 |
||||
 |
||||
 |
||||
 |
||||
 |
||||
|
||||
 |
||||
 |
||||
 |
Public Coments and Input to Date
Planning Process/Questions
·
The
Planning and Zoning Commission is charged with a very important task in
making sure there is more than zoning lines and a color coded zoning map
as a final product. Your charge is
how to apply new zoning regulations, develop design standards, provide
incentives for cluster development, give careful analysis of parking needs
and pedestrian design, define appropriate uses, position the Port of Homer
as a green industry with innovative energy efficiency, support services,
and by-product utilization, and preserve key open space, vistas, and
sensitive ecosystems. Thank you for protecting Kachemak Bay and the Spit
·
Will there be an
Executive Summary discussing what updated changes have been made to the Plan?
·
When is the next draft
of the Spit Comp Plan scheduled to be released for public review?
· What is the timeline for comment and review of the framework draft?
· Is there a place to look at public comments? Is there any information on how many and type of comments were received/ Do we know how many folks attended the meetings?
Corrections/EDITS
to Framework Plan & Maps
- I am the owner of lot 43 at the base of the Pioneer Dock. The framework plan shows my property as a park. I recall asking to be added to your mailing list using the check box on this page, but haven't received any notices at all.
- I note that in the Draft Framework Plan, under Climate Change, it says that "It is predicted that melting of the polar ice packs will impact coastal areas..." It would be more accurate to say "...melting of the Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets..." It is only the melting of ice that is currently land-based that is contributing to sea level rise. Greenland and West Antarctica are the most significant and vulnerable sources of this land-based ice.
-
Purpose of Plan (pg. 2) - Throughout the Spit Plan there is a lack of specificity
and design detail. The plan speaks to a
critical need to redefine the existing zoning code and design standards but
provides no recommended revisions to the code or site design or architectural
standards. It would be useful to see how
architectural design standards have been applied in other cities with harbor
developments. .. More attention should be given to guiding this process rather
than punting it away by saying a task force should be created.
-
Research and Analysis (pg. 4) It
is not always clear how research and analysis helped shape the plan. The consultant’s analysis regarding impacts
from tsunami and tidal waves seemed to reach a conclusion that development
could occur with some engineering constraints, yet it is unclear if those engineering
requirements are in code. For example:
-
The analysis
that since residential and resort development is already a land use on the Spit
then more should be encouraged defies logic. That does not make it an appropriate use or protect the unique character
and “flavor” of the Spit. The plan fails to recognize the affect that (1)
condo or resort development would have on protecting open space and the unique
landform vistas, (2) mixing residential use with industrial use is problematic
especially within a high marine hazard area, (3) residential/condo development
on the Spit does nothing to contribute to low and moderate income housing
(condos on the Spit currently sell for ¾ million dollars), and (4) there is
already a proposal to build condos and residential/commercial development at
the entrance of the Spit (lighthouse area). The plan should recognize that the prevalent community view is that the
existing condos on the Spit should serve as a lesson to guide what is
considered ‘inappropriate’ development and a failure to protect key Spit
values.
-
The plan
reserves land for marine industrial growth without any supporting economic data
or forecasts for that growth, especially in light of no harbor expansion. Reserving that land for marine industrial
development without some consideration for what type of industrial development
is short-sighted. Again, the plan should
spell out in more detail how the current zoning code would be changed to
accommodate a more ‘green’ and sustainable fisheries. Becoming a trans-shipment port for Pebble
Mine or for oil and gas development is not a community priority. The plan should forecast what type of marine
industrial development might occur and how it would affect large truck traffic
and other related industrial support impacts. Marine industrial pollution and water quality should be addressed in the
plan standards for development.
-
Homer Economy (pg. 5) - The plan fails to address any economic data from the City,
the Chamber of Commerce or other forecasting or data sources. Sales tax revenues are down because of a
removal of sales tax on food items during the non-summer season. There is no analysis of the overall tourism
economy of Homer and how tourism revenue from the Spit competes with a very
healthy tourism market from bed and breakfast establishments, the downtown
core, Beluga Lake flight services, the Pratt Museum and the art community. The
plan treats the Spit as the ‘economic engine’ when in fact the health of the
tourism economy is dependent on not overdeveloping the Spit. The plan paints a negative picture on
“out-of-town” and “out-of-state” retirees coming to Homer as an “influx of
residents with wealth” when in fact that is part of Homer’s vitality and
economic growth. Those types of ‘us and
them’ statements simply create controversy, devalues people who chose to live
and work in Homer and contribute to Homer’s quality of life, and should be
removed from the plan or rewritten. It
is unrealistic to say that the Spit will be developed, as the plan suggests,
for low and moderate residential housing or that the City will find incentives
for developers to provide low and moderate income housing. Those incentives should be for lands within
the City of Homer or region. Simply
saying there should be maintained a stock of low and moderate income housing
does not make it happen. The need for
low and moderate residential housing should not be a rationale for residential
development on the Spit when there are more appropriate locations within the
city with city services, and easy access to medical, food, library,
entertainment, schools, and recreational services.
-
Land Use (pg. 5)- The land use section looks at land use from the viewpoint of what has
evolved and uses that as a tool to guide what can further evolve. We believe the plan should step back and
analyze land suitability overlay mapping of critical intertidal habitat areas
and off-shore marine environment, flood, wave and tsunami hazard mapping, key viewsheds, and open space. The overlay mapping will then define the
protection values and constraints to development and guide the land use zone
based on suitability. Those values can
then be applied to better defining the zoning code and standards for
development.
-
To say (pg.
6) that resort/residential is a “significant land use” (whatever that means?)
is not supported by any land use suitability mapping or analysis of the
alternatives for residential development of the Spit in Homer.
-
It is unclear
how the brief descriptions of the four zones currently in the zoning code apply
to the Spit. What changes in the code
are needed to be more compatible for conditions on the Spit?. What is allowed or not allowed in the
existing code that should be given scrutiny? It would be good to have the existing code as part of the discussion as
to what specific changes should be applied to the Spit.
-
Natural Environment (pg. 8) This section of the plan recognizes the
protection of conservation areas without relating how that protection may be
jeopardized by increased development and encroachment of human activity. It is important to again map out the
significance of the Spit ecosystem. A key issue is a provision for placing
additional fill in Mariner Lagoon - we believe that proposal should be removed
from the plan and Mariner Lagoon zoned Conservation.
-
Tsunami (pg. 8) What is meant by the ‘common sense’ approach to tsunami dangers? The approach suggests that evacuations will
suffice with no consideration to land use development, transportation loads,
services, or encouraging residential development in a hazard zone. The tsunami map should be part of the land
use suitability overlay mapping.
-
Flood Hazard (pg. 8) The plan states that the City adopted regulations for
development in flood zones. How are
those regulations incorporated into the zoning code and how do they influence
existing development since it appears to apply only to new development? The flood hazard map should be part of the
land suitability overlay mapping. How
does the tsunami and flood hazard mapping affect marine industrial development
such as bulk fuel storage?
-
Climate Change (pg. 9) The plan seems to adopt a wait and see approach without
detailing areas that could be influenced by higher ocean levels or storm
events. Mapping of those high impact areas
is an important consideration for designating safety zones, areas that are more
appropriate as open space or where careful development standards must
apply. Future conditions on the Spit.
The Spit Plan should reference the recently adopted City of Homer Climate
Action Plan and apply action strategies to the Spit.
-
Parking Study (pg. 10) The parking study (a one day study) would be easier to
interpret if the study were broken down into defined parking areas with
analysis for each area. There is mention
of the ‘retail and ramp area but no indication how many parking spaces are
involved. Further an estimation of the
types of users based on the location of the parking area would be helpful. A survey of users as to attitudes about
parking would be helpful – willingness to pay, ease of parking, signage,
surface conditions, ADA access, traffic flow, and how parking contributes to
the overall visitor experience.
-
Parks and Recreation (pg. 12) The responsibility of the City to manage
parks and recreation is spelled out as a competing interest between the Spit
and other recreation areas within the city when in fact the provision of
camping at Karen Hornaday Park, upland trail development, city beautification
program, and sport fields are a compliment to the Spit. The attraction of the Spit for recreation is
a key value – whether private or public provided. Designating land for camping on the Spit
fulfills an important need, provides lower intensity development, protects key vistas and public
access, and provides an alternative to $125/night lodging. We dispute the statement (pg. 16) that the
site presently occupied by the leased campground is not the highest and best
use.
-
Land Use and Community Design (pg. 13) The plan suggests considering changing
the minimum lot size (without giving any size figures) for new platted lots
without given any analysis as to what potential areas of the Spit might be
affected by such a change and what type of uses would be allowed. Changing the minimum lot size may result in
a series of tiny one-room shacks, giving a flea market look to the Spit. Instead of the ‘eclectic’ (another way of
saying haphazard) so called flexible approach, a more comprehensive approach
would be to look at where lots might be combined or property clustered to
follow a planned unit development (PUD). A PUD would not be justification however for residential development –
the Plan should not zone the Spit for residential development. A PUD approach
can then follow a development theme, incorporate design criteria, better
address pedestrian and traffic movement, and look at what types of mix use are
appropriate.
-
The plan
scoping meetings showed there is widespread agreement with the plan statement
(pg. 13): that “more carefully tailored tools are desired” to control
resort/residential land uses and commercial development. There is no indication however as to what
those tools might entail. The consensus
of the public has been that the Spit should not be zoned for residential
development.
-
The concept
of a one-time parking system contribution or assessment applied to new permits
(or existing development that expands?) has merit but some examples of how it
would work need to be addressed in the plan. Perhaps part of the assessment would be an option to pay into an annual
shuttle bus system.
-
What are the
‘inappropriate developments’ threatening the fish dock, ice plant, and
processing plant and how should those threats be addressed?
-
Screening of
industrial waste and storage yards is appropriate as a security and public
safety standard as well as an aesthetic guideline. There is a curiosity about the workings of
marine industrial settings and opportunities for public viewpoints should be
accommodated.
-
What are the
‘competing uses and traffic patterns’ encroaching into the area north of the
harbor basin? What is meant by
“attention is needed to provide for separation of uses and reservation of
land?” How is that translated into the
land use and zoning regulations?
-
Some examples
of desired footprints, desired outcomes, flexible design approaches, and site
profiles would be very helpful in creating a development vision for the Spit.
-
As part of
the community design, greater attention needs to be given to the City of
Homer’s Sustainable Use Principles Plan and action strategies for the
Spit. How can the waste from one
industry be used to benefit another industry, e.g. waste heat, fish waste,
recycling of bilge water, better use of dredge material, staging area for
marine related oil spills, recovery of ocean debris, center for coastal
studies?
-
The Kachemak
Bay Research Reserve is a local resource that should be tapped to help guide
the environmental protection of the Spit from industrial development.
-
The home
porting of the Coast Guard on the Spit is not addressed in the Spit plan. The plan should also prohibit the use of the
Spit for military purposes. The security
and prohibitions of public access would be a serious detriment to the free
public use of the Spit.
-
Commercial Development (pg. 15) We agree with the plan stating there is
‘unconstrained commercial development’ and the negative effects of that
approach, and the need to have a ‘more controlled and established
character.’ What is not understood is how
the plan arrives at the need for 60,000 square feet of new retail space (what
kind of retail?) and why the overslope area of the harbor basin is the
target. What would the footprint of a
60,000 square foot overslope development look like? What new retail uses would it attract or
would it simply be one more shop selling t-shirts and knickknacks? Would the development be a planned unit
development? Who owns the overslope area
and controls the land use? Is the
overslope area affected by Corps of Engineers and Coast Guard regulations? It would be very helpful to have a map of the
harbor basin with site specific detail as to public access, key viewpoints,
industrial uses and safety zones, services and fire access, pedestrian flow,
proximity to parking, and affects on future uses of the harbor or harbor
expansion.
-
Some photo
and site plan examples as to how harbors have developed in other locales would
be informative and help guide development standards.
-
Resort/Residential Development (pg. 15) The logic that resort/residential
development are appropriate because ‘the uses are already there’ is an insult
to the prevalent community view that the condominium development at the
terminus of the Spit has destroyed part of the unique character of the
Spit. We do not believe that additional
resort/residential development is appropriate on the Spit, and such development
can more easily be accommodated within the City of Homer following the City
comprehensive plan. There is no evidence
that additional resort development is supported by market demand..
-
The statement
that encouraging additional lodging on the Spit ‘would have a positive impact
on reduction of traffic’ is nonsensical and no justification for that type of
development and is suspect as to any positive effect on traffic, especially
parking requirements. Likewise the
statement that ‘by permitting lodging above commercial developments, the City
can better regulate them’ makes no sense. It simply implies that the City currently does not enforce zoning
restrictions/violations. Why any additional
lodging on the Spit is needed must be balanced against the, services required,
health and safety concerns, mix use and conflicts. The scale of lodging and residential
development will be overwhelming the character and land availability of the
Spit. The end result may be that every
little commercial establishment will want a loft above it to rent out further
exasperating the haphazard development pattern. The plan fails to look at the vibrant bed
and breakfast inventory within Homer and the more appropriate level of services
that industry provides. Increasing bed
and breakfast sites on the Spit will simply encourage a greater volume of
repeat traffic trips, specialized parking, restricted public space, and a
demand for special public services.
-
Conservation/Natural Environment (pg. 16)
-
The plan
falls short (very short) in addressing the natural resource values of the Homer
Spit.
-
Included in
the Spit plan should be the following maps and designations:
o
Kenai wetland
mapping
o
Kachemak Bay
Critical Habitat Area
o
Homer Spit
Important Bird Area
o
Western Hemisphere Shorebird Reserve Network
-
Kachemak Bay
Conservation Society Shorebird Monitoring Project - Research Protocols and
Final Report of Findings.
-
Field
Observations of Birds Utilizing the Lighthouse Village wetlands.
-
Audubon
Species Watch List – Spit related birds
-
The Natural
Environment section should recognize the natural resource significance of
Kachemak Bay and how the health of Kachemak Bay is related to the Spit. Marine uses associated with the Spit have
impacts to the Bay. Marine traffic has a
disturbance factor to birds. Fish waste
attracts eagles and allows this apex predator to congregate and increase incidences
of prey depredation. A major mortality
of sea otters is from boat strikes. The
Steller's Eider is on the threatened and
endangered species list, the Yellow Billed Loon is a species in decline and is
now listed as a candidate species for threatened and endangered status. The coastal wetland area east of Mud Bay is
an important feeding and roosting area for Lesser Sandhill Cranes and the
wetland. The inter tidal area between
Mariner Park and Lighthouse Village supports a wide variety of wetland/tidal
mudflat dependent and upland birds. A Lesser Sandhill Crane pair nests here
annually.
-
The Homer
Spit is an important site for migratory shorebirds during the spring and fall,
but also during the winter (e.g., Rock Sandpiper). The spit is also used by shorebirds during
the summer breeding season.
-
In addition
to shorebirds, the Spit is important to resident and migratory grassland d bird species that could be
affected by development such as the Snow Bunting, Lapland Longspur, American
Pipit, Song Sparrow. Eagles are a major
attraction to visitors and photographers. A healthy natural eagle population is the goal rather than an unnatural
congregation of eagles resulting from feeding or human activity. Dumpsters, fish cleaning stations, fish waste
from processing, and food waste should be managed to avoid an unnatural attractant
to eagles. The Spit plan should
reinforce the prohibition on feeding of eagles.
-
It should be
recognized in the plan that the City is obligated to conduct a study to
determine the effects on the tidal mudflats and wetlands and beach nourishment
activity from building a sea wall along Oceanview drive properties. That study was recently completed. Further, the private property lines extend
well out into the wetlands (see property map) and consideration should be given
for incentives to establish a conservation easement on the properties.
-
Parks and Recreation (pg. 16) Creating a community park as a gathering
area has merit depending on how the park will be used. What size of group will the amphitheatre and
pavilion accommodate? What type of special
events might be planned and how would parking handle the event? Would there be the flexibility to also design
in small scale spaces for small group/family/individual use? Would a volleyball court get used given the
windy conditions of the Spit? How would
grass lawns/activity areas be maintained? Would tent camping in a grassy area be accommodated? Would the park tie in to the bicycle pathway
and other pedestrian connections? Is
justifying the park to allow for more space for overslope and commercial
development appropriate?
-
Seafarer’s Memorial Park – expanding the park to give it more prominence –
what is meant by that statement? Why not
incorporate better site design? We are
opposed to any expansion into the beach zone.
-
Coal Point – more green and compacted parking is desirable but is parking
needed? Why not make the park accessible
by footpath as part of a walking tour route?
-
Fishing Lagoon – the planting of wild rye is a desirable restoration option but
favorable site conditions must be in place to be successful. Greater attention should be given to the site
design of the parking area with the addition of some rock island plantings,
public use sites such as picnic pads, benches with small gathering plazas, and
consider the use of the north end for a pavilion or group use site.
-
Mariner Park - The Spit plan fails
to review the history of restoration work that was supposed to be completed as
part of the Exxon Valdez oil spill (See attached documents). The entrance to the inter tidal area was
blocked to prevent oil from contaminating the sensitive intertidal area. The goal should be to restore and enhance the
inter tidal area; not to fill in a portion of the area to expand the park. We are strongly opposed to any fill being
placed in the inter tidal area. The
historical permitted fill permit – whatever that means does not justify any new
permit conditions and is just that history. Likewise connecting Mariner Park via a bike path to Lighthouse Village
is not justified. We do not believe that
the expense of a tunnel under the road can be justified.
-
Instead of
expanding Mariner l Park it would be more desirable to develop a site plan as
to how to better utilize the site through landscape design, designate parking
and campsites, and separate pedestrian uses.
-
We are
especially concerned about the Plan with respect to Mariner Park. The Plan states the following (in italics):
o
Mariner Memorial Park Improvements:
o
As one of
Homer’s most popular recreation areas, Mariner Park attracts campers, beach
walkers, kite-flyers, trail users, birders, people with dogs, and others who
come to enjoy the views and open-air recreation opportunities. Homer’s growing population and tourist
visitation are placing greater demand on Seafarer’s Memorial Park, increasing
the need for recreation and safety enhancements.
o
The
following have been identified as specific areas for improvement in the next
six years:
o
Construct
a plumbed restroom facility
o
Develop a
bike trail from “Lighthouse Village” to Seafarer’s Memorial Park
o
Expand
the park and move the vehicle entrance to the north
o
Construction
of a tunnel under the Spit Road to provide safe access to the Homer Spit Trail
o
Fee
camping sites
o
Picnic/barbeque
area
o
At the
base of the Spit, adjacent to the Seafarer’s Memorial Park, is a tidal area
already impacted by dike construction. Historically, this area was permitted for fill, but never was completely
implemented. This area should be
considered for expansion of the city campground.
-
First of all,
the Plan seems to confuse Seafarer’s Memorial Park and Mariner Park.
-
Aside from
that, as previously stated, our observations are that the Mariner Park
supratidal and intertidal areas provide important bird habitat. Any development other than within the
existing footprint of already disturbed area would contradict other parts of
the plan, namely:
o
The
public clearly indicated its recognition of the value of the tidal habitat,
beaches, and views available on the Homer Spit. These areas are not just important as habitat for a myriad of
shorebirds, waterfowl, fish, mammals, and plant life, but are important to the
identity of the community of Homer. Protection of these areas is endemic to any development or use that is
allowed on the Homer Spit.
-
The
consultants suggestion to build a tunnel under the Spit Road, which could be
routinely subject to high tides and storm surges, does not appear to be a well
thought out idea - and would probably be prohibitively expensive. Furthermore, construction could impact not
only Mariner Park Lagoon, but Mud Bay.
-
Also, there
is no way that another Spit bike trail, presumably on the west side of the
Spit, or having entrance to Mariner Park from the north starting at the
Lighthouse Village could occur without significant fill and disturbance to
Mariner Park Lagoon. Apparently, as with
the tunnel suggestion, the consultant is not aware that the east side, where
there already is perfectly adequate bike trail, is more favorably because it is
not as subject to strong winds and high waves.
-
What may be
the most questionable statement in this section of the Plan is the consultant
alluding to the idea that building a road and bike trail in the intertidal area
of Mariner Park Lagoon is already “permitted for fill.” Besides being unprofessional by not stating
exactly what permit is being referred to or whether it is even valid anymore,
the Plan provides a false impression of viability. For one, it should be obvious that filling in
critical habitat may require more than one permit. This area is part of the State of Alaska
Kachemak Bay Critical Habitat Area. Also, given the environmental importance of this intertidal area, the
NEPA process may apply and require more thorough analysis than most fill
permits. More importantly, the
suggestion ignores a previous commitment by the City of Homer to maintain
Mariner Park Lagoon as a WHSRN site. Attached is the 1994 application from the City of Homer, which is after
suggestions about filling in Mariner Park Lagoon and was, to some degree,
stimulated by these suggestions. The
cover letter states: “We believe that the designation of city owned lands
important to migrating birds as part of the WHSRN will enhance the festival and
bring increased attention to the critical nature of our wetlands.”
-
Given that this
section of the Plan is fraught with error and speculation, we recommend
deleting it entirely and replacing it with improvements that stay within the
existing footprint. The present random
parking arrangement wastes a lot of space that could be better utilized by
camping and other activities if vehicles weren’t able to drive everywhere. We suggest designated parking spaces and
covering a much of the existing gravel with grass. This would be more conducive to non-vehicle
use.
-
We understand
that city ordinance does not allow the use of motorized vehicles in Mariner
Park Lagoon. It isn’t clear whether this
applies to just the intertidal areas or other beach areas as well. Although there are some signs to let visitors
know that there are restrictions, more signs and a map on the bulletin board,
which clearly shows areas off-limits to motorized vehicles, would be
helpful.
-
An important
consideration under Parks and Recreation is the effects of off-road motorized
vehicles on the sensitive marine inter tidal environment. All the beaches and intertidal areas of the
Spit should be closed to motorized activity, except by special permit.
-
Road and Trail Access - The statement that realigning of several segments
of the Spit Road will have ‘substantial benefits’ is questionable without a
comparison to other less intrusive and less costly options for parking
management and traffic calming.
-
The plan
calls for establishing a parking subcommittee. That subcommittee should have the benefit of hiring a landscape architect
with experience with traffic calming design methods to create some design
options such as eliminating parallel parking along the Spit road, better
defined entry and exit points to parking areas, bump out islands that connect
pedestrian well marked crosswalks, experimenting with design elements of street lights, rock and driftwood
berms, colorful banners marking key points, wider pedestrian boardwalks, a full assessment and ADA transition plan,
and use of different textures in the roadway to announce crosswalks or
entryways.
-
A separated
bike path is desirable but further landscape design should be considered beyond
just planting a median of sawgrass. A
schematic cross profile of highway, bike path, pedestrian pathway should be
presented in a visual design format displaying design elements for crossings,
signage, and
-
surface
materials.
-
Parking Management It would be very helpful to show a footprint of
how the various parking areas would be located and connected. The need for loading zones is discussed but
no design solution is presented. If
overslope development occurs, how would loading zones be accommodated? How is loading zones being accommodated now
for the existing commercial retail establishments?
-
Land Use Goal 1.1 (pg. 22) A key strategy is to ‘encourage’
clustering and reservation of land. What
is the form of that encouragement – City ownership of a block of land,
incentives for planned unit development, change in minimum lots size when lots
are consolidated, relax height restrictions when open space and key vistas are
protected? What are the planning tools,
new zoning regulations, and design standards?
-
We are
strongly opposed to a strategy that identifies the expansion of ‘appropriate’
residential uses on the Spit.
-
Greater site
detail, an example of a footprint, architectural design standards, relation to
parking and pedestrian flow, open space and views, and market need must be
given to increasing the overslope commercial use on south and west sides (we
assume the south and west sides refers to the harbor and not the west side of the Spit?). We applaud the plan goal for minimal
development of the west side of the Spit. However an ‘Opportunity Map’ shows the west side of the Spit as a
development opportunity. We hope this
does not means structural buildings.
-
It is unclear
what is meant by promote low impact use for the west side of the Spit but we
encourage the development of zoning regulations that preserve the open space
character and recognize the hazard of building in a high energy beach wave
activity zone.
-
The
recommendation to appoint a task force to identify concerns and language to
address conflicts between marine commercial and visitor related
commercial? What are those concerns and
what will guide the task force?
-
Goal 1.2 (pg. 23) Develop standards for public property development – why are standards
limited to public property? The strategy
is to ‘revisit’ design guidelines. What
are the current design guidelines?
-
Allocate 1%
of new construction to landscaping - what is considered new construction? What is defined as landscaping – use of rock
and driftwood, signage, screening, landscape art? Why not trigger the landscaping requirement
for any existing building construction that expands the building or changes the
land use or function of the building.
-
Require
engineer’s approval for any large addition – what is a large addition?
-
Provide
enhanced recreation facilities – include in this strategy “Close all beaches
and inter tidal areas of the Spit to off-road motorized vehicle traffic, except
by permit.”
-
Goal 1.4 include in the strategy “develop a restoration strategy for the inter tidal
area north of Mariner Memorial Park.”
-
Goals 1.6 obtain public ownership of key sites – what are those key sites? Public access for traditional uses should be
by non-motorized means. There are many
other options for gathering of coal from Homer beaches via motorized vehicle in
areas west of Bishop’s Beach and east of the boat repair yard access points.
-
Goal 2.2 what would be the details of a Memorandum of Agreement with ADOT/PF for use of
the state right-of-way? Those details
should be spelled out in the plan for public review and compatibility to Spit
plan goals.
-
Goal 3.1 what is considered ‘value added’ growth? Give some examples and incentives. The process should include a discussion of low impact industries,
position Homer as a green industry, complimenting the use of waste into viable
products, positioning Homer as a staging area for spill response/Coast Guard
port, and a center for coastal research.
Consistency
with other Policies/Plans
- Previous iterations of the Homer Spit Comprehensive Plans have very good information; please incorporate.
- While the Spit Plan was excluded from the overall city comprehensive plan the ties of the Spit Plan to the City’s Comprehensive Plan should be identified. For example, the need for residential development, the importance of a strong downtown commercial core, the identity of a town center as a gathering place with commercial attractions, the design of the historic district of Old Town as a tourist destination, and the overall design character and pedestrian flow of downtown Homer. One aspect missing from the Spit Plan is the ability to diversify tourist attractions away from the Spit thus relieving some of the development pressure and competition for limited or inappropriate land use on the Spit. How the Spit is developed can have a bearing on how the downtown core may be revitalized with uses that are not marine related or by having satellite marine related functions in the downtown core.
- Relative to the Homer Spit Comprehensive Plan, our observations are: o All undeveloped parts of the Homer Spit are being used by shorebirds. o While shorebird foraging in the intertidal areas is obvious, what is less obvious is their need for supratidal habitat, particularly for roosting. o Shorebird use the Homer Spit occurs most months of the year, not just during the Shorebird Festival. o Alaska’s birding community, via social networking, is keenly aware of the status of Homer Spit bird populations and habitat. o We ask that consideration of any undeveloped areas of the Homer Spit take the points made above into account.
- The key recommendations from the City’s comprehensive plan and the relation to the Spit should be given more detail in the analysis of the Spit Plan.
- I wanted to mention this in case no one else has: The City of Homer Climate Action Plan, adopted by the City Council in Dec. 2007, includes the policy recommendation that the City of Homer will "take climate change into consideration in ALL long-range planning efforts (e.g., transportation, land use, Homer Spit, Emergency management, economic development."
- Kenai Peninsula Borough Coastal Zone Management Plan, June 2008
-
Homer’s
All-Hazard Mitigation Plan, 2004
-
Flood
Insurance Study, 9/25/09
- Likely impacts from climate change that would affect the Spit include sea level rise (as much as two meters by the end of the century) and more frequent and severe storms. More information is available from the Alaska Center for Climate Assessment and Policy at the University of Alaska-Fairbanks.
-
Western Hemisphere Shorebird Reserve Network
Designation Last fall, the Kachemak Bay Birders was asked by
the Manomet
Center for Conservation Sciences, which manages the Western Hemisphere Shorebird Reserve Network
(WHSRN), to assist in updating its assessment of the two WHSRN sites in
Kachemak Bay that are of international significance to shorebirds;
MudBay/Mariner Park Lagoon and Fox River Flats. While a WHSRN designation creates no legal mandate, it does highlight
for Western Hemisphere conservation agencies and NGO’s, areas that are
especially important relative to shorebird management. Also, a WHSRN designation can attract
tourists and, accordingly, should be mentioned in the Plan. We enlisted the assistance of the City of
Homer Planning Department, the Kachemak Bay Research Reserve, and the
Department of Fish and Game in taking on this task. The updated site profile for Kachemak
Bay/Homer Spit can be read at http://www.whsrn.org/site-profile/kachemak-bay.
Part of this effort was to complete a comprehensive and detailed site
assessment following a scientifically accepted protocol. This assessment provides a lot of information
that could bolster the technical quality of the Homer Spit Comprehensive
Plan. A copy is attached.
Parking / Roads
/ Circulation
- I'm sure this has already been discussed, but one thing that would surely help alleviate some of the parking congestion on the west side of the harbor basin would to consolidate all charter boats to one area on the east side of the harbor. What you have now is many charter clients and crew parking in the areas on the east side. This large user group takes up a full day of parking and the locating them on the east side would free considerable amount of parking in the most congested area. It would be of great benefit to do a number count of this user group along with their present location within the harbor.
-
Relocating the Spit road closer to the west side sea wall.
-
Add
Something about the Homer Spit Road being reinforced. From the KPB
Coastal Management Plan, “Portions of the Sterling Highway along the Homer Spit
had to be reconstructed when undercut by several winter storms in 1998-1999
-
One of the reasons people are focusing on parking, is
because that is the perceived visual mess. We have great unique buildings;
people come here to take pictures of them. No need for a visual
preference survey here! And as a community we like boats and fishing gear.
That’s treasures, not mess! It’s the other stuff (unorganized cars and
pedestrians) that are bugging folks. The use of the buildings does not matter
so much – fish processing or overnight accommodations, does not matter. Folks
don’t like condos because they are a cookie cutter plain design (and use). They
don’t add to the uniqueness of place; you can find waterfront condos anywhere.
But there is only 1 salty dawg/eagle lady/coal point/Homer Spit. So maybe
by continuing efforts to clean up the parking, like limiting curb cuts with the
construction of the Homer Spit trail along the road as has been discussed,
maybe those really are the next steps for the future of the spit, rather than
trying to get folks to have an opinion about overnight accommodations… as long
is the building is not cookie cutter, we don’t really care too much how its
used. We just want to be able to drive there without too much hassle, and find
a parking place. After that, it can be as wild and unique as possible.
-
I was in Whittier and Seward this summer. They pretty much
have the whole area sectioned off and have designated parking areas that for a
fee you can leave your car and park and walk around for the day or leave your
car and go fishing or sightseeing . For Homer to be providing free long term
parking all over the spit is unusually generous.
-
As a capitalist -realizing how much it costs to run
everything- and looking at how Coney Island the spit is getting and looking at
how many people -by the thousands flood onto the spit each summer for 100 days
- Because they want to be closer to the ocean and the beach camping and the
tourist shops and the fishing hole and the harbor etc.
-
I'd have a toll gate at the base of the spit with a one way
toll fee. For a dollar a car you can drive onto the spit. Locals can buy a
pass. I've been other places where a toll got you there. But Alaskans are big
on not having to pay for things the rest of the world is used to paying
for.
-
The
parking area between the Fisherman's Memorial and the Boardwalk Burger
has is mostly full of longterm across the bay parkers. Come out
here on a busy weekend at 3:30 in the morning and it is invariably 3/4 full
with people on multi-day trips across the bay. This is a huge waste of
prime parking and leaves people that may want to shop at the local merchants
nowhere to park. At the very least I would make this area no overnight
parking and move the really long term parking to the old Manley area which will
need better marking. Preferably, this area should be four hour parking
only and enforce it. If it is simply no-overnight parking it will be full
by 7:30 am at the latest with halibut charter folks. A four hour zone
here would give ample parking for people visiting the shops and the harbor and
do much to alleviate the congestion during the high season. Built Environment - Design/Character
-
As you
deliberate the future outcomes for the Homer Spit, we hope you will give great
thought to more than filling every space of land with development. The Homer Spit Comprehensive Plan (Spit
Plan) should treat the Spit as more than an ‘economic engine,’ encouraging
additional commercial and marine industrial development with the caveat phrase
‘without compromising the unique character and “flavor” of the Spit.’ The Spit Plan should be clear in how
strategies will protect its unique character, and one should not be left
guessing what that phrase means or what is to be compromised with no guiding
principles set forth in the plan. We
propose that you adopt the following Guiding Principles:
o
World Class
Natural Resource. The Kachemak Bay
ecosystem is the true engine driving the Spit’s economy. The Homer Spit Comprehensive Plan is an
important guiding and controlling document that must carefully protect a
significant marine ecosystem and public resource. The Kachemak Bay Critical Habitat Area
including Mud Bay, Mariners Lagoon intertidal area, and other intertidal areas
associated with the Spit should be protected from the cumulative effects of
development.
o
Landform and Open Vista Protection. The Spit’s unique landform and outstanding
vistas give it character and attraction. Protecting the open space character, key viewing points, unblocked
vistas, and open public access should guide any development considerations.
o
Limited and Effective Development. Marine related industrial and commercial
development is centered on key development nodes or clusters to achieve a low
profile appearance, ease of access, and unity of character and design. Consolidating land to achieve well-designed
and smart development is more important than haphazard, random,
overdevelopment. Pedestrian and traffic
flow should guide the form and function of development.
o
Cumulative Effects. There is a cumulative effect to development
that can slowly erode away key values that make the Spit so unique – its significant
ecosystem, open space, and vistas. Land
use and zoning will define standards to continue to protect those values while
accommodating development.
-
Need for but no clear
criteria for design criteria. Linking what is already there a better plan than
creating space for more.
-
Would like to see the
inner bay side of harbor developed. Would like to see the overslope developed
w/shops, and paved parking for folks who go out on charters for the day,
instead of parking in the area in front of the shops on the boardwalk. There
could be a some kind of shuttle, that runs a route from the parking area to the
charter offices, Salty Dawg to the end of the Spit. I don't think charging for
parking is a good idea! A lot of us pay, stall fees, crane fees, ice fees, etc!Only
a City would think it's a great idea! It's always about $$, Seward charges for
certain area's, like Homer does, but most is free, Homer will continue to drive
folks else where. I think if a person wants to develope their property w/nice
looking condo's, it's ok. Seward has done wonders w/ their harbor area, it's a
nice look, I remember what Seward looked like, about 15 years ago. Would like
to see the JUNK YARD on the Spit CLEANED UP, not just covered up, I don't mind
the old vessels, but the old trailer w/wood put up in front of it, is a lazy
way of getting rid of it & cleaning the area up. Dead bus parked for Life,
what does it and old D-8 have anything to do w/boats? Homer needs it's marine
industry, fishing & workboats. Thanks
Natural/Scenic Resources
-
Proposal to fill in a
portion of the tidal area west of Mud Bay.-Bad Idea as the tidal area is
necessary for ecosystem services to function completely.
-
Monitoring of shore
bird habitats and populations and effects of land use. What we need is Bay policy.
DO we really want the toxic release from large cruise ships being mixed with
the waters of Kachemak BAy? They should be prevented from releasing waste
within the Bay or Inlet.
- Monitoring of shore bird habitats and populations and effects of land use. What we need is Bay policy. DO we really want the toxic release from large cruise ships being mixed with the waters of Kachemak BAy? They should be prevented from releasing waste within the Bay or Inlet. - Kachemak Bay Shorebird Monitoring Project - When the Kachemak Bay Birders first formed in 2008, it decided that one of its objectives would be to learn more about the status of the local shorebird population during spring migration. Although the Kachemak Bay Shorebird Festival has documented shorebird migrations for the past 17 years, this weekend event covers only a portion of the migratory period. Accordingly, it was decided to use volunteers to monitor the entire spring migration (mid April through late May) every five days at seven sites on or near the Homer Spit using a modified version of the International Shorebird Survey protocol. The data would then be compared to the seven years of data captured by George West from 1986 and 1989-1994 in order to provide some indication of shorebird population trends. So far we have completed two spring surveys; the report for the 2009 is attached and can be obtained online at http://kachemakbaybirders.org/. This website also has the protocol for the 2010 survey, which was recently completed.
Public Services & Facilities
- I am employed on Fish Dock Road and I am on the spit 7 days a week from March thru November. I would really like to see the city concentrate on public restrooms for the hundreds of dock workers that come to offload and process fish during the summer months. The single men and women restrooms at the ice plant do not suffice. Thank you, Kelly Lockwood
Zoning Codes
-
Helpful would
be some mention of setbacks from lot lines. The sloping shoreline
on the spit, especially on the west side, requires a property owners to bring
decks, boardwalks and stairs to the lot line (for access). Homer’s code
restricts “unroofed porches, decks, landings and stairs” from extending
“higher than 16 inches above the finished grade” HCC 21.05.020(d). This
disconnect forces applicants to request exceptions which are awkward and time
consuming.
Land Use – Commercial
-
Is additional resort
and hotel development justified? No more development. Already we have lost the
view from the end of the spit. Enough already.
Land Use – Industrial
-
I understand that Mike Yourkowski has requested
the spit lots between the Dawg and Fish Dock Road be rezoned from Marine
Industrial to Marine Commercial. This makes sense to me and I support
it. Marine Industrial should be limited to the Icicle, Auction, Fish
Factory , old Manley bldg. area. People complain about unsightly totes
and fish related equipment fronting the highway, but there is little else
permitted. A rezoning would also be more in line with historical
existing uses for these lots. Personally, I would love to be able to
front the highway with more tourist oriented development and keep the largest
halibut buyer in Alaska and the largest cod producer in Kachemak Bay out of
sight in the back of the lot where they currently reside.
-
No market analysis to
justify land use - what type of
industrial uses are appropriate for the Spit? Staging area for Pebble mine?
This is very speculative and existing lands are not yet completely being used
commercially with success.
-
Provisions for
protection of water quality and industrial pollution controls; cruise ship impacts. This is crucial
especially as cruise ships become a part of summer business. In no way should
we succum to the PR efforts to minimize the water polluting that is the result
of the cruise ship industry. Beware or we'll clean up their mess for their lack
of care of our Homer.
Land Use - Residential
-
Justifying residential
zoning on the Spit for 'affordable housing.' It will no longer be affordable if
the community's investment is lost in a rising coastline or tsunami. Really
poorly conceived.
-
One question that was
brought up in the discussion of lodging on the spit ~ Do we want these laws
enforced or are the laws only there to reduce our liability? If not, then enforce them or change the law. Suggestion: A method
of reducing the number of tourists on the spit in the event of a disaster would in the eyes of many attending the meeting apparently be reducing the
number of “beds”. If that is the goal, a way to do that would be to make
the building code requirements more stringent for accommodations. I
personally do not see how reducing the number of “beds” will create a lesser
impact. If they are on the spit, they are on the spit. If it is 25
or 250 killed, the city will hurt. If the tourists and citizens hear that
tsunami alarm being tested, it will remind them that there is a danger and that
we are on it.
Economic Development/Income
-
I am getting the idea that this isn't just things the city
could do to save money but rather ideas to bring in more money. I
have a couple ideas in that department. As much as I am generally in favor of
not having more taxes- There is one tax that special interest groups keep
beating back before it gets a fair chance to be talked about. This is a tax
that exists in most of the rest of the country, including Anchorage and
Seward. By this I mean the bed tax.
Hotels and some of the B&B people kill this proposal every time it has come
up. They say people will not come to Homer if there is a bed tax. I've tried to
relate that to common sense. In all the traveling I've done - ( I don't
always stay in my nylon hotel) (And I'm pretty low budget)- I have
never looked up whether a town or city had a bed tax . In fact I kind of
assumed that the whole world had those. There are places where the hotels
were so expensive that I chose not to stay there or I kept driving until I
found a cheaper alternative but I assure you it wasn't because of the bed tax.
I was always looking at the base rates. Nobody is going to look up Homer
and when they find out Homer has a bed tax just like most of the rest of the
world - are they going to say " Mildred, lets not go to Homer, they
have a bed tax " Lets go to Anchor Point or Soldotna instead. ( for
all I know Soldotna has a bed tax too) I don't think it has ever
happened that a few percent bed tax on a hotel room was going to make or break
someone's decision to visit a place. At worst they may downgrade to the next
cheapest hotel on the list. Now the other reason the hotels seem to
give for shouting down a bed tax is that they already collect sales tax and
they shouldn't have to be the ones collecting more tax. I propose that a bed
tax be enacted on all lodging including B&B's . Maybe even
campground spaces as well. This tax shall be split 3 ways. One third goes to
the Chamber of Commerce for their operating budget so they can afford to entice
people to come to Homer and stay in some of that lodging. This would
replace money the city has been giving them. This gives the Chamber more
incentive to attract people to Homer knowing that the more they attract- the
more they get paid. It always seemed a bit out of place for the city to be
directly funding an organization primarily benefitting local
businesses. One third would go to improving and maintaining local
facilities used by tourists. Restrooms- parks-parking-signage -etc. This would
help keep Homer nice looking and would provide some funding to maintain some of
these nice things that tourists appreciate so maybe some of those tourists
would come backAnd the final third would go to the city so that those that live
in Homer and don't directly benefit from the tourist industry would now have
some tangible benefit-even if it was as indirect as some tax moneys that the
city might apply to not needing to tax the locals in some other way quite as
much. This way everybody wins and maybe there would be more support. Out
of city limits B&B's would have less taxes as they do now, but lots of tourists
want to be closer to town.
-
A second idea that will likely go over like ripe fish -has
to do with the fishing hole. In my travels of america I have run across a
number of places that one can fish in stocked fishing ponds or lakes. Some of
these are private and some have been run by counties or towns. They are stocked
with usually trout and for a fee- one can fish in them. The idea that someplace
would dig out and maintain and provide parking and fish cleaning tables and garbage
and rest room service -all to absolutely anyone with an Alaskan fishing license
is practically unheard of in the real world. And other places give you a chance
to catch usually a small trout. the idea that here you can possibly pull out a
10 pound fresh salmon or even three of them - is quite the deal.
Someplace else would have this fenced off and you would enter a gate - pay 10
bucks and have 3 hours to fish. I'm not thinking it should go that far but the
idea that someone has to come up with some serious money each year to stock
this with salmon and then give them away to anyone who shows up in their motor
home , even if they don't otherwise spend any other money in town is very
generous. I'd be selling people a day pass as a concession business and the
city splits it with the concession folks.
-
The details of how to make this work would need to be
figured out but I've seen well over 100 people at one time around that
hole. If 100 people paid 10 bucks for a day pass- times 100 days of fishing-
that's a chunk of change that could go to stocking the hole or at least
maintaining it. If not charging those catching the fish- than I'd be charging
the businesses on the spit some kind of fee to stock and maintain the fishing hole.
A lot of people each summer would not be glued to the spit if it were not for
that fishing hole.
Meeting notes, input - September 10, 2009
ISSUES:
What are the
pressing issues facing the Homer Spit?
·
Littering
o
Hire
crews or have a clean-up contest with prizes. Volunteers are nice.
·
More
diversified eco-tour companies
·
A
shuttle bus (possibly run through a non-profit
·
A
better accessible information kiosk for local events
·
A
marine biology study area run by our local university and other related groups
·
Tourist
appeal – No More Condos!
·
Growth
– positive/planned
·
Erosion
·
Safety
– pedestrian, users traffic
·
Natural
disaster response
·
Future
expansion harbor
·
Parking
– need more
·
Keeping
spit our “special jewel”
·
Municipal
revenues are shrinking
·
Who
“plans” ways to pay for the things we want?
·
Homer
has never been very good identifying (let alone promoting) things that help pay
for the things we want.
·
The
Spit is a great potential generator of revenue, but this required “growth” in
fees, or real estate
·
Cleanliness
·
Walkability
·
Safety
·
Cuteness/charming
·
Facilities/infrastructure
·
Erosion
·
Parking
·
Harbor
space
·
Park
Usability
·
Would
be nice if
o
Extend
bike trail
o
Restrooms
– more and open all year
o
Busses
o
Better
litter control
o
Safety
·
Needs
to happen:
o
Safeguard
existing bird habitat – Louie’s Lagoon, Mud Bay, Mariner Park, etc.
·
Pedestrian
traffic vs. vehicles
·
Walkability
·
Stripe
all of road in front of boardwalk shops for crosswalk
·
Invasive
plant species on the Spit – in addition to dandylions there are other invasive
plants we should control before our beaches look like Peterson Beach across
KBay
·
The
Spit is really Alaska’s jewel and should be a place for everyone
·
Open
space for recreation is key – look at all the new kite surfers
·
Better
pedestrian areas, pocket parks, public art
·
Designated
“planned” retail area
·
Increase
visibility commercial fishing activities
·
More
benches to sit and marvel, more trash receptacles, interpretive signage – it
needs rto look wild and nice – a challenge
VALUES:
What do you
value most about the Spit?
·
Use
for recreational opportunities – trail
·
View,
view, view!
·
Charm
to residents and visitors
·
Recreation
(Spit trail, restaurants, shopping)
·
Access
to the Bay
·
“Sense
of place”
o
Rock
art, maritime influence, kitsch/hippie feel. Would hate to lose that.
·
Beaches
to run and play on
·
We
have a working harbor and lots of diversity – that is cool
·
The
memories of when it was a lovely little bit of land jutting into our beautiful
bay... oh so many years ago…alas! Oh yeah most of the small restaurants are
good and gratefully we can get a cup of K-Bay java. Fishing aint bad either for
locals and visitors as well as hiking. P.S. Please no littering!
·
The
beauty of the whole scene. Boats, birds, a place to go walking. Very important
migratory bird habitat. Access to boating and the ferry. This is our greatest
treasure; let’s don’t mess it up.
RESPONDING TO CHANGE:
How are the
community and the Spit changing? How should we respond to these changes?
·
Both
are growing. More tourism. Have lots of attractiveness to offer all
·
I’d
like to say for the better... However, minor crime is rampant i.e. tent
thieves, fishing gear rip offs and vehicle hit and runs. Solution: volunteers
to patrol camping and fishing, boating areas. Compensate volunteers with meals,
free camping and maybe fishing trips
·
More
development
·
More
tourism
·
More
boats in the harbor
·
Tension
between spread out random development and planned development
FUTURE DEVELOPMENT:
What kind of
development on the Spit do we want there to be in 5, 10, and 20 years into the
future?
·
No
more condos – they sure screwed up the view
·
Keep
mother nature as prime attraction
·
Keep
building limited and minimal
·
5
years: Spit trail completion, restrooms cleaned up
·
10
years: more organized development, cute store fronts
·
20
years: planned development, retail zones, great harbor, great walkability,
outdoor art
·
Add
an outdoor pavilion (covered stage and seating) for 100 people for music and
civic gatherings
·
Connect
the Chamber of Commerce office to manage and schedule so cost is low – perhaps
covered my member fees, etc.
·
Well
with global warming going on maybe a huge dike to surround the Spit with boat
locks... yipes! I’m just kidding. Actually in 5 years a more eco-friendly Spit.
10 years - a bay-wide shuttle run on
renewable energy sources. 20 years – my
ashes floating out with the tides if I may. Oh yeah a global marine biology
center through our local university A.S.A.P!
·
No
more big development
·
No
more condos
·
Have
bus service
·
Let’s
keep it a place we can love and a place others want to visit.
·
The
future home of the Alaska Maritime Museum and associated activities, i.e.
cyclorama on Spit, sailing event, boat building workshop, music, theater, etc.
·
Overslope
development, access, city building pier? Standards for pier and deck
·
Spit
plan should mesh with Homer Comp Plan
·
Spit
is part of Homer – make it a place for locals also (that they would enjoy in
season)
·
Tidal
power plant
·
A
park and marine wildlife viewing area
·
Need
connection between Spit, Pioneer CBD and Old Town – trails and a shuttle or
trolley run by renewable energy (could be a showcase) (move parking downtown) –
not just tourist – public transport
·
EIS?
PUBLIC SPACES:
End of the
Road Park: What do visitors do at this park? What can we do to improve it?
·
Fish,
enjoy the view – birds, wildlife, launch kayaks. Enjoy beach away from more
touristy areas – it’s a little quieter at this park. Used year round
·
Beach
fishing/whale watching/fleet watching/needs seating
·
Assure
public access isn’t blocked
·
Park
and beach walk or fish. There is surprising turnover of vehicles at park.
·
Who
cares
·
Visitors
can quit littering for one thing; also we could put up viewing scopes to look
across the bay or at sea life. We could have volunteers give marine nature
hikes and a surf fishing contest for kids.
·
Pave
– restroom – very popular to view eagles in winter – great photo opportunity
for boats entering/leaving harbor
·
I
don’t know. There is not much of a ‘park’ there. Back in the day, people would
go there to party and let the kids play on the beach.
·
I
didn’t even know it was a designated park. Maybe with the Spit Trail completion
we can add some public art, signage, and feature more on pedestrian maps.
·
It’s
ironic we are meeting at Land’s End and the TALL buildings blocking the
view… Access and benches would be nice if people could look across the bay. Is
it do-able?
Harbor
Viewing Pocket Park: Are improvements needed?
·
(Coal
Point Park) Needs a restroom between fuel dock, park, and fish dock road
·
Didn’t
know it was there
·
Clean
up
·
I
think the use of this should change. Encouraging “park” here implies people are
driving through industrial area to get there. No realistic connection to
parking/trails and the entire beach is a park. Spend $ where people congest
already.
·
Industrial
zone, keep gawkers out or indemnify businesses against injury
·
No
one even knows it’s there. I’ve lived here 10 years and first heard it
mentioned one time earlier this summer and now today. First time was
harbormaster speaking at Chamber of Commerce event
·
Lots
of viewing scopes and maybe a memorial statue.
·
Paved
– bathroom great eagle viewing area.
·
Not
really a park, should be paved to keep dust down
·
Absolutely,
lots more people know it exists. Should be on more maps. Need public art
presence, more industrial “boards” focusing on what people are looking at.
City Lease
Campground: Is this the highest and best use for this property?
·
Should
think about this when lease expires. However, it’s the only “cheap” RV park
with electricity
·
Allows
open space and undeveloped area on spit/needs to be contracted out
·
Probably
·
No,
absolutely not
·
Yes
·
Tourists
LOVE camping/RVing/tenting on Spit. Try to preserve some of it if not all
areas.
·
We
do need more camping areas on the Spit with better facilities… a shuttle bus,
info kiosks, etc.
·
Need
year round facility- hotel – restaurant
·
Yes
– keeping it as campgrounds keeps it open for view.
·
No,
when first set up it was a necessity. Now we have more private campgrounds and
fishing hole and Mariner Park. This is prime real estate with a small lease
payment.
Spit Lagoon:
What improvements or changes should be made to this area?
·
It’s
the fishing hole, not to be confused with Louie’s Lagoon, further north. Need
more to do than fishing – emphasize other activities/diversify summer tourism.
What happens when there is only 1 fish per day?
·
F&G
needs to fund salmon fry and feed them more frequently
·
Need
to restore eagle feeding in winter to draw visitors and locals to Spit off
season
·
Winter
hockey events
·
Storm
watching
·
Provide
access for launching kayaks by deepening the channel
·
Winter
birding for seaducks is already an established activity
·
None
for now. Revisit in 5 years.
·
Get
it to pay back enterprise fund for initial development
·
Volunteers
policing area to prohibit snaggers and litter bugs. Too much trash!
·
Fish
hole – economic engine – need to stock and realign entrance. Community loves,
so do tourists
·
Develop
a plan for funding maintenance. Pave the parking, stripe the stalls and charge
a parking fee with the $ used for maintenance of the lagoon.
·
Recycling
bins for trash, improve look beyond pure gravel path.
·
We
have (at least some have) gone after cruise business but when you look at the
lack of sitting areas, pocket parks, public art, safe pedestrian trails, we get
a D- for attractiveness and even having anything. Need to develop specific
Planning and Zoning regulations for Spit re signage, multiple buildings/zone
lot, more permissive, but also strongest focus on “quality”. There is an “old”
attitude of industrial vs. tourist vs. commercial fishing users on the Spit,
and in reality all 3 are important elements in our economic mix. They each
bring value, and in fact some industrial use and most commercial uses are a
draw for tourists, since it demonstrates we are an active, viable port and
harbor – not just the end of the Road. It doesn’t take much to have some
landscape and elements and they should be seen as necessities versus “extras”
since they enhance the whole experience for everyone, visitors and locals alike.
The Spit trail has been an excellent addition funded through Federal Highway $.
It has increased family use, bicycle, and walking – our new “track”. The
extension will be welcome and tie the beginning into the end. An important
issue is actually implementing a plan. I remember being at Land’s End in the
1980’s at a community brainstorming. There were ideas galore, wall posters
full, and actually a consensus to “plan” and do. Unfortunately all of these
folks. Including myself all went back to jobs and lives and without planning
“Coney Island” emerged. So now once you gather and present, how can you also
encourage implementing change? Development? Etc?
COMMERCIAL FISHING
Commercial
fishing industry: share your thoughts
·
Sell
less than 1-tons quantities of ice to fishermen, charters
·
Major
economic impact on Homer/needs city support to continue
·
Unsightly
and completely unnecessary to be on Spit. Sure, convenient, but real estate is
too valuable for storage. Much of this stuff hasn’t moved in 5-10 years.
·
Promote
development. Dog-free zone. Put city leases in private hands
·
I’m
all for practical commercial fishing. We need a market where we can buy fresh
sea food year long. Give tours on commercial fishing boats to interested
people.
·
Make
more access for tourist to observe the operations. Tourists love this.
·
We
need to re-grow this industry if we can.
·
Commercial
fishing and tourism are our two major industries and both have a major role on
the Spit. Tourists also enjoy seeing a “working port harbor” Consolidation/customization
of industrial activities would help.
PARKING & CIRCULATION:
Assure harbor
slip holders guaranteed parking
·
Need
parking for folks across the bay
·
People
need to drive slow when crowded
·
“No
Camping” enforced. Seems to working – review in 5 years
·
Where
is the parking plan that was funded 2 years ago? This is a major safety issue.
·
Currently
visitors going on charters park and leave vehicles 7 am – 3 or 4 pm. So anytime
you drive out after restaurants/shops open, all spots are gone. Recommend signs
saying 3-hour parking (plenty of time to eat and shop) and enforce them.
Provide a shuttle to get fisherpersons from a further away parking lot to
harbor say 6:30 – 7:30 am and 2 – 4 pm
·
The
best solution is to have a shuttle bus… really
·
Dangerous
– charter fish passengers - off site/RV parking lot
·
Paving
and marking the parking spaces, as well as enforcing parking regulations may
help make it safer.
·
Major
issue we need to come up with a practical “central parking plan” both on/off
Spit. Need real commitment to shuttle type transportation.
Parking and
Retail Development: Comments
·
Use
hockey rink parking/parking by Pier One theatre
·
Signs
need to be clear
·
Really
seems to be working – revisit in 5 years
·
Parking
is a huge safety issue/Keep RVs our of harbor parking. Nothing over 20’ between
freight dock and fish dock.
·
The
retail lacks a good fish market, Coal Point is ok… but we need one year long.
Parking is bad… use a shuttle. Pedestrians please use white crossing paths.
·
Need
parking meters – 2 hour. Dangerous when backing out
·
Traffic
and pedestrian activity always creates a hazard, but there is not much way to
increase usage without it. We need a parking garage at (9) to increase parking.
·
Right
now a disaster. Employees should be parking off site taking carpool/shuttle in.
We do not really have safe pedestrian access that applies to all areas.
Harbor-side
Development and Pedestrian Connections: Ideas for development?
·
Need
a harbor access ramp between #8 & #9
on map/ramps determine where people park
·
Small
shops and boardwalks, as we have now. Anything requiring greater capital will
require more infrastructure and longer term leases. All businesses are seasonal
and most barely make it.
·
Need
more restrooms, perhaps run shuttles full-time and keep vehicles out of shipping
area except those passing through and commercial traffic.
·
A
pedestrian walkway with handicap access, viewing scopes and info kiosks
·
Public
transportation
·
Encourage
development that brings more people to the docks. (i.e. the hotel on the
overslope in Seward)
·
Wouldn’t
it be great to upgrade our Coney Island image? We would definitely have ability
to have higher lease rates. Pedestrian corridors can help when we mandate a
parking policy.
·
Additional
ramps to boat slips
·
Parking
needs to be moved west (up Spit) perhaps off Spit and parking fees applied –
perhaps via concession. This may be a good revenue generator. All parking 2
hours or less free.
·
Cruise
ships are coming, need facilities for them
·
See
#7 for parking solutions… i.e. shuttle bus
·
Same
as #7
·
Would
be great to finally implement an “overslope” concept for retail/restaurants.
New addition to Spit trail will enhance the harbor area. Need public art along way.
Boat and
trailer parking: Comments
·
A
lot of land being used for low revenue. Make it more compact!
·
Need
to collect fees from day users
·
As
this grows, self-service is very inefficient process. This activity lends
itself to an annual concession – bid out with specified land and operating
criteria set by council.
·
Why
are there so many trailers without a vehicle attached parked/left in the prime
“close in” spaces?
·
So
far the parking for this area seems adequate, perhaps a traffic director on
weekend to help with folks parking their gear.
·
Until
deep water dock expansion takes place – stripe and meter – money maker
·
We
need to keep some of this as parking, but we also need to get the property
leased and get some new harbor businesses going.
·
Trailers
are cordoned off now on east side but also take up a lot of area. However we
also have many day/self launch users
·
Is
there a way/desire to develop a viewing/public picnic type area on the East
shore?
Freight Dock
Road: Comments
·
Better
signage for boat launch. Create an area for sale stuff and charge for parking
·
Keep
city ice house running/encourage multiple buyers to operate in Homer
·
Mostly
launch ramp activity and trailer storage
·
A
personal traffic director (on weekends especially) for non-experienced folks.
·
Pave
·
Build
a parking garage here to reduce the traffic further out.
·
This
gets very confusing when ferry is in.
Visions
Vision 2
Vision 3
Vision 4
Common Themes
Parking
General Comments
·
Central
Gathering Place
·
Fishing
Pier (applause)
·
Showers (yacht club)
·
First
aid/Medical
o
ambulance
pickup
·
Meeting
space
·
Large Gathering
o
sports event park
·
Harbor
Improvements
o
cruise ship docking
·
Connect Spit with Town
o
Shuttle
§
Public
transportation in winter
§
Make
it an attraction
§
Fixed
rail
·
Boat
Trailer Parking
·
Spit
Requires Special Planning
Commercial
·
Make
more land private
o
Lower
profile
o
Develop
land restrictions
Harbor
·
Relocate
launch ramp near harbor entrance
·
Or
in new expansion
Parking
·
Multi
level parking garage
·
Sticker
system
o
Revenues
pay for shuttle
·
Underutilized
Parking
o
Use
hockey rink
·
Disperse parking demands
·
What
have other towns done?
·
Old
plans for filling area at base of Spit
Industry
·
Mix
industry with tourism
o
Clean industry only, no more
pollution!
·
Alaska
Maritime Museum
·
“Deadliest
Catch” connection
·
Storage
of fishing gear
·
Viewing
area for fish dock
·
Balance
industry, art and tourism
·
Use
fish waste to make local fertilizer
·
More
competition in the harbor and docks
·
Community
recycling station close to port and road access
·
What’s
happening in the world of de-salination? That would be great industry,
renewable, sustainable, and marine based
·
Encourage/expand:
fisheries, boat maintenance support, and industries outside of tourism
·
What
about a combination dry storage/maintenance building for boat storage?
(especially now that we have more different ventures in the community)
Environment
Transportation
Miscellaneous
|
