DOCSLIB.ORG

Workshop Purpose

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Workshop Purpose MEMO To: Scot Graham, City of Morro Bay From: Amy Sinsheimer and Jeff Henderson, Michael Baker International Date: March 30, 2017 Re: Community Workshop 3 and Outreach Survey – Summary Report This memorandum outlines the results of the Plan Morro Bay Land Use Alternatives Outreach Survey and third community-wide workshop, which was held on February 2, 2017, from 5:30 to 8:00 p.m. in the Morro Bay Community Center in Morro Bay. This meeting was a collaborative effort between the City of Morro Bay and consultants from Michael Baker International and PlaceWorks. WORKSHOP PURPOSE Purpose Update the public on the status of Plan Morro Bay and the Downtown Waterfront Strategic Plan (DWSP). Present key components of the draft DWSP (vision, catalyst projects, design guidelines) and confirm that they reflect the community’s vision, values, and preferences. Provide background information, context, and options for Plan Morro Bay land use alternatives. Gather detailed input to continue development of land use alternatives for the General Plan and Local Coastal Program (LCP). Desired Outcomes All participants will feel welcome and encouraged to participate. Participants will understand the projects and how they are related. The project team will have a better understanding of the community’s land use preferences and desired future uses at key opportunity sites in Morro Bay. The project team will have input needed to finalize the DWSP. Participants will feel energized and positive about their participation experience and look forward to future engagement opportunities related to the projects. OVERVIEW Below is a summary of the evening’s activities. Attendance Total Attendance: ~40 The third community-wide Plan Morro Bay workshop was hosted on February 2, 2017, from 5:30 to 8:00 p.m. in the Morro Bay Community Center. At least 23 participants were present,* along with 5 City staff members, 2 elected officials (Mayor Jamie Irons and Council Member Marlys McPherson), 6 General Plan Advisory Committee (GPAC) members, and 4 consultants, for a total of at least 40 individuals. * This number reflects the number of individuals who signed the optional sign-in sheet at the door; there were other attendees who did not sign in. Agenda 5:30 p.m. Welcome + Open House [DWSP Exhibits] Participants were welcomed at the door, asked to sign in, and invited to circulate between stations at their leisure to review the DWSP exhibits and provide high-level input. 6:20 p.m. Presentation and Q+A Session The project team gave a brief presentation (~20 minutes) explaining the project, providing background information, and setting the stage for the small group activity. This information included a discussion of the General Plan/LCP opportunity sites and land use alternatives. The project team answered questions at the end of the presentation. 6:40 p.m. Land Use Alternatives [Small Group Activity] Participants were seated in groups of 6 to 12. A facilitator at each table guided participants through the process of reviewing the opportunity sites and land use alternatives, and discussing if and how these sites could be transformed in the future to benefit the community. 7:30 p.m. Report Back The lead facilitator invited each table to share what was discussed, including the key takeaways from the group discussion. Time was allowed for brief feedback or questions between each site. 8:25 p.m. Wrap-Up and Next Steps [Presentation] The team reviewed the project next steps, including how public feedback will be incorporated and upcoming opportunities for participation. SUMMARY OF RESULTS Activity #1: DWSP Open House Overview Staff invited participants to review four posters summarizing key components of the DWSP before taking their seats: an overview poster, an opportunity sites and catalyst projects poster, a design guidelines poster, and an implementation poster. The opportunity sites and catalyst projects and design guidelines posters offered participants the opportunity to write comments in response to the prompt: “Is there anything very important that you feel is not reflected here?” Results Opportunity Sites and Catalyst Projects In general, comments were minimal and suggested support for the catalyst projects outlined in the DWSP. Participants reiterated their support of expanded and improved infrastructure, including installing more public restrooms and trash cans, extending bike paths, and creating pedestrian-friendly connections between downtown and the Embarcadero. Participants were also supportive of a boatyard. Participants had mixed opinions on a high-end hotel/conference center and a seafood market, with some expressing support for these projects and others concerned about their viability. Design Guidelines Again, comments provided on this poster did not indicate anything missing, or any major disagreements with the design guidelines and themes outlined in the plan. Participants expressed support for existing public art, consistent signage, and bike racks. Some participants also wrote about the need to keep the Embarcadero clean. Multiple participants wanted to see less concrete and glass in the community, and more use of wood and other nautical-related design features. Activity #2: Land Use Alternatives Group Activity Overview Each small group facilitator led a group of 6 to 12 people in a discussion of one to two different opportunity sites/study areas. Participants at each table reviewed the various alternatives presented by staff and discussed four key questions for the opportunity site/study area: Are the current uses appropriate for this site? What are your thoughts on the proposed alternatives at the site? Does the site have any potential to be used in a different way? Do you have other ideas for how to use this site? Following the discussion, facilitators presented a summary of their table’s discussion to the room. At this time, facilitators mentioned if each group had a strong preference for one of the alternatives. Results This section summarizes the key points that emerged from each table’s discussion. Table 1 and others1: Study Area 1 There were mixed feelings on including this area in the City’s sphere of influence (SOI): o Many community members saw merit in maintaining the area as County land, rather than evaluating it for inclusion in the City’s SOI or annexing the 1 Multiple tables and groups discussed Study Area 1. land. Participants were supportive of preserving the land as is, and felt that keeping County control would be the best way to accomplish this. o Others felt that there were clear benefits to including it in the City’s SOI, such as to: . Ensure that no development would occur in landslide-prone areas within Parcels 38 and 40. Limit density to one house and one barn per parcel. Encourage development of recreational uses, such as trails for biking, hiking, and horseback riding. Participants felt that more time would be needed to effectively offer feedback on this site. Participants wanted to preserve the dog beach in the area. Some community members noted that the City would have to provide infrastructure for any development in the area, and were concerned about potentially high costs for infrastructure construction. Community members were supportive of the City purchasing land or securing a right-of-way for a bicycle path between Morro Bay and Cayucos. Some community members were hesitant to designate the study area as open space, feeling that the cost would be too high and that such a designation might eliminate the fire protection benefits afforded by the grazing activities that currently occur in the area. However, others wanted to see the area used for passive recreation, such as hiking and horseback riding. Participants were not necessarily opposed to some development in the area, but would like it to not have a substantial visual impact. In particular, they felt that any development on Parcels 6, 7, 11, 12, 13, and 14 should be located so that it is not visible from Highway 1 and visitor-serving uses should not be visible from residential neighborhoods in north Morro Bay. Table 2: Dynegy Power Plant (Opportunity Site A) Mixed-use, institutional, and maritime supporting (perhaps light industrial) uses were well supported by community members, particularly if the mixed-use development includes multifamily residential and affordable housing. Community members had mixed feelings about the proposed placement of visitor-serving commercial uses on part of the site. There was more interest in institutional (museums, wildlife rescue/rehab center, nature-based education), housing, and art/cultural (studios, live/work) uses than visitor-serving commercial. Participants were in favor of using a Planned Development overlay or Specific Plan process for this site. There was widespread support for preserving the existing power plant building, including the smokestacks, as much as possible. Participants favored repurposing the existing structures for any new uses rather than demolishing and replacing them. Participants wanted to see the existing Maritime Museum attractions across the Embarcadero retained, and if possible, expanded. Other suggestions included a “Museum Row” integrating outdoor entertainment, recreation, educational, and fishing activities, an electricity museum, and/or a facility for the Pacific Wildlife Rehab Center. Community members wanted to preserve the natural areas of the creek by designating the land around it as open space. Table 3: North Main Street (Opportunity Site E) Participants preferred using the area for low-density and medium-density residential uses, with some limited commercial activities (particularly on Main Street). The favored commercial uses were small office spaces, medical offices, and working spaces as part of a live/work unit. There was support for using the 10-acre site currently designated as high-density residential for assisted/senior living, affordable housing, and live-work spaces. Participants felt that high-density residential on this site would create traffic problems (particularly at the intersections of Main Street with San Jacinto Street and Yerba Buena Street).
Load more

Recommended publications
  • A Comparative Analysis of Punk in Spain and Mexico
    Brigham Young University BYU ScholarsArchive Theses and Dissertations 2018-07-01 El futuro ya está aquí: A Comparative Analysis of Punk in Spain and Mexico Rex Richard Wilkins Brigham Young University Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarsarchive.byu.edu/etd Part of the Spanish and Portuguese Language and Literature Commons BYU ScholarsArchive Citation Wilkins, Rex Richard, "El futuro ya está aquí: A Comparative Analysis of Punk in Spain and Mexico" (2018). Theses and Dissertations. 6997. https://scholarsarchive.byu.edu/etd/6997 This Thesis is brought to you for free and open access by BYU ScholarsArchive. It has been accepted for inclusion in Theses and Dissertations by an authorized administrator of BYU ScholarsArchive. For more information, please contact [email protected], [email protected]. El futuro ya está aquí: A Comparative Analysis of Punk Culture in Spain and Mexico Rex Richard Wilkins A thesis submitted to the faculty of Brigham Young University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Arts Brian Price, Chair Erik Larson Alvin Sherman Department of Spanish and Portuguese Brigham Young University Copyright © 2018 Rex Richard Wilkins All Rights Reserved ABSTRACT El futuro ya está aquí: A Comparative Analysis of Punk Culture in Spain and Mexico Rex Richard Wilkins Department of Spanish and Portuguese, BYU Master of Arts This thesis examines the punk genre’s evolution into commercial mainstream music in Spain and Mexico. It looks at how this evolution altered both the aesthetic and gesture of the genre. This evolution can be seen by examining four bands that followed similar musical and commercial trajectories.
    [Show full text]
  • Th [In Aei.27
    1 2 / I G/'^2 27 W Z3ZC ^ , l t l a <= c i t y ut Th [inaei.r ^ Good minorning G a m iling isisue liies inI v o teirs’ haiinds Today’s forecastast: By Drew DcSilvcr _ B*l characteri7xdas as Idiilio's longstanding policlicy amendments that wouldlid havei. allowed casino; Partly cloudy with'ith widely scattered \ Water a swap OK’d - Timcs-Ncws writer ” against most formsfon o f gambling, gambling on Indian rescnservations bul nowhere; i mountain thundcrshoihowers. H ighs 82 to — "It’s not thethi policy of this state tto else in the state, 92 degrees. Lows 455 tcto 55. lave begun or requested negilegotiations authorize casinoino gambling," said Sen, Liirlird Opposition lo the EchiEchoHawk amendment P agoA f BOISE — Thc Legislaislaturc Tuesday inbes ha approved an amendmentcnl lo thc state wi^h thehc slate on compacts to0 rcgylatcr Noh. R-Klmbcrlticrly. during Senate debate oon was conccniraied amamong Democratic, Constitution that attempts to 1ban all fornis o f gaming’ activitiesa on their lands, thc amendment.nt. legislators from.northen-hem Idaho. All Magic casino gambling within Idahoaho. The tribestr had interpreted fede:deral law, “Only underler limited circuinstance.s,, iin Valley senators and rcpnrepresentatives, of both; m m mm m m J But. whether the amcndmcImeni, if approved several statesi and federal court cases,«s, JUid lhc fimited forms,I, andai under sirict conditions ddo canics, voted for the amciim endment by voters in November, willA-ill accomplish ils 1988 amimendment to the state Con:onstitution wc perroit anyy gamblingg lo take place." No'Joh T h e am endm ent wiwas supported by Leads in hate crcrimes !stated intent is slill unclear.f authonziizing a lottery, to argue thathat casino- said.
    [Show full text]
  • Lynsey De Paul
    2 don’t understand why so many people are angry with the recent iTunes promotion of U2’s new album. Now, don’t get me wrong. I am not saying this because I am a fan of the band, or because I think it is a remarkable record. It’s not, and I’m not. The band have made much better records in the past, and they have made considerably worse ones. That isn’t the issue. There have been times in my life when I have been quite impressed with the band’s output, although I would never have called myself a true blue fan. But that isn’t the issue either. The issue is why are so many people incensed by the fact that iTunes paid the band an undisclosed sum (said to be in the multiple millions) to send a copy of the record to everybody who had an iTunes account on the day in question? Those beneficiaries included Dear Friends, me, by the way – twice. Welcome to another issue of Gonzo Weekly The album can be removed from your playlists magazine. For the first time in quite a few with a couple of clicks of a mouse, and although issues, our own life has quietened down I believe it is slightly more complicated if you somewhat; Weird Weekends have come and have an iPhone, I truly don’t think it is going to gone, grand-daughters have been born, and we be that much of an issue. are back in the relative safety of our own little sanctum in North Devon.
    [Show full text]
  • Coconino County Zoning Ordinance
    Coconino County Zoning Ordinance Effective Date: December 11, 2019 Page intentionally left blank. Coconino County Zoning Ordinance Adopted November 12, 2019 by Ordinance 2019-14 Acknowledgments Board of Supervisors Art Babbott – District 1 Liz Archuleta – District 2 Matt Ryan – District 3 Jim Park, Vice-Chair – District 4 Lena Fowler, Chair – District 5 Planning and Zoning Commission Sat Best Tyanna Burton Jim Clifford Ray Mayer Tammy Ontiveros, Chair John Ruggles Don Walters Mary C. Williams Community Development Advisory Group Sat Best Dirch Foreman Diana Kessler Norm Lowe John Ruggles Carl Taylor Don Woods Page intentionally left blank. TABLE OF CONTENTS CHAPTER 1: General Provisions .................................................................................... 3 1.1 Short Title and Authority .......................................................................................................... 3 1.2 Purpose, Intent, and Use .......................................................................................................... 3 1.3 Private Agreements .................................................................................................................. 4 1.4 Conflicting Regulations and Statutory Changes ........................................................................ 4 1.5 Establishment of Zones ............................................................................................................. 4 1.6 Applicability ..............................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Yarmouth Comprehensive Plan
    Town of Yarmouth Comprehensive Plan 2010 TOWN OF YARMOUTH COMPREHENSIVE PLAN 2010 PREPARED BY: THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN STEERING COMMITTEE RICK ABBONDANZA DALE AKELEY JIM BARKER JEFF DARRELL JANE LINDAHL ESTHER PAPPAS STACY STEVENS ANN SWARDLICK MARY WILLIAMSON WITH ASSISTANCE FROM: NAT TUPPER, TOWN MANAGER VANESSA L. FARR, CNU-A PAM MCGUINNESS ELIZABETH A. DELLAVALLE, AICP PLANNING DECISIONS, INC. GREATER PORTLAND COG AND THE CITIZENS OF YARMOUTH 2010 Town of Yarmouth Comprehensive Plan i ADDITIONAL ASSISTANCE PROVIDED BY: THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN SUB-COMMITTEE MEMBERS Ed Ainsworth Peg Killmer Ed Ashley Nan Kollias Barney Baker Sarah Marshall Tom Bell Dorothy Mathes Gil Broberg Pam McGuinness Eric Carson John R. Nelson Irene Marchenay Sean Ociepka David Carter Dan Ostrye Priscilla Cox Hannah Ostrye Terry DeWan Paige Pingatore Elizabeth Dickinson Thomas Romano Jennifer Doten Josh Royte Margaret Downing Carolyn Schuster Mitch Draper Lynne Seeley Gro Flatebo Melinda Torrens Whit Ford Van Tingley Grant Schuyler Jay Waterman Maura Halkiotis Lisa Wentzell John Kelly Brent West Cathy White 2010 Town of Yarmouth Comprehensive Plan ii 2010 Town of Yarmouth Comprehensive Plan iv 2010 Town of Yarmouth Comprehensive Plan v TABLE OF CONTENTS INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................................................ 1 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ................................................................................................................................. 4 A. Yarmouth
    [Show full text]
  • Materializing Modernity
    CREATING MEXICAN CONSUMER CULTURE IN THE AGE OF PORFIRIO DÍAZ, 1876-1911 by STEVEN BLAIR BUNKER Bachelor of Arts, 1992 University of British Columbia Vancouver, British Columbia Master of Arts, 1995 University of British Columbia Vancouver, British Columbia Submitted to the Graduate Faculty of AddRan College of Humanities and Social Sciences Texas Christian University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy May, 2006 Copyright by Steven Blair Bunker 2006 Acknowledgements The support of mentors, institutions, friends, and most of all, family, made this dissertation possible. First I’d like to express my gratitude to my mentors at Texas Christian University and the University of British Columbia: Dr. William H. Beezley for his persistent recruiting effort, his sage advice, his funding generosity, and for graciously agreeing to direct my committee from afar; Dr. William E. French for first interesting me in Latin American history and then overseeing my first two degrees; and Dr. Susan Ramirez for ensuring the completion of my dissertation with her timely support and counsel. TCU faculty helped immensely, from the editorial knives and conceptual assistance of Dr. Claire Sanders and Dr. Sara Sohmer on my earlier chapters to the constant support of Department Chair Ken Stevens and his wife, Nancy, and the guidance of outstanding committee members Dr. Don Coerver, Dr. Mark Gilderhus, and Dr. Arturo Flores. Dr. William B. Taylor at UC-Berkeley not only taught an excellent course on the Colonial Church and Society but offered a professional and personal friendship for which I am most grateful. Scholars such as Jürgen Buchenau at UNC-Charlotte and Glen Kuecker at DePauw University sharpened my thoughts on consumption.
    [Show full text]
  • Glastonbury Zoning Regulations Section 1 Zones and Zone Boundaries
    Town of Glastonbury i Effective Date: October 22, 1973 Amended Date: 2/18/2019 ii INDEX SECTION NO. PAGE Accessory uses and structures 7 114 Accessory Apartments 6.11 112 Attached to principal building 7.6 & 7.7 119 & 120 Design review 7.9 120 Farming 7.2 119 Medical/Dental 7.1.b.2.j 118 Non-residential zones 7.5 119 Residential zones 7.1 114 Adaptive Redevelopment Zone 4.17 73 Administration and enforcement 11 142 Agribusiness (special permit) 7.11 120 Airports 3.22 12 Alcoholic liquors 6.1 90 Amendments to regulations 16 161 Area, permitted 3.4 9 Area requirements - summary table 4.0 14 Bath house 7.1.b.2.f 116 Boarding, rooming and lodging house 7.1.b.2.e 116 Building official 11.1 144 Building restoration 3.17 11 Buildings, nonconforming 8.2 122 Buildings, number on lot 3.11 10 Bulk, permitted 3.5 9 Car wash 6.3 99 Certificates of Occupancy 11.4 144 Conflicting regulations 3.1 9 Construction begun within one year (special permit) 12.7 150 Country Residence Zone CR 4.1 15 Courts 3.9 10 Customary home occupation 7.1.b.2.a 115 Definitions 2 3 Density, permitted 3.5 9 Design review (special permit) 12 146 Display of merchandise 3.2 11 Dwellings in non-principal structure 3.14 11 Dwellings in non-residence zones 3.15 11 Earth products (excavating and filling) 6.2 91 Effective date 18 164 Enforcement and penalties 11.3 144 Erosion (soil) and Sediment control regulations 19 165 Fences 2.5, 2.41, 3.8, 7.8 3,7,10,119 Flood Zone F 4.11 38 Flood Zone elevation 4.11.3 41 Floor area 3.13 10 Frontage requirements - summary table 4.0 14 Gasoline
    [Show full text]
  • Borough Loning Ordinance ? INDEX CORAOPOLIS BOROUGH ZONING ORDINANCE
    Coraopolis Borough Loning Ordinance ? INDEX CORAOPOLIS BOROUGH ZONING ORDINANCE Accessory Uses Conflict with Other Ordinances 120 Definition 21 2 Convalescent Home 66 9 Residential Districts 410 Conversion Apartment 665 Commercial Districts 510 Corner Lot 445 Industrial Districts 55 2 Day Care Center 663 Public Recreation District 592 Definitions Article I1 Setback and Yard Coxierage 613 s lgnS 900 Amendment B Department Store 235 To Zoning Map 30 5 Effective Date of the Ordinance 1260 Initiation 1251 Enforoement 1230 Proo edu re 1252 Except ions Public Hearing 1253 Height of Structures 620 Adverse Report 1254 Lots 600 Curative Amendment s 1255 Signs 920 Amusement, Enterprise 215 Yards 6 10 Annexation, Zoning of 31 7 Fee Schedule 1240 Apartment 8 Fences 640 In Commercial Buildings 66 7 Along property lines 641 p 642 Conversion 665 Industrial fences 647 Garage Apartments 666 Appeals 649 Appeals Filing of Ordinance 150 Amendment 1252.7 Foster Care Home 664 Zoning Hearing Board 1130 Front Yard Depth, Minimum Application of Regulations Res ident ial Dia t rict s 444 in each eone distriot 310 Commercial Districts 533 Area of Lot, Minimum Indust rial Diet rict s 573 Residential Districts 442 Public Recreation District 5 94 Commercial Districts 532 Half-Way House 664 Industrial Districts 572 Health Club 247 Lot Measurement 60 3 Hedges Auto Sales and Service 217 Along Property Lines 641,a 642 B i 1lbo ards 906, 962 As Obstructions at Street Corners 646 Boarding or Lodging Home 66 2 As Buffers 643 Book, Card or Stationery Sales 220 Height of Buildings Building Permits 1210 Except ions 620 Buffer Screens Residential Districts 441 Industrial.
    [Show full text]
  • Mar Vista Community Council Community Plan Committee
    Mar Vista Community Council Community Plan Committee INITIAL INPUT DOCUMENT MARCH 12, 2019 Table of Contents Introduction 5 Part A: General Considerations 6 I. Zoning .............................................................................6 Background 6 II. Mobility ..........................................................................15 Traffic 15 Emergency Evacuation 16 III. Infrastructure .................................................................16 Streets, the Urban Canopy and Urban Runoff 16 a. Streets 16 b. Urban Canopy 17 c. Urban Runoff 19 Summary ............................................................................21 Part B: Zone-Specific Input 22 Zone 1 .................................................................................22 Background 22 Goals 23 Zone 2 .................................................................................27 Zone 3 .................................................................................28 Zone 4 .................................................................................29 Housing 29 Transit Considerations 29 reCode LA 31 MVCC - Master Input Document $2 of $61 MAR VISTA - Boyer’s Grove 34 Biona Hills (Boyer’s Grove) 36 A Hidden Jewel 36! ZIMAS Map of Parcels Affected 37 Assessor Parcel Numbers for 11314 - 11325 38! Assessor Parcel Numbers for 11328 - 11335 39! Assessor Parcel Numbers for 11338 - 11345 40! Assessor Parcel Numbers for 11348 - 11361 41! Assessor Parcel Numbers for 11404 - 11421 42! Assessor Parcel Numbers for 11424 - 11435 43! reCode LA - Preserve
    [Show full text]
  • The Pennsylvania State University the Graduate School College of the Liberal Arts the ATLANTIC GATE: the ANGLO-HUGUENOT CHANNEL
    The Pennsylvania State University The Graduate School College of the Liberal Arts THE ATLANTIC GATE: THE ANGLO-HUGUENOT CHANNEL COMMUNITY, 1554-1685 A Dissertation in History by Philip J. Hnatkovich © 2014 Philip J. Hnatkovich Submitted in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy May 2014 ii The dissertation of Philip J. Hnatkovich was reviewed and approved* by the following: Daniel C. Beaver Associate Professor of History Dissertation Adviser Chair of Committee A. Gregg Roeber Professor of Early Modern History and Religious Studies Matthew Restall Edwin Earle Sparks Professor of Colonial Latin American History, Anthropology, and Women’s Studies Deryck W. Holdsworth Professor of Geography Michael Kulikowski History Department Head Professor of History and Classics and Ancient Mediterranean Studies * Signatures are on file in the Graduate School. iii ABSTRACT This study examines a system of trade, Protestant activism, privateering, and kinship that connected port communities in the English Channel during the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries. Drawing on evidence from urban archives in Exeter, Plymouth, and La Rochelle, it considers the effect of Calvinist conversion, refugeeism, and the outbreak of religious warfare on port relationships in the trading region of southwest England, Normandy, and Atlantic France. This came to a peak after 1568, when a militant alignment of Huguenot and Elizabethan provincial elites oversaw a decades-long collaboration in privateering and experimental transatlantic plantation ventures. In the seventeenth century, the maritime society of the Channel region became a base for international Reformed family networks stretching to English and French North America. Altogether, the study seeks to link the social history of the Reformation with the expansion of transoceanic commercial enterprise in England and France and, in doing so, contribute to a more integrated, transnational history of the early Atlantic World.
    [Show full text]
  • Plans Made for WCUZ/Budweiser Weekend the Third Annual WCUZ- Promotional Event Staged by Amphitheatre
    The Grand Valley% Ledger Serving Lowell Area ' Readers Since 1893 Volume 9, Issue 18 March 20, 1985 Plans made for WCUZ/Budweiser Weekend The Third Annual WCUZ- promotional event staged by Amphitheatre. There will be ell YMCA. amphitheatre in review. This is tent and lots of activities like a Budweiser Showboat Weekend downtown merchants beginning Roulette. Black Jack. Craps and On Saturday there are more not a race, and appropriate safety young persoa's fishing contest promises to be bigger and better at 10:00 a.m. Details will be an- all the popular casino games in Showboat rides slated for 9:00 equipment will be required. sponsored by the Jay-Teens. than ever. Planners met last nounced later. Showboat rides this Lottery Bureau sanctioned a.m. through 1:00 p.m. Again, The highlight of the weekend Lowell Showboat President Ray week to begin putting the gala will be offered from 1:00 until event. Lots of qualified dealers details about schedules, ticket will be the tentatively scheduled Quada has tssaed a plea to the weekend together. The two day 4:00 p.m. The highlight of Fri- and table captains will be needed prices, etc. will be published in Wariner Show at 7:00p.m. in the community for any and all addi- weekend is scheduled for Friday day's activities wiil be an Old to run this event, please watch future editions. At 2:00 students Showboat Amphitheatre. tional support. "We need volun- and Saturday. May 24 and 30. Fashioned Riverboat Gambling future editions of the Ledger for and staff from the high school Wariner is a country music star teers for all of the scheduled eve- Festivities will begin with a Night on the Showboat and in the requests for volunteers and meet- will sponsor a "Puttin-on-the- who has been riding high on the nts phis people and ideas for ing times.
    [Show full text]
  • City Councilmembers
    ITEM NO. 10 STAFFREPORT CITYOF OCEANSIDE DATE: May 5, 2021 TO: Honorable Mayor and City Councilmembers FFlOM: Development Services Department SUBJECT: RESOLUTION APPROVING FINAL MAP NO. T17-OOOO4 FOR EL CORAZON PHASE1 PROJECT SYNOPSIS Staff recommends that the City Council adopt a resolution approving Final Map No. T17-00004 for the El Corazon Phase 1 project; and authorize the City Clerk to record the Final Map with the San Diego County Recorder. BACKGROUND El Corazon Phase 1 is a development project consisting of a portion of the 82.9-acre eastern portion of the 465-acre El Corazon Specific Plan Area bordered by Mesa Drive to the north, Rancho del Oro Road to the east, Oceanside Boulevard to the south, and El Camino Fleal to the west. This area mainly consists of the Village Commercial and Oceanside Boulevard Commercial zone districts. The Final Map would subdivide the area into 19 numbered lots and 16 lettered lots in order to allow development of mass graded lots for future developments. including the recently-approved arena and mixed- use projects; as well as allowing the construction of internal streets "AA", "BB”, “CC" and the remainder of the Village Commercial Drive, along with associated public infrastructure (i.e., water & sewer). Phase 1 consists of numbered Lots 14 through 19, lettered Lots I, J, K. and Q, Streets “AA", "BB", “CC", Village Commercial Drive, Senior Center Drive, and a portion of Rancho Del Oro Road, all as shown on T17-00004. The owners of the property are The City of Oceanside, a Municipal Corporation. See Exhibit “A", vicinity map.
    [Show full text]