L.1. HC21-2181 DISCUSSION AND POSSIBLE ACTION REGARDING REQUEST FOR PROPOSALS TO PREPARE A PUBLIC AMENITIES PLAN FOR KING HARBOR AND SELECTION OF A PLANNING SUBCOMMITTEE OF THE HARBOR COMMISSION
I have been involved in the design and planning of Mole B for a number of years. As a Landscape Architect and Planner and, an active member of Lanakila Outrigger Canoe Club , I have been on the Mole B Advisory Committee.
The Draft RFP indicates Moonstone Park be on a separate but expedited track. In as much as the City and public involvement would mirror the work being done for Public Amenities Plan, I respectfully request this work be a part of the Consultants work effort and not be a separate or expedited effort. Separating one element could increase costs particularly as it relates to separate Commission and Council meetings.
To provide a cohesive plan the park area should be considered as an integral, and not a separate part of the KH plan. Its amenities and opportunities make affect the planning of other areas in King Harbor.
The RFP also makes mention of Mole B as a site for a dry-stack/mast up storage area. This item goes back some time in history, During the development of the 'new' Harbor Patrol facility the Coastal Commission had indicated that Mole B should accommodate the Harbor Patrol (1/3), Outrigger Clubs (1/3), and Park (1/3). At one point in time, The King Harbor Lease holder had offered some of his property to allow for reconfigured parking for a proposed Boat ramp. This offer included more property than had been considered by the Coastal Commission and allowed for the inclusion of Dry-stack/mast up storage. When the boat ramp was deleted as an option on Mole B, the offer for additional land was rescinded. Sean Gutherie may have additional and more precise info related to this item. This use was never required or intended to be on Mole B by the Coastal Commission. Furthermore, it does not fit with the current 1/3 criteria noted above.
The dry-stack/mast-up storage should be considered by the Consultant as an amenity when reviewing the totality Project Area. To include it as a part of Mole B would be presumptive. I would suggest its mention be removed from the RFP. Its inclusion could be included as a part of the final report as developed by the Consultant.
I have been involved in the design and planning of Mole B for a number of years. As a Landscape Architect and Planner and, an active member of Lanakila Outrigger Canoe Club , I have been on the Mole B Advisory Committee.
The Draft RFP indicates Moonstone Park be on a separate but expedited track. In as much as the City and public involvement would mirror the work being done for Public Amenities Plan, I respectfully request this work be a part of the Consultants work effort and not be a separate or expedited effort. Separating one element could increase costs particularly as it relates to separate Commission and Council meetings.
To provide a cohesive plan the park area should be considered as an integral, and not a separate part of the KH plan. Its amenities and opportunities make affect the planning of other areas in King Harbor.
The RFP also makes mention of Mole B as a site for a dry-stack/mast up storage area. This item goes back some time in history, During the development of the 'new' Harbor Patrol facility the Coastal Commission had indicated that Mole B should accommodate the Harbor Patrol (1/3), Outrigger Clubs (1/3), and Park (1/3). At one point in time, The King Harbor Lease holder had offered some of his property to allow for reconfigured parking for a proposed Boat ramp. This offer included more property than had been considered by the Coastal Commission and allowed for the inclusion of Dry-stack/mast up storage. When the boat ramp was deleted as an option on Mole B, the offer for additional land was rescinded. Sean Gutherie may have additional and more precise info related to this item. This use was never required or intended to be on Mole B by the Coastal Commission. Furthermore, it does not fit with the current 1/3 criteria noted above.
The dry-stack/mast-up storage should be considered by the Consultant as an amenity when reviewing the totality Project Area. To include it as a part of Mole B would be presumptive. I would suggest its mention be removed from the RFP. Its inclusion could be included as a part of the final report as developed by the Consultant.
Thank you for the consideration.
Respectfully
Brian Mitchell, RLA #1519