| Time | Speaker | Text |
|---|---|---|
| 00:00:00.03 | Chair Petrovich | Meeting for the mission of specific plan steering committee and We've got a bunch of papers here on the front desk here. The agenda is in green and And we'll go through the formal stuff and first go to public comment on items done on the agenda, and then following that roundtable discussion, Kicking off following the the discussion that we cut short back on May 19th the last time that we met so we'll keep it at that since we have a small audience here and let's go through the call to order etc |
| 00:00:37.66 | Lily | Committee member Werner. |
| 00:00:39.70 | Chair Petrovich | Here. |
| 00:00:40.62 | Lily | Queenie Member Hunting? |
| 00:00:41.95 | Chair Petrovich | Thank you. Thank you. |
| 00:00:42.42 | Lily | Thank you. Committee Member Withy. Committee Member Theodorus. Present. |
| 00:00:45.83 | Mr. Carvazzi/Gravacci | Oh, my God. |
| 00:00:45.85 | Chair Petrovich | Present. |
| 00:00:46.86 | Lily | Vice Chair Kelly? Here. Chair Petrovich? |
| 00:00:47.96 | Chair Petrovich | here. |
| 00:00:49.74 | Lily | Here. Noting that committee member Badger is absent as of right now, but is expected a little bit later. |
| 00:00:59.11 | Chair Petrovich | Item number two, approval of the agenda. So moved. |
| 00:01:04.88 | Leon | Second. |
| 00:01:06.96 | Chair Petrovich | All in favour say aye. Aye. |
| 00:01:09.76 | Leon | I |
| 00:01:12.32 | Chair Petrovich | Okay, so the agenda is approved. Let's move on to number three, public comments on items not on the agenda. There will be an opportunity to ask questions on items on the agenda as we get to them. Mr. Carvazzi, please step up and state your name. We have about three minutes for each. |
| 00:01:33.45 | Mr. Carvazzi/Gravacci | Thank you. because the off-site improvement costs related to infrastructure development may represent the function of the universe unless they can intensify some of the land uses. So I would like to urge you to request from your consultant recommendations as to how the, what degree the current zoning is feasible to make those land uses feasible for the development. |
| 00:02:28.43 | Chair Petrovich | Thank you, Mr. Gravacci. Anybody else? Okay, thank you. We'll move on then to number four. And I believe we're going to have a presentation from staff, a couple of presentations from staff to kick this off. |
| 00:02:45.32 | Lily | Thank you. So at your last steering committee meeting, you wrapped up the meeting discussing different land uses that should be encouraged or are appropriate in the waterfront zone in the Marin ship. And I put the list that you came up with on the screen here. We also – staff got direction to publicize this list on the open city hall website and elicit some community and citizen participation on this list. And so we did that after your meeting, and we gathered those results last week. This was just the Open City Hall website there. We asked community members to take a look at the list and check the boxes of the uses that they felt like were appropriate in the waterfront zone and the marineship. And then we also asked them to suggest other uses that may be appropriate or provide other general comments. So we had 119 people visit the site, and 47 folks took the time to provide some comment. The most popular, as you can see on the screen here, were waterfront access, small boat tie-up, water recreation, and boating schools. Then following that were marine research, visitor boats high up, boat repair services, boat building, recreational fishing, and harbors. The least popular use on your draft list was retail. That only gained 46 percent of the respondents' votes. And you should note that retail was on your maybe list of uses that might be appropriate |
| 00:04:23.82 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 00:04:23.86 | Unknown | Bye. |
| 00:04:23.97 | Unknown | your draft. |
| 00:04:40.31 | Lily | notable was that recreational fishing was also on your maybe list, and marine transportation. I've put a little asterisk next to those three uses there. And then community members also provided suggestions for other uses that should be on the list of uses that are appropriate in the waterfront zone. Among the most popular were inexpensive restaurants and cafes, artist studios, live aboards, a recreational park, and low-income housing. There was a couple of respondents who said low-density, low-income housing, and then I think one that said low-income housing that's high-density. So I put them all in the same category of low-income housing. And then there was a variety of other suggested uses. And then we also received some general comments |
| 00:05:35.64 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 00:05:40.06 | Lily | . on the open city hall website and those are available for the public and the committee members to review. |
| 00:05:47.29 | Ray | Lily, before you proceed, could you... go back a couple of slides to the lists, the partial list or the lists of this committee. Yeah, that one. Of the ones that are in the first, the large amount in the first block there, rather than the three... down below. How many of those off the top of your head would you say are not currently allowed uses in the W zone? |
| 00:06:27.80 | Ray | If any. |
| 00:06:29.08 | Leon | Yeah. |
| 00:06:31.78 | Unknown | Aquaculture. Houseboats as well. |
| 00:06:40.44 | Chair Petrovich | Thank you. |
| 00:06:46.63 | Chair Petrovich | Marine Research on the use list. |
| 00:06:49.32 | Lily | If I had to guess, I'd say yes, but I would want to look at the specific plan. |
| 00:06:54.16 | Unknown | Sorry, I didn't mean to put you on the spot there, but I just thought of that. |
| 00:06:55.43 | Lily | Thank you. Yeah, the majority of them are allowed. Mm-hmm. And I'm actually finished with my overview. So I'm available for other questions. |
| 00:07:13.74 | Ray | Okay, well, I realize you won't be able to answer this one. The obvious, the crawlery of that question, of my first question is, what uses are allowed that are not on the list? And that's a much harder question to answer because it's, you know, But is there anything that stands out that we currently have in our W zone that is... |
| 00:07:38.73 | Lily | If you give me a minute to get out the plan, right? |
| 00:07:40.62 | Ray | And maybe that's not something we can even address tonight. But again, |
| 00:07:44.33 | Chair Petrovich | Thank you. Thank you. |
| 00:07:44.46 | Lily | Thank you. |
| 00:07:48.53 | Chair Petrovich | Go ahead. Turn on your mic, Leon. Thank you. |
| 00:07:54.03 | Leon | Thank you. |
| 00:07:54.19 | Chair Petrovich | Thank you. |
| 00:07:54.25 | Leon | Thank you. |
| 00:07:54.30 | Chair Petrovich | Thank you. |
| 00:07:57.32 | Leon | Because there are so many offices down there, I think that there's a real mix of activities in those that perhaps have not been specified in reports. In other words, the activities... Take 3030 Bridgeway, for example, and you'll find a lot of different types of activities in that. |
| 00:08:21.71 | Unknown | and guys up. |
| 00:08:23.23 | Chair Petrovich | We're talking about the W zone only here. |
| 00:08:23.28 | Leon | We're talking about the W zone only here. |
| 00:08:24.96 | Unknown | Yeah. |
| 00:08:25.20 | Chair Petrovich | Thank you. |
| 00:08:29.79 | Chair Petrovich | Do any committee members have anything to sort of add to Ray's question or feedback for it? I mean, I think it's a very interesting question. I don't know. Ray, did you have anything in mind, or was it a totally open question? No. It was. |
| 00:08:40.66 | Ray | No, it was one of those annoyingly open questions in which I have absolutely no hidden agenda whatsoever. |
| 00:08:43.24 | Chair Petrovich | Really? No hidden in the center? Absolutely no. Amazing. |
| 00:09:00.65 | Chair Petrovich | Mike, do you have the list there? Is there something you think you might be able to share? |
| 00:09:03.86 | Mike | Thank you. Well, it's just the Bridge of Pacific Hand, and it shows rather |
| 00:09:18.07 | Mike | It shows uses like business commercial service, marine commercial service, restaurant in some areas, food service in some areas. Um, storage, applied arts in almost every area. So there's a mixed bag of things. My memory of reading the Marinership-specific plan is such that when you look at the ancillary uses, they are more or less meant to be complementary to the... |
| 00:09:52.72 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 00:09:58.86 | Mike | the water uses in the original. So but they're there. And of course they've been expanded over time. Ingenious folks. Yeah. The poll will remain late. |
| 00:10:21.35 | Chair Petrovich | Bill, do you have anything to add from your looking at that list? |
| 00:10:25.01 | Bill | No, not really. Thank you. |
| 00:10:31.14 | Bill | But for one thing, I think that's even clear from the |
| 00:10:34.45 | Chair Petrovich | Can you take your microphone? Sorry. |
| 00:10:36.03 | Bill | It's even clearer from the respondents that housing certainly isn't high on anybody's list. Of any kind. Right. |
| 00:11:01.60 | Chair Petrovich | Okay, I think we can come back to this later and when we get to a little bit more detail discussion. We have another presentation from staff. Let's move on to that. Mr. Goldman. |
| 00:11:20.21 | Jonathon Goldman | Hello. Hello. Hello. |
| 00:11:29.02 | Jonathon Goldman | and offensive. |
| 00:11:34.61 | Jonathon Goldman | uh... johnson goldman city uh... despite the both of the long time between your last meeting tonight uh... i'm sure that i wasn't all of the infrastructure $5 billion cost estimate for replacement of all the infrastructure. But what I did try to do is provide some map, some depiction of some of the issues that have been raised or questions that have been asked. I've printed out copies of the PowerPoint that you have and made a couple available to the audience. And I really will just kind of fly through them and try and explain what, at least what I intended to depict. And if you have questions about specific mapping, actually, and I've also printed some of them out Thank you. And if you have questions about specific mapping, actually, and I also printed some of them out. If you have questions, just feel free to let me know. As some of you, perhaps all of you, are aware, FEMA is in the process of revising the flood insurance rate map for Sausalito. So the current effective flood insurance rate map is some here that was a two thousand nine foot plane over photograph there are some other depictions of that from famous website for example this isn't necessarily particularly important except in the context of what is proposed to change with the map, I think, that's currently scheduled to become effective in September of this year. So I thought I'd just try and show those differences and then this kind of leads into a discussion of sea level rise there, so to try to provide some mapping for. |
| 00:12:06.84 | Unknown | THE FAMILY. |
| 00:12:07.21 | Unknown | Thank you. Thank you. |
| 00:13:48.39 | Jonathon Goldman | there are well i'll just go to the these elevation contours which really i think not only convey information about the the extent of the area of special flood hazard now and the area that will be an area of special flood hazard later this year from a regulatory perspective. but also sea level rise. So this map is 2011 aerial photo with elevation contours on it. The elevation contours that are 10 feet above the dam and lower are are highlighted here. So you can see this is generally consistent with the existing flood insurance, special flood hazard area. You add a foot to address essentially what is expected or projected by BCDC and some other state agency that |
| 00:14:39.76 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 00:14:53.24 | Jonathon Goldman | did a study to try and estimate what the effects of sea level rise would be over the next close to 100 years. So I think 2050 is where they're talking about 16 inches. So what I've done is just identified all the elevation contours that are 11 feet and lower, and that's an approximation for that area. and then twenty one hundred there's a fifty five inch it's hard to see in this life this concert data set comes all the way across bridgeway bridgeway almost certainly the entire length of the of the ranch so ninety less than ninety years from now the expectation from a land use planning perspective that we'll want to work from is that the regulatory floodplain will come all the way across Bridgeway and that the definition of the regulatory floodplain is the expectation that with a 1 percent chance every year you'll have a foot or more of water in your on your property is kind of the point there. I also used MarinMap and the city's geographic information system just to try and identify in gross terms the alignments of the storm drain facilities that are mapped here. It's not clear from that information. Um, |
| 00:16:22.93 | Mr. Carvazzi/Gravacci | Mm-hmm. |
| 00:16:24.30 | Jonathon Goldman | whether these are all public facilities or some private facilities. And there's been a lot of – let's just put it this way. There's a lot of fuzziness associated with some of those lines. As an example, I can think of one circumstance that the city manager and I spent a fair amount of time on where an easement was granted to the city by the ore assets administration in 1948 for the purpose of constructing a storm drain. There is a storm drain there now, but the city also vacated its easement, but the assessor's office still shows it as a public easement. So it would take a significant amount of work for someone to figure out who's responsible for maintaining that storm drain. Thank you. Yes. |
| 00:17:23.68 | Jonathon Goldman | Yes. My guess is, without looking in detail, that there are some segments of the system that might run in a tight line for a while and then daylight into a natural swale or an overland water course and then go back underground into pipes. I tried to show the same thing with different color selection with respect to sanitary sewer I threw this zoning map up and again I see that Lily has plotted it. One of the important things in it, it's difficult if I could make the shading in these zoning polygons transparent it would be helpful because to the extent that there are public rights of way, they aren't zoned. So they show up as white alignments. Bridgeway is public right of way. You can see some road segments in the Marin ship that are not zoned, which means they're public right of way. And yet connecting the dots between where we know there's a road, and Gate 5 Road all the way out to Bridgeway up here is a good example. The public right-of-way portion ends at very close to Heat Ceramics or Coloma, and the rest of Gate 5 Road is private. Same as the case, if you're familiar with this whole alignment that we heard a presentation from the Corps of Engineers at the City Council meeting. last meeting about. That's not a public road. I mean, it is public in that half of it's owned by the federal government, but it's not a publicly city-maintained road. So there's a lot of what appears to be public right-of-way in the marineship that really isn't. And that creates a fascinating set of |
| 00:19:16.73 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 00:19:16.80 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 00:19:16.90 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 00:19:22.89 | Jonathon Goldman | Amen. conundrums with respect to liability and maintenance and things like that. As Mr. Huff will remind us, it's a huge disincentive for infrastructure improvements to be created because what private property owner is going to be particularly interested in improving their piece of street when none of their neighbors are? pieces of storm drain. I also have a map here depicting fire hydrants, and to the best of my knowledge, these are all Publicly owned. |
| 00:20:07.79 | Jonathon Goldman | So that's all I managed to throw together, and I'm happy to answer questions about any of it. you would like. |
| 00:20:15.72 | Chair Petrovich | Thanks for throwing that together. Question I have, the public right away situation, the marineship, and how does that happen? That it's so broken up like that, and discontinued to us. What's the history and background? |
| 00:20:33.37 | Jonathon Goldman | How did it happen? Because hopefully we would never do that again. We rational thinking individuals I'm speculating that it happened Thank you. because the war ended and the War Assets Administration is like we don't need this shipyard anymore, we're out of here, and identified engineer who at one time was also the city engineer for the city of Sausalito named Oglesby. And his job was to prepare the maps and make the arrangements for transferring ownership of the property. And for whatever reason, He wasn't focused on some of the issues that we're dealing with right now. Or there may have been, I would expect, a lot of political pressure at that point in time for individuals who had had tidelands and submerged lands before the shipyard was built and wanted to have as much of the now out of the water property as they possibly could. So I'm sure there was a lot of Um... Thank you. political negotiating going on, but it is what it is. The War Assets Administration divested itself of almost all of the marineship, and it got chopped up the way it's chopped up now. |
| 00:21:57.75 | Chair Petrovich | Even on something like Gate 5 Road where there's just so many dead ends. It's just, I can't. |
| 00:22:03.35 | Jonathon Goldman | You can't explain. Hopefully 70 years from now people don't look at my work and ask that kind of question. |
| 00:22:03.40 | Chair Petrovich | You can't explain it. |
| 00:22:09.24 | Unknown | Yeah. |
| 00:22:13.34 | Jonathon Goldman | Go ahead. |
| 00:22:13.68 | Unknown | it. |
| 00:22:13.75 | Jonathon Goldman | Yeah. |
| 00:22:13.97 | Leon | Thank you. Then are the private roadways granted easements for the city, or are they strictly private roadways that could be toll roads if the private parties decided to make them that, or could they be blocked off? with the city having no say in the matter except perhaps for emergency purposes. |
| 00:22:39.60 | Jonathon Goldman | Thank you. |
| 00:22:39.63 | Leon | Thank you. |
| 00:22:39.65 | Jonathon Goldman | I'm not going to answer all of that question because I'm not qualified. But it's certainly true that there's a disconnect between what we see when we walk or drive there and the legal realities associated with with what's there. There are easements. They tend, in my experience, to be for public utilities. The section of Gate 5 Road, for example, that is private, that has Um, City of Sausalito as well as Sausalito Marin City Sanitary District facilities vicinity of it, those are in easements. There are storm drain easements and the Coloma storm drain outfall on channel is another good example. But I have not seen recorded public access easements over those streets and roads. So we could certainly do some more research, and one of the suggestions that that we had had before this steering committee started meeting is that some kind of discussion on the law associated with right-of-way and public access and things like that might be valuable to the steering committee, but it wouldn't be coming from me. |
| 00:24:11.45 | Mike | I think it's true that public agencies, the federal government, the state of California, the cities and counties, you can't get a prescriptive easement by driving over their land. I think that's true. So in other words, the use of it is always subject to their prerogative. I know that's true of the federal government. |
| 00:24:35.21 | Unknown | and I'll see you next time. you |
| 00:24:35.60 | Mike | Yeah. |
| 00:24:44.83 | Jonathon Goldman | Just as an aside, one of the terms of art that came up in one of the matters that I think is probably still in litigation involving this kind of issue is dominion and control. And I don't know what the law is. on any of this. |
| 00:25:02.41 | Leon | Do you know if we're paying taxes that cover those roadways? We, the city? |
| 00:25:07.74 | Jonathon Goldman | you |
| 00:25:07.98 | Leon | Thank you. |
| 00:25:08.03 | Jonathon Goldman | The city is not paying taxes that cover those roadways. And I doubt that... residents of Sausalito are paying taxes, accept federal taxes to the extent that that the Corps of Engineers or the federal government, the VA, have any responsibility. But... I think if we were, if people were, they wouldn't be private. |
| 00:25:42.07 | Jonathon Goldman | Okay. |
| 00:25:44.94 | Mike | Very well. |
| 00:25:47.60 | Chair Petrovich | Yeah. Sure. |
| 00:25:55.20 | Bruce Hough | I swear I wasn't gonna speak again. But I'm Bruce Hough. As far as who pays taxes on the roadways, it's the property owners who pay taxes on a roadway. So whether they're residents or not, doesn't make any difference, we pay taxes because In the Southern Marin ship, And I don't know if Gate 5 is involved with this or not, but certainly Earn Shipway and Liberty Shipway is all involved with this. Property owners own to the middle of the street. So we pay taxes. on that portion of the property. the as far as public access is concerned, There are Anything that was developed in the 80s such as Schoonemaker Marina And 28 and 30 Liberty Shipway. were required to provide or were required to dedicate public access on their portion of the roadways. So most of the roadways in the southern portion of the half of the roadway has public access, the other half does not. Now, what the law says about us putting up a gate, charging tolls, I'm not sure, but it's a fascinating concept. I like it. |
| 00:27:11.30 | Unknown | Sure. |
| 00:27:13.65 | Bruce Hough | Thank you. |
| 00:27:13.70 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 00:27:15.15 | Bruce Hough | We dedicated the Easter Bee ramp to the city, the city accepted dedication. That's the first time the city ever accepted dedication. to a public roadway. The only other thing I'll say is to cost, and I've heard this discussion and we had kind of had a sidelight of this discussion at City Council. Improvement districts that are created to provide public infrastructure, and then dedicate them to the city the improvements are paid for by the property owners. not the city. The city does and certainly would under anything we were involved with have to accept dedication to that and then provide ongoing maintenance and liability for those improvements. So it's in the Southern Marin ship, The property owners own, unless they own the entire roadway like you find in front of Marina Plaza, they own to the center line of the roadway. and they do pay taxes on it. Probably minor. And after hearing Mr. Goldman's sea level rise thing, I think we should put our properties for sale. |
| 00:28:32.17 | Unknown | Ha ha ha. |
| 00:28:32.18 | Bruce Hough | Thank you. Bail out. |
| 00:28:33.03 | Bill | Yeah. Bruce, before you go, I have a question to the chair, please. Did the city ever accept the dedication of the bike path? No, that's a very- 28, 830. |
| 00:28:48.65 | Bruce Hough | No, that's a very... |
| 00:28:50.60 | Bill | Thank you. |
| 00:28:50.61 | Bruce Hough | That's a very strange thing and I've talked to our attorneys about that too. It's the city required eight. offer of dedication to the city for all the bike paths that we built when we did Scudermaker Marina, which included everything from The marina all the way around 28 and 30 Liberty Shipway, in front of 10 Liberty Shipway up to Burkow. And then they, intentionally refuse to accept dedication to it. and our attorneys are kind of a mixed mind of it in the fact that the actual offer is defeatable. but we don't want to defeat it anyway because it's a bike path. The real issue is not whether it's public access, because it's definitely public access. The real issue is maintenance and liability. and it was never ever spelled out. And I did the easement, so I know. It was never spelled out or required by the city attorney of who accepted Either... the maintenance or the liability of those bike paths. So that's kind of a disputable issue at this point. But the city required an offer of dedication, but they intentionally did not accept that offer of dedication. |
| 00:30:15.02 | Mike | Thank you. |
| 00:30:15.04 | Bruce Hough | Why? Well, you'd have to ask Mr. Mitchell and... |
| 00:30:16.56 | Mike | to speak to me. |
| 00:30:21.52 | Bruce Hough | who was on city council at the time, but I think the thinking was that they were trying to Um, They were trying to provide for public access without taking any responsibility for liability or for maintenance. That's the only thing I can think of. Now, when we did 2830 Liberty Shipway, we kind of re-aligned the bike path up at the foot of Spring Street there, or Easterby. And the... |
| 00:30:38.65 | Unknown | maintenance. |
| 00:30:57.31 | Bruce Hough | The only thing the city required at that point was simply a redefinition of the easement. They never required some definition in there. And it's always kind of bugged me Because I look at that bike path, and the bike path's getting a little bumpy because the trees are growing up, and it's getting, you know. So who does it? I don't know. |
| 00:31:18.37 | Bill | Amen. I know it bugs you. That's why I asked you the question. You also said that the Easterby ramp was dedicated to the city and they accepted that dedication? Oh, yeah. So from Ridgeway down to where it hits the ramp? |
| 00:31:27.87 | Bruce Hough | Oh yeah. |
| 00:31:35.18 | Bruce Hough | Center law to the center line of liberty shit. Thank you. |
| 00:31:39.21 | Bill | Okay. |
| 00:31:39.50 | Bruce Hough | the sidewalk the uh... retaining wall The street, that entire easement, that was the first time that the city that we pre-agreed that they would accept that dedication. So that is a public portion. |
| 00:31:53.40 | Chair Petrovich | Is that indicated on the map? |
| 00:31:54.82 | Bruce Hough | Yes. |
| 00:31:54.97 | Bill | No, it's not. It doesn't show up here, but it's okay. |
| 00:31:55.06 | Chair Petrovich | Thank you. |
| 00:31:59.09 | Bruce Hough | Well, but that, it's a short section, but it's a section that when Gordon Sweeney, who was a city engineer at that time, when we came to an agreement as to what our mitigation was and we put that ramp in and we rebuilt that ramp, widened it, the agreement was that the city would accept, and they did accept. So that's the only portion that they required a dedication on that they did accept. |
| 00:32:00.27 | Unknown | Yeah. Thank you. |
| 00:32:27.64 | Bruce Hough | So thank you. |
| 00:32:28.38 | Chair Petrovich | Okay, thank you, Bruce. All right, so there may be some more questions, but we can take that offline. I think we kind of need to – thank you, Jonathan. Let's keep on moving here. I think we need to kind of get in more into some discussion and kind of pick up where we left off. The last time we met and where we – More or less focusing on If my memory serves me correctly, we were leading off with a discussion around, well, I guess around the working waterfront, around the marine rails specifically, and then the waterfront use in general as sort of the most important topic to flesh out as part of getting more into some details and specifics. And I guess before we kind of pick that back up and I think what we really need to do, I want to remind everybody again here that we are getting in some good discussion, but ultimately we need to get to a point where we can bring our consultants back into the discussion, give them specific direction on what to do with their report, and be able to present that. So that's hopefully something that we're able to get to tonight, at least in as specific a form as we can get into at least to be able to get something to draft that we can consider and start to hopefully move forward with so that's kind of how I want to lay out the goal for it this evening is getting to recommendations for the to bring the consultants back in to work on and get in their plan Thank you. will lay out the goal for it this evening is getting to recommendations to bring the consultants back in to work on and get in their plan. Any comments on that plan, Mike or anybody else? Sounds right to me. |
| 00:34:26.53 | Mike | Thank you. |
| 00:34:26.54 | Chair Petrovich | Thank you. |
| 00:34:26.70 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 00:34:26.71 | Mike | Thank you. |
| 00:34:27.57 | Chair Petrovich | Okay. So let's see. So where were we? We were at... You know, we focused on the waterfront uses, and I think that became, as my memory serves me, that became part of a broader discussion around the marine rails. And so what are the things that are sort of critical for us as a committee in this, I guess what we're still calling the W-Zone? Yeah. Thank you. Thank you. |
| 00:34:59.11 | Leon | I think we've made progress. I think we're really trying hard to find a future for the project. But what I'm not finding is a sit-down discussion with the property owners. Let's take Joe Lemon because he owns the Rails property. And Joe hasn't attended any of the meetings. Thank you. In my mind, if that's an important issue, I think someone should sit down with them One person or more from the committee should sit down with him and discuss the issue and get into specifics. Discuss the issue around? I think around, I don't want to speak for someone else, but I think, |
| 00:35:43.43 | Chair Petrovich | There's a discuss issue around |
| 00:35:53.55 | Leon | go directly to the issue. What is it that we want out of this? You know, what we're looking at? and find out from Joe what is he looking, what are his plans for that property? and how can we work toward making something work for both the city and Joe that is going to reach a positive kind of picture for the future. |
| 00:36:11.49 | Chair Petrovich | Mm-hmm. |
| 00:36:18.22 | Chair Petrovich | So the question, I guess the first question I would have around that is that is this the right order of things? You know, is it jumping ahead to get that engaged with one specific property owner before really looking at, what we'd like to recommend happen to the whole Marinship area, starting with the W zone specifically as being the more sensitive topic, the I-Zones perhaps being, at least in my view, less sensitive topics. So is it the right timing for that? Well, two points on that. That's a good question to anybody, not just a person. |
| 00:36:52.75 | Leon | Well, two points on that. One, I thought that in your introduction you were saying that, because I missed the last meeting, that the group was looking at moving in a specific direction toward the rails. And that was kind of a focal point. I don't necessarily agree with that. But what I'm saying, |
| 00:37:01.96 | Chair Petrovich | Thank you. |
| 00:37:02.11 | Unknown | All right. |
| 00:37:19.31 | Unknown | What do you do? |
| 00:37:22.77 | Leon | If we're talking specifics, then we need to go sit down with the property owners. And quite frankly, I think if we're talking about the waterfront as we are, |
| 00:37:29.16 | Unknown | Uh-huh. |
| 00:37:34.60 | Unknown | Thank you. Uh-huh. |
| 00:37:34.97 | Leon | I would concur with the Uh... the Uses that I saw, I think those are all good positive uses. So then we have our map. and we sit down, and not every, I don't think every property owner needs to be necessarily approach. Some have been here, some have been in the meetings, but I think that we definitely need to pay attention to what's happening on the other side. I don't think that we can just mandate. We just heard from Bruce. I agree. We just found out we could have a toll road. |
| 00:38:10.85 | Mr. Carvazzi/Gravacci | ROOSE. |
| 00:38:11.76 | Chair Petrovich | Yeah. |
| 00:38:14.76 | Leon | So who are we to say what's going to go on? |
| 00:38:16.08 | Chair Petrovich | All right. to say what's going to go on. All of a sudden, toll rolls are going to be popping up everywhere now. |
| 00:38:20.87 | Leon | Yeah, yeah. I think what we have to do is, and I'll go back to what I said early on, |
| 00:38:20.89 | Chair Petrovich | Thank you. |
| 00:38:27.87 | Leon | We have to paint a picture. Thank you. |
| 00:38:30.12 | Unknown | Mm-hmm. |
| 00:38:30.45 | Leon | And you know, we're gonna, We're thinking we have the whole spectrum of colors. Well, we don't. You know, we have a limited number of colors for painting that picture. maybe the property owner has some other colors So maybe the picture should be painted with as many of the colors as possible. That's a work for everybody. |
| 00:38:52.58 | Chair Petrovich | Does it work for everybody? How do we achieve the result that we're looking for? Yes, that's right. I think that you weren't here the last meeting. I think how I saw things play out, |
| 00:38:56.88 | Leon | Yes, that's right. |
| 00:39:06.06 | Chair Petrovich | with respect to the marine rails is that, of course, it's a sensitive topic for a number of members of the public, some members of the committee as well. From my take on it was that, you know, as a community, we all agree that, you know, we see some important, I guess, historic value, character value, just all slid around the marine rails. But they're not the only reason why we're sitting here on a committee. And we like them. We'd like them to be able to stay, but I don't think our job is to just focus on that one thing. Otherwise, we've ignored 95% of what we're here to do. |
| 00:39:40.60 | Leon | Thank you. |
| 00:39:40.62 | Bill | I agree with you. |
| 00:39:41.51 | Chair Petrovich | Thank you. |
| 00:39:42.36 | Bill | Thank you. That's absolutely right. And I think I've said it a number of times, we have to separate the marine rails from... |
| 00:39:43.52 | Chair Petrovich | That's up. |
| 00:39:50.32 | Bill | the whole issue of the working waterfront. It seems to me that the marine rails can be protected. in in a serious way by proceeding with the the issue of the historic national monument issue on those rails specifically. not part of a whole shotgun approach to the Marineship in total, but specifically to those looking at them exactly the same way an actual monument looked at the cable cars in San Francisco. |
| 00:40:19.25 | Unknown | IN |
| 00:40:28.09 | Bill | They are a working community. Um, piece of historic value. But does it exist on private property? |
| 00:40:38.16 | Chair Petrovich | But it exists in France. |
| 00:40:40.97 | Bill | They were not. No, that's part of the problem. Frankly, I think sitting down with Joe Lemon will get us nowhere because that's not our job. Our job is to fashion zoning ordinances uses and direction. |
| 00:40:58.75 | Unknown | zoning |
| 00:41:03.32 | Bill | if possible, not to sit there and ask the property owners what they want. We know what the property owners want. No, I don't. Well, Joe Lemon has been to the Planning Commission and a number of places with proposals |
| 00:41:13.28 | Unknown | No, I don't. No, don't. |
| 00:41:21.33 | Bill | one after the other. They've been seen, they've been heard, they've died, or they've come back, or whatever they've done. And so You know, it's not... There have been successful developments in the marine ship using the specific plans. whether they have skirted the plan or not is sort of not relevant. There are successful developments. THEIR PARTICULAR Thank you. useful expenditures of property owners' monies in order to improve roads and so on and so forth on private property. it just seems to me that tying this committee... to the hopes, desires, wishes, wants, and greed of any one particular person. a property owner is the wrong approach to this. That's not our job. And I would agree with that. We have heard from the, you know, we've sent the consultants off to talk to the property owners and all of that sort of stuff. We've heard it over and over again from them. |
| 00:42:18.54 | Leon | And I would agree with that. We have heard. We've heard. That's what we're doing. |
| 00:42:31.97 | Bill | It's time for us, I think, to say, to work on what it is that we're here for, and that is... What do we do with the specific plan? |
| 00:42:40.15 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 00:42:40.17 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 00:42:40.27 | Unknown | but it was... |
| 00:42:43.56 | Bill | How do we approach this area from the point of view of of planning. And that's a matter of zoning. And that's not just a matter of, as we heard from Adam Cravazzi, you've got to provide more intensity of development in order to encourage that property owners invest their money That's nonsense. there have been developments down there that are beyond what the zoning allows anyway. And so... We, I think, have to sit here and decide given the information that Jonathan Goldman's provided us. I think... Bruce Huff's remark about putting everything on the market pretty quick is not all that far off in some way. |
| 00:43:32.77 | Unknown | . |
| 00:43:32.82 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 00:43:32.89 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 00:43:38.96 | Bill | in some ways. There are just too many things that that are bearing on the marine ship for us to sit here and try to push around uses or push around densities. I think we need a much more global approach to this. And I think that... You know, Robin, I think that your whole environmental part of the WAM report was by far the best part of the WAM work. because it paid attention to all those kinds of things. we've got not only Resiliency is the word that comes to mind immediately in the immediate planning jargon about working with waterfront properties. We should be focusing on. on uses that that are resilient, can be resilient. on approaches to development down there that, that will either be able to cope with the future that is documented in what Jonathan gave us. or it tells us that we ought not to be doing development down there. Um, So I don't think... talking to one property owner or another one that's going to get us anywhere i think I think that the end result of this study ought to be that Clearly, we don't have enough and the city doesn't have enough. good hard information and data about the reality of of, the marine ship. And if nothing else comes out of this committee, than forcing a very close look not only at the physical environment down there and the physical utilities and so on and so forth. but also it now comes out, the legal issues. What happens over time? does the city want to assume the responsibility? for the infrastructure. And if they do, how do they do that? And who's going to pay for it? You know, clearly the city has not been willing to step up to assume those responsibilities of things that are already provided for them. SO. |
| 00:45:56.93 | Mike | So I like your idea of getting rid of the emergency specific plant. What about an attempt to fold the waterfront, we call marineship, into the general plan. |
| 00:46:09.96 | Bill | Well, that's sort of correct. I think it's part of Saucedo and it really ought to be, it is in the general plan. Thank you. |
| 00:46:16.68 | Mike | of the |
| 00:46:16.74 | Bill | But. |
| 00:46:19.22 | Mike | Yeah. So I would be delighted if we came up with nothing more than a really, really good idea to get a comprehensive look at that and fold it into the zoning of it folded into the general plan. |
| 00:46:35.91 | Chair Petrovich | What do you mean by a really good idea? |
| 00:46:39.66 | Mike | I'm not. |
| 00:46:40.47 | Chair Petrovich | Thank you. What specifically? |
| 00:46:42.80 | Mike | Well, I mean, if you got rid of the specific plan, if you said bye-bye, you have to go in there and take all the things that are in there and somehow re-examine them and find a way to contextually fit them into the general plan. |
| 00:46:58.88 | Bill | I think what that drives directly to is a full-fledged EIR. on the whole area. And maybe that's where this has to go anyhow. Anybody got a quarter million dollars around to throw at that, because that's at least what it's going to be. And to some extent, that's kind of what |
| 00:47:18.02 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 00:47:22.44 | Bill | all the missing information is fundamentally part of all of that, all the missing information about which property down here is going to be underwater how soon? and do we encourage Skip Berg to build the third building in Marina Plaza Or do we say, hey, you know, It's not a good idea because it's going to be underwater. Unless the city takes the responsibility to build the dikes and the dams and everything else that people are talking about and are part of what I think is the Bay Area A-bags. conservation development, new sea level rise policies. Thank you. |
| 00:48:12.93 | Unknown | Hmm. |
| 00:48:13.20 | Bill | They've come out with them. We know what they are. Um, They're pretty scary. So that this needs to be approached from that point of view, I think. I think we're... And I think we're just playing around with gee, we need to get some of those uses in the I-Zone into the W-Zone so we can make more money on our property. That's what the property unit is going to say. So what? |
| 00:48:42.56 | Chair Petrovich | Well, I think that's where we've been approaching it, or do you feel like we've been approaching it that way? |
| 00:48:47.62 | Bill | Uh... I think we have, and I think it's sort of time to tell the consultants that that's where their focus ought to be. |
| 00:48:49.11 | Chair Petrovich | Yeah. |
| 00:48:57.97 | Bill | Um, Rather than |
| 00:48:59.22 | Chair Petrovich | I would... I think the last consultant report proposed moving and the Ws, et cetera, and I think what it was called was a targeted update of a specific plan. I think we disagreed with that sort of an approach. Thank you. |
| 00:49:17.78 | Unknown | Yeah. |
| 00:49:18.13 | Chair Petrovich | and went kind of down a different path of more of a general plan with some specific amendments to help guide that. |
| 00:49:27.67 | Bill | I think what this is proving is that we've hired the consultants to prove to us that we don't know enough. |
| 00:49:38.87 | Ray | Well, I think one of the... More important things to come out of what work the consultant has done at the moment was two fairly straightforward, if somewhat expensive, next steps, which were a full understanding of the infrastructure process. and a economic analysis of the area because in the end the city went into this in the beginning to kick this initiative off because there was a general feeling that you know there's a fair amount of economic activity in the marineship. And there was a thesis developed that industry, that commercial activity will continue to be in decline, will decline further, unless we do something to the infrastructure. Now, that was the thesis. |
| 00:50:43.76 | Unknown | info. |
| 00:50:46.09 | Ray | I'm not sure it's been proved, I'm not sure it's been disproved. But what I know has not been proved... Thank you. is The consultant, rightly so, at our urging, asked a reasonably large segment of the community, the property owners, users, stakeholders, if you like that term, and a whole bunch of people that we told them they should go talk to and who showed up voluntarily to workshops and so on. But the consultants sort of attempted to synthesize everything they had heard. because that's all they could really afford to do at the moment, and do some analysis and filtering of what they've heard. but there's really been no deep dive analysis done to check against that. And so it's just... way premature in my mind to be saying Thank you. that through, I agree with Bill, completely, throw a few uses into the W zone that were in the I zone and all of a sudden everything will appear and infrastructure will improve. |
| 00:51:58.38 | Unknown | was. Thank you. |
| 00:52:00.27 | Ray | That is not something that's been proved. But it might be right. But it's not. I have no evidence that it's right. And until the analysis is done, the infrastructure analysis, the economic analysis, because the argument from the property owners which I also have some sympathy with, is that with the amount of money they're making on some of these properties, they can't invest in infrastructure. Okay. Okay, well, We haven't really dug into that one either to prove that that's correct. That's where the economic study comes in. So, It's almost like those two outcomes and strongly standing behind that, that the Maryship-specific plan should not just be tweaked. It should be we should have a complete rethink for the general plan. and the next steps along that is an infrastructure study and an economic study and let's not worry about tweaking this or that and some improvement to the circulation which is infrastructure needs to take place but further analyzed add all that together and you've got to, you know at least some next steps to take. Thank you. you know, Thank you. |
| 00:53:10.72 | Bill | Yeah, and the Corps of Engineers is going to help us with the infrastructure right off the bat. by turning that road into a one-way road. And all it takes is a lawsuit to get their attention. |
| 00:53:27.31 | Bill | And that's the other issue that has to do with this business of |
| 00:53:29.03 | Unknown | Bye. |
| 00:53:31.76 | Bill | who ends up with the liability, the responsibility for the maintenance and the working up of this stuff. |
| 00:53:41.74 | Ray | Let me just say one more thing to expect. |
| 00:53:42.14 | Bill | Yeah. |
| 00:53:45.64 | Ray | to further clarify what I was saying, in addition to you know, What are the next steps? I think what we can be the most helpful to do is put some stakes in the ground. So this defines the scope of what we see moving forward. Yes, there will be a waterfront zone. Yes, there will be an industrial zone because we want an industrial flavor to that region. I mean, there are two states in the ground. no, there won't be hotels down there or whatever we want to say no to. And at least that gets us moving forward to give a framework and then say we need detailed analysis on this and detailed analysis on that. |
| 00:54:31.55 | Bill | Well, you know, and essentially what you're saying is that the... |
| 00:54:33.46 | Ray | And essentially what you're saying |
| 00:54:36.31 | Bill | the fundamental dream or a Hope. OF WHAT THE MARINESHIP PLAN WAS ALL ABOUT. wasn't so far wrong. THE COURT OF THE COURT the continuation of a traditional waterfront, whether it's for recreational fishing or whether it's for for the repair of boats and so on and so forth. And it provides an industrial zone as well. And those two zones are, were seen as important. and I think are continuing to be important to a lot of people, to the residents, to the citizens of this town. who... who would rather maintain something and that's not just tradition, it's actually maintaining a sense of community. and that's why I think that tying it to the general plan. makes a lot of sense because the waterfront of the Marin ship is part of the community. The industrial zone of the marineship is part of the community. AND I THINK IT'S, YOU KNOW, Thank you. Hell, the launching of Frida, whatever it was, got a great deal of play in the press and made a lot of people feel pretty good. |
| 00:55:53.89 | Chair Petrovich | So I have a question. I mean, the W zone, the waterfront is one thing, but the industrial zone, what's, |
| 00:55:59.52 | Bill | What's industrial about it today? Well, the definition of industry has certainly changed. And it ought to be people inventing |
| 00:56:04.25 | Chair Petrovich | Thank you. All right. |
| 00:56:06.97 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 00:56:10.41 | Bill | little teeny cameras that they can inject in your veins. not making buggy whips. Let me do that to me. |
| 00:56:16.26 | Chair Petrovich | I don't like it. |
| 00:56:20.74 | Bill | Thank you. |
| 00:56:20.80 | Chair Petrovich | But I think the flavor of industrial zone has changed a lot. There's not a lot of industry, the way I think about even light industry down there other than, |
| 00:56:20.92 | Bill | Or repairing running boards. |
| 00:56:22.96 | Unknown | THE END OF THE END OF THE |
| 00:56:23.01 | Bill | THE END OF THE END OF THE |
| 00:56:33.02 | Chair Petrovich | You know, our place and some mechanics. Go back to the job. A lot of body shops. Yeah. |
| 00:56:35.57 | Mike | Go back to the general question. Come back to the general plan idea for a minute. This is the vehicle in which you can study all these particular things, and you can talk about them, and you can lay them out, without being specific as to each property's use or to vacant lots or all that sort of thing, but rather What is the mix of, quote, industrial use, commercial use these days? What does it look like? It's a different animal. |
| 00:57:02.01 | Unknown | Uh-huh. |
| 00:57:02.38 | Mike | Will anybody who manufactures something actually show up in Sausalito? Well, maybe in a small site for a startup or something. But in general, we don't have any industrial buildings. San Francisco has few of them left these days. |
| 00:57:02.40 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 00:57:15.95 | Mike | because the mix is changing. The mix is definitely different. That's the place to study this is under the general I don't think that, you know, I might take some different opinion about the scope of the EIR, but I think you'd have some EIR or something in there. You're going to have maybe a specific EIR that focuses on certain particular aspects as opposed to a, you know, complete, you know, full-blown, I don't know. That's something you decide when you get there. But that would also definitely help inform the issue. What are the possibilities and the limitations? That's what a specific plan or rather a... General? Not general, but EIR does. It focuses on the things that are good and will help you and aren't to be mitigated, the things that are to be mitigated, and the things you can't mitigate. |
| 00:57:45.99 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 00:58:13.56 | Mike | and there's some things like sea level rise we can't mitigate that. Well, we might be able to do it by building dikes, but that's another discussion. But I think that what we should do is coalesce this under a recommendation that this go to some, and I don't have the right nomenclature for it yet, but to something that leads to a study of this area that we can overlay and say this is what the future ought to look like here. Thank you. |
| 00:58:41.37 | Chair Petrovich | From an ERR perspective or an economic perspective? That's part of it. So is it, I mean, to sort of, you know, if we can kind of start to come to some kind of general agreement of next steps, then maybe we can dive deeper into some things that need to be a little bit more specific. Can one, you know, could we agree upon... |
| 00:58:43.55 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 00:58:44.07 | Mike | That's part of this. |
| 00:58:46.23 | Unknown | is, |
| 00:58:56.15 | Jonathon Goldman | Yeah. |
| 00:58:56.46 | Unknown | So... |
| 00:59:00.47 | Chair Petrovich | something like the following. We believe that there needs to be an economic study of some sort, an environmental study of some sort, a look towards and update that then gets folded into a general plan update in terms of the marineship area. At the same time, we do care about the preservation of waterfront in terms of waterfront access and waterfront use. |
| 00:59:21.85 | Mike | That's right there on the forum to check. We've got to check that historic issue. |
| 00:59:27.24 | Chair Petrovich | So is that kind of a, what is that? I think I said four things right there, four key points. Is that a general outline of four key points we would agree upon, or do we need to discuss that further? |
| 00:59:27.49 | Mike | our church |
| 00:59:38.61 | Leon | Well, I'd like to discuss part of that. I think the specific plan is very important for the Marin ship. It is a special and unique area of Sausalito. It has its own economy, which is a substantial economy. It has a diversified economy, and it has a very changing economy as we've seen over the years. So I think it's important to address it in a specific plan, but it certainly has to be within I think those overall guidelines that Mike is referring to in the general plan. It has to fit into the general plan. It's just a segment of the general plan, but it deserves its own unique attention. So I think what we're doing is the right thing. We just have to always look over the shoulder to make sure that what we're doing is staying within the general plan. For example, |
| 01:00:39.36 | Chair Petrovich | I mean, yeah. Because right now there are so many contradictions between the two. |
| 01:00:44.20 | Leon | Well, when I went on the council, I was anti-office. There were two office buildings that had been built down in the Marin ship, large office buildings, and there were proposals for more to go in there. That was just the first part. And I said, I think that's out of the character of Sausalito. I think it represents way too much office space in Sausalito and it's on the waterfront. I don't think that's the right place for office buildings. I think it should be water related as we're talking about at this table. I still believe that. And so... I'll tell you my thought on this. This is my bottom line, you've probably heard it, but I outlined this. So there are six points. I think we should look at the entire picture. Does it make sense? Are the pieces compatible? Does it reflect what it should be today and tomorrow? And we absolutely have to integrate our interaction with the property owners because I disagree with Bill on that point. Maybe he hears it in Planning Commission a lot, They own the property, as we learned tonight. They could shut off the roads. We're fortunate to be able to have the access we have. So what pieces don't fit in the current and future picture have to be examined. The area is comprised of private and public property as uses, so we need to discuss and mutually resolve common area issues and cost allocations, beginning with the infrastructure. We need to determine what to do, prioritization, and how to pay for improvements of the common areas. |
| 01:02:22.84 | Unknown | See you. |
| 01:02:33.67 | Leon | We need to look at how the city can implement elements of the list that we saw, and I think we're all agreeing to that list from May 19th, the draft list of maritime uses. I think that was very, very good. We need to get a financial study that provides cost estimates and the various financing methods to make the desired improvements. And we need to get approval for the funding and the needs from the community and the property owners. That's what I think. Okay. Tom. |
| 01:03:12.94 | Tom | I do agree that we need to put some stakes in the ground, and that's proven to be difficult. And I'm not sure that I'm going to help with it because I'm going to take us around, but I'll... |
| 01:03:13.09 | Leon | Thank you. that |
| 01:03:18.44 | Leon | that I have. |
| 01:03:21.46 | Tom | from where I'm coming. I think we – We talked about this concept of a three-legged stool, the economics, the infrastructure, and the uses. And we just talked about are we going to have an infrastructure report and an economic report. But we started out, and I do think we should make a decision or put a stake in a round around uses. For one is... I think we're furthest along on that. First of all, there are historic uses that I think we've all agreed that we want to keep. Secondly, we have the marineship specific report, which that's the strongest part of it, is what it should be used for. We have that history there. We also have a lot of public input on the uses. And also, the other thing is, is until we decide on uses, it's going to be hard on Take the economic report. We just had. The council paid for an economic report from the Eiler Group about what to do in the marine It came back and they said we should have investment banks there. Now that was, from an economic point of view, it was the right thing to do. They did the right thing. We all can laugh at it here. So why would we spend money on an economic report that may do that? I think in the end, we understand, and I think better in our our consultants do, and they're doing a great job. But this table, at this table, we understand generally. COMMUNITY INPUT. what, what we should have down there. We have to decide. We can say, well, You know, we like most of what's in the marinship specific plan, but maybe we shouldn't have this. We should add that, broaden it. And then we could decide, okay, is this economically viable? We could test it with that when we ultimately have it, and we could decide if the infrastructure goes in. But if we do a lot of infrastructure work and economic work, And then it comes back and we still decide that's not what we're going to do. Frankly, I think from what we have here, we could probably decide what's going to go down there. I mean, we have a pretty good idea, and a lot of it's historical. A lot of it's there. It's what we're going to allow there again. So that's where. I'm not sure. And by the way, I do have another point on the whole thing. Marine rails, we keep the marine rails, we keep bumping into that, and we spend a lot of time with that. I think we could take that off the table by saying, Let's do a study about whether we put on the local register We stopped the discussion on that. And actually, if we do nothing else, we might walk away, and if we have that on the local register, that wouldn't be a bad thing. Because we keep coming around to that, and we keep coming around to that, and we bump into that. And we now have a discussion. We've had about 15 minutes without it, which is pretty unusual. |
| 01:05:52.14 | Bill | I absolutely agree with you. I mean, they just keep getting in the way. |
| 01:05:52.38 | Tom | I mean, |
| 01:05:56.90 | Tom | Thank you. I'm not. |
| 01:05:59.18 | Mr. Carvazzi/Gravacci | that you can |
| 01:05:59.82 | Tom | It would be nice to take them off the table in that way. |
| 01:06:01.76 | Bill | In that way. Yeah, and in response to Leon, in terms of the specialness of the marineship, You know, that's defined by zoning. And that is special zoning. There is no I-zone all over the rest of town. There is no W-zone like this all over the rest of town. And, you know, the power of zoning is what the city has. |
| 01:06:31.78 | Unknown | Zoning. |
| 01:06:34.66 | Bill | and the power of defining what is possible or desired in those zones is also what the city has. |
| 01:06:45.53 | Mike | And I agree, and that's a process. Yeah. That's a process that, again, I'll make the argument for having this general plan idea because this specific plan this was set aside 25 or so years ago because there was a need to study this area. It wasn't needed to study the whole town at that point. Later on they studied the whole town, did a general plan and left this out. Basically. So this Lynn Leapfrog. And we've still been operating off of this, and it's not a part of what is our overall plan for the entire city. So I think the failure of, I've watched it for a number of years when I was on the council, you guys are now watching it again, although we haven't had any failures yet, but there's been failure after failure of, very honest and and smart groups of people who wanted to get together and figure out something to do down there. They had lots of meetings about it. There was a lot of passion. Things went on the table. They agreed on something, didn't agree on others. and then they used to report and that was the end of it. Nothing happened. We've still got that same plan and the same general plan. I really think that the best thing we can do here |
| 01:07:48.27 | Leon | Yeah. |
| 01:07:48.97 | Unknown | Right. |
| 01:07:54.14 | Mike | is to come to some agreement about how we proceed with this. Not the specificity that we're bringing up. I like all of that. too, but it needs to be under a rubric that can get something done. you Okay. you and then we'll duke it out as to whether W should have this in it or that in it or whether I belongs over there or over here. But it's all going to be done with the spirit of getting something put together that's going to be, have a certain degree of permanence, at least for the future. |
| 01:08:25.70 | Leon | I... I agree with Bill in what he's saying, especially with the Marin ship being a special place, but special also in the sense that we don't own much of it. It's owned pretty much in private hands. So our tool, our strength is in the zoning. That's really about what we have for negotiating purposes and for design purposes and integrating a whole community with a site. |
| 01:08:49.16 | Unknown | Yeah. |
| 01:08:58.40 | Leon | So, yeah, I support that, and I think maybe he has the right idea in the sense of here we have a stake or two or three that we can plant in the ground tonight. I think we have, we certainly have the capability of planting stakes tonight. |
| 01:09:16.58 | Bill | But we have to be careful about that, too. I think that you missed the meeting the last time, and Mike... brought up something that I think is is very important because it describes the change of time. that automobile dealerships were not appropriate in the Marine ship. We've got an automobile dealership in the Marin Chef. It's called cartelage. |
| 01:09:42.01 | Mike | called Thank you. |
| 01:09:44.39 | Bill | But it isn't the Porsche place on strawberry. It's computers and people and paper. |
| 01:09:44.44 | Mike | and... |
| 01:09:58.53 | Unknown | . |
| 01:09:59.04 | Bill | And is it industry? Maybe you want to stretch it. Is it retail? |
| 01:10:06.66 | Unknown | Mmm. |
| 01:10:07.83 | Bill | YOU KNOW, WHAT IT'S NOT It's not a dog that we had a description of or a breed that was around when the specific plan was written. We've got a lot of things to either define or to create a system, create an approach that we can understand, that we can test definitions with You know, I don't think we ought to be... We've got to be fashioning I use this example because it's true. If you say it's something often enough, people believe it. It's like we had a thing on the Planning Commission last time about somebody that wanted to put in what he described as a bakery. You say bakery over and over again, and everybody says, oh, that's wonderful. They could smell the bread being baked. It was a high-end 7-Eleven, really, it was a You know, it was not a bakery. Everything was done off-site. It was going to be brought in and it was going to be And it tried to get by with an Occupational Use Permit. And the Planning Commission, I think, wisely said, hell no, it needs a conditional use permit. Because it isn't a bakery. because the definition of in our ordinance describes what bakeries were in 1992. that are not what they are today. So we've got definition problems. We have definition of industry problems. But they're all opportunities, and I think they're opportunities for us to try to maybe ask our consultants to say, you know, have you faced Other than... What's it? Form-based. zoning ordinances, have you based or have you faced defining uses in some way other than |
| 01:12:01.75 | Unknown | Zoning. Thank you. |
| 01:12:14.04 | Bill | bakery specifically you know or or or a automobile dealership are there ways to Um, uh, to look at the future. |
| 01:12:24.89 | Chair Petrovich | Thank you. Because we don't know. Right, so I mean, to bring it back to the car dealership, I mean, is it Is it a good thing? Are we happy that somebody figured out that they could put a car dealership there that wasn't a traditional car dealership? Is that a positive benefit of something about how the specific plan was written? No. |
| 01:12:43.37 | Mike | That has nothing to do with a specific plan. |
| 01:12:45.31 | Bill | Thank you. No, no. I mean, that was sort of probably an occupation use permit that was a wink, wink, nod, nod, like many other |
| 01:12:47.99 | Chair Petrovich | But it did avoid somebody putting in a Ferrari machine. |
| 01:12:58.52 | Bill | Thank you. |
| 01:12:58.57 | Chair Petrovich | Thank you. |
| 01:12:58.59 | Bill | but that is still the flavor of |
| 01:12:58.60 | Chair Petrovich | but that is still the flavor of of what, you know, when I ask the question what's industrial about it these days, that's kind of the flavor of it. There's a lot of stuff like that. That's right. |
| 01:13:07.85 | Bill | Thank you. |
| 01:13:07.89 | Mike | That's right. Thank you. |
| 01:13:09.08 | Chair Petrovich | goes by other names. |
| 01:13:10.92 | Mike | So that's what I'm... |
| 01:13:11.85 | Chair Petrovich | So do we want to, what's the vision? I guess it brings back to what's the vision? To avoid that or to? |
| 01:13:19.53 | Mike | Again, this isn't the forum, with all due respect, it's not the forum for us to study whether cartelagin is the right or wrong business. We're getting into the weeds already, and once we get into the weeds, we're going to get lost. What we have to say is what is the right way to figure out how to use the marineship in its current state and going forward. That's really what our goal is. And we can toss around some examples of things that work or don't work. We can find some discrepancies that shouldn't have been allowed. We can find some things that were allowed and are wonderful. |
| 01:13:21.54 | Chair Petrovich | This is a... |
| 01:14:00.67 | Mike | But But our task, it seems to me, is to take all of the studies that we have done All the things that have been said, the WAMs, the others, the folks who live down there and work down there, and put that into some kind of context that fits inside of our geroplasm. |
| 01:14:16.53 | Chair Petrovich | I don't agree with that entirely. I don't disagree with it entirely either because I think that, yes, figuring out next steps and how to move forward is one thing. And I better say something smart because Bruce just came up to the front row. And it's like looking out the corner of my eye. But if you keep it at 30 seconds, I might agree to that. |
| 01:14:30.71 | Unknown | And... Thank you. |
| 01:14:33.73 | Unknown | Thank you. but. |
| 01:14:39.25 | Unknown | But... |
| 01:14:42.67 | Chair Petrovich | You know, next steps is certainly figuring out how to take next steps is certainly very important, but I think that doing that by itself lacks vision, and then we're just kind of the whole thing is wide open again. Now, I don't believe we ought to figure out is cartelage of the right business or not, and that also kind of gets back to the problem with the specific plan that I have anyway, that is parcel by parcel type of zoning. Well, there's a recommendation. Yeah, there is. |
| 01:15:05.72 | Ray | Well, there's a recommendation. There's a recommendation that we don't make it parcel by parcel analysis. There's a recommendation. |
| 01:15:11.36 | Chair Petrovich | Right, so there's one. There's a recommendation. But there does need, I think there does need to be some kind of a framework as to, you know, if you're going to hand it off to the consultants, it's, you know, how do you zone it so that it feels like the way we want it to feel or however you want to phrase it. and not just... figure out what it should be because that's kind of what we did and they're not the ones with the vision. they're really kind of more following direction. I think we need to define that to some aspects and also guide them on how to take the next step. |
| 01:15:39.10 | Unknown | Bye. |
| 01:15:39.22 | Ray | Russia. |
| 01:15:43.74 | Ray | But if you could make the recommendation that THE ANALYSIS OR THE Zoning, if you want, shouldn't be on a parcel by parcel basis. And you've made the decision there's a waterfront zone and there's the rest of it, which right now, other than let's take public institutional and house vote whatever there is of, right? There's waterfront, and then there's what we currently call industrial. We're not gonna do it on a parcel by parcel basis. Therefore, what we're calling we sort of have a feeling now what We want a core waterfront and what it sort of is. But what's the current eye zone? What's it going to be? Okay. And we have to at least get that out on the table rather than and say... |
| 01:16:26.08 | Unknown | We will be right back. Uh-huh. |
| 01:16:43.58 | Ray | Well, maybe you define it by not Well, it isn't. It's a sort of industrial commercial. But it's not retail. perhaps housing, it's not, whatever it is. Those are the sort of stakes in the ground, I'm saying. Because then, in an economic analysis, they've got to start with those presumptions. And part of the thing they're going to ask, first of all, what you've just told us is your vision. Is it economically viable? because if it isn't, you better start making some changes to your vision. |
| 01:17:14.83 | Chair Petrovich | Well, I think that's why we started with the waterfront because I think the waterfront is something that we care about, I guess, from a more of a cultural community perspective that needs to be more tightly defined in terms of what it needs to be or not be in terms of the public access of it. And then there's the rest of it which is well what's the rest of it in order to support that waterfront being able to be what it is which is not necessarily a, you know, the money making commercial district. What do I look at? Does anybody have chat to give me Bruce 30 seconds? |
| 01:17:52.33 | Bruce Hough | Just get rid of me. Go ahead. Let's go to LaVado. I'll be out of your hair pretty soon. I just want to make a couple comments. I thought I heard a month or two ago that there was general concurrence about moving to a general plan as opposed to a specific plan. |
| 01:17:55.25 | Chair Petrovich | Yeah. Thank you. |
| 01:17:56.82 | Unknown | Bye. |
| 01:17:59.86 | Bill | . I just wonder. |
| 01:18:11.31 | Bruce Hough | Maybe not everybody understands what that entails, but to me it entails a general plan review of which one of the committees deals with that area and deals with the I-zone and, as Bill says, the W-zone, which is different from the other W-zones in town. |
| 01:18:24.31 | Unknown | Oh yeah. |
| 01:18:30.81 | Bruce Hough | But what it does is it brings the marineship into the community and not as a solo and separate conversation in itself. And it comes in relationship to the rest of the community with the housing districts and the other commercial districts. The second thing I wanted to say, and I really hope that if that was the consensus of this committee, then that pretty much answers the question of where you go from here, as far as I'm concerned. The second thing was the whole question about the property owners. The Waterfront Property Owners Association met for about five or six years on a monthly basis and actually had a very good relationship with the city staff at that time. And Kava actually made a recommendation to the then planning director, which I then put into a separate letter into one of Lily's request for comments. And there were only really four issues, four or five issues that we dealt with. One of which was infrastructure which can get discussed forever, but our approach to infrastructure is we wanted the cooperation of the city, not necessarily the city as a piggy bank to pay for it, but the cooperation in forming districts, passing bonds, and doing what we had to do to deal with infrastructure. The second of which was not the elimination or the integration of the W zone, but a definition of the W zone that made sense. the line is drawn in an extremely arbitrary fashion And it seems to penalize certain property owners that weren't involved in the marineship specific plans, and those that were got advantage. Number three, And when it deals with uses, the only recommendation that we had And if you've read the Marinship Specific Plan, if you understand the Marinship Specific Plan, you'll see this kind of special category of uses called applied arts, which are applied arts that require a conditional use permit, and they also require an inclusionary 100% fine arts. So if we have an architect, for instance, we have to not only get a conditional use permit to have that architect, but we have to have a 100% offset of square footage for an artist. And so our recommendation was to make the and applied arts permitted uses. that may or may not, and that certainly would be a point of discussion about then how do you protect the fine arts. I understand that. So we had specific recommendations and they weren't onerous. They were simply to define the W zone in a logical way, to take the applied arts, which we're very happy with, and we actually believe are the uses, if you read the applied arts, that actually generate the activity in the marineship today. whether it be an office building or an industrial building, the applied arts are what really are the engine of activity down there. |
| 01:21:50.06 | Unknown | being off Quite hard. |
| 01:21:58.60 | Bruce Hough | and some cooperation in the infrastructure. And I think the third one, was to move the specific plan into a general plan, abolish the specific plan, and make it part of the general plan. And I don't know if that was in there or not, but I feel very strongly about that. And if you accept that premise, I think you've answered your own question. You know where you're going. So thank you. Thank you. |
| 01:22:23.63 | Ray | I have a question for Bruce just before he leaves. You said a redefinition of the W zone. Did you mean a boundary definition? Yeah, exactly. Did you just draw it? Yeah. |
| 01:22:35.38 | Bruce Hough | Yeah, exactly. They just draw the line in a logical way. position so if the W zone is 100 feet or 200 feet or 500 feet from the high water mark make it consistent Don't penalize Um... Clipper Yacht Harbor, don't penalize Arkez, don't benefit Schoonmaker Marina or even us. Make it consistent. And I think it was just arbitrarily drawn, and I think it was drawn by those who were complaining and those who weren't at the time. |
| 01:23:11.98 | Unknown | That's... Yeah. That gets back to the issue about the parcel-by-parcel. |
| 01:23:18.46 | Bill | Absolutely. You know, that was on this list of |
| 01:23:19.28 | Unknown | Yeah. |
| 01:23:23.01 | Bill | discussion topics that Lily sent out. And my comment to that was no, no, no, no, no. All that will do is perpetuate the original approach which memorialized some existing uses, prohibited other reasonable uses, and amounted to a not-so-veiled exercise in spot zoning. Right. |
| 01:23:40.44 | Mike | Right, you took the words out of my mouth. Thank you. |
| 01:23:43.85 | Bill | So, |
| 01:23:44.04 | Mike | Thank you. |
| 01:23:44.19 | Bill | Thank you. THE END OF THE END OF THE |
| 01:23:44.66 | Mike | you |
| 01:23:44.73 | Ray | So, from what I've learned from the last 10 minutes, there's quite a bit of consensus as to some things that we could write down to inform the consultant of these are our boundary conditions. These are our... |
| 01:23:44.83 | Mike | So, yeah. . you know, |
| 01:23:45.91 | Bill | Yeah. |
| 01:23:45.93 | Mike | What I've... I don't know. |
| 01:23:54.77 | Bill | Yeah. |
| 01:23:55.61 | Ray | I think there definitely is. |
| 01:23:56.14 | Bill | I think there definitely is. Can I have one question to Bruce again? |
| 01:23:58.81 | Chair Petrovich | you Thank you. |
| 01:24:03.65 | Bill | Is it possible to reconstitute that collection of property owners? Oh, yeah. I was thinking. |
| 01:24:10.21 | Bruce Hough | Oh, yeah, I think it is. Most of them have been here. There's only, you know, believe it or not, the property owners down there are really part of your community. They've been in place for a long, long, long time. There's only been one major change in the last 25 years or 20 years that I know of, which is... Green. The Greens. Green. Yeah, when Green sold those buildings. And that's going to change again. And they're all being sold anyway. But, I mean, it was fundamental. And we called it the Waterfront Property Association because there were guys that were down in downtown that would come to the meetings too because they had similar concerns that we had. But, yeah, it would be very, I think it would be easy because it's a small group. |
| 01:24:19.88 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 01:24:19.95 | Bill | Yeah. |
| 01:24:31.76 | Bill | Thank you. |
| 01:24:31.81 | Mike | I'm sorry. |
| 01:24:32.08 | Bill | Thank you. Yeah, when Green sold those buildings. So that's going to change again. And they're all being sold anyway. |
| 01:24:51.27 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 01:24:51.29 | Bill | Yeah. |
| 01:24:51.54 | Unknown | it would be a I got it. |
| 01:24:52.48 | Unknown | I don't know. |
| 01:24:52.53 | Bill | Thank you. |
| 01:24:52.57 | Unknown | Yeah. |
| 01:24:52.59 | Bill | Bye. |
| 01:24:52.60 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 01:24:54.27 | Bill | Well, it would be really useful if they could sort of formally be reconstituted and essentially either say what this committee and the consultants are doing is all wrong or it's are they are they're happy with going along with some of it |
| 01:25:11.50 | Unknown | it was a |
| 01:25:11.54 | Bruce Hough | I don't think, you know, Hope Green was here, Ken Peterson's been here. Right. Um... and skip bird was here which amazed me because I never seen skip bird at a public meeting before you ever like the guy he doesn't come out himself and I I think that there's general consensus that they're simply not sure where it's going. But if it went into, and I could reconstitute them, and actually when I redrafted the same thing we did five, six, seven years ago, eight years ago, and I sent it to Lilly or put it on the website, whatever it was, I sent it out to them first and said, this is what we did. If you have any change of heart or whatever, let me know. And nobody came back and said don't do it. So I don't think their issues have changed drastically. And the Lemons right now, Joe Jr. is far more involved in the property than Joe Sr., which is probably a good thing. But I would not see a problem with getting them together and have them have one voice. |
| 01:26:28.65 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 01:26:28.69 | Bruce Hough | And their voice is very simple. It's the three or four things I just mentioned. And I don't see any change in that at all. |
| 01:26:35.99 | Chair Petrovich | Okay, thanks, Chris. |
| 01:26:36.89 | Leon | Don't you think that would add to city cooperation and |
| 01:26:37.30 | Bruce Hough | Um... |
| 01:26:41.01 | Bruce Hough | I would hope so. |
| 01:26:41.82 | Leon | Thank you. Oh. Thank you. |
| 01:26:42.90 | Bruce Hough | Well, we were there before. That's why we formed the group. And actually, the city cooperated a lot with us in things like |
| 01:26:47.64 | Unknown | We actually did. |
| 01:26:52.63 | Bruce Hough | police patrols and protection and things like that. Where it falls down is in the infrastructure. We're pretty well, at least in the Southern Marinship, we really know what the process is. And I don't think the city's ever really paid attention in that process. and therefore what's developed is nothing. It's just deterioration. That would go a long way. Certainly, I know Peterson and Lemon It's not that they have a W zone, it's where the line is drawn. It's just unfair to them. Okay, thanks, Bruce. |
| 01:27:27.13 | Chair Petrovich | Thank you. Okay, thanks, Bruce. I'd like to kind of bring us back to where Ray was taking us and get back to our discussion. What's that? |
| 01:27:35.77 | Mike | Do you want to say something? Thank you. |
| 01:27:36.74 | Nicole Horne | Thank you. |
| 01:27:37.23 | Chair Petrovich | Any objective? Okay. Okay, if you can keep it brief, thanks. |
| 01:27:38.82 | Nicole Horne | Thank you. Sure, my name's Nicole Horne, I represent SWA Group. We're in the I Zone across from the park and across from Army Corps. And we've been in the community for about 55 years, obviously me not as long as that. And we are considered under the existing Marineship specific line as sort of both Applied Arts and Commercial Office. We're mentioned as both. And I'd like to just say that I totally support the identification of Applied Arts as a permitted use, as Bruce mentioned, because I do think we are more in character with arts. We are a landscape and planning design firm. And we've been there, and we've been sort of supporting the community for a long time, and I think that is the character of the Marineship and something that you should support and not spot zone and sort of make it a permitted use throughout the I-Zone and really this is an opportunity to identify what sort of character the I-Zone could be and should be. So I would support applied arts as a permitted use and not spot zoning us into one specific |
| 01:27:48.61 | Chair Petrovich | Bye. |
| 01:27:48.62 | Unknown | Mm-hmm. |
| 01:28:44.16 | Chair Petrovich | Thank you. |
| 01:28:44.63 | Mike | THE END OF THE END OF THE I'll be so bold as to offer the idea that the W could be the inclusive zoning and I could be a part of it. |
| 01:28:57.14 | Unknown | Yeah. |
| 01:28:57.31 | Mike | I wouldn't be spotted. |
| 01:29:02.69 | Chair Petrovich | I can explain. |
| 01:29:03.23 | Mike | Can you explain? |
| 01:29:03.97 | Leon | Do you want to turn on your mic, Mike? Oh, no. |
| 01:29:09.68 | Bruce Hough | Thank you. |
| 01:29:09.83 | Bill | Yeah. |
| 01:29:10.28 | Chair Petrovich | Thank you. |
| 01:29:10.30 | Bill | it is on the side on the other one explain that is |
| 01:29:11.13 | Mr. Carvazzi/Gravacci | Thank you. |
| 01:29:11.14 | Chair Petrovich | Thank you. |
| 01:29:11.18 | Leon | on |
| 01:29:12.97 | Chair Petrovich | explain that is more like it. |
| 01:29:15.08 | Mr. Carvazzi/Gravacci | THE END OF THE END OF THE |
| 01:29:15.11 | Chair Petrovich | I'm not. |
| 01:29:15.46 | Mr. Carvazzi/Gravacci | Oh, that's a good one. |
| 01:29:16.31 | Chair Petrovich | Yeah, I mean... |
| 01:29:16.41 | Mr. Carvazzi/Gravacci | Thank you. |
| 01:29:16.53 | Bill | Thank you. |
| 01:29:16.66 | Mr. Carvazzi/Gravacci | Yeah. |
| 01:29:17.02 | Bill | I mean, |
| 01:29:19.04 | Chair Petrovich | Okay, so Ray was kind of taking us back to, I mean, we do have agreement, I think, on a lot of things. I feel like tonight we've been rehashing a lot of things that we've already kind of. we have had some consensus on. But to kind of bring us back to that, Ray, do you want to |
| 01:29:35.68 | Ray | Well, I'm not going to attempt to summarize all of the various things I heard. Give us your best. |
| 01:29:43.70 | Chair Petrovich | Give us your best shots and giving us a structure. |
| 01:29:45.35 | Ray | Well, I'm gonna throw it to staff actually, and suggest that, um, you know, I think if you replay these tapes, you've come across a whole bunch of stuff that you think there's some consensus on. We're saying no zoning parcel by parcel. Let's talk about this in the context of the general plan. Let's, you know, we do want to keep a waterfront. We've got to ask what are the uses we want in the island. |
| 01:30:00.69 | Unknown | Mm-hmm. Yeah. |
| 01:30:15.23 | Chair Petrovich | If it turned into a drinking game, we'd be able to figure it out. |
| 01:30:17.61 | Ray | I'm sure that's true. |
| 01:30:19.86 | Bill | We can't be going down that avenue. When we adjourn the meeting, |
| 01:30:20.89 | Ray | You're the same. |
| 01:30:24.70 | Ray | The adjournment to Smitty. That's right. |
| 01:30:25.63 | Bill | Thank you. |
| 01:30:25.66 | Unknown | Nice. |
| 01:30:26.88 | Bill | Thank you. |
| 01:30:27.81 | Ray | Et cetera, et cetera. And I think some of the details which we, if we tried to reconstruct it, we'd probably get it wrong now, but I think Lily could probably, and Lily's been writing it all down, so maybe you've already got your list there of stuff you think we might be having some agreement on. |
| 01:30:43.75 | Lily | I'd like a second shot at taking a look at the tape again, but I was taking detailed notes. So what staff would suggest is coming back at a meeting soon with our understanding of what you've said this evening and for you to review. And then we can forward that on to the consultant for inclusion in their report, and then you'd see them at a meeting after that next meeting. |
| 01:31:10.16 | Chair Petrovich | Is that an acceptable recommendation or do we want to put a little bit more around it right now? |
| 01:31:13.91 | Leon | Can we add a couple? I mean, I think we're just there. |
| 01:31:17.45 | Chair Petrovich | I would like to see us do that before we kind of go off. Look great. |
| 01:31:20.57 | Ray | Look great. Look great. |
| 01:31:21.64 | Leon | I'll start out. I just heard from SCOB UA on applied arts. I think that makes a whole lot of sense that that should be included as a primary use. Because I think that takes us not just to today but into the future. We've seen so many changes. It's no longer a corporation taking a building. It's a hundred individual little businesses doing different things and a lot of them are a part of it. So I think having that is good. Direct on the W side, having a direct access relationship with the water, the business the business having a direct access relationship would take the water. |
| 01:31:21.74 | Ray | No. |
| 01:31:22.03 | Chair Petrovich | Enjoy. Yeah. |
| 01:31:51.98 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 01:31:52.01 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 01:31:52.03 | Unknown | I don't know. |
| 01:31:52.54 | Unknown | So, |
| 01:32:11.69 | Chair Petrovich | So similar to the list that we created. |
| 01:32:13.49 | Leon | Yes, absolutely. I didn't like that list. I thought that was well thought out. And I don't think that it really changes things from the intent of way back when I was on the council. It just runs a current. |
| 01:32:14.85 | Chair Petrovich | like that list. |
| 01:32:30.19 | Leon | you |
| 01:32:30.25 | Chair Petrovich | Mm-hmm. |
| 01:32:30.27 | Leon | Uh-huh. |
| 01:32:33.61 | Chair Petrovich | So update the W zone in terms of uses and its boundary definition. |
| 01:32:40.87 | Bill | Yeah, and rationalizing the boundary line is really what's important. We have, even using the FEMA data or using the, you know, blend that in with BCDC's 100 foot setback and all the rest of that sort of stuff. And so the line squiggles through rather than following property lines. It should not follow property lines. |
| 01:32:40.88 | Chair Petrovich | Yeah, and rationalizes the Yeah, that's what's important. |
| 01:32:56.63 | Unknown | It's. that |
| 01:33:06.28 | Bill | Thank you. |
| 01:33:06.30 | Unknown | Mm-hmm. |
| 01:33:06.64 | Bill | It ought to follow some rational Um... geographic and geologic and tidal and all the rest of that sort of stuff. Yeah, and use as well. I mean, like if you're going to have ways |
| 01:33:15.81 | Mike | title. |
| 01:33:16.19 | Unknown | THE END OF THE END OF THE |
| 01:33:16.25 | Mike | and all the rest of that sort of stuff. Thank you. And if you have ways out there, you're going to need a lot of bigger approach area to do that. |
| 01:33:22.18 | Bill | MR. Exactly. I mean, you know, it's almost as if our W zone ought to have two faces to it. It ought to have the land part of the W zone and the water part of the W zone. Exactly. |
| 01:33:35.78 | Leon | Exactly. Think of it. Because what we don't think about is all of that water. I mean, right here. You look right here. See all that blue? Sure. It's owned. |
| 01:33:40.28 | Bill | No. or... Thank you. |
| 01:33:44.57 | Unknown | Yeah. |
| 01:33:44.91 | Bill | Thank you. |
| 01:33:45.02 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 01:33:45.13 | Bill | . Thank you. |
| 01:33:45.72 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 01:33:45.73 | Bill | Sure. |
| 01:33:48.20 | Leon | Which means there can be uses out there. So we have to think in terms of that is water, water. And you're right, land, this waterfront, and waterfront, this waterfront. |
| 01:33:52.31 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 01:33:52.35 | Bruce Hough | Thank you. |
| 01:33:52.65 | Unknown | WALKING. Thank you. |
| 01:34:00.94 | Leon | Thank you. |
| 01:34:00.95 | Chair Petrovich | Don't it? So then it's on to, I mean, the other thing that we have discussed that Bruce is reminding us of is the idea of wrapping this into a general plan update. So how do we want to define... Well, let me just... |
| 01:34:15.48 | Mike | Let me just go back on that for a second. Because what I'm really saying, I don't want to be so specific about where it ought to be, but we need an engine to drive this and a place to park it. We need a place to build our boat, just like the boat they're building on the waterfront now. They suffered for a place to build that boat. They went all around town looking for a place to build the boat. They got a place to build the boat, and they're building the boat. We need a place to build our boat. Okay. And that, again, I will restate it. I watched this fail, this process fail a number of times over the last decade. I think it failed because it just never could find a place to gel and become something more than a lot of good ideas. |
| 01:34:31.94 | Unknown | are you? Thank you. |
| 01:34:59.77 | Leon | Can I ask a question on that? Because I think I'm starting to see what you're saying there. I mean, having a general plan is something we rarely, you know, an update on a general plan is very rare. So it sounds like what you're saying is this is an important area just to make sure that we keep a cohesive plan for the community. |
| 01:35:00.10 | Mike | Right. |
| 01:35:15.24 | Unknown | . |
| 01:35:28.05 | Leon | We need a parking space, yes, in the family parking lot, the garage or something like that. So keep it active within the general plan. Is that what you're saying? And eventually, |
| 01:35:38.24 | Mike | And eventually make it a part. |
| 01:35:40.37 | Leon | Thank you. |
| 01:35:40.38 | Chair Petrovich | Thank you. |
| 01:35:40.43 | Leon | Yeah. |
| 01:35:41.02 | Chair Petrovich | So if I were to try and summarize that and tell me if I'm off, if you want something else, the idea is to update the specific plans. |
| 01:35:41.55 | Leon | Thank you. |
| 01:35:56.58 | Chair Petrovich | and have it then be folded into the general plan. |
| 01:35:59.57 | Mike | No, I don't think we should update the specific one. I think that's a, that would be doing something twice that you only need to do once. |
| 01:36:04.38 | Chair Petrovich | I did. |
| 01:36:11.36 | Chair Petrovich | Well, let me try and rephrase that. Plan for the marineship area that will be folded into the general plan. you Yes. That's part of it. Not do it twice, but do it in a way that we keep in mind whether this will become part of the general plan in the future. |
| 01:36:21.49 | Mike | Thank you. Yes. All right. Thank you. |
| 01:36:25.47 | Unknown | Yeah. |
| 01:36:25.56 | Mike | Yeah. Right. What I see done in the city... Because it's a big... |
| 01:36:29.42 | Chair Petrovich | Because this is kind of a messy part of it, and it'll end up holding up the general plan anyway, so get out of the way now, but think of it as part of the general plan in the future. |
| 01:36:34.08 | Mike | Right. Right. you know. What they do in the city with big chunks of the city, they're doing it right now with the central corridor, which is a huge chunk of land. And there are lots of different uses on that land right now. And they're going to change a lot of those uses, and they're going to leave some. It's not that. It's the process they're using. They start with what they call a study. They study the area. And then they take the study, and they turn the study into a document that can be used to get an EIR. And then they eventually incorporate, you know, go through the Board of Supervisors, the whole thing, the Planning Commission, lots of hearings, lots of talk, and they incorporate that in the general plan. That becomes part of San Francisco's general plan. So it's not a little plan over here that they made a separate decision on. It's really incorporated into the entire... |
| 01:36:49.86 | Chair Petrovich | Bye. |
| 01:36:49.98 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 01:37:32.97 | Mike | organization. So that's what I'm thinking of here. |
| 01:37:35.77 | Bill | So we're focusing, I think, on doing the equivalent of the initial study. |
| 01:37:36.67 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 01:37:42.73 | Bill | for an environmental impact study. Right. And the initial study, which will... |
| 01:37:42.78 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 01:37:42.79 | Unknown | Thank you. All right. |
| 01:37:49.86 | Bill | lead to and probably define those areas that are that are in need of in-depth analysis. whether it's environmental, whether it's geologic, whether it's whatever it is and so on and so forth. But what it does is that it will help define what the real vulnerabilities are. And that's, I think, the thing we have to keep in mind. The vulnerabilities of this particular piece of property are substantial. physically. economically. And from liability points of view on all the rest of that sort of stuff, there are vulnerabilities down there that need to be attended to. |
| 01:38:33.94 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 01:38:36.31 | Leon | Thank you. |
| 01:38:36.42 | Unknown | you |
| 01:38:36.49 | Leon | Thank you. you |
| 01:38:37.81 | Bill | Thank you. |
| 01:38:37.98 | Leon | And also confirm the positive aspects of it because we want to protect those because it's going to get into an EIR. |
| 01:38:44.83 | Bill | And we also are |
| 01:38:44.84 | Leon | Yeah. Thank you. |
| 01:38:47.49 | Bill | Thank you. |
| 01:38:47.53 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 01:38:47.56 | Bill | Thank you. |
| 01:38:47.68 | Unknown | you |
| 01:38:47.86 | Bill | Thank you. |
| 01:38:47.88 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 01:38:48.62 | Bill | can't Looking at an initial study will also require you to look at, okay, there are parts that want to go back to wetlands. Get over it, guys. You ain't going to build on them. |
| 01:39:04.62 | Chair Petrovich | Thank you. Okay, trying to get back to, I mean, what I'm hoping to do is trying to get back to a summary of what we, Lilly will then write up and then we'll be, you know, we'll turn it into something that we'll be asking the consultants to do in their final report and next steps. So giving it another shot. You know, what we'd like to see, you know, where we have consensus is to see, you know, I guess it's the down mechanics of but a new plan for the Marin ship that will eventually be folded into the general plan with, and this plan is not to include spot zoning, and I guess by nature it's not gonna include spot zoning if it's gonna be part of the general plan. with a rationalization of the W zone boundary lines, an update, a more current and I guess more optimistic definition of W zone uses that are water related? And I zone uses as well. |
| 01:40:04.78 | Leon | that are one |
| 01:40:06.84 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 01:40:06.87 | Leon | Thank you. |
| 01:40:06.97 | Unknown | Bye. |
| 01:40:07.13 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 01:40:07.16 | Unknown | you |
| 01:40:07.23 | Bill | Water related? Yeah. I'm not. |
| 01:40:14.28 | Chair Petrovich | I would venture to say that the waterfront uses are going to be more geared towards public access, specific water-related marine uses. Well, and the working waterfront. Yeah, the working waterfront is part of that. And also some, I won't name it by name, but some historic efforts. Yeah, that's always a part of it. |
| 01:40:23.55 | Bill | Well, and the working waterfront. Yeah, the working waterfront. |
| 01:40:33.08 | Mike | Yeah, that's always a sort of it. Reservation efforts. But also, I think. |
| 01:40:35.54 | Leon | But also, I think something that's really important, Bruce brought this up, Um, I think we need to absolutely bring back |
| 01:40:46.36 | Unknown | Mm-hmm. |
| 01:40:46.65 | Leon | the owners group, and so we can get into that city cooperation mode so that we're working. Yeah, I think. If we're working together, we're going to accomplish more than if we don't. |
| 01:40:48.77 | Unknown | Mm-hmm. |
| 01:40:52.76 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 01:40:56.20 | Chair Petrovich | MR. Yeah, I think – |
| 01:41:00.91 | Chair Petrovich | Okay, so to try and, I'll try and include that. And as I continue to sort of summarize. But I think that where You know, we've gone through a lot of updating uses in terms of W zone because we want to keep it a working waterfront. It's very important for the community, very important for the public. The iZone, less so. The iZone is more about functional zoning that kind of allows it all to work. Do we need to kind of go, in my mind, do we need to go through that iZone uses list again? I don't think we should. |
| 01:41:35.53 | Bill | I don't think we should. I think we just, I mean, if we want to do it, we're going to get ourselves tangled up. Well, there are some more details. We also have to be a little bit, I think, attentive to the fact that part of what we're doing here is giving some direction to the consultants. Those consultants have limited time left on their... |
| 01:41:43.92 | Leon | something. |
| 01:41:44.29 | Unknown | more details. |
| 01:41:44.97 | Leon | But we also have |
| 01:42:00.09 | Bill | Clock. Thank you. |
| 01:42:00.90 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 01:42:00.93 | Bill | Thank you. |
| 01:42:00.97 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 01:42:01.03 | Bill | and we ought not to be... We've probably got to get a response from them. before we meet again. to what Lilly has put together from our conversations here, because Thank you. they're going to have to say that they can either include it or not. They can either adjust their study to this point in order to be able to accommodate everything that we've all of a sudden decided is important, |
| 01:42:21.82 | Ray | Yeah. |
| 01:42:28.91 | Bill | that they weren't planning on doing the crisp plates. And the last thing we want to do right now is have them come back and say, sure, we'll do that, but it's another 15 grand or whatever. So we have to be careful about that. |
| 01:42:37.85 | Leon | or whatever. I think we can plant a stake in the sense of uses that we've decided are not going to be fruitful. There are certain things that we got community input on also. Said, no, we don't want these. So I think if we can call those out, |
| 01:42:53.26 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 01:42:53.43 | Unknown | . |
| 01:42:53.70 | Unknown | We're going to... |
| 01:42:53.97 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 01:42:58.14 | Leon | Thank you. It should help. I think, yeah, it's so broad that the economy that's going on down there right now is so broad it'd be hard to say, well, what are we going to include? But again, there are some things that we could exclude. |
| 01:43:00.40 | Unknown | I think, yeah. |
| 01:43:14.14 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 01:43:14.17 | Mike | My concern is that I would like this document to go away. And in this document, they've divided it. It's not just the W zone. We've got the I zone, the H zone, the CS zone, the P zone, and the CA zone. So if we just, and I hear what you're saying, because this is a bunch of weeds we could get lost in. On the other hand, |
| 01:43:14.19 | Leon | Okay, let's go. |
| 01:43:16.33 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 01:43:35.77 | Mike | you Thank you. I would love to see this have maybe turned into two designations, not one. Two. |
| 01:43:41.88 | Bill | Okay, but my point is that for the purposes of this study and for the purposes of of allowing the consultants to finish their job for us. |
| 01:43:52.17 | Unknown | Yeah. |
| 01:43:52.48 | Bill | I think we... All we're going to ask them is that they should say that needs to be addressed, not to solve it. |
| 01:44:00.76 | Mike | Good. That's fine. I agree totally. |
| 01:44:03.71 | Bill | Thank you. |
| 01:44:03.73 | Ray | I agree totally with that. But don't, we can't just say, but Robin was saying a different thing, which was almost like the eye zone doesn't matter so much, or we can put anything we want in there, or whatever. We got to decide what we want it to be flavor-wise. |
| 01:44:04.59 | Bill | Okay. |
| 01:44:04.81 | Mike | Thank you. |
| 01:44:04.84 | Bill | Thank you. |
| 01:44:04.86 | Mike | Yeah, I'm not good at it. |
| 01:44:07.43 | Bill | Thank you. |
| 01:44:07.44 | Mike | Thank you. |
| 01:44:07.46 | Bill | Yeah. |
| 01:44:07.48 | Mike | Yes. |
| 01:44:07.78 | Bill | Because that's... |
| 01:44:08.61 | Mike | Yeah. |
| 01:44:08.96 | Bill | Thank you. |
| 01:44:08.98 | Mike | That's what I'm talking about. |
| 01:44:10.56 | Unknown | to see. |
| 01:44:16.03 | Unknown | or whatever. |
| 01:44:17.85 | Unknown | to do. |
| 01:44:18.02 | Chair Petrovich | Thank you. |
| 01:44:18.48 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 01:44:18.50 | Chair Petrovich | Thank you. |
| 01:44:18.61 | Bill | Thank you. |
| 01:44:18.65 | Chair Petrovich | Yeah. |
| 01:44:18.70 | Bill | I'm not sure. |
| 01:44:18.87 | Chair Petrovich | We got to the sober. |
| 01:44:19.73 | Bill | Yeah. |
| 01:44:20.03 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 01:44:20.13 | Chair Petrovich | I want to. |
| 01:44:20.34 | Unknown | Yeah. |
| 01:44:20.35 | Bill | to be flavor-wise. That's what I'm talking about when I say vulnerability. |
| 01:44:22.43 | Chair Petrovich | But I would also say... If I may, sorry. I'm sorry. You know, with the... I don't mean to use my chairmanship that way. The W zone, The reason why I think we focused on it first is because there are some things in there that are a lot about the public benefit. Public access, it's you know, you can't have waterfront use anywhere else except on the waterfront. You can't have beach access anywhere else except on the waterfront. There's certain historical uses there that flavor the city that if you lose them, you will lose a lot of character. And so I feel like the W-Zone is more important in terms of it's somewhat There's a certain element of non-negotiability there with the WZO. It's just kind of not as free or just can't even start to serve as a proper W zone in terms of giving back to the community. Some stuff you can't even build on. You know, that's part of it, too. Whatever happens to the rest of it, I'll just call it the eye zone. I agree with Mike, two areas. Somehow I don't feel like we can constrain the I-Zone so much that the whole thing's not going to work because it feels like the I-Zone's got to give a little bit because the W-Zone is somewhat non-negotiable in terms of what the vision is for it to be a community-serving area. |
| 01:45:55.68 | Ray | I would agree that we do not. It can't just be anything. Right, it can just be anything. |
| 01:45:57.96 | Chair Petrovich | It can't just be anything. today. But it has to make it all work, too. It has to be the engine that makes the W-Zone be what it can be. |
| 01:46:03.24 | Unknown | Yeah. |
| 01:46:03.26 | Ray | Yeah. |
| 01:46:03.49 | Unknown | I'm sorry. |
| 01:46:05.53 | Ray | Exactly. But the very fact that we were talking about applied arts and whether that should be a use or need in a CUP or whatever it needs, we're immediately talking about the ison and the use in it. |
| 01:46:18.06 | Chair Petrovich | Right? Thank you. |
| 01:46:19.20 | Ray | right arm if you can readjust the water front zone boundary Well... It's bounded by the eye zone. So you're moving something one way or another. So you've got to be cognizant. |
| 01:46:34.02 | Chair Petrovich | Well, I think we have to talk about it. I just don't feel like we can be as kind of strict in terms of defining uses we're okay with seeing and not seeing as in the W zone. |
| 01:46:40.45 | Bill | Oh, yeah. I absolutely agree with you, and I think that's what we were talking about before, that even the definitions of the uses are going to have to be flexible, because we don't know what... |
| 01:46:43.67 | Chair Petrovich | I think that's what we're talking about. |
| 01:46:50.86 | Unknown | because |
| 01:46:55.18 | Bill | what kinds of uses are likely to be around that would fit there. |
| 01:46:58.30 | Chair Petrovich | Yes. Around for that. And I also think to Leon's point about really wanting to involve the property owners in somewhere or other, some kind of communication, kind of what works for everybody. |
| 01:47:01.61 | Bill | Yeah. |
| 01:47:11.80 | Chair Petrovich | I think there has to be, you know, whatever those uses in the I-Zone are, have to be able to kind of make it work for the W-Zone to exist the way that we'd like to see it work as well. to some extent. And I don't think that's a blanket, well what would you like to see, what would you like to do, it's really more of a, I don't know what the process is, but I don't think we can have a blank slate on the I-Zone, but I also don't think that we can have... Thank you. Too restrictive. plans for that zone or right back to the emergency plan? |
| 01:47:43.07 | Ray | No, but you can make a recommendation, or perhaps you can. Perhaps we're this vague. that there's not going to be residential there, for instance. So it's about |
| 01:47:52.69 | Unknown | It's amazing. |
| 01:47:53.52 | Chair Petrovich | Yeah. |
| 01:47:53.69 | Unknown | I'm going to go. |
| 01:47:53.97 | Nicole Horne | Thank you. |
| 01:47:54.02 | Unknown | Yeah. |
| 01:47:54.38 | Nicole Horne | I mean, |
| 01:47:54.78 | Unknown | right. |
| 01:47:55.04 | Chair Petrovich | you |
| 01:47:55.29 | Unknown | Yes. |
| 01:47:57.82 | Ray | To use Leon's analogy of painting the picture, at least you can sort of give a flavor of what the area is. |
| 01:47:57.84 | Chair Petrovich | to use Leon's analysis. give a flavor of what the area is. I think we need to give some, we need to do some work in defining that character of the area. Right. Then the future |
| 01:48:12.82 | Ray | Then a future study defines what does that really mean in terms of how do we define this in words? |
| 01:48:15.34 | Chair Petrovich | me. I don't know. Some words. So the W zone, the work we've done on the W zone, I think is a little bit more, yeah, this is kind of what we want. |
| 01:48:18.98 | Ray | So, |
| 01:48:25.56 | Chair Petrovich | that's not going to change a whole lot. And the work on the iZone that we still have to do a little bit on is |
| 01:48:27.30 | Jonathon Goldman | Thank you. |
| 01:48:31.77 | Chair Petrovich | it has to be kind of look a little like this. You tell us exactly what's gonna work. That's probably in part comes down to an ERR, EIR, and an economic study and all those things. that are going to kind of focus on that, that are not really going to affect, you know, the economic study on the W zone. |
| 01:48:45.53 | Unknown | All right. |
| 01:48:45.64 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 01:48:45.69 | Unknown | I'm going to go. |
| 01:48:49.78 | Chair Petrovich | I mean, I guess it's important as well, but it's more, I think I see the iZone as being the engine that's going to make it all work. |
| 01:48:56.02 | Ray | Can I just clarify one thing to make sure that we may need staff to help us a little bit here? I mean, we've thrown around an EIR several times. I think we've got to be a little careful what we're talking about because if we're saying we need, as part of the analysis, to get an environmental review of the environmental issues, that's fine. |
| 01:49:06.01 | Unknown | Mm-hmm. |
| 01:49:16.56 | Ray | but an EIR is specifically around a defined project or program. |
| 01:49:21.65 | Chair Petrovich | I don't know. |
| 01:49:21.98 | Mike | Thank you. |
| 01:49:22.06 | Chair Petrovich | Right. |
| 01:49:22.38 | Mike | I'll see you next time. |
| 01:49:22.87 | Chair Petrovich | Thank you. |
| 01:49:22.89 | Mike | No, not necessarily. Or change. Not necessarily. Or change. Not necessarily. |
| 01:49:23.70 | Ray | or change. |
| 01:49:24.56 | Bill | Thank you. you want to know. |
| 01:49:24.96 | Ray | or change. Thank you. |
| 01:49:26.77 | Bill | The EIR goes along with the general plan. Oh, no, there's an, yeah, absolutely. There must be an EIR with the general plan. Which doesn't look at specific projects. |
| 01:49:29.23 | Ray | Oh, no, there's a, yeah, absolutely. There must be an EIR with a general plan. Which doesn't look at specific projects. No, no, no. Let me clarify. What I'm saying is an EIR is actually defining a finished product. |
| 01:49:38.75 | Bill | Right. |
| 01:49:46.04 | Ray | of a change to say the general plan. or to a specific plan or to anything. Because just by its very definition, you've got to have something that you're actually analyzing. |
| 01:49:57.90 | Mike | Yeah, that's true. Because you can't analyze nothing. You can't analyze sort of like an EIR |
| 01:50:00.03 | Ray | You can analyze sort of like an EIR on what you want to do. |
| 01:50:03.98 | Mike | That's true. Thank you. |
| 01:50:04.60 | Leon | Yeah, of course. We asked about screening, though. But you've got, but yeah. Yes, you can do this, or no, you can't. Yeah, exactly. |
| 01:50:06.97 | Mike | a bit weird but you've got a good Yeah. |
| 01:50:12.58 | Ray | Thank you. |
| 01:50:12.69 | Mike | Thank you. |
| 01:50:12.77 | Ray | Thank you. |
| 01:50:12.79 | Mike | You start out with a specific area, and you could actually fill your first form out from the specific area. That's right. And you wouldn't even have to take the buildings into consideration. Absolutely. Absolutely. You have to sleep with the line uses. |
| 01:50:13.01 | Leon | Thank you. |
| 01:50:20.14 | Chair Petrovich | Thank you. |
| 01:50:26.44 | Chair Petrovich | Okay, so do we have enough meat on this? I'll look over to staff. Do we have enough meat on kind of the recommendation letter to? Thank you. Thank you. Consultants. |
| 01:50:38.88 | Lily | I think... My suggestion would be that I think the committee needs to talk more about the I-Zone and the uses. In particular, I heard, you know, applied arts, and I think you should have a discussion of what that might do. Like Mr. Huff brought up to fine arts. I can bring back the list of what is defined as an applied art for you to take a look at, and that might help that discussion. |
| 01:50:44.87 | Unknown | Amen. |
| 01:50:53.32 | Unknown | Yeah. |
| 01:51:03.88 | Chair Petrovich | Is there enough meat on everything else? |
| 01:51:07.58 | Lily | I have a lot of items that I can bring back to you. So Lily. |
| 01:51:09.65 | Chair Petrovich | Bye. |
| 01:51:09.79 | Ray | I'd love to. |
| 01:51:10.16 | Chair Petrovich | Yeah. |
| 01:51:10.77 | Ray | So, Lily, sorry, Robin, for interrupting. So, Lily. |
| 01:51:11.88 | Chair Petrovich | Bye. |
| 01:51:15.66 | Ray | Do you see it perhaps as you will come back with a working document Discussion document. |
| 01:51:22.51 | Lily | Exactly. |
| 01:51:22.90 | Ray | as the first draft of a series of recommendations that we're going to send back to the consultant. And that that would be a working document for the next meeting that we try and refine and discuss. |
| 01:51:34.93 | Leon | before going to the Constitution? Yes. And that's our next meeting. |
| 01:51:36.15 | Ray | Yes, and that's our next meeting, is to review Lily's work product, which is her attempt to synthesize this conversation. |
| 01:51:43.69 | Chair Petrovich | And discuss further on the, discuss the aye. Yes. And if we can get that. |
| 01:51:45.72 | Leon | Bye. |
| 01:51:46.07 | Ray | Yes. |
| 01:51:46.80 | Leon | And if we can get that enough in advance that we could let it mull between us or individually and really think about more specifics. Yeah, that was tough. |
| 01:51:57.43 | Unknown | You have that much time in your day? |
| 01:51:58.04 | Bill | I mean, you're not. Well, how long is it going to take Lily to put something together? |
| 01:52:01.12 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 01:52:07.42 | Lily | We were looking at coming back on June 30th, if that works for your schedules. We do have the 23rd reserved. |
| 01:52:15.16 | Unknown | We do have the |
| 01:52:16.02 | Unknown | 20. |
| 01:52:16.55 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 01:52:20.09 | Lily | In order for staff to turn something around with enough time for you to actually take a look at it and digest it, I'd recommend coming back on the 30th. |
| 01:52:31.23 | Chair Petrovich | Do we want to, well, let's see, do we want to do, we could come back on the 30th, take a look at what staff has put together and discuss I, or we could also meet the 23rd and discuss I to be able to throw it all into that one document. |
| 01:52:51.70 | Chair Petrovich | Otherwise we're going to be missing something from that draft. |
| 01:52:53.86 | Leon | I'm still trying to figure out the 30th. I don't know. |
| 01:52:59.81 | Chair Petrovich | You know, you can't, okay. Dirty is fun for me, but I don't know. |
| 01:53:00.71 | Leon | Thank you. Dirty is fine for me, but I don't know. |
| 01:53:05.59 | Chair Petrovich | Yeah. |
| 01:53:08.98 | Chair Petrovich | I'm going to say date wise we're fine we just haven't had that discussion around the I-zone that we also need to kind of go in there and perhaps we're fine you know I don't know if it's going to need an additional review but it's going to you know the discussion we have around the I-zone is going to kind of go into the if that's the schedule it's going to go into that document without having a chance to refine it and then go straight to the consultant. |
| 01:53:16.56 | Unknown | Thank you. Thank you. |
| 01:53:17.05 | Unknown | Yeah. |
| 01:53:17.16 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 01:53:32.37 | Lily | Chair Petrovic, if I may, we could come back on the 23rd, and I can give you information at the end of this week on the applied arts and all that stuff for you to have that discussion on Monday next week, a week from today, and then I can fold that conversation into a draft document if we come back on the 30th, if that works for your schedule. |
| 01:53:32.42 | Chair Petrovich | SPEAKER 1, Chair Petrovaevich Vang. |
| 01:53:52.69 | Lily | Thank you. |
| 01:53:52.70 | Chair Petrovich | And then the only item on that agenda is going to be to review that draft document. |
| 01:53:52.72 | Lily | And then they'll... Okay. |
| 01:53:56.19 | Chair Petrovich | Thank you. Because I may have an email. |
| 01:53:57.09 | Bill | Thank you. |
| 01:53:57.19 | Mike | We don't have a meeting to do that. I think we should just give her the time to do it right and come back on Thursday. |
| 01:53:57.85 | Bill | Thank you. |
| 01:54:02.83 | Bill | I think that's fine. I mean, you know, again, this was a question that was in that discussion topic sent out for the May 12th meeting, and, you know, it was... |
| 01:54:06.02 | Mike | Again, you |
| 01:54:09.53 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 01:54:15.23 | Bill | what are the appropriate uses in the I-Zone? And my comment to that was, was industrial, parenthetically, including present and as yet unknown activities contemplated and not contemplated by the original. Marinship Specific Plan. marine and maritime-related industries and associated businesses, and any landside use that supports the uses allowed in the W zone. |
| 01:54:36.49 | Ray | you. |
| 01:54:40.80 | Bill | Thank you. I mean, you know, and the ones that were... Absolutely unacceptable were retail transient occupancy hotels. entertainment and general office space unrelated to the primary permitted industrial and maritime uses. |
| 01:54:58.26 | Leon | Thank you. |
| 01:54:58.28 | Bill | Thank you. Thank you. |
| 01:54:59.36 | Leon | I'm... I'm certainly getting the impression as we talk about the industrial area, the zone, that maybe it's a misnomer in the sense of a zoning title. Maybe we should think about changing that to something a little more contemporary and appropriate. |
| 01:55:14.73 | Chair Petrovich | Let's say confusion. |
| 01:55:18.73 | Leon | Thank you. |
| 01:55:18.83 | Chair Petrovich | industrial. |
| 01:55:19.44 | Leon | Thank you. |
| 01:55:19.54 | Bill | Thank you. |
| 01:55:20.72 | Leon | you |
| 01:55:20.84 | Unknown | Yeah, right. |
| 01:55:20.87 | Chair Petrovich | Bye. |
| 01:55:20.91 | Bill | Yeah, right. Post-Industrial Revolution, please. |
| 01:55:24.22 | Leon | Yeah. |
| 01:55:26.05 | Bruce Hough | Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. If you're excited for your flight arts, that's what's there. By and large, that's the present. I don't know where it's going from here, but that's the game. That's where it is. It's there. |
| 01:55:32.42 | Unknown | You're a good one. |
| 01:55:39.08 | Chair Petrovich | Okay, so do we want to meet again on the 20th or do we want to? Mike, you were thinking we just meet on the 30th. |
| 01:55:43.62 | Mike | Let's give her time to do it and do it right. Come back on the 30th and get her back. |
| 01:55:45.56 | Chair Petrovich | We can get it out to us with a little advance notice. We haven't had an eyes on discussion. It's still my point. |
| 01:55:48.28 | Bill | to his |
| 01:55:48.89 | Mike | Thank you. |
| 01:55:48.90 | Bill | Thank you. |
| 01:55:49.04 | Mike | Thank you. |
| 01:55:49.06 | Bill | Thank you. |
| 01:55:49.16 | Mike | Thank you. |
| 01:55:49.22 | Bill | little advanced |
| 01:55:49.86 | Mike | notice. |
| 01:55:50.56 | Bill | Thank you. |
| 01:55:50.59 | Mike | We haven't had an Isaac. |
| 01:55:53.12 | Chair Petrovich | We haven't had either of the way that you have around you. Do you think that is enough to get into a draft? |
| 01:55:53.85 | Mike | THE END OF THE END OF THE |
| 01:55:54.00 | Bill | THE WAY YOU WANTED TO |
| 01:55:55.37 | Mike | to talk around him. I think we're... I guess I'm already rising to a higher level. Of course you are. I'm not. I'm starting to look down at this thing. |
| 01:56:05.64 | Chair Petrovich | . Yeah. |
| 01:56:07.77 | Bill | That's the rising sea level around your ankles. That's my ankles. I'd love it. Okay, tell us what you're thinking. |
| 01:56:07.87 | Mike | That's the right. My ankles. My ankles. I float. Well, I just think that what Lily's going to do is synthesize what we've said tonight into some sort of a document to give some direction. And we can look at that and say, okay, let's fix this, let's fix that. |
| 01:56:22.59 | Unknown | Thank you. Thank you. |
| 01:56:26.01 | Mike | I would advise each of us to go study the I-Zone. And I agree. I think that the I-Zone is outdated and probably needs a different nomenclature, and we can do that. |
| 01:56:35.07 | Chair Petrovich | Yeah, so I'm also, I mean, I have confidence that |
| 01:56:35.09 | Mike | Okay, so I'm... |
| 01:56:39.53 | Chair Petrovich | Thank you. Yeah. |
| 01:56:41.10 | Lily | Yeah. |
| 01:56:41.62 | Chair Petrovich | Yeah. |
| 01:56:42.14 | Lily | So then you'll have this for your discussion when you talk about the I-Zone, but in my mind it is an important discussion to have because the fine arts piece, those fine arts, like Mr. Huff mentioned, are dependent on those applied arts. You know, you can only have the applied arts if you have the fine arts. I think it will be really important for you to take a look at what are fine arts and what are applied arts. |
| 01:57:09.02 | Bruce Hough | I will bring up. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. I'm not sure if you're on certain buildings, |
| 01:57:14.80 | Mike | Yeah. |
| 01:57:15.34 | Bruce Hough | and they're not really fit well in a lot of other buildings. And the buildings, I imagine, Yes. . |
| 01:57:24.92 | Chair Petrovich | Thank you. |
| 01:57:24.94 | Bruce Hough | Thank you. |
| 01:57:24.97 | Unknown | you |
| 01:57:24.99 | Chair Petrovich | Thank you. Right. So... I guess so there will be one meeting on the June 30th is what we're thinking about. And we'll be looking at this document and also having a discussion around the I-Zone, which will then get folded into another revised version. Are you comfortable with that? Is the staff comfortable with that, too, as planned? |
| 01:57:48.21 | Mike | Yeah, with kind of stuff. |
| 01:57:51.30 | Chair Petrovich | Thank you. |
| 01:57:51.31 | Mike | Okay. |
| 01:57:51.77 | Chair Petrovich | Thank you. |
| 01:57:51.80 | Mike | Thank you. |
| 01:57:51.89 | Chair Petrovich | Thank you. . You get with that, Owen? Okay. All right. Very good. So that's our plan. We don't need to vote on that, do we? We're just all good. Okay. Bye. |
| 01:57:55.73 | Mike | Sure. |
| 01:57:55.92 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 01:58:03.02 | Chair Petrovich | . And we just need to wrap up the agenda really quick. I think I do need to ask any public comment to wrap up this item. We've already had some. quick. We'll be right back. |
| 01:58:19.88 | Mike | Where are the friends of Willow? |
| 01:58:21.30 | Bill | Thank you. That's... Yeah. That's right. Cool. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. it's. |
| 01:58:26.63 | Mike | Where does the single bill of free Thank you. |
| 01:58:30.24 | Mr. Carvazzi/Gravacci | Thank you. Thank you. I hope. Thank you. Thank you. I respond to the commentary about preserving the historical area in some ways in expressing that in your communication with your consultants. so that you are responding to the public commentary in a way that public sees the response to it. |
| 01:58:55.93 | Unknown | Mm-hmm. |
| 01:59:07.62 | Chair Petrovich | If I can respond to that, I agree. I think that is part of what we've agreed is the communication. It's an essential element in terms of the W zone and how we see it going forward. |
| 01:59:12.15 | Mr. Carvazzi/Gravacci | of communication. |
| 01:59:12.97 | Unknown | It's an insane |
| 01:59:18.64 | Chair Petrovich | We've finished that one over. Yep. Thank you for that. Thank you for the reminder. Okay, let's move on to item number five. |
| 01:59:19.01 | Bill | Okay. |
| 01:59:27.67 | Chair Petrovich | I understand. |
| 01:59:28.40 | Lily | Thank you. We have a couple of communication items. One from committee member Badger that you have in your packet. Another from the Friends of Willow Creek about daylighting the creek, and there's a lot of correspondence there for you to review. And then we also wanted to show you part of a presentation that the Army Corps made at the Council meeting last week about the realignment of Marineship Way. |
| 01:59:34.37 | Unknown | Yeah. |
| 02:00:04.05 | Lily | Yeah. |
| 02:00:06.04 | Leon | Is this a proposed? you The core of it. |
| 02:00:10.15 | Bill | The Corps of Engineers can do what they want. |
| 02:00:12.73 | Leon | Thank you. |
| 02:00:14.30 | Mike | They own all this property? |
| 02:00:17.60 | Unknown | Thank you. Wow. Yes, so if you look at the presentation here, the left-hand side you can see the tennis courts moving to your right as the bay model. So that street there, that narrow street between SWA, the tennis courts, the plant and the Army Corps will turn into a one-way street. There was a trip and fall, bike accident, a variety of things that have happened there. They thought the city owned it. We had it surveyed. ends up being the Army Corps, Their first response was close the street. Let's not have any more problems. Second was let's see what we can do to reduce our liability. So they're paving the street and going to change the direction circulation one way heading south, north to south, right up to the visitor's lane there, the street that takes you out to the parking lot. to the Beymahno Visitor Center. and then you can see the street signs that kind of take you into a loop through that parking parking area and back out Marinship Way. So that's what's coming forward. We have roughly 30 days to work with them to see if there are some tweaks, small adjustments to be made. They're obviously open to changing the sign one way going the other direction. |
| 02:01:23.64 | Bruce Hough | Thank you. |
| 02:01:45.03 | Unknown | But at this point, based on conversations that Jonathan Goldman, our public works director, and I've had with them, open to having it remain two-way. So basically it's what they said at the presentation at the council meeting. They strongly want to go this direction and I believe that's the direction they're going to go. So this will happen in the next 30 days. The construction will begin and then we'll continue to work with them. They also showed a long-range plan or talked about a long-range plan which is similar to what |
| 02:01:56.09 | Bruce Hough | Thank you. |
| 02:02:21.89 | Unknown | WAM brought forward with their circulation plan that has the roadway coming down the back side of the plant and SWA and connecting back where Marina Plaza is on the other side to take out that one narrow stretch and to the hard left when you're heading north, the blind left and the blind right coming south, which is a difficult area to navigate but that that's the good news is that the Army Corps wants to be at the table and wants to be a partner moving forward to what degree that means I don't know but I know that some of the business community in that area have had meetings with them and I'm sure that that will be presented to the city at some point |
| 02:03:14.98 | Mike | We're about the citizens. |
| 02:03:18.28 | Unknown | and I'm glad that I wanted to like tell his question there that's why we asked him to come to at least the counseling they want you coming anywhere |
| 02:03:24.73 | Unknown | Oh, jeez. |
| 02:03:25.12 | Bruce Hough | Thank you. |
| 02:03:26.16 | Unknown | and we said at least come and let people know. We did have two people that made comments, Peter Van Meter, |
| 02:03:29.25 | Bruce Hough | Thank you. |
| 02:03:31.99 | Unknown | Mr. Huff? and they were opposite, but at least we had two members of the public make comment. Council had comments as well as staff, but this is the direction they're moving. |
| 02:03:37.13 | Bruce Hough | At least we have... |
| 02:03:46.77 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 02:03:46.80 | Leon | Thank you. |
| 02:03:46.84 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 02:03:46.89 | Leon | Is that area in the back still going to be open for art festival booths that rely on that income? Or is that going to be just barred for any kind of traffic except cars, vehicles? No, the other thing. |
| 02:04:00.79 | Unknown | Sit down. No, the only thing that's changing is the strip between SWA, the plant, and the parking lot there. So everything else will remain the same. During the art festival, that whole street gets taken over by tour buses and pedestrians. That will remain the same. |
| 02:04:12.23 | Leon | Oh. |
| 02:04:18.85 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 02:04:18.86 | Bill | Yeah. Bye. A quick question. Has anybody done a traffic count as to which way the traffic, majority of the traffic goes? Because it seems to me that there's more traffic going south to north than there is coming north to south. |
| 02:04:26.73 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 02:04:37.75 | Unknown | We're looking at that now, but the answer is no one has done a traffic study or a traffic count that we're aware of. And our initial discussions with them that the traffic coming off of Bridgeway, making a left there, is going down to Schumacher and 10, 25, 30 Liberty Ship and to the Visitor Center, the traffic heading north, most of that comes in at Harbor Drive. |
| 02:04:37.97 | Bill | We're looking at that now, |
| 02:05:09.90 | Unknown | So at this point we think the arrow is going the right direction, but we have to look at it a little closer. I met with the police department today because they had represented that the police had signed off. on this they said that they received the report. They didn't sign off on it. So they need to go and look at the circulation as well. and make sure that it doesn't cause other problems. I think initially it's going to cause some headaches because there's a lot of From when Jonathan and I were standing up there with your staff member with the engineer at the corner, there's a lot of inner traffic of people that work together, a lot of service vehicles going back and forth. And obviously pedestrians and people that work there on bicycles. So we saw a lot of that activity. |
| 02:05:50.33 | Mr. Carvazzi/Gravacci | more. |
| 02:05:50.75 | Unknown | to the |
| 02:05:51.02 | Mr. Carvazzi/Gravacci | . |
| 02:05:51.27 | Unknown | And obviously, |
| 02:05:51.97 | Mr. Carvazzi/Gravacci | Everybody up on Brooklyn. |
| 02:05:53.01 | Unknown | Yeah. Thank you. |
| 02:05:59.09 | Unknown | We've got to take a look at what happens on the backside of the Bay Model. People use that path. on the back side, so how do we redirect the traffic, at least pedestrian and cyclist. But, yeah, we're initially concerned, but this is where we are. |
| 02:06:20.60 | Chair Petrovich | Okay, thank you for those presentations. And was there anything else on number five? Did we already cover that? you Okay, we're ready to cover number five, so, and number six adjourn until the next meeting on June 30th. Second. All those in favor say aye. Aye. Thank you, everybody. |
| 02:06:36.63 | Bill | All right. All right. |
| 02:06:41.65 | Mr. Carvazzi/Gravacci | You say it won't. |
Bruce Hough — Neutral: Clarified that property owners pay taxes on private roadways, discussed public access dedications, and noted the city's reluctance to accept liability for infrastructure like bike paths. Later, advocated for abolishing the specific plan in favor of the General Plan, rationalizing the W-zone boundary, and making applied arts a permitted use (1:17:55). ▶ 📄
Nicole Horne — In Favor: Representing SWA Group in the I-zone, supported identifying 'applied arts' as a permitted use throughout the I-zone, arguing it aligns with the Marinship's character and avoids spot zoning. ▶ 📄