The Planning Commission will consider permitting the development a big hotel and condo complex at the base of the spit.

Wednesday, October 16 at 5:30

See meeting details and development proposal here.

Show up and testify or submit your comments to the Commission by Tuesday, October 15 at 3:00.

Comments can be emailed to the City Clerk: clerk@cityofhomer-ak.gov

‍

Here is a summary of the issues:

1. Timeline: Action on the proposal should be delayed until the next meeting to allow for meaningful public engagement.
2. Public Access: The project should include legally binding easements to ensure public access to bird viewing platforms and parking.
3. Conservation: A conservation easement should protect the 30-foot buffer between residential areas and the development.
4. Traffic: Developers should be responsible for any infrastructure needed to manage the traffic from their hotel.
5. Bird Habitat: Developers should collaborate with local birding groups to protect migratory birds and their habitat.
6. ‍Building Height: The hotel’s height should not exceed 35 feet, in line with local regulations, to ensure fairness and preserve the public view.

‍

Here's a breakdown of the issues:

The Planning Commission should postpone action on the proposal until their next meeting.

This is a big project that can only go forward after vacating a Right of Way and handing over valuable City-owned waterfront land. It is also in a location of significant public value, as bird habitat and home to the Kachemak Bay Shorebird Festival. People have busy lives but want to participate in this process. Another opportunity for public comment should be given at the next meeting, to allow for meaningful public engagement. 

A building permit should only be granted under the following conditions:

A Pedestrian Access Easement on the property titles to secure pedestrian access to the bird viewing platforms. 

Without a Pedestrian Access Easement (either from B Street, from the Spit Road, or both) to the viewing platforms, it is unacceptable to give up our B Street Right of Way. An unsecured public access is an unacceptable trade for our public right of way.  Doyon says it plans to allow the public to access the viewing platform, so it should be a simple matter to add an Access Easement to the title. ‍

A public parking easement on to ensuring public parking.

Up to 100 birders have historically accessed the old viewing platform at any given time during the shorebird festival, with 50 -200 visitors each day. Doyon has said birders will be able to park at the hotel. They should back this up with an easement on the title. 

The developer should pay to manage any traffic issues.

While the developer has presented a traffic study, concerns around congestion at this busy, blind intersection linger for those of us who live here. Doyon should agree in writing to pay for traffic issues cased by their development. Homer is growing, and injecting 70 vehicles at this intersection sounds like a nightmare to most of us who live here, and it seems inevitable that some sort of light or round about or cross walk will be necessary--Doyon should have to pay for that.

A Conservation Easement securing the vegetative buffer.

Fair trade for City land includes a conservation easement protecting the woods in the existing B Street Right of Way, ensuring the integrity of the 30-foot vegetative buffer between the Rural Residential neighbors and the large hotel. Doyon has said that they want to protect neighbors from the noise, lights, etc. of the hotel; a conservation easement on the title will ensure that those trees stay in place.

A binding plan to ensure the protection of migratory birds and their habitat.

The large hotel/condo complex would be built in an area that has been used for decades by the Shorebird Festival, Alaska’s largest wildlife viewing festival. It overlooks Mariner Park Lagoon, which is designated as a WHSRN Site of International Importance, which means that at least 100,000 shorebirds annually return here.

To qualify for a WHSRN designation, the site’s landowner(s), in this case the City of Homer, must agree to:

• make shorebird conservation a priority;
• protect and manage shorebird habitat; and
• keep WHSRN informed of any changes at the site.

That means that the City has agreed to ensure that shorebird habitat will be protected. In exchange for the City's property, we should require protection of shorebirds and their habitat in Mariner Park Lagoon. Issues include disruption of nesting birds and migratory shorebirds during their spring and fall migrations. It would be unacceptable, for example, for loud and disruptive aspects of construction (like pile pounding) to occur during migration. Window strikes, stormwater mismanagement, and habitat damage are other concerns that need to be addressed in collaboration with local bird experts.

As a condition of the permit, developers should have to work with local US Fish and Wildlife Service, Friends of Alaska National Wildlife Refuges (the local sponsors of the Kachemak Bay Shorebird Festival), as well as the Kachemak Bay Birders (supporters of the Kachemak Bay Western Hemisphere Shorebird Reserve Network [WHSRN]) to come up with appropriate and binding measures to protect migratory birds and their sensitive habitat. This could be implemented through a title restriction placed on the land the City gives to Doyon.

The hotel building should be no higher than 35 feet. 

Homer City Code 21.24.040 says that in the General Commercial 1 Zone, “the maximum building height shall be 35 feet.” There is nothing in the code that indicates any flexibility on height in this zoning district (in contrast to code for General Commercial 2 Zone, which allows buildings to be up to 55 ft with a CUP).

In Homer, the value of your land is tied closely to your view, so it is no light matter to throw out a height restriction. As outlined above, this is an area where the view is of particular public interest and value. It is not a place to throw out the rules. If the commission is willing to throw out height restrictions as a general mater, how high would they be willing to go—50’, 100’, 200’? Why? What rule do you follow if you reject the rule in code? How do you ensure fairness among property or business owners? During the last public hearings on this hotel, the need for fairness between hotel owners came up. This is an important concern. It isn’t right to tell one hotel they have to be 35’ and allow another to go over. This could easily become a slippery slope with businesses arguing that they need to be bigger and bigger. Stick to 35 ft or change the rules through proper process, if that is what the public wants.