2012/12/18 Council Agenda Packet

Central Waterfront Talking Points 1. Speaking for myself, not other PC members,but trying to represent my understanding of how PC arrived at its recommendation and why I voted for it 2. Staff did a masterful job of crafting a preferred alternative from all of the input over several meetings. In the final hearing it appeared that a consensus had been reached on the significant issues except for public access. 3. The compromise that the PC settled on requires on-site shoreline public access except where it is incompatible with water-dependent uses on the site, in which case it may be offsite and must be on the waterfront and consistent with the Shoreline Public Access Plan 4. Why I supported the recommendation • The recommended alternative is very inclusive, subject to limitations to make the new uses compatible with the surrounding neighborhoods, and does not preclude a new owner from proposing non-water-dependent uses on the shoreline; however, it would mean the proponent would be responsible for the effort and cost to amend the Shoreline Plan,rather than the City gambling on this expense • While the business park uses were attractive to many PC members and commenters, the City's economic consultant and K-C's real estate consultant indicated that the site would have difficulty attracting those uses due to cost, access, and security constraints. I did not want to see the site sit empty for many years • The inner harbor is not a place for water-contact access; I would not want my granddaughters dipping their toes there—the areas to the north where flushed by the river are more attractive. • Navy concerns about public access and limits on views are a factor affecting business park use and view-oriented shoreline public access on this site. The adjacent secure Port property is another limitation. IZlig Ilz Zv 3 d 091v1 , A gsz'( L`Z - -it Z l k.Ct, e �®t,vews,i