussion around that because it's um, I'm a little concerned about um that becoming a um A um, I think you know, I think we need to I think we have to talk about it and understand exactly what the limits are Hey, is that okay with the planning director? It makes sense to me Sure, if it's uh of interest to the commission, we're happy to talk about that. Um, and um, bring the city attorney in for that conversation um, if the commissioners are interested, I can't say that um You know, we we haven't been going down that route For allowing those communications earlier But we we did make that exception given that the item was continued Nevertheless, you know, there there are some intricacies as I alluded to before and so if if the commission desires to have In-depth conversation about it. I'm sure we can spend a decent chunk of time talking through it and Would be would be happy to work with you all on that That'd be great. Okay. Um Is is that something I'm hearing from a couple. I see Mr. Nielsen and chair Schiffer in are interested. Is that is that something that others would be interested in? Yes, I'm seeing nodding heads. Okay, great Because yeah, it it will take a little bit of work. Um, and so, um We will um work on getting that on a future agenda. It'll probably be um, You know, probably like the first meeting in december, but um, we'll we'll keep you posted on it Great. Thank you Um, okay, if there are no other items to refer We're adjourned. Thank you all very much. It's only 11 01 Thank you. Thanks. Everybody buddy. Thanks everyone. Bye. Bye. Good. Bye