Alright, welcome everyone to the city of Santa Cruz planning commission meeting I'd like to call this meeting to order Before we do anything else. I know we got some Late correspondence, and I just want to check that everyone get that from staff and have a chance to take a look at it Okay, great Task we have the call to order Commissioner Conway here Dawson Gordon Maxwell here McKelvie here. Oh, hey miss here Here Kennedy here. That was the roll call actually Are there any statements of disqualification from the commissioners tonight? seeing none We'll now open the hearing for oral communications Which is a time to come on up and talk to us about anything not on tonight's agenda feel free Come on up and test. We'll put a two-minute timer on oral communications, please That's okay We'd like to hear from you. I First thank you all for your service to our city I looked at the agenda and see that you have a 200 and some odd report on a project that's been on The schedule for 12 years, so I appreciate your dedication to To the city I'm here to draw a line of sight between maths and Britain using only the term beige to describe Asbestos composite siding on an existing home in my neighborhood and debris from asbestos Batement landing in my yard. I just don't think color of an existing Sighting that's going to be removed from a building has any relevance and it didn't help me in looking at the plans when I was looking at the plans Somehow the architect was able to describe the existing roofing material as asphalt composite on the plans And so I see a need for greater transparency and identifying asbestos composite siding are or roofing material in plan review when this material is slated for demolition or renovation And I think that you know, I think some of you are old enough to sort of know what it looks like But I think a lot of our residents don't really recognize what that siding looks like and that exterior placement Puts people at risk if it's not handled properly if handled properly perfectly, you know acceptable to They have that product removed from someone's house So I you know my letter basically recommends that that beyond the plans when when neighbors are reviewing it So that's basically my topic. I'm gonna be back in January with some other ideas. Okay. Thank you before you go Eric, I know nothing about this. Do you know who at the city would know more about these kind of permits? Well, I know Yeah, environmental health does get involved. We've been in touch with them on some other similar issues really That's good to know. So we you know, we could certainly talk it through with them Okay, it sounds like a valid concern and Eric or others are happy to connect you with the department deals with that. Okay. Thank you so much All right, any other oral communications? You can hear the divo concert has started across the street. So Not that old yet Remember divo Festively All right. So at this point, I'll open the public hearing for our one agenda item the Santa Cruz wharf master plan We're gonna have a staff presentation, but I just wanted to say a few words first I Really want to set the tone tonight to be one of listening and respect I'm gonna have a very low tolerance for shouting out from the audience and disruptions I've understood that some of that's been going on at other commissions Everyone here knows where that line is. I know you all do. I've seen some of you hear a lot So, please don't cross it. This is a public forum. Let's all be civil and discuss things even we disagree I'm including myself in that of course the goal here is like to get the best wharf possible for Santa Cruz ins For all Santa Cruz ins not just to get what we want So I just wanted to throw that out there and recenter us on that goal of an awesome wharf Okay, and with that I'd like to hear the staff report, please Thanks chair Kennedy members of the commission like to introduce Dave McCormick who is the project manager for the wharf master plan He works in the economic development department Also here tonight is Sabrina Teller who is our legal counsel for sequa matters As well as Stephanie Strelow who's our environmental consultant and then we have Travis Beck from the parks department as well As you mentioned, we did get some correspondence, which we posted on the website one of those pieces of correspondence From Gillian Green site and John aired rates some sequel legal issues, which we At the staff felt warranted some response and we did post that response this afternoon I also have some copies over there on the windowsill on the right side of the back part of the chambers If there's any members of the public that would like to read through that response Dave's gonna weave some of those responses into his presentation and if there's further questions feel free to ask Thanks. Thanks for the fast turnaround on that document Thanks for the introduction and thanks for having me here tonight We have a little bit of a presentation here that you'll take a little while But we'll get through it. There's a lot of history and a lot of important information that's come along With the recent revisions. So I'm just gonna go ahead and dive in The we're gonna start with sort of a background and then what the master plan is why we need it and then kind of follow The order might be a little up with the public process And then the revised ER findings and some of the public Correspondence and the questions and responses that we have related to those. So The wharf today just a quick overview of what it is Typically we see we estimate somewhere between two and three million visitors a year It's a top three regional visitor attraction. It has roughly 25 business partners most of whom are local businesses Which collectively employ over 400 people and about 10% of the city's restaurant workforce annually they do about 30 million dollars in sales a year and We capture about 2.9 percent of our 2.9 million Roughly 10% of that in revenue from rents and things for the city And in 2018 the the wharf was assessed for insurance purposes at roughly 119.3 million dollars. So you can see the value. It's a very valuable historic resource We're here tonight to discuss or to engage the commission and in your mandate of Consulting council on land use matters Particularly master plans and future planning efforts in the city Previously the the planning commission has heard Updates and actually hearings on the wharf master plan three times in the past In 2014 they provided they received an update on progress and provided feedback to staff and 2016 the public the planning commission recommended adoption of the plan Or unanimously recommended adoption of the plan and a mitigated neg deck for the initial study Subsequent to that council directed staff to prepare a full EIR and so back in 2020 when the EIR was considered again By the planning commission the commission voted to recommend approval subject to some minor changes The the wharf master plan was approved by council in November of 2020 But during the sequel appeal period a group known as don't morph the wharf some of whom are in the audience tonight Filed a sequel appeal and a subsequent lawsuit charging that the the city had not complied with sequel requirements for a number of causes including aesthetics and historical impacts recreational analysis land use and others In the end the court ruled on relatively narrow grounds specific to a lack of evidence and an insufficient analysis of recreational impacts and related land use policies as well as Insufficient support for a rationale for rejection of alternative to which was identified in the EIR as the environmentally superior alternative and The result of those findings was that we had to resent rescind approvals of the EIR and the wharf master plan We're not allowed to have a partially complete EIR. So although only limited parts of it were found inadequate The entire thing had to be rescinded and the master plan with it We have Apart from these elements here nothing else has changed in the EIR analysis And so it's considered to be established set of law Because there were no impacts that hadn't been you know, no deficiencies in the the courts analysis or upheld in the courts analysis The Santa Cruz wharf master plan report is just the cover of it Really, it's about increasing the resilience of the wharf and balancing the economic social and environmental needs of the wharf As it relates to our community and that includes, you know, it we look back at the pandemic economic Resilience has become an increasingly important consideration. Although, of course the the you know the environmental concerns are paramount To get to the the plan as we have it today, there's no fewer than four council meetings nine commission hearings Actually, there's actually the ninth one tonight eight focus group hearings with different groups Representing specific constituencies numerous stakeholder meetings interagency meetings thousands of mailers a hundredth anniversary showcase during the centennial celebration as well as a milestone meeting and At least 12 news articles during its creation and more since then Just a quick glimpse of some of the stakeholders who involved in drafting this plan We include the the bulk of wharf tenants beach area businesses marketing tourism agencies community groups civic organizations Including San Cruz neighbors the Outrigger Club friends of Parks and Rec Rotary lots of them shown there as well as Marine and interagency and research partners like the search writer Foundation California State Parks NOAA Army Corps all of these organizations had a role in in promoting or in developing and Supporting the plan throughout its creation What is the wharf bastard and again as a result of extensive public engagement and engineering And an analysis It's a framework not a prescription for what happens next, but it provides us the outside guidelines and the rules It's a long-term plan for the wharf And it's most importantly a financing tool that's required for us to to attract grant funds from state and federal agencies And ultimately it'll expand public access by about two and a half acres Most of where the wharf would expand is almost entirely recreational and public access improvements But it won't do it's not immediately going to get anything built tomorrow There'll still be years of additional hearings and and design and fundraising It won't allow ocean liners to park at the wharf. It won't remove sea lion viewing holes Those are now committed to being retained or relocated It won't mandate tall buildings It'll cap them at 40 feet for the three public buildings and 35 feet for the commercial and it won't significantly impact burden marine life There are some impacts that are mitigated during construction, but beyond that there were no enough impacts identified It won't close the door and future engagement and it won't reduce fishing or sightseeing opportunities that will expand them So what's new? Quickly, it's the there will be an upgrade to life start lifeguard station There's a new gateway signage and entrance to help facilitate traffic and parking movements And and brand the wharf a little bit. There'll be a new eastern promenade It's a multimodal and emergency access pathway along the east side together with fishing and small boat landings will consolidate existing boat launches and landings together with a new south landing for larger vessels like whale watches and fishing charters and research vessels Up to 200 tons of displacement and at the end we'll have an expanded viewing opportunities with an overlook with new ledgers that are built for support as well as a step down Overlook or terrorist overlook as it's referred to in the plan That creates sort of an amphitheater down near the water on the other side or a couple feet below deck anyway And then the landmark building which is intended to replicate Or or mimic the original warehouse building that once stood at the end of the wharf and could be provided for a number of public or quasi public uses An extension on the west side to really create that that one mile circuit and to reinforce Really reinforce the wharf as a whole These improvements when you look at them are really about kind of wrapping the breadth of the wharf in a protective layer of new infrastructure And the new events perillion would Put a like like a canopy a type enclosure over the existing stage It would replace that with an all season venue that could help attract visitation throughout the year And provide more functionality for the wharf for events and social gatherings And then finally along the western side There'll be a recessed or a slightly below deck about eight feet below deck protective walkway That would be open seasonally and would provide a defensive barrier against marine debris Ship impacts and waves that would help dissipate wave energy As we'll discuss and then a welcome center Is envisioned down where the the current boat rental building is to help invite people and sort of orient them That facility as we'll talk in a minute has some other additional exciting opportunities So mainly the wharf master plan is about expanding public access That's primarily achieved through the east promenade in the west walkway As you can see there on the west side There's that that lowered walkway that would is intended to avoid impacts to views from restaurants While providing new views beneath the deck as well as recreational You know fishing opportunities and walking and sightseeing And there's a swim float that goes with it And then the east promenade is that that multiple use multimodal promenade With the dedicated fishing areas along the side and the capacity to support emergency vehicles So they don't get mired in the traffic The east promenade would help reduce conflicts between pedestrians and fishermen Particularly the tailgate fishing as you see it there Where oftentimes it's not possible to achieve ADA access through the that sort of gathering And then along the west side you can see that open water swim float that would drop down Along the west side as it enters into the west walkway These these improvements again, they create resilience opportunities They they provide that emergency access on the east promenade the new boat landings provide evacuation and supply points And the west walkway helps protect vulnerable piles beneath the buildings where they cannot be repaired While buildings stand And they predict that with that marine barrier as well as wave dissipation The the west walkway in particular is envisioned to be a quasi-permeable membrane or surfacing That would help again dissipate wave force as it comes through as well as You know protecting and trying to catch the the logs and things that frequently being into the bottom of the wharf Um that protection just another slide showing it the concept there is essentially a wave force attenuation As we look at climate adaptation globally, there's a number of strategies. This is one that's a floating a wave attenuator Uh, the one proposed here is above water level and it would catch the waves as they hit a certain peak velocity and size And then there's the you know examples of the types of debris that get stuck into the wharf and damage pilings and infrastructure As well as what the wharf crew has to do to get them out The a quick visual of what that looks like the bottom image shows the artist's rendering from the EIR There were no visual or aesthetic impacts identified in the AR and the court did not Agree with the the don't morph the wharf's contention that there were So the but for you know discussion purposes, you can see the rendering is provided here I would note a couple things. The first is that the the railings that are proposed that are shown in the image Are utilizing a white paint and a similar treatment as the the deck railings existing That's for eligibility of the image. It helps you to see where it actually is in the wharf master plan minimalist railings with like Like cable and mash are proposed to minimize the visual impact But also coloring and materials could change at the design stage. This is just a programmatic placeholder But up top the don't worth the wharf and some of the the the public correspondence has suggested that the the West walkway would bisect the views along the that length of the wharf And as you can see existing landings and service points and ledgers down below the wharf already do that in many cases So it's just another perspective on it And then the last thing is that as you move along away from the viewer The alignment of the the pilings tends to create a solid image Which sort of limits the the effect of visibility and disruption of that transparency Moving on the accessible landings The new landings would be universally accessible providing what doesn't exist today of accessible water access to from the wharf Which has a great opportunity to expand equitable access to water sports and boating That we're really excited about The top image on the left is that small boat landing It would consolidate the boat rentals and the kayak uses into the one central facility Together with wharf operations And potentially fire boat mooring or a temporary fire boat morning And then on the south side that the south landing there is for larger vessels Which could potentially see the return of fish landings. It could see the return of you know tour tour boats and fishing charters Well, it watches all that kind of stuff from the wharf As well as research vessels and then that west side swim float that I mentioned earlier Which provides water sport access and swimming access from the west side of the wharf where we don't currently have it Examples of the types of vessels that could uh more at the or you know temporarily dock at the uh south landing The top one there is uh on the left the infinity expedition shows what a 200 ton 120 foot Vessel would typically look like or could typically look like That is the design capacity of that landing It's not intended to serve larger vessels than that But different alignments and massing gives you different types of ships So you can see the rachel karson one of minbari's fleet. You can see the dredge from the harbor You can see the you know the coast guard vessel that's shown there The master plan includes three new cultural buildings so welcome center the pavilion and the landmark building Again, the artist rendering there shows a maximum of 45 feet, uh, which is no longer No longer included in the plan. It's now down to a maximum of 40 But that is is really setting the outside parameters for this building The intent of it though is to to recreate or reimagine the the historic warehouse building that was once there The plan calls for limited new commercial Primarily through second-story additions and outside dining upstairs or or just second-story Uses there is the opportunity for some infill around the the pavilion structure And in a couple other locations where you could potentially consolidate some of the the Some of the public space or some some other elements into like pocket retail So anticipates about 4 000 square feet of infill and Up to 30 percent gain through the second-story additions Notable within this or is the idea of of liner uses you can see little like orange boxes in the bottom right image That's looking at activating blank storefronts by having smaller discrete sort of commercial and activity uses along the frontage The lifeguard upgrade is a vision to be one or two stories. It would continue to have the a view tower it would also provide storage and equipment for For marine rescue and junior guards and potentially associated mooring for their rescue or fire boat vessels The plan also envisions a a new entrance gateway at previous iterations of the plan council The the sort of image at the bottom left was The the signage that's shown there was determined really to As a placeholder and that there will be a public process for developing a really iconic Santa Cruz sign And so the image here provides some inspirational imagery to that end Parking operations the plan envisions restriping the existing parking To gain about 10 to 15 percent or about 40 to 60 spaces The entrance gates will be located down on the wharf a bit farther to reduce traffic impacts into the roundabout And you know, hopefully to create efficiency through Sort of a hybrid staff boot and pay stage or staff booth and pay station option Other operational improvements the plan envisions a pneumatic trash collection to reduce garbage truck use remove trash enclosures and then Together with interpretive materials and and other emergency responses. We'd look at communications and internet upgrades As well as utility resilience and things like that It should break in in 2016. We learned that that system would not harm seagulls. So go That's good to know at the the Wharf master plan includes new design standards specific to the buildings and new construction out there And modifications of the existing In the latest revisions to the plan. We've gone a little bit further. We're recommending in order to sort of Not force height We've made some modifications Within the design parameters. So where we still have that cap of 35 and 40 feet for the buildings What we've done is we've reduced the ground floor height to a minimum of 12 from 15 feet So that the buildings don't automatically have to be taller When you go out there, you see, you know, 10 to 12 foot ceilings are fairly common But much above that isn't really consistent with what's out there So we we kind of are suggesting to lower that we've also reduced the the Original proposal for the glazed canopy The glazed storefront beneath the canopy, which I think was previously 12 feet with the 15 foot minimum floor height We've reduced it to eight so that there can be some variation in the storefronts and window sizes So again, we're not just floor to ceiling windows So those are the major ones. We also eliminated a requirement that the signs had to be horizontal That was the other major change in in the the design thing the parameter The size of the signs is still preserved as it was in the last version But just suggesting that there there could be a you know vertical signage that fits within the buildings All right And then so really why why do we need the master plan? It was called for in the beach south of laurel plan and the the coastal commission and the Powers that be that created that plan identified that the the existing wharf plan from 1980 was well outdated And no longer reflected community goals or you know adequate analysis It's important to codify the various roles served by the wharf and to provide the guidance For future decisions and fundraising Just a quick image of the the 1980 beach area plan This is the the wharf design framework that was adopted and and what the sort of existing plan for the wharf is You can see the as much as it's outdated. I would say You can see the sort of inspiration from the pacific garden mall with the hexagonal structures You see the dog leg that was added to to enhance mooring But this did lead to some significant improvements the the commons area with the stages was built through this plan A lot of the newer buildings like where olitas and marines and the surf life The shops and stuff those that the agora all of that was constructed with this plan But as you can see the master plan doesn't always lead to everything envisioned Is that the roundabout on the left there? Yeah, the roundabouts all the way in the left there Thanks So, you know certain elements came to be but the the overall vision of the of what was created is different than what was planned So just a reminder But really the master plan is about the greater need. The wharf is a historic structure of over 100 years old Try as they might the wharf crew can't keep up with the the pace of degradation in its environment So in 2014 when the 2013 14 when the engineering report was prepared They identified an infrastructure backlog of 11 and a half million or so of of required infrastructure investments If you just did an inflation adjustment, it's probably closer to 14 million But recent bid results and things suggest that it's quite a bit higher to do the repairs But it it's built upon unsustainable financials and a city budget crisis Along with businesses that can no longer, you know shoulder increasing Rents in line with without reducing increasing cost bill beyond, you know Palatable levels for many Santa Cruzans So the the lesson is that outside funding is needed and so again This is just a summary of the infrastructure backlog as it's found in the engineering report The the the financials are such that over the past Eight years or so we've seen an increasing decline in the balance Where revenues aren't really keeping pace with the cost of operating the wharf The purple line there shows the overall expenses the The maintenance and operations as a portion of that is shown in orange And the the green is the revenues so you can see that we're we're subsidizing about a million and a half This past year and it's it's been in that ballpark for a number of years The few years where we did that orange is supposed to line up with the 600 000 and the 11 000 But the few years where we did sort of balance out ahead We had supplemental insurance revenues from I think storm damage or the tsunami something like that And when we look back at the the capital expenditure history for the wharf Only about 4.2 million over the past Roughly 20 years has really been invested as a capital project in the wharf The bulk of the 8 million shown here is tied to the wharf beach intersection and the wharf master plan itself Neither of which really is an investment in the wharf So returning back to that that secret challenge You know the the ruling was that we had to evaluate The recreation the land use policies And support our rationale for rejection of alternative to so we're going to go ahead and just dive right into that First and foremost our recreational analysis is based on We evaluated the city's own definitions of recreation and recreation facilities And found that they Weren't as comprehensive as we felt this this facility needed the wharf serves a broad variety of recreational Uses and so we looked at state law and we found the most expansive Definition and state law and then we based our recreational analysis on that And that includes everything from entertainment and cultural as well as mental and physical development Traditional recreational activities culture and art all of that So within that framework we analyzed the improvements in the master plan as related to these land use policy documents That you can see them all there And found that they the master plan and its improvements are consistent and would not conflict with recreational policies Specifically the improvements proposed would protect and enhance public access and coastal recreation They would not intrude on beaches or bluffs. They would not expand or they would expand economic and educational opportunities Provide free multimodal access or expand it and maintain and expand fishing access Within the the recreational analysis, these are all the different various different topics that were studied I can try and breeze through those. There's a lot of them first and First and foremost the walking and biking as you can see the the circuits would expand You'd have a new one-mile circuit around the outside of the wharf. You'd have multiple paths of travel that could be commercial or purely recreational Utilizing the east promenade the end of wharf widening the west side walkway Ultimately, they would the improvements would reduce use conflicts and provide an ADA access It's separate bicycles and pedestrians from vehicle travel They'd improve emergency access and there would be a roughly 11 increase in the wharf's perimeter Again is showing that image again of what those look like Nature viewing the terraced overlook the various walkways And even some of the buildings have the potential to provide new viewpoints There would be New ADA access to the water and new experiences below deck a little closer to animals and things And with the permeable surfacing on that east but west walkway You'd have the a new experience of sort of walking over the water and viewing under the deck And then just sort of seeing what that You know view would look like you can see the terraced overlook up on the top right and the artist's rendering there As part of that analysis As far as wildlife viewing and things we looked at the the feasibility of the sea lion viewing holes One of the elements that the the court ruled against the city on was that the original plan Didn't really address what was going to happen to the viewing holes The landmark building was shown in the exhibits on top of them, but there was no discussion of what happened Uh, what would be done with them? During the the previous review process in 2020 We heard the community's feedback and the council committed to a policy that would require it to maintain or Or preserve or relocate those sea lion viewing holes But the court felt that because the exhibit showed a building in that place Um To not address how they'd be preserved in a in a rational way It was a deferral of potential impacts. So we went back and we looked at okay How could you go about preserving or relocating the the sea lion viewing holes? Uh, and this exhibit was provided uh to show that you know depending upon how you move the building and what Faces you might make there or how you you choose to move the sea lion viewing holes. There are feasible options These are not by any means the only feasible options, but they're just a few examples of how it could be done The bottom image in particular also looks at could you expand sea lion viewing along the breadth of the wharf Could you create new opportunities at other positions of the plan? To provide a similar experience as exists today at the end of the wharf And it shows that it could be done in a number of strategies including reclaiming parking and working it into existing spaces Providing below deck viewing with some of the landings and stuff So there's a number of strategies identified in the exhibit and in the discussion of the the revised EIR recreational fishing The the master plan takes a really innovative look at at fishing it examines it Through gis and and mapping and distancing, but it also looks at it as a variety of zones So there's different types of fishing experiences that exist in different waters around the wharf From the the sort of shore or crack the wave crash zone all the way out to the open water and even in between pilings and stuff There's different experiences and different catches As well as the tailgate fishing so it examines it in those ways Breaks it down, but overall what it shows is that there's a 21 increase in allowable fishing With what seems like the most, you know obvious safe zones and restricted areas But that, you know As well as an expansion in the reef style fishing So the west walkway provides new opportunities below deck to try and get him those challenging spots beneath the piles However, tailgate fishing would be produced significantly The provision of the the dedicated fishing areas along the east promenade And then the provision of additional, you know walking space there Makes it so that the tailgate fishing isn't exactly on the edge of the wharf It's on the side of the the east promenade and they have to walk across or If they have mobility issues that have to go from a handicap space to a ramp, which presumably would be close by Overall tailgate fishing could still be preserved in a number of locations Primarily in the east parking lot, but also past Tignaro's and over by before the The the lifeguard station So there'd still be fishing occurring in each of the zones that it currently exists And it would be about a hundred to or 80 to 100 spaces that we'd anticipate available for tailgate fishing And that's over That's compared to about 440 parking spaces as a whole on the wharf The intent though is to dedicate those seating areas to reduce the conflicts between fishing and multi-builder uses And there'd also be expanded boating and west side fishing Um this exhibit here that was prepared in the recirculated partial draft EIR compares various fishing options it shows the different zones by color and and Dash marks the contrast isn't as great as I'd like, but it's there And in the bottom left corner, you can see the the net increase or change In the the various types of fishing and access So overall fishing would expand the exhibit shows us where we anticipate it as the boat landings get further designed There may be opportunities to increase fishing further But this is based on the you know, the designs that exist in the program level Boating at open water sports all of the landings including the open water swimming sport Provide new universal access to the water The great new launch and landing opportunities that don't exist Um particularly like along with the west On the along the west side on cowl There would be a new opportunity with that swim float to to get out there and launch your surfboard for someone who might have mobility issues And just visitors There's also a new opportunity for dayboat tours from the south landing and and the small boat landing and The gateways or the welcome center could potentially include warming and shower facilities for swimmers and activities So just a quick image of what that looks like today and and where it would be going some of the activities The the plan calls for increased opportunities for education and science With the new public buildings It calls for a wharf interpretive plan that would weave together the various narratives around the wharf from environment to science to history And others that would be developed in the process Based on community feedback And then the south landing can support those research vessels that come and go And uh, there's you know expanded opportunity for creating partnerships with regional partners Again the potential impacts are new facilities new opportunities for all of these things And then cultural the new public buildings particularly the the events pavilion creates new opportunities for events and You know cultural activities and entertainment Circulation improvements create the capacity to manage that and communication infrastructure enriches it and provides new economic opportunities as a result Again the the key here is is enhancing the year-round capacity of the wharf That's the the real important thing But the interpretive plan also provides opportunities for art and things like that Shopping and dining. Uh, it's sort of a non-traditional recreational activity or leisure activity But it's nonetheless part of the reason a lot of people go out there Um, they would also have the opportunity to expand primarily through those second floor uses but also in some of the liner uses and infill And and pop-ups and things some examples of what second floor uses might look like Uh, and then the sort of pop-up So there's uh as wharf development happens and as opportunity sites are and underutilized areas are identified there could be opportunities for you know pop-ups and and activations to to create new up new events and And experiences for people on the wharf and those sort of things are temporary by nature But they're intended to allow the the wharf to continue to adapt to its its user base um, all right moving along the uh Another element that the court wanted us to dwell on a bit more and investigate and increase or Improve our findings as the the alternatives analysis So as you know under sequa were required to identify and study alternative projects In this case three were three were studied There was the no project requirement and then there was the alternative one Which would have removed the landmark building and reduced the width of the east promenade And then there was the alternative two, uh, which would have removed the uh, west walkway And reduced building heights to 40 feet Um, just going back to this, uh, when you all evaluate the alternatives The the city and its discretionary bodies have to evaluate how effectively the plan Would still achieve the project objectives in light of the changes proposed in the alternative So in this particular instance the highlighted, uh, objectives are ones that Seemed to staff to be most closely aligned with removal of the west walkway As you know and through the public comment that this is the the contention and with the court Ruling that's the The city opted to reject that environmentally superior alternative for a number of reasons But didn't adequately support that with evidence And discussion that was why So As we see it the removal of the west walkway Would entail potential impacts such that it wouldn't provide additional lateral stability or the defensive barrier discussed earlier It would be it would result in the loss of a new pedestrian public access and swimming access It would reduce fishing opportunities Um, again, the no water access and every no wildlife viewing or sightseeing from that side of the wharf as well as The elimination of potential emergency response access So fire wouldn't be able to access the water from that side They wouldn't be able to fight fires Below deck or along the west side of the buildings Which is often the upwind side of the buildings Um, as I said, the court ruling did not the the city did not adequately support the rationale We've gone and reinforced the findings with more evidence based on the engineers Findings in the engineering report and their extensive experience with similar facilities The project engineers at Montfort and nickel Do wharves and piers and marine infrastructure all the way around the world including military facilities and are among the best in the field proposed findings include additional discussion of these things And no additional historic or aesthetic analysis was needed or required by the court nor has any been provided that justify Potential impacts there's again just a glimpse of that defensive function This is a slide that was shared with the historic preservation commission showing The damage survey that was done after the storms in 1983 82 83 And one of the things notable is you know here at this point They're showing pilings that were destroyed in a small series of storms All those little dots throughout the war for those But notably underneath the buildings pile missing can't be replaced should be okay That that site there with the three was the Miramar building It survived another several decades through innovative strategies like A frames and things But had it been a load bearing pile that had these been load bearing piles that were lost That that would not have been a viable option And a building could be destabilized in a matter of minutes So this is where the west walkways intended to to provide that defensive barrier and eliminate these sort of things That site has now been restored and fixed up however And so in the public correspondence that you received from don't morph the wharf I've tried to sort of consolidate responses Was the Miramar knocked down because of that? It began with that like a lot of things. It was a number of things. There was a roof collapse That happened the building was in deteriorated state But the underneath it there was no other option to reuse it because the conditions were so bad Is my understanding All right, so in their their statement, I've tried to summarize quickly. There's a lot there In the first statement the they cite the historic preservations commission Recommendation to counsel that said counsel should consider removal of the west side walkway based on their I don't know what the allegation I guess or suggestion of historical visual impacts that weren't identified in the Weren't consistent with historical analysis in the AR They also brought up Unstudied bird impacts from the human use of the west side walkway and they suggested that was the case And they cited the court ruling on a lack of evidence supporting the rejection of alternative to In response to the city in their their You know response that's been published here We state that the hbc recommendations as well as in the staff report actually The recommendation is not supported by evidence in the record or the er analysis Revisions were not required for the entire er only those certain sections and that the city can circulate only revisions and focus comments on those revisions During the recirculation process of an er And then no historic or aesthetic impacts have been identified the court dismissed Complaints to that effect in its ruling and none have no new ones have yet been identified The court ruled only on grounds of insufficient evidence It did not and cannot decide how the city exercised its discretion. It did not make statements against the plan itself But merely on the lack of evidence within the er In the findings of fact the don't morph the war suggests that the That the findings of fact were not made available to the parks and reclamation or the hbc findings, uh, it says that the findings Modifications that have been included are just restating the inequities the court identified They suggest that fire access rather than from the west walkway could be provided via the existing maintenance walkway So that safety can be improved Along the west side by restricting mooring within 200 feet of the west side of the wharf And it can it felt that any comparison with sea cliff and capitol the wharf was baseless and just evidence is you know lesser designed wharfs As far as their their risk and not not comparable to the wharf I guess this sort of it is and then they alluded to as yet unidentified alternatives the west walkway that protect Provide the same or similar protection functions The city's response is that draft findings and revolutions were posted for each prior hearing Findings include extensive additional discussion of engineering recommendations and safety considerations And they connect with policy goals depicting the need for the walkway Comments provide no objection or the commenters provide No objective evidence to the contrary to these statements Existing maintenance walkway does not provide appropriate separation You can imagine that it's on a five foot walkway. It would be difficult to fight a fire on a building next to you So the the west side walkway provides that separation as well as below deck access points The master plan includes policy language Already it already includes policy language that would limit mooring along the west side of the wharf So we we're in agreement on that And then the the sea cliff pier and capitol appear were merely stated as examples of the types of processes that are at play and coastal engineering They are examples of where overtopping can collapse a marine structure And they are example of where the the additional decking on the outside of the capitol appear Is provides a dissipation function even at its own cost So as we look at some of the images here and we can there's a video if we want to see it But this image of the wharf the capitol of wharf you can see how the decking took damage But the waves splash through and were dissipated as in As opposed to damaging the building that might have been directly on the edge of the wharf Such as the case on the west side of our wharf The video that's available online showing the overtopping of the sea cliff pier Gives you an idea of how the mass of the wave on top of it together with the velocity and the sort of suction effect Can quickly overwhelm and and destroy marine structures And so this is sort of the the perspective that I've received from our engineering consultant after the last hearing Errors of fact in the resolution the city statement that the engineering report states the the west walkway is essential is inaccurate They suggest that other reinforcement options Including additional west side pilings could achieve the same goals Functionally the The additional pilings could potentially as they proposed could potentially Provide an additional layer Similar to the west walkway, but you wouldn't get as many of them And you wouldn't get the sort of wave dissipation function of the platform in that case But you know additional pilings always Provide some level of additional help The city's claim that a master plan ER needed for grant funding is inaccurate They cite that a recent grant was received for the miramar site as evidence And they insist that the court ruled that the entire ER was should be rescinded and that partial reciculation does not comply with that court ruling So our response is that the city disagrees with the assertion about engineering and that there are viable alternatives It's not you know the finding of our engineers And it's uh state and federal law do require environmental review Before awarding funding there's section site in the staff report from sequo if i recall And the miramar site typo the miramar site Had received an emergency permit from the coastal commission following the the roof collapse for the demolition and the infrastructure work to repair it and the the sort of Federal permits fell under maintenance that was already permitted for that site or for the wharf The court ruling was narrow in scope and it exceeded requirements for the city receded requirements for our responses So we didn't need to reopen the entire plan because it was a narrow ruling based on limited aspects of the IR So we focused on those and when we received comments back On topics that were already answered in other sections of the IR or we had already responded to We provided citations to responders to find those answers So rather than respond to every question, we responded with where they could find the answer that was already provided Which exceeds the the state mandate for responses on EIRs and then um again cq allows us to limit the circulation or recirculation of An EIR to its revised components Um, and then there are comments on the sea lion viewing holes That the city did not respond to the court ruling to show mitigation for sea lion viewing holes Uh, they didn't agree with the the statement in the existing policy in the master plan that uh, to the greatest extent feasible Uh, they contend that it's a a vague metric And like something more objective to ensure that the city complies with uh preservation and or relocation of those holes Um, and so again, uh, the city's response is that the plan commits to preservation relocation of the holes So there is no impact because they will be included in any future project that might impact them Um, the modification to the programmatic landmark building among other features are shown in that figure Um, and they create feasible options or they depict feasible options For how the the holes could be retained Um, and then any proposal that would impact and not preserve or relocate the holes would be inconsistent with the master plan EIR triggering additional analysis Um, no evidence is shown or has been provided showing that these options are not feasible And do I have another let me see so again, there's the exhibit we're talking about We looked at that And then the fishing so the loss of 1700 linear fishing To see just for sure before we go one back. Okay So any uh, let me just read that one again any proposal impact and not preserve really good Those will be ink and could trigger a whole new EIR cycle So we're providing that diagram and that like closes that risk down Yeah, it's saying that there's opportunities here, you know, if you don't if you move past those and you don't take the action I appreciate your pace, but I just took me a minute to think that yeah. Thank you. Sure Um, so again the fishing uh, the loss of 1700 feet of tailgate fishing I'm not sure if it's explicit, but I think the suggestion is that it's an impact Um, they didn't feel that the they felt the issues like the short walk from parking to the new fishing areas And then potential interference of bikes and pedestrians on the promenade are issues that are unresolved Then then the uh, that they suggest that the city continues to propose deferred impacts by suggesting that Future policies might then modify fishing in various locations And then that some areas proposed for fishing are unsafe, but they don't go so far as to suggest what areas those are City's response is that overall fishing will be expanded and not reduced ADA and access improvements are already required and they will be improved through the improvements Reduced reducing. Um, those improvements will reduce the existing bike and pet conflicts With tailgate fishing and that there is no legal mandate to preserve specific modes of fishing just generally fishing And fishing access Tailgate fishing will still be allowed in other locations once again 800 spaces or so Um, and then again this exhibit shows where we anticipate that it would be feasible where it is today Um, and you know again as the projects move forward that that'll be refined Um, and then just a quick glimpse again outreach to date. Uh, there's all of that Uh, we've additionally done some grant seeking outreach. Uh, since it was uh approved in the past Or it was improved in 2020 However, all that's kind of on hold at the moment And there will be many opportunities for future engagement. Um, so as projects proposals become plans or sorry as plant proposals become projects There'll be opportunities for public engagement then there'll be no shortage of commission and council hearings to get those to a shovel ready site A lot of state and federal permitting Requires outreach as to grants these days. It's becoming very much the standard among new grant programs to require public outreach Um, and then of course design refinements and the interpretive plan provides a really exciting cross community opportunity for engagement So with that I will adjourn my lengthy presentation and Let you That was a great summary of a lot of stuff. Thank you. Thank you all right, so uh Next we'll move to commission questions for staff and then I'll open the public hearing for public comment after that Any any questions for staff? And let's all just take a deep breath. This is going to take a while to get through so feel free to relax and Ask your questions Talk into your mic. I've been reminded Mike Thank you for the report. Um, yeah, that was a lot of information. Nice job Um, really quickly I One thing in the staff report and I am I'm comfortable with the language around the sea lion viewing holes My memory was that it said, um, you know to retain or to Relocate to an area with greater or enhanced viewing. I think was the the language Something to that effect something to that effect. It gave me the impression that you know, if these are going to be moved It's going to be moved to a better spot So I'm just curious on what the metric would be like I'm I'm comfortable with that language I'm this is just for my own curiosity. I believe the the language also included a public engagement Process in that and so it'd be subject to the results of that public engagement. So great. Thanks Fishing access seems to be primary Concern here. I'm I'm curious It's not that Fishing access isn't being expanded overall. Correct. We're getting if the math is right. It's like a thousand linear feet more Fishing that's correct area than than the existing conditions um, but the specific mode of the tailgate fishing that's on the The existing expanded parking area. That's where that is Centered now, correct? Right. So if you look at this exhibit, you can kind of see there's these black hash marks with the little brackets That shows where tailgate fishing currently exists as well as the white lines Right. Um, and the white is showing those conflict zones where the pathway is You know seven feet or less and can't feasibly accommodate both access Um, and in the uh in the the proposed plan You can see there's spaces down by the lifeguard section The east promenade and then out past uh stick narrows that could all have sufficient width to accommodate both access and tailgate fishing So just in summary, we're getting a thousand more linear feet of fishing access in general roughly of fishing in general. Yes Thank you. Yeah, thank you um some of my questions um were answered by your presentation About about sea line viewing and also about the the tailgate fishing Which of course I think for a lot of us we have Very mixed feelings about I know I went through a period of my son's life where we were there every chance we got it and Also a period of extreme frustration Trying to get through it with a stroller um You know so we so but I think I understand where that is and how it is that we're actually producing more with the west walkway You alluded to um Funding and um And I wonder if you could speak more to that I know that this is a time where we we actually have some funding available and It's extremely frustrating to not have a plan That allows it. I mean it is it is I mean I know for my years of Trying to put funding together for projects. It's extremely important. Um, do you have any insight into? timing of funding opportunities Or um, can you tell us anymore about funds that are available or could be available? Right, so the um, You know as we all know if you've been paying to the federal government As a result of the pandemic pandemic there are Billions probably trillions of dollars of public infrastructure funds that are now out there Several of them have already had multiple rounds and are part way through their award life So those those opportunities are dwindling Each year that goes by Some of them are five-year programs. There's a few that are 10 if I recall But most of them, you know, have already a lot of them have already expended funding and so we're we're losing out in a Sort of a generational opportunity For infrastructure funds from the federal government minimally The state has also invested heavily in climate adaptation and climate resilience projects the past few years agencies like the coastal conservancy and the State parks and others are providing funds Through like the the boating access program and things like that But as you probably also know the state is grappling with a I want to say it's like a 30 billion dollar budget shortfall And so a lot of these programs are being scaled back and the opportunities are here now While they've already been appropriated and are available But as we look out a year or two It's very likely that these windows will close So it's it's crucially important that we do get Get the opportunity to put our name in their hat in the ring and try and bring money to the wharf while this opportunity is here But again, as I've said in order to do that We need to have an approved environmental review or a certified environmental review the ar in this case or a And a master plan The master plan itself was actually created through funding from the economic development administration Because they noted we didn't have a plan that would allow them to fund projects So we didn't have the required review and the required vision For them to put money for infrastructure. So they've paid for the plan 12 years ago And so here we are Missing out on over a decade of opportunity Even as we see the climate getting more intense and the damage occurring Thank you. Yeah With our staff that's not a hat in the ring. That's a heavyweight boxer in the ring I'd like to say we're very good at getting grant money when we have the plans in place. Sorry. That was a comment all right Just a couple questions. Um at the very beginning of the thank you again for presentation um at the very beginning of it there was the the um Financial graph that you put up and just out of my because I'm not aware the I would assume that most of the expenses would be maintenance adopts But it's not in this case and I'm wondering what does the purple line really represent as far as what kind of expenses Is the wharf it's accruing, right? So the uh, the the majority is it's just slightly over half But it is the majority still But the the remainder is marine safety or the marine rescue And parking Okay, so both parking generates revenue for the wharf as well All of them exist in fund 104, which is part of the general fund And they're all all the revenues generated the wharf go back into that fund and pay for you know towards the operating costs But they're insufficient to provide You know fully cover maintenance parking and the marine rescue operations, right? That was what yeah, I was I was like What's that second the additional part? Um Then my other question too is with regards to maintenance and operations having talked to a few of the workers there Right now it seems like there's no Maintenance happening. Correct. Is that correct? No, I mean they're they're regards to sorry with regards to like the bird mitigation issues Right and you're correct on that. There's challenges with it. I wouldn't say there's none Okay, um, but through our maintenance permit with the with the coastal commission There are restrictions on when uh, they can conduct major work. That's timing timing. Yeah, so basically from March 15th to august 1st Nothing louder than Hand drill is supposed to be used Except unless it's absolutely needed So they're not allowed to drive piles or do major deck work any of that during the favorable summer weather Or even spring And so they have to pack that into the winter months When storms create unreliable conditions for repaving and all sorts of other things Yeah, that sounds like the the restrictions also put it. I want to say it's 150 foot bird exclusion zone So if there's an active nest they can't do work around that Uh, so there are very strict regulations we have to deal with just from that right that agency Other federal agencies add additional Considerations seems like that would as we're talking about expanding and doing a lot more construction Uh With this plan there's gonna be some issues there. Maybe, huh? Yeah, it's certainly a concern My understanding is once a project begins, it's not so limited as long as you're you're monitoring and you're adapting if if the presence of animals is there, um, but the um But yeah, I mean it's a consideration you wouldn't be able to start a project in the middle of that Exclusion month right is what we'd anticipate great. Thanks, and then Not I saw the picture of the capitol or wharf getting Uh affected by uh weather And I was wondering what is the height difference between the capitol or wharf and the sand crews wharf? As far as the main deck height. Yeah, I believe, um, the engineering report states that it's 19 feet and we're at 23 typically That's 19 feet. Yeah, I believe that's what the it's in the engineering report. And I think that's what it said, okay So it's pretty close Yeah, it did work out favorably in the sea level rise Uh projections that are included in the engineering report because we you know, we're already above similar wharves Or or nearby wharves. So we had a little room to The oceans to rise Great. Thanks. That's all my questions. Thanks All right, good questions. I had three and I have like one and a half left One is I'm so glad you showed that pile plan I just thought that public comment from Renee flower was really interesting with the history Julie touched on it already, but um, I pulled out of the staff report some words Just regarding the urgency of this. So I wanted to underscore those again if you've got them up They're just these are this is directly out of the staff report. It's just on a slide so you all can see it And um, yeah, just that delay for several years that we're missing this Infrastructure opportunity that just got me in the heart and emphasize the need to move this along in my opinion So that's like You can't predict the chicken that didn't hatch, but it's a pretty safe to say Like we may have lost out on there's great dollars. Can you say I mean there's great interest From agencies, but they haven't been able to fund any of these projects We submitted, uh, I think we had an eight and a half million dollar grant to state parks Back when the plan was approved that you know, I don't know that we would have gotten it because of that But it didn't help that we didn't that the eir got challenged Yeah And then there's the we've also applied for I think some of the boating design and things like that with the wildlife conservation board Again, the the is it causal that we didn't have the plan I mean it certainly Disqualified us I guess would be the Yeah, I'm just reflecting on the difference in climate stuff and transportation and recreation Particularly looking out here at parks and rec like we are a world from where we were in 2014 in my opinion on both those areas Right. We've been tremendously successful in bringing in those funds in and this is such an iconic facility I I think we'd be highly competitive With the environmental Report and the plan behind us. Yeah, I mean it seems to me like that that loop trail would feed right into the rail trail And all that awesomeness we got going on. So that's just my opinion my second one Is that that other Uh quote that I just copy pasted so it'd be up here in front of everybody Moving into public comment. I just wanted to go through very carefully again What our scope here is because like this is super interesting and I can go on all day about bird nesting habitat And all this stuff the history appeals to me the work, you know, everything is just great But before we get into public comment I wanted to go real tight on our scope tonight and I think this kind of sums it up there in the middle of that So could you just review again like what we're here to rule on specifically? I think Sabrina can at least speak to it from a legal perspective. Hi Sabrina. Hi Welcome. Good evening. I'm Sabrina teller with a remy moose manly outside secret council to the city on this and other matters. Um, so essentially the posture that the city is in right now as a result of It having rescinded the prior plan adoption and certification of eir is that While only certain portions of the eir were revised and and augmented the city Council ultimately has to consider whether to Readopt the plan as proposed or with, you know, their own additions as well as to whether to now certify again Disexpanded eir and so your role is essentially similar to the role, you know from three years ago Where you are making a recommendation or not to the council That the eir is adequate in your view should be certified and that the plan should be Approved as revised. That's the staff recommendation for your action. Of course, you're free to take, you know, any of You're free to do that recommendation or come up with a different one You know the words that I was looking at Oh, we're like a new analysis of the recreation and related land use policies Blah blah blah. Is this going to impact our prior decisions? You know, I just rereading that like we put a lot of work into this and Where I assume we're limited, but let's say I want to make the big warehouse pink You know with that trigger a new eir like how much could we monkey with it? Just like in theory.  I think whatever you would like So if there are design changes that you Now think are a good idea that you know the previous commission didn't suggest or You know if you have different a view from your your prior commission, you're not bound by their prior recommendation In other words, I mean, we're a different commission today to I think if I'm make it if it makes it more clear for me It's we can Like you said recommend maybe a slight change to the master plan At that point would it would be that would we amend the eir at that point to send it to if we were to If that was to happen, which I'm not saying it is you would amend the eir Just based around those changes, but you would pretty much Still maintain the majority of what all the the current eir that we have right? Is that correct? My thinking I think you'd most likely amend the master plan The eir analysis is complete as it is and the bulk of it hasn't changed. No new impacts have been identified But you could recommend changes to the master plan as a result of that analysis or you know the commission's discretion Okay, thanks. If I could clarify I don't think that what you recommend necessarily triggers right now any change to the eir Because the council would then have to act on that recommendation Now if they chose to adopt a recommendation that substantially changed The plan and what was assumed for the environmental impacts Then the council might have to consider whether the eir is Ready to certify in light of the changes that they might carry forward from your recommendation or they might decide it's fine I would also add that you know consider what's been studied within the outside parameters of the projects So lesser projects within the scope of the eir wouldn't necessarily trigger right so for example The original plan was proposing a 45 height 45 foot height limit for the landmark buildings And then the council later reduced that to a height of 40 But because that was in the maximum envelope that was already studied that didn't trigger a change in the eir Because it was like a reduction in the height But thank you for that clarification because we do have a bit of leeway to like give recommendations They're not like official council adopt them kind of as usual Thank you. All right. Well now I would like to take a deep breath and open the public I may have missed it, but is there any discussion of potential for employment uh opportunities given that we're talking about a large area increase and According to the description a an increase in the diversity and number of types of Establishments that are going to be out on the wharf. Is there is is there any Analysis that's been done on that. There was a preliminary economic analysis that was prepared in 2013 that largely looked at existing conditions and needs and opportunities Not so much quantifying the impacts of the The economic potential of the master plan. Okay, that's analysis that hasn't been done because we don't have a project to base it on really Yeah, I was thinking specifically in regard to employment just in terms of yeah, if the changes that are being proposed Right, so if it were a linear path and you propose an extra You know 30 of commercial uses It's probably 120 just assuming a linear, but it's not necessarily going to be you know, okay line with that Yeah, Sean almost Lanced over my first question that I had while I was writing all the other ones down It was brought to my attention and I don't know if this is true that with the gate signage that the entrance of that was in the original master plan um by the It was brought to my attention that the crane might not fit underneath the that Proposed the crane that is used for replacing the pilings. Has that been right about it? Yes, that's one of the things that we've identified in the Uh in the process of doing the Miramar retrofits. Uh was that Getting heavy equipment out there is a consideration that wasn't anticipated by the designers So in all likelihood, we'll take a look at this plan for the the structure We'll look at modifying it within its envelope And or reducing certain elements of it in order to provide that access Seems like important and important. Yeah, it's a very it's a it's an important one. It's definitely one of that You know, it just shows the all the details details. Yeah Thank you for that. I was wondering I just hadn't wasn't sure where we were with the Yeah, no, it can be worked within this plan with mod, you know, reasonable modifications But there'll be a public process for the sign as well. And so between the two We should have the opportunity to Accommodate that And we can keep the questions coming all night. So As a master plan is it's often just sketched in All right, so now I'd like to open the Forum for the public hearing I know some people came in a little bit after my opening comments But I wanted to welcome everybody to come speak. I'm going to limit public Comment tonight to two minutes Test did we get a request from anybody for additional time? Don't morph the wharf Jillian or I'm sorry. Sorry. I forgot your name how like in an ideal world how much time would you like? All right, I'll give you four Mm-hmm and the process here is come on up if you can and sign in on the side It's technically optional to state your name, but we do like to hear your name if you want to state it and Again, if someone has said your comment three times Might not be worth coming up just to say it over and over again Truly, I appreciate you all coming out in your opinions on these matters Good evening. Jillian green site and I'm representing the community group don't morph the wharf I'm also speaking For the two and a half thousand people who signed this petition After an op-ed in the Sentinel described the wharf master plan changes About which the community was unaware 400 people also added personal comments With urgent pleas for the city to keep the current character historic look and feel of the wharf I'm struck by the difference between the public process now underway for the redesign of the San Lorenzo park And the way the wharf master plan was developed For the San Lorenzo park the public is involved every step of the way And the design team is presenting several options that reflect public preference By contrast the wharf master plan was developed by a san francisco design firm With a one million dollar grant from the city via the commerce department and originally intended for wharf repairs The plan was presented as a fater comply And since then no matter how strong the public opposition little has changed A major fact needs stressing The and the attorney clarified but it needs stressing the court ordered that the 2020 wharf master plan and eir be rescinded That means cancelled What you were deciding on tonight is a new wharf master plan and a new eir It's a new game You can if you choose vote to remove change or cancel anything within the wharf master plan The historic preservation commission voted to remove the western walkway, which is alternative to part of their motion reads The proposed lengthy highly visible walkway would degrade the visual character of the wharf By introducing an appendage to the wharf that is incompatible with its original historical design The city concluded that alternative to is the environmental environmentally superior alternative that met all project objectives on this issue the court ruling stated quote Before an environmentally superior alternative may be rejected as infeasible The record must contain substantial evidence that the rejected alternative is truly infeasible end of quote Further in the court order that was based on the engineering report that was read by the court The comment was that all of the Preservation of the wharf could be achieved without the western walkway and the city has not Since that ruling presented any compelling evidence for the invisibility of alternative to This is not opinion. This is a careful examination of the facts In conclusion We would suggest as a positive step forward for approving a wharf master plan and EIR That we ask you support Or your support for the sander cruise bird club the sierra club And the historic preservation commission in voting to adopt alternative to thank you Thank you anybody else Hi, my name is john bombachi. I'm the most recently retired wharf supervisor so I've got 40 years of working experience out on the wharf and 62 years as a as a user of the wharf I caught my first fish out on the wharf when I was six years old So have a great deal of love and respect for the wharf and Spent a lot of time trying to preserve it And I just want to say that everything that is in this master plan was well thought through It took a great deal of of input from myself and the best engineers in the business And the western walkway is really an important integral part of this plan The idea here is to essentially Wrap the wharf that we have today In a cocoon More or less of new construction Now You say why do that? Well, it'll reduce the lateral movement Which is the biggest that dry rot and rust are the biggest enemies of the wharf It will reduce that lateral movement It'll provide more public space in doing so It'll provide a tremendous safety factor where firefighting is concerned and moving people in case of an emergency It our technology today for fasteners is so much better than what exists in the center of the wharf now That it would buy us Just so much time To do the necessary repairs to that structure That This is really just this is gold in terms of of a maintenance plan going forward a way to maintain the wharf's resilience Finish with that made a way to maintain the wharf's resilience into the the upcoming More difficult climate extremes that we're likely to see I mean Henry Bernier developed a magnificent structure But I want to say I've heard comment that that you know, we need to preserve this for Because this is the way Henry Bernier Designed it and I'll tell you that everything I know and have read about Henry Bernier He was a civil engineer his interest It was in building the best most resilient structure That he could imagine this was built as Santa Cruz finest wharf her Santa Cruz California's finest wharf and I can only imagine that he would agree wholeheartedly with his plan To preserve this structure into the future and this is the best way to do it And I cannot and I'll just offer that if you have any questions about maintenance over the last 40 years I'd be happy to answer My name is Alder Joaquino. I have enjoyed and admired the wharf for the past 24 years, which is how long I've lived in Santa Cruz and The aesthetic qualities are just going to be destroyed. But by what is being proposed Now this is a fine racing horse And what is being proposed is what they used to do in the Middle Ages To find horses they would wrap them in steel And as a consequence they would become overburden and incapable of performing the original function so Aesthetically, this is an abortion really Commercially it is maintained that one of the reasons to To build the additional walkways is to attract more people So that the wharf can make more money Well, this is like building a lot of Retail and service stores on the frontage of front street and then asking every newcomer to Take a walk on the levee You know If you if you if you want more business you don't put them at the rear facing the rear of the stores The wharf commerce is enhanced by having a concentration of people at the front end of the stores not at the back And then let me just answer One one thing about the belly aching that I've heard tonight about the public having delayed This project from going forward for four years That delay is caused by the inaptitude of the staff in this commission not you necessarily as individuals but the commission over time had The original the commission over time And the staff listened to the public comments early on They wouldn't have had three years of useless battle and over half a million dollars of expense to the city. Thank you I'm Andrea Rosenfeld. I was born and raised in Santa Cruz and I'm a part of north the wharf and I agree with Everything that Jillian spoke to you about and I'd just like to point out a few things that are important to me Um, the 40 foot building at the end of the wharf. I think is an abomination And at the meetings in 2016 or whenever it was and we discussed this previously They basically ignored all public comment about how much we were adamantly opposed To that level 45 or 40. It doesn't matter And he basically said The city representative basically said, oh, it'll give us more options for funding We won't necessarily do it But you know, it'll give us more options and we're like No, we don't want that And I'd like to ask all of you to go over to east cliff and look at the view Back at our wharf And imagine a white building That goes up beyond anything you can see on the wharf It'll start to cover lighthouse point and your view And originally they spoke about how the architectural integrity Of the wharf needed to be maintained because of the new plan and everything need to be congruent And yet they have the dolphin restaurant Which is low And next to it, they're willing to put a 40 or 45 foot building So at that time they're trying to sell us On the idea that they're trying to create, you know visual congruency And yet I don't know what they're going to do as a dolphin Maybe they'll get rid of it and build it again But the point is they were just trying to make their plan They didn't listen to us And I believe they're still not listening to us And I also did not like the fact that It's unclear. It was unclear what was going to be in that building. I believe it's going to be retail And I also Disagreed that we need a huge 20 or 40 foot building at the entrance to the wharf Which is also going to be like what do you do with that space? How many brochures can you fit in that space? How many People can you have in there promoting the the whale tours? How big of a building do you need at the front of our wharf to achieve that goal?  Thank you My name is John. It's true. I've been part of don't morph the wharf, but I'd like my permission Just as an individual to speak to the process here. No problem I was the CEO of a major corporation Major organization for 35 years So I know what's planning is about And I know what approvals of boards are about and commissions and city Councils so I would like to say this What is striking here? Is it the focus of staff has been all legalistic? The focus to the letter and the response to the letter was A legalistic was 70% legalistic That's not what this is about This is a public hearing about community views and about community values What is really telling about the planning here is not only what has been stated earlier that the Planners have not really listened to the public But if you look at the summary of project objectives There is nothing In this about preserving the historic value and the character of the iconic wharf In the interests of the community writ large Nothing you read the nine And it's about other things you would think that would be the top of the list So you've got what was driving this which was driven by staff And I say This should be reviewed and recalibrated to fit the community's interests and the character in integrity And fit to Santa Cruz should be at the top of the list Thank you very much Thank you. My name is Mark Traving. I grew up here And uh had a career in local government in Southern California I'll ignore that Uh despite the immense amount of time that's gone into this i'm concerned about the future of the wharf um, I I see um San Francisco in pier 39. I see Monterey and their And their cannery row and I'm sure they had immense development plans and so forth but in my opinion they they gave up a lot When they developed those uh their waterfront these are beloved waterfronts just described in fiction by jack london and steinbeck and so forth and to me they've put it on better instead of um You know putting in a lot of cheesy Retail and my opinion and and entertainment and so forth. They could have done better And Maybe they're successful from an economic development point of view. Maybe they bring in a lot more revenue but That's not the only value that comes from an iconic place like the wharf The community has lost so much in the last year, you know in the various wharves and cement ship and Big basin and so forth so many changes going on and like a developer that's very well respected and town told me The town you knew it is is not going to be here anymore. It's time for a big change.  I just ask you to give us something to hang on to And minimize the improvements such as the western walkway and so forth I think you'll all agree that you're you know that we're all happy that we didn't um develop lighthouse field Long ago and maybe it's one of those moments where in the future They'll you know, people will look back and say, well, it's so great that you know, we didn't morph the wharf um I just on the way here. I picked up a painting that's been in my Family for a long time the wharf painted by a local painter madge. Elliot in the 60s and and this is the view you see When you're done with the water, I looked at it surf and cows growing up and so forth and looking through there over over to the Great boardwalk and so forth.  But anyway, thank you very much for your time Thank you All right. Would anyone else like to speak? I will now then close the public hearing and I'd like to give staff an opportunity to respond to rebut to any public comment if they'd like to I would just uh go ahead You don't have to you can if you want. Okay. Um, I mean, I'm happy to answer any additional questions Concerning legal issues. I mean regarding the comment that the responses were overly legalistic. It's because the comments were asserting legal issues and legal flaws which warranted a response I would defer to Dave on any City didn't file the sequel lawsuit. Correct. For example I think the the only two comments I have are related to miss greensights commentary earlier First I would just uh note that the the petition that she held up the preamble and the rationale for it that are described in the The call to petition I guess is maybe what you'd call it Or specific to requiring an eir not to rejecting the plan It's not to say there weren't comments made uh to that effect But what the petition actually asked for was requiring an eir And that is what has been done And then the other was the statement that the the court said that there were alternatives to the western walkway You know what the court actually said was that there was no evidence that other things couldn't achieve the same goals So a lack of evidence does not say that there are alternatives Just says there was not evidence in the record to say that to disqualify those alternatives So, uh beyond that, I appreciate the public comment In the painting All right, so now I'll bring it back up to the commission for further questions a motion Comments speech making anything? Commissioner Conway Okay First of all, thank you everybody for coming I appreciate that And I want to thank um the city team the whole team um for the report and especially um For crafting the project objectives And thank you for having them up there that I think they do reflect the values and aspirations of our community And I myself am so excited about the possibilities in this plan Um it provides the opportunity to make our beloved wharf safer More focused on people instead of cars um and safe transportation And it provides the opportunity for viable and exciting businesses And also to protect the wharf making it better prepared to face the increasing stresses Brought on by climate change and I appreciate that Um but um we've been asked specifically uh to address the west side walkway Um and I'd like to initiate that discussion Um I had to chart out the pros and cons from all of the various information and I Read everything multiple times um and uh Uh As I weighed all the information um So here's where I end up The reasons to include the western walkway It expands public access in exciting ways by providing a new intimate connection with the bay on the windward side It provides an enhanced pedestrian environment Allowing walkers to circumnavigate the wharf and it adds Really needed ADA access to the water And also for the promenade It improves public safety in a number of ways Separating pedestrians and bikes from cars as well as emergency access um I guess I already said that um Enhances public safety through better emergency and fire response access And it expands fishing while eliminating conflict from the tailgate fishing while still leaving that responsible Or available I find the engineering report compelling and I won't quote at length here beyond uh saying um The western walkway will help our wharf withstand challenges of climate change And the commercial structures and operations on the wharf make it lively and vital The western walkway helps to protect them. We need vital businesses. That's why people go out there um And finally what I'd like to say is It's important to have a plan as soon as possible and because of that I move that the planning commission recommend that the city council adopt a The draft resolution to the city council of the city of santa cruz Certifying the final environmental impact report for the santa cruz wharf master plan And b the resolution of the city of uh council of the city of santa cruz adopting findings of fact And a mitigation monitoring and reporting program the for the revised wharf master plan And c the revised santa cruz wharf master plan as may be subject to modifications Considered by city council Thank you commissioner conway and do you have a second for that motion? Second Thank you. Let's move on to further discussion Um headed towards a vote um So with the rich guards, I mean to me, there's a few different things going on the western walkway is one of them I've been in discussion with a few members of the community some of john's uh ex-employer former employees I should say that still work for the wharf And they seem to I did not hear one of the people I talked to that currently are working for the wharf Be in favor of the western walkway I asked why um, they having their experience With repairing especially because the western side does receive the biggest brunt Of the logs when we do get the wood Coming out into the bay it wraps around the wharf and then comes back and kind of comes into the western side And I think from what I could understand i'm not having not the experience of of maintenance on that Tried to understand why they wouldn't be in favor of that aside from all the benefits that there is because I do see the the access and um, but it seems like safety concerns would be one of them, especially um, my my logical construction knowledge would seem to think if we are Attempting to protect if we know that we're going to be impacted on that side of the wharf I'm talking Not just you my friend Someone else is here. Um, so It's so to get back to that with the lower the lowering of it And bringing it down closer to the water. It seems like that we are going to be constantly repairing that Um, especially every year that we have an extreme weather event um To me, I'm wondering are we just kicking the can down the road by instead of repairing What would need to be repaired and I understand under the pilings underneath buildings are much I mean they can't be replaced, but they can be repaired from what I have understood um, so I just wondering if john if you're willing to address From your point of view why some of the people that work for the wharf That I spoke with are not in favor and why you would rebut that I want to say Based on The experience of what has happened to some of our landings in the past that are lower, right, but not that low Based on the construction of those landings, which was improper from the get-go Uh, you might arrive at that conclusion But a properly constructed west walkway would not have those issues I'm not going to say that there's never going to be damage there And there's not going to be times when you'll need to close that walkway for public safety. You will but There is such a thing as Sacrificial barrier Okay, so Would you have to repair that every year? Absolutely not Uh, the way it's going to be designed it will attenuate a lot of wave pressure um, and so it will essentially Flatten out a lot of waves that would otherwise hit that side with full impact um Right, so I that didn't sorry to cut you off But I the question I guess to for you exactly as I understand The idea of why it's there now and why we want it there, but my question is do you just To play the devil's advocate in your mind, why would Current I hear you're saying because of their experience with the other lower landings and the way that they were constructed And seeing what happens to them They would assume that that would would happen to this structure But because of the future like because of current technologies that maybe it would be lessened the damage would be lessened Absolutely, correct. That was the main. I was just trying to Understand from your perspective why you know that you would argue that our building technology is just so much better today I know I work at good traction. So I totally know I get it Um, thanks to simpson. Um, it's a good question. That was a big investment Yeah, and so my The the western wharf to me. I I can see I thanks julie for your Note your number by number because that just was very succinct and easily digestible like these are why this is why it's good um, my main thing was just the question that I had of like why people would be against it. I mean I've heard from The don't worth the work that there's bird Concerns and that's that's okay. Um I think that's a hard one because it's you're balancing a lot of you know, what you're you have to there's trade-offs The one thing on which I don't see the trade-off in Is the landmark building and I was on the 2020 Planning Commission and I definitely did not from I listened to the community at that time around the inclusion of the landmark building and I Would agree that I don't think it's really necessary in the in the massive plan that we're looking at now um, so You know, I think my views and I don't think anybody's views have really changed in the three years since then I don't see it as a tremendous loss when I'm looking at the the entirety of this project and I think having listened to the community on multiple levels, not just the don't don't worth the war folks, but just people in general walking my You know, I I have my wife worked on the wharf for Pretty much more than probably about half of her life, you know And so Everybody has this attachment and there is going to be some level of We're going to have to upgrade. We have to make it safer. We have to we want to save You know, we also want to save it. We want to be able to use it But at the same time we don't want to there's that balance of not wanting to just go completely in the other direction of Changing it to the point where we don't recognize our our historical you know place landmark so At this point, I mean I would be Wondering if there would be if I could make a motion to amend the motion on the floor to Remove the landmark building and if you would be amenable to that as a friendly amendment No Okay All right Yeah, thank you to City staff the public everybody for coming out tonight to look at this incredibly important local landmark I'll just start by saying that I share some of the concerns of Commissioner Maxwell. I share some of the concerns about the western walkway As well, but ultimately at the end of the day the way I see this is that the wharf is a financial drain on the city And if we want to continue to enjoy This particular landmark as it currently exists. We're going to need to make some changes to preserve it part of those preservations are going to be dealing with climate change and creating a barrier for said western walkway and I would much rather from a financial perspective from pretty much any perspective Repair a walkway rather than the wharf itself with the businesses on top of it So that would be an incredibly deep financial commitment. And so our options here are essentially to leave things as they are in many ways and to suffer the consequences of those choices or to as Member of the public said is to essentially Hakuna it as I heard it and so Doing that I think is the best move and At the end of the day If we can also while securing funding from various levels of government Enhance these project objectives and make the wharf a little bit more enjoyable for the people that want to go to it I think that is a win-win I do share the concerns about The landmark building and i'm just going to make a couple comments about that I think that the sea line viewing holes are an incredibly important local cultural spot I've been going to that since I was a kid I you know have taken my students there and I think it is one of the first places where Many kids specifically can connect Marine life to their own lives and so i'm incredibly protective of those particular Sea line holes even though they're originally fishing holes I get that but I have concerns about that and I would just like that to be noted. I don't want to move those at all I think they're fine the way they are and if that means changes to the landmark building that I think that that is the far less harmful alternative in my opinion my second comment would be around the entryway sign And my only concern about that is that the only sign that I can remember in my 40 years of living here was the one on river street That didn't go so well So I would like particular attention to be drawn to that particular piece of this project in the design phase Because to end up with another You know, I mean, I correct me if i'm wrong, but I believe that was a million dollar sign that we put there I hate that sign. I've hated that sign since it got put up And I don't want to look at another one of those and I doubt many members of the public do either.  I think it's a great project and um, I think the western walkway as Uh staff is looking for comments about it. I think it would be an awesome edition I do have a small thought that you know when I'm at elitus or at revas or at any of those places all I see other than Uh, the coast is railing and birds And if there's going to be a walkway directly below that point seems to me that a lot of people are gonna get pooped on So, um, I would consider that too in the walkway situation And I think i'm gonna hold my comments there. So thank you Great comments. Thank you I said one last question. Yeah, sure uh commissioner polhamas and your um comments of not moving the The viewing ports which I totally agree with and took my kids there. We've all I mean, I think that's For some reason those are like we could If that was it, but my question to you is You said that that you would be you would not want them to be moved at this point. Is that correct? that's my I mean the way I interpreted the staff report is that the language that's been put in the warf master plan has Basically said to either not move them or to move them to a place that is Enhanced or better I don't see You know, I mean and as I interpreted the answer to my question better would be according to public sentiment Right, right and I think that public sentiment is gonna be one of the strongest barriers to A bad plan on that. I think that I'm not the only person that feels this way I think we all probably feel this way about that particular landmark on the warf not so much So I hear you I'm not sure I'm willing to make a motion to eliminate the landmark building But I am I did want to put it in the record that I feel strongly about that and I would just send those thoughts on to council in my conversations with people I think that There's you know, pretty Pretty good awareness. I think this particular aspect of the project and I think that You know if it was proposed to cover those up, I would not want to be the person presenting that You might come up with some friendly language for an amendment to present. I don't know what others talk.  Can we bring that up by chance? Oh, there it is Sorry, it's late. It's good. Do I need to zoom in more? Yeah, you're Johnny on the spot with that for sure. Okay Any reserve to preserve Character of the warf has determined their community engagement So to the greatest extent possible or relocate to a place of greater access and viewing quality. There we go so One and I have some more comments if you want to think about it Yeah, I don't think I'm ready to start amending plan language right now. I think you know As I am reading this this I'm comfortable with this personally You know, I wish to the greatest extent possible was a little bit more definitive But at the same time we are really early in this plan And I would hate to pigeonhole the entire situation based on Um, what we know now, you know, maybe later down the line, there's a council that has to deal with someone foreseen structural issue or something like that and uh, or maybe a grant related issue and I'm not sure I'm ready to Um, narrow the focus of what's possible this early in the plan So I guess that would just be my comments Okay, think about it. We're gonna add things if you want to More discussion I believe that language accommodates whole range of solutions Including ones that we haven't even thought of And this is one of the things when you come up with a plan like this. We're creating all new kinds of opportunities for More interactions like that that are closer to the water that have peer. I'm just trying not to Put a new surround Any particular part of it? I'm agreeing with those points and also You know just pointing out that this is a plan. It's not a development project I think the city has made Uh, the most salient commitment that it can make in a plan and certainly understands that those are Beloved and Nobody wants to see him go And so I appreciate your comments about where we are in the process right now I should explain myself. I'm a vegetarian and I think I got poked by a fish hook there like at a young age So that's why I don't like them. I think they're great other than that. That's my own personal trial Just explain it So I wrote a lot. It was a ton of stuff to go through I mean I got quotes and footnotes and I'm kind of like deleting a lot of that having heard from a lot of other folks Um, so I have six points. I'll try to go quickly Some of the resistance to this plan just struck me as more Less true than normal and that really bugged me. There's just so many things that weren't true The wharf master plan is widely unpopular. I see the internet petition, but I think that represents one voice and I don't think it's a majority voice and I think of all the city council elections that have happened between 2014 and now and all those opportunities for people to vote in who they want democratically to appoint commissioners and speak so I don't buy it. I think that's a select voice and it's not a local voice. So I just wanted to state that That's enough on that negative topic One more beef is not believing the engineers we get a lot of this up here like somebody wrote That the walkway would be catapulted into the plate glass windows of the restaurants and like I work with engineers daily and that's crazy. You know, that's not going to happen So this is setting the table for the cutting edge technology to come to Santa Cruz obviously nobody's gonna Put in a railing that would harm anybody So that's all to come. This is just the master plan. So skipping it ahead and coming up with these With well not with respect with these disaster scenarios, we don't need to make up disaster scenarios It just happened on west cliff. We need to get that puppy in there before a storm comes on that magic angle And really wipes out our wharf is my opinion And again, we don't need to make those up. Those are here happening now in my opinion There's a twisting and like an intentional Weirdness around sequa and I just wanted to emphasize again that Uh, correct me if I'm wrong Sequa doesn't require us to pick the environmentally preferable option It just says if you don't you need to make sure the effects are mitigated and that's what I saw in 2016 I don't think anything has has changed there But there's this kind of tone with the don't morph the wharf folks of like well If you don't pick the most environment and that's just a misconception And I wish they would stop spreading those misconceptions. It's complicated enough as it is Uh, the birds so I really like have strong concern about the birds. I really do. Um When I read the staff report The response to the letter that came out this afternoon and they said essentially the analysis concludes that any potential impacts from human presence Will be offset by the expanded wharf and nesting areas available to birds After the expansion and therefore the impact is not significant that like hit it for me like Yeah, I make sense to me on some level that people are going to disrupt the birds but all those other new parts of the wharf like I want to suggest could be designed to be the most awesome bird habitat ever Potentially if we got a good federal grant for that kind of thing and there's precedent for that There's a big massive retaining wall that I know jillian will remember by the sea and sand in the The years ago that eucalyptus trees kept falling on the beach and stuff and you know We put in language when that project came that said I don't remember all the details You guys will put little spots there so the birds can live and you know, it's fine And it worked out great and I've never gone to see if there's birds there But we'll do all sorts of that stuff with these new projects and It might be better for the birds I do want to snarkly remind everyone of the beach bummer list and point out that see Birds nesting under the wharf is a lot of the reason we were on that You know Cal's beach is filthy lists for a long long time So much as I live birds and nesting. I want to be aware The impact that had on our local economy down to the people washing dishes at the well the Miramar is not there anymore Where my brother used to work for many years, so Well at the end I'll suggest a friendly amendment, but I wonder if we wanted to add words saying, you know Council, please address optimal seabird Nesting with the improvement something like that. I'd love to give council something to adopt that would address the concerns because they're Elected and they always have to like split the baby. So it'd be nice to have something that could get behind I'm into it. I think we should protect the birds and we should have that walkway there Okay, let me sum up Access the water is incredibly important for all Santa Cruzans like people. I know use the water all the time I really think those other access points that don't involve going across the beach will Like it says accessibility in particular make it incredibly More accessible on all levels to all people and I really appreciate that There's some comments like well the walkway will be a buzz with people Yes, that would be because so many people are using it to enjoy the bay that it's a buzz with people That's more than encouraged. Like that's why I love this plan. I want people on that walkway more people are better No, I had a joke there if it was the east side walkway, maybe it wouldn't Raised as much ire. Excuse me. I couldn't hold that one back Um, okay two more and these are the last ones like time keeps on ticking last master plan was 1980 As four years old at that point. It's been 43 years It's a long time ago, but that master plan worked and we got all those cool things like the outdoor stage I think was the result of that and the kind of um, italian american heritage boat I forget its name and marcella So, you know people just forget that you do a master plan and you get the money and you do the improvements But we do that all the time here and we just need to do it again While being respectful of the environment and the birds and all that stuff I mentioned it earlier. Think of the difference in thinking climate wise. Oh my god like 2014 It was like well one day zero will might be a problem literally and like here we are like Pulling boulders out of west cliff drive, you know, so I've always thought climate change is urgent. It's really urgent. Let's get this done Last and most positive, uh, we have this new transportation mentality You know, we're gonna build a thousand apartments on the deep west side in the next 10 to 200 years approximately and I hope those people are not coming down mission street and delaware I hope they're coming down the rail trail And I hope at that point when they get to the awesome roundabout Oh, incidentally also because we had shovel ready plans.  So I'm going to finish with my personal experience which was Hopping on one of the new B cycles To head down to a council members kickoff at vino wine bar And I see you and I appreciate all the work on the maintenance But holy god writing on that wharf on a little e-bike was terrifying You are not allowed to go on this on the the walkway reasonably So I tried that I broke the lie road right through those signs and you know 10 strollers later is like oh god, I'm going in the street and You've been there you all know when a car goes on one end of the big beam and your bike's on the other It's like a teeter totter and anyway, so um We need a ton of money to fix that for the next generation let alone of being knocked around by the waves and everything So that's why I'm in favor of this plan I'd like to ask if the maker of the motion would accept a friendly amendment to say that a bird nesting Optimal bird nesting shall be considered In the design of the new wharf areas Or you know if if legal has got any concerns with that, but just so we have some input and they can Not adopt it if it's an issue But we get so into this like oh we're having impacts. Let's let's do something positive and make it better out there Right and I think we could If the commission ops not to put language and we could make a suggestion to that effect The one caveat I would have is is with those Tifo, you know those tight restrictions from the coastal commission regarding work around bird nesting and stuff there is a risk of You know encouraging it to the point that it really impacts But perhaps there's a way to to focus that in certain areas or something I don't know but it certainly could be something that is considered Again with multiple benefits on projects Let's leave it there. I withdraw that request staff. You can talk to council about it or figure something out It's in there already like all over the place, but yeah, if we can highlight that a little more I feel that one. I'll look for something that gets to that I know we don't need a friendly amendment. Okay. I'm certainly comfortable with emphasizing the concern of the commission for bird bird nesting But I agree with you that coastal gives us an awful lot of parameters as it is and I can So let's not make it harder. So yeah, I appreciate it Yep Yeah, I just had a quick question. I'm not sure really sure who this is for One thing I've always wondered about the wharf is I don't see a lot of solar out there. Is there Is there a reason for that? Right?  Tiffany wise west our climate action manager I think her title is actually changed to a more even more proactive She was part of uh when she was finishing her phd She was part of a collaborative between the city and ucsc Called the green wharf and they did a couple of pilot installations of solar and wind energy out there and You know, well it did generate energy as expected the challenge of keeping it clean and uh the materials staying Robust against the salt and the wind and all of that Was problematic and for both of the devices However, as we look to new projects And the like the miramar as we look to rebuild the miramar site We're just challenged and we're still sort of exploring what the implications of new state regulations requiring onsite generation will be Because our understanding is that you know many new commercial projects are going to require energy produced onsite and so we're our architects are or the you know the architects of the the Business owner we're negotiating with are looking into that and trying to get to the bottom of you know What exactly is required? How do we achieve it? Is it something like enclosing a wind turbine in a in a safe space? Or is it looking at solar? Is it looking at tidal energy? It's all sort of A problem that we still have yet to solve But one that's coming up And we've had some initial conversations with the department energy looking at you know solutions They might have and consulting with some of their experts. So You know, hopefully we'll have a better idea, but there are challenges out there. Great. Thank you Based on my work experience is nearly certain That PV will be required on any type of building out there. I mean who knows things change There might be like a swing back, but Right now you could like get away with it. We'd have to spend a ton of money And if I remember right in 2014, there's a lot of concern just about structural support because like A lot of those buildings are like Bespoke, shall we say? Yeah, they'll let them rebuild a while. They were okay with that windmill, you know, there's a A vertical axis windmill experiment, but when we talked about PV if I remember right it was wind shearing coming off the roof, which is Now that's a reasonable engineer concerned, you know Also been discussion about if there's a way to like Centralize off-site somehow, but you know, it's it's all very nascent You know early early stage to figure it out, but it is it's going to be a challenge going forward Quick shout out to ross the former climate coordinator who is super concerned about that thing hitting seagulls For obvious reasons and at one of the hearings. He said it's only struck one seagull And the seagull was stunned and then flew away safely They like to stand on it. Sorry, that's John Do you want to come on up just so folks at home if anyone's still awake and hear you? I'm sorry now. I started so I worked real closely with tiffani wise west on the green wharf pretty much partners on that um And the solar just doesn't work out because salt schmutz seagull poo Corrosion it's just a tough environment and it's hard to get it Placed exactly right with all the roofs running east and west instead of north and south So there's a variety of factors why that why the solar really doesn't work out that well and the windmill my god I'm glad that we we tried the one small windmill because originally when ucs he came out Uh with a proposal it was for four That were four times that size And I just said They were going to put them on roofs and I said whoa, whoa, whoa, wait a minute. Let's Try one a little bit and see what happens and I'm glad I did because The design of that windmill created lift And we ended up having to shut it down in heavy weather events I mean when it should have really been cranking up it was trying to tear the roof off So basically it would lift and then the roof would rebound and it would lift and rebound and lift and rebound So that's so there are some issues if you do I'm I'm not saying that the wind won't work out there probably will but it needs to be mounted independently Thanks, it's it's always so good here from the maintenance folks when you're creating regulations That's the beauty of state energy law. They don't care. We're just gonna make you put it out there Whether or not it corrodes, but you're probably right All right, are we ready for vote any other questions? Yeah If we are getting ready for a vote, I just want to state on the record that um, As I said before I don't see this wharf master plan being I don't see the landmark building being an integral part of this plan And if it was to be voted on right now, I would definitely not be voting for it that being said I think it's a great plan Everything else. I think that it's a necessary to upgrade Uh, we've anybody who's we can go we should you know, everybody knows the state of the wharf how it is now And then definitely I don't think anybody here thinks it should stay the way it is Um pot holes and all so I just want to stay for the record, you know, I think uh, I hope I don't get to see that building While I live here Well, you can vote against it if you don't have quickly these things go there's these good odds. You'll be all right Uh, but didn't the sequel lawsuit kind of like settle the building thing? Yeah, the none of the and finally like done So what the court ruled was that the analysis of the potential historic resources impacts aesthetic impacts of basically all of the proposed components including the landmark building Uh That that finding of the eir that it would not have significant adverse impacts on those areas That that was not flawed So that issue cannot be Relitigated Doesn't mean that we can still make you guys couldn't make recommendations or that the council might decide something different There it's within their discretion since they don't currently have an approved plan They can change the plan And I would again just restate for the record that it is the outside parameters of what that building could be And you know based on uh, commissioner pohemus is uh awareness of the public process for really any project You know, if and when a project is proposed there, it could be quite different. Um than that proposal Well, I'd like to take a quick moment to uh think staff this is the first time I think we've talked to you But excellent report and uh, I love that speed powerpoint thing you did But uh, particularly turning I mean we got the the one letter like two days ago and then that response I love that quick turnaround I'm always hitting refresh, you know at four o'clock before meetings. Oh, yeah Thank you for turning that so quickly All right, let's have a vote Commissioner Conway hi Maxwell No mckelvey hi ohemus hi chair canady enthusiastic hi All right, so with that we'll move on to the rest of the agenda, which there's not much there if I remember it Yeah, we do have a busy month. It's exciting So staff do you have any informational items or should we talk about future schedule? Sure, I can um address a few items, uh, give you some updates on a couple items that you've you've heard And then get into schedule. Um the project at 9 25 river to the city council and uh, they approved it On october 10th, they added some conditions of approval Increasing step backs on the south and west elevation reducing the floor to ceiling height of the first floor by a foot And a little bit of detailing underneath the gable ends, but it it was approved Uh downtown amendments that you heard in What's that? Which one was that? I'm just a single family the large home. Oh, yeah On Windsor 95 Windsor. Yeah, Windsor. I'm sorry. I heard Oh, are they sorry? Yeah, he said 95 Windsor. Yeah, I went to that hearing at the council It was something else. I'm becoming an old and bitter planning commissioner when you show up at council Who we though the nimby's got them go So the the downtown amendments that you heard in september those were approved Um by council on october 24th. They they actually added some language uh requiring um, uh, that projects Non-residential projects a commercial project contribute five dollars per square foot That was a good idea above the base Height and that's both an additional height a and b And that would go into the affordable housing trust fund It knows that was council member Newsom who uh, yes So we're white and then he comes out with this great idea. I love it So we uh, we submitted those amendments to the coastal commission and we're optimistic They're going to hear it at their december meeting, which is the 13th to the 15th It's actually here in Santa Cruz at the dream end. So we're we're hoping it makes that agenda Um, and then uh, the senior housing facility at 126 eucalyptus that you heard about a year ago Um, it was appealed to council by both the applicant and a neighbor They approved it. It was appealed to coastal commission who found no substantial issue and then was litigated um, we just found out today that we've prevailed the city prevailed in court and the petitioner waived her right of appeal. So um, now the applicants are free to go ahead and Pursue building permits. Can I ask what the? Applicant appealed. Yeah, this is interesting. Was it a condition? It was yes It was a condition related to the affordable housing requirement. I see and how how did that go? Um, that that was upheld And then the neighbor's appeal was denied. I see There was a debate on which units were subject to our inclusionary requirements So what what did it unclear what if there's a kitchen or something like that? Yeah, the self-contained units was what staff had recommend We based it on based on definitions contained in the code and and I think there were 13 of those so it was 20% of that whatever the math comes out to and and the council upheld that so And then before we leave that after all that I met with neighbors and like the developer will pay for a killer Traffic calming device right there if they want to do something cool. That's not just a speed bump, you know So, um, just want to put that in your head and call email. I think clara was on that project Yes, I'll email you guys. This is like totally extracurricular, but I know that's hey If you're gonna put bullbats, it might as well like get some monarch butterfly or something on there and the neighbors Recycled on it too. So yep, maybe we can make that happen when it gets to plan Make sure you copy me. She's on maternity leave right now. So It's second time Awesome Public works probably will not do that on their own. So yeah, we'll need input from fire as well Nothing crazy, but you know just something more than a Upcoming schedule next meeting on the 16th. You have the housing element And then we Rescheduled the regular meeting of December 7th because of a conflict with Hanukkah and a city council policy To November 30th and at that meeting you're going to hear an appeal of a zoning administrator approval of a 40-unit housing project at 900 high street and And then we it looks like we do have items for the second meeting in December, which is the 21st FYI Well, let everyone know if people have you know plans are going to be gone those days But yeah Horm gets close some of these This Christmas is so weird this year That's all I have I just want you first is a terrible idea if we can possibly Nobody's gonna be fully on it at that point If it's like critical it has to go That's finals day for me We we what we have is a use permit for a fitness facility in Harvey West. There's a Hazard mitigation update by Tiffany and then potentially the hotel the downtown hotel would be on that agenda depending on How the coastal commission scheduling goes You might have a new council in January too, huh? Can I Eric I just wanted to say Never mind with this master plan process going on for so many years on the wharf I really appreciate you guys just being able to stick to it and execute all the things that you've accomplished, it's It's thankless when I appreciate your effort. Yeah, thank you. I'll Give all the credit to economic development. They've been really shouldering most of the load on that I talked to Dave today earlier to just to get some questions answered and he was fantastic Great. Appreciate it. Yeah, thank you That's right. Mr. 23. I'm thinking of a different thing here. Yeah march day to you. Never mind. It doesn't matter I was thinking of having a happy Christmas, but things are gonna need to go All right, so uh with that if we don't have any other updates We don't have any subcommittees. I will now adjourn this meeting. Thanks everybody. Thank you