1. Harbor development with a clear specific plan that makes visitor-serving and harbor-oriented activities its priority and focus. (parks with picnic and seating areas, water recreation, wide promenades, public restrooms, hotel type lodging, restaurants, adequate public parking, etc.) The current proposed project does not do this, is not consistent with the Local Coastal Plan and should be rejected so an appropriate development can be planned.
  2. An updated comprehensive Public Works Plan (PWP) and an end to piecemeal planning of the harbor. The continuous series of PWP amendments prevents everyone from seeing the ultimate development plan for the harbor and is piece-meal planning at its worst. The current PWP was certified over 30 years ago in September 1986.  The Coastal Commission, the Channel Islands Beach Service District and the public have questioned this piecemeal planning, two-step process of mothballing of sites many times.  This piecemeal planning tactic has also increased public distrust of proposed harbor development projects.
  3. An appropriate open and public process and procedure as described in the City’s letter of July 12, 2017, “an open and public process that encourages feedback from stakeholders, including the County, the proposed developer, and nearby residents”.   This process must include: the submission of a Specific Plan verified to be compliant with the Local Coastal Plan and the Coastal Act; the required CEQA analysis; proper planning assessment; and public participation from the start.  The fact that the County has allowed harbor facilities to rundown does not legitimize the circumvention or shortcutting of appropriate procedures and process.