Waterfront Working Group — Portland, ME
Date: 2019-05-02
Time: 15:00

Waterfront Working Group
 11th Meeting Agenda
 May, 2, 2019
 Room 24, City Hall
 3:00pm to 5:00pm




 *************************************

1. Welcome and Introductions:


2. Review Meeting Notes from Meeting 10, 4­25­2019


 Meeting Notes attached, along with correspondence received and presentation from the
 previous meeting
 Continued Working Group discussion on WCZ Performance
3.
 Standards in preparation for Planning Board Public Hearing.


4. Working Group discussion on Schedule moving forward.

Waterfront Working Group
 11th Meeting Agenda
 May, 2, 2019
 Room 24, City Hall
 3:00pm to 5:00pm




 *************************************

1. Welcome and Introductions:


2. Review Meeting Notes from Meeting 10, 4­25­2019


 Meeting Notes attached, along with correspondence received and presentation from the
 previous meeting
 Continued Working Group discussion on WCZ Performance
3.
 Standards in preparation for Planning Board Public Hearing.


4. Working Group discussion on Schedule moving forward.
 Agenda 2
 Meeting 10 Notes
 April 25, 2019
City of Portland
Waterfront Working Group

Meeting #10
Thursday, April 25, 2019 -- 3:00 - 5:00 p.m.

Attendance:

PWWG: Mike Alfiero, Togue Brawn, Bill Coopersmith, Steve DiMillo, Keith Lane, Charlie
Poole, Willis Spear, Becky Rand, Dory Waxman, Togue Brawn (Cyrus Hagge absent)

Staff: Jon Jennings, Bill Needelman, Greg Mitchell, Matthew Grooms, Christine Grimando,
John Peverada (Parking Division Director)

Welcome and review of minutes. From the minutes, the question of what constitutes a
commercial kitchen was raised. Mr. Needelman clarified that, historically, a kitchen with
seafood has been allowed, but that feedback and direction from the group would be welcome.

Meeting Summary:

 Parking Discussion continued from last week:

Bill Needelman reported his use of aerial photography and a morning walk-about (he walked the
corridor) to get a general idea of available parking and future alternative parking options for
waterfront users. Mr. Needelman made clear that the aerial photograph displayed is not official
inventory, but it does provide a good template for talking points and for estimating available
present and future parking options.

The aerial photograph of parking in the 3 categories of identified parking (private off-street,
public off-street and public on-street regulated) is available at the PWWG website with color
coding as follows:

Blue is on-street time regulated parking
Solid red is metered (kiosk or regular meter)
Yellow is unrestricted on street parking
Pink slash is commercial parking (parking for sale -- mixed)
Red slash is shared use (berthing/marine but also sold at night for other use)
Green is no parking, but may be used in future for vessel crew parking
The area under the bridge is not available for parking -- it was mistakenly identified as available
during the last meeting.

By Ocean Gateway the area with pink slashes is being made available for day parking (about 200
spaces).



 1
 Agenda 2
 Meeting 10 Notes
 April 25, 2019
On Maine Wharf the area with red slashes is parking available for marine parking during
working hours, with Scales restaurant using the space in off hours.

Custom House Wharf and Portland Pier are shared (with Togue Brawn letting it be known that
they tell customers that people are never towed after 5 pm, although they technically could be
towed). Luke’s Lobster plans to also use lobster berthing parking spaces in off hours for
restaurant. There is deep concern from residents of this area about parking issues (including
valet parking) -- signage will be implemented and there is work being done to identify what it
needs to be.

There should be pink slashes on the parking map for the area of Angelo’s Acre.

Widgery and Union Wharves have expansions and work is in progress to figure out how to
tightly regulate parking here. Union Wharf is primarily tenant parking or parking in support of
marine use parking.

The green spaces on the photograph are almost the last areas available for new on-street parking.
There are 2 empty lots at the Fish Pier, Lot 12, Brown Trading leased by Waterfront Maine next
to Pierce Atwood. Lot 12 (see map at PWWG website) is available for development. Also Lot
1, near GMRI, is waiting for the moratorium to expire and will likely be made available for
development.

There is unregulated all day parking (yellow) in front of Gulf of Maine Research Institute.

The front of Rufus Deering will change, according to plan, into metered spaces.

There are also a few unregulated spaces on High and Park streets.

No parking areas (green) are where new on-street parking may be created.

Green spaces are currently in bike lanes. Safety issues will need to be addressed, but there are
options for bike routing onto sidewalk (as may become a trail)

On the Western Waterfront parking is not regulated and there are about 160 spaces. The area
adjacent to the IMT rail loading platform should probably have only truck staging.

There is a small lot behind Nova Seafood that is an unrestricted public lot.

 Zoning Discussion Continued from last week:

Matthew Grooms reported a productive meeting with Planning Board on the 23rd and stated that
they are set to go straight to the Public Hearing. The main feedback from the Planning Board
meeting was that:



 2
 Agenda 2
 Meeting 10 Notes
 April 25, 2019
 The Planning Board wants to see additional info on TIFs tax data and the nmouz.
 Charlie Poole pointed out that pier owners are going to have to feed some of that info to
 the group;

 The Board would like to know the impact of the change from 150 to 125 for pier owners;

 The Board questions whether the current moratorium be extended? (staff asked the WWG
 and group consensus was this is not necessary or good); and

 Are the proposed amendments necessary - especially with performance standards? Is
 zoning the right mechanism to address keeping the working waterfront “working.”

Some members of the PWWG questioned whether the Planning Board take the work of the
PWWG seriously, particularly the concerns of the fishermen regarding access and preservation
of a working waterfront. Christine Grimando pointed out that the kind of questions the Board
put forth are normal in this type of process and do not necessarily reflect resistance to PWWG
input and work. See dialog section for comments.

A lively discussion ensued with strong opinions expressed about working waterfront
preservation (and the specifics of how best to preserve the “working” portion of the waterfront)
and about who benefits or does not with current and proposed compromises. See dialog section
for comments.

 Additional Items:

Fisherman’s Pier: Mr. Jennings relayed correspondence from the developer.

Commercial Street: The WSP consultant process has been delayed as the lead consultant has just
left. Mr. Jennings stated that they will have to address pedestrian traffic in this area, maybe
eliminate some crosswalks and install better crossing signals for pedestrian and vehicle safety.

Mr. Jennings shared his letter to Bruce Van Note, Commissioner of MDOT, and the response he
received regarding funding/grant applications for dredging. These letters are posted at the
PWWG website. Mr. Jennings is also talking to the Maine federal delegation (Collins, King,
Pingree) regarding funding, reminding the group that any federal funding would require a large
match.

Funding applications include requests for a CAD cell in order to “get the really bad stuff out”
now, drop it into CAD cell, then next time (100 years from now) “we can dredge out to sea.”

It was agreed to continue meeting weekly (at least for now) as June is nigh upon
us. Additionally, some group members would like to continue in some form after this process is
completed, because the waterfront is unique and too important to preserve. Mr. Jennings agreed.



 3
 Agenda 2
 Meeting 10 Notes
 April 25, 2019
Mr. Needelman asked the group -- per the request of the Planning Board -- if it would be
possible to extend the moratorium. Mr. Jennings replied that he didn’t see any reason to commit
to extension -- better to hold everyone’s feet to the fire. The group agreed.


Abbreviated Dialog - (Parking):

SD: What about commercial lots on Union, Widgery, Chandlers, Long, Fshermans -- are these
going to be considered pre-existing?

BN: We’ll have to go pier-to-pier to do a survey of wharf owners.

BC: Can you break down the number of spots that exist? In different categories? I’d like to see
if we’re losing any later on.

BN: You mean have the number of parking spaces be a data point for regular inventory?

BC: Yes.

Peverada: We do supply numbers now. There are 191 parking meters on Commercial Street.

BC: How many non-metered?

Peverada: About 20 that are time regulated; not certain of how many unrestricted -- we’d have
to count.

BN: Rufus Deering is going to make a certain number available for marine users. The City will
help them determine who is a marine user.

BC: How many spaces at Fisherman’s?

BN: I don’t know off hand. We’ll try to get the numbers and put them in the minutes.

MA: BC has a good point; this is good info to have.

JJ: We should be looking at the green spaces for marine use with the hang-tag permit.

DW: How many spaces do you fishermen think you need to take care of all of you?

BC: From 125 to 200.

JJ: We were estimating coming up with 50 to 80 spaces -- not everybody will be there at the
same time.



 4
 Agenda 2
 Meeting 10 Notes
 April 25, 2019
BN: We have a pretty good supply on West Commercial St; it might mean you have to pick
people up, pick up your sternman/employees.

BC: Why aren’t people parking there now (yellow spaces on West Commercial St.)?

BN: There is no good pedestrian conductivity.

MA: It’s a good place to carpool.

Peverada: Don’t park on railroad land/they have parking police.

BN: We’d like to expand the shoulder/land to 8 feet wide so pedestrians and bicycles have a safe
corridor at least to High Street, where they can then join slower traffic. We need a minimum of
8 feet for bikes and pedestrians to safely co-exist.

Perevada: If you park west of the bridge, I don’t think you need a permit, there’s not much
competition now.

JJ: Yet, but there will be --- JB Brown on West Commercial Street will be developing and need
more parking and creating a busier corridor. Any new development project on West Commercial
Street will have on-site parking, we hope.

JJ: We’ll continue to report out some numbers -- John Peverada will you get the data? Then,
we’ll get it out to the group.

JJ: We’re anticipating that on the Brown property, that at some point in the future we will
capture it in the Waterfront TIF -- even though it’s not in it now, we’re going to put it in.

JJ: Not specifically relevant to the conversation but as for islander parking one of our TIFs has a
transit component, so we’re identifying “pushed out” parking for islanders that comes with a
shuttle. Example: Marginal Way near UHaul.

Abbreviated Dialog: Planning Board Meeting/Zoning

BN: Board members wanted to know the impact of reducing the Overlay. We’ll work with
assessor to get that Delta (change). We will bring 55/45 and 4 stories to assessor concentrating
on the area between Long Wharf and Union Wharf.

SD: We’ll work on ours individually.

CP: Our new building is real and it exists, so it’s a benchmark.

BN: I hope we can get a reasonable number to report back.



 5
 Agenda 2
 Meeting 10 Notes
 April 25, 2019
KL: In overlay zone, is the change from 125 to 150?

BN: Yes, except Long Wharf, from 500 to 300.

MG: Some board members questioned whether zoning was the right mechanism to address these
issues.

KL: Zoning is not your only tool.

MG: Absolutely not. Don’t change if you don’t need to.

MG: Board members inquired about Islander parking -- our approach would be to NOT permit
islander parking in the nmouz.

MG: Performance standards concerns -- we’re still working through those we plan to respond to
those concerns this week and have that in time for the next discussion before it goes back to
Planning Board. Will look to be informed by the material from S. Guay letter.

MA: If you have marine use that is 55% has a need for accessory use does that go toward 45%
of non marine?

BN: It’s looked at on a case by case basis; it depends on the details.

CG: My interpretation is that yes, I think that would count toward 45, but this is a unique
question that is worth clarifying.

BN: It’s hard to discuss as a hypothetical. All are reviewed on a case-by-case basis.

MA: I think that will be part of the growth area in the fishing industry.

TB: Agreed.

BN: A seafood processing facility would go in under 55

KL: Some Planning Board members seemed indifferent and saw no reason for changes to 2010.
But 2010 still has 500 foot nmouz. The Planning Board seemed indifferent. Fishermen will
have a problem with that.

CP: I think we have to be careful about painting the waterfront gray. I’ll say it again: we need to
have zoning that allows this revenue to be generated that does not interfere with marine use.

KL: You’re shutting off the future when you’re allowing a large area to be developed for non
marine use.



 6
 Agenda 2
 Meeting 10 Notes
 April 25, 2019
CP: I don’t want to see the fisherman community bear the brunt; you can’t afford it.

KL: Every boat tied to a dock provides profit. You have to maintain that structure whether I’m
there or not.

DW: I was present for 2010. To your credit you’ve done incredibly well, but we have to
compromise and I am not sure where that is.

CP: I think there are tools to prevent going where Keith thinks we’re going.

DW: This has to be a give and take.

KL: First, I wasn’t surprised by what happened at the workshop -- we went from
recommendations of this group, then 3 members of the group went against recommendations of
group. The 150 to 125 goes around buildings - it helps prevent a large parking garage.

KL: 125 is not real number -- it doesn’t take 25 feet away that you can’t do anything with, you
just have to fill it with 55% marine use.

?: Lost revenue from tax? Not seeing it.

KL: You don’t want a fisherman to go fisherman (postal analogy).

MA: I was the one that compromised on 125. I’m losing about 2000 feet. 90% of my building
is marine only commercial. I depend on fishermen, I also depend on the nmouz. Some
statements were made about how people in this room have driven ground fishing away -- that is
simply not true.

Ground fish have left; but it’s been stated that ground fish leaving has been the cause of
development on the waterfront -- it’s simply not true. I’m here to help bridge the gap. My
compromise is to give up from 150 to 125.

BC: I go back to definition of nmouz. Before, the Waterfront Central Zone had been zero. The
street frontage on Commercial Street -- hypothetically -- would there have been more marine use
on ground floors? My loss had no gain.

MA: From 2019 to 2029? I don’t know.

BC: The fishing industry is coming back, there is more ground fish out there now. People want
sustainable seafood It’s all sustainable now due to the regulations put into effect.

MA: I knew this was going to be difficult because I live in 2 worlds. I want to be Switzerland. I
don’t want to be on one side or the other.



 7
 Agenda 2
 Meeting 10 Notes
 April 25, 2019
SD: This is compromise; I think we’ve done a good job. I didn’t say anything different at
Planning Board meeting than here.

KL: It seems to me it needs to be repeated from time to time.

MA: I didn’t hear anything different at the Planning Board meeting.

KL: What went before the Planning Board came out of these meetings and I sensed they were
indifferent to our work.

CP: We do not agree with nmouz , but much of what we do here I do agree with. I still don’t
agree with the nmouz line. If everyone walks out jumping for joy then we haven’t done our job.

? So, will the Board keep 150?

JJ: We can’t speculate.

BR: We should look for stuff that’s allowed because if we ruin this waterfront with too many
hotels, we can never fix it. This is the moment to put a halt to hotel development on wharves. I
don’t like Commercial Street any more. If I buy this dock, I’ll be worried about maintenance,
but I’d find a way to do it. How much money can you take to your grave? This is the moment to
save.

WS: I’m worried about it staying at 150. I thought we had it down to 125. What we’ve gained
is slowly, slowly going away.

CP: I don’t want zoning changes just for the sake of changing, we need to make sure we’re
doing it for the right reasons.

(Regarding a letter WS presented regarding KL parking) -- A copy of this letter will be put up
at PWWG website and will become an agenda item. Letter claims action will be taken if KL
continues to park at specific property which WS says was taken by adverse possession.

TB: I have a process question -- what is the process? What will the Planning Board do now?
RE: 125 When does it happen?

BN: There will be a back and forth -- questions asked, we give information back. We will
circulate a draft in time for you to make formative decisions for the public hearing. But please
know that even if the Planning Board votes 7 to 0 against it; we’ll still take it to City
Council. There are 2 steps -- first, the Planning Board, then the City Council. It’s the City
Council that makes decisions, not the Planning Board.

JJ: My turn. I think this has been a phenomenal process. It’s our right to point out what we
think is the best course of action. I stand behind what we’ve done from the perspective of City

 8
 Agenda 2
 Meeting 10 Notes
 April 25, 2019
Manager and for the City. I do think there is a section of the City that is SO unique (the
waterfront zone) that it requires and deserves unique solutions.

We’ve had some tough discussions. The Planning Board does not have the hindsight. The City
Council has the final say and I work for them.

We do have to grow as a City -- there will be growth. We have to have a tax base to provide
services to our citizens.

125 is the compromise. This is the moment in time.

Letter received by Jennings from Mr. Bateman

Commercial St Plan has been delayed -- lead consultant has just left. We have to address
pedestrian traffic. Maybe eliminate some crosswalks and signalize them to safely cross.
Nature of public process

Also letter from Jennings to B. Van Note, MDOT Commissioner and the response. Re; dredging
grant application
Also talking to federal delegation Sen. Collins, Rep. Pingree, Sen. King
We’ll have to have a fairly large match
CAD cell developed
We dredge this time, get the really bad stuff out, drop it into CAD cell, next time (100 years from
now) we can dump it into the sea
Do believe we’re getting good stuff done.

Last thing: meeting schedule

Need to get this done by June

BC: Still need to meet once a week

MA: I think some form of a group continues after this process is over

BN: the Planning Board asked of this group -- is it possible to extend the moratorium? I have
been asked to ask the group? I am asking the group?

JJ: I don’t see any reason to commit to extension -- we need to hold people’s feet to the fire. If
we get to June and need to, then we’ll do it.

Nods from group.

CP: I saw a lack of understanding from Board



 9
 Agenda 2
 Meeting 10 Notes
 April 25, 2019
MA: I sensed a lot of head scratching

BN: May need a City Council Workshop.

JJ: We don’t have public comment at city workshops

DW: Workshops would be really good.

JJ: You’ve all lived this

CP: 2010 was a whole different economic world -- I support change as long as it’s….




 10
 Waterfront Working Group
  Meeting # 10
  April 25, 2019
  City Hall Room 209
  3:00- 5:00pm
1. Welcome and Introductions:
2. Parking Discussion
3. Zoning Summary
4. Dredge Update
5. Fisherman’s Wharf Update
6. Schedule and Next steps
Private, Off-Street

 Creation of “water dependent parking” use in Zoning


Clarifying “Exclusivity” for water dependent use of pier edge in WCZ
performance standards

Improved enforcement of existing or amended WCZ parking restrictions
• Document Legal Non-conforming parking on all piers
 Terminate use of Illegal Non-conforming spaces by:
 Voluntary pier owner action
 zoning enforcement action
• Create mechanism for reporting illegal use.
 Identify off-waterfront parking options for marine use.

• Lessons learned from ongoing “TMA” discussions and potential application
 to waterfront businesses and harvesters.

Other Option?
Public, Off-Street

Prioritize use of existing City parking lots:

• Angelo’s Acre

• Portland Fish Pier (needs to be presented and vetted by
 Fish Pier Authority Board)
 Fish Pier currently prioritizes marine tenants in “Front Lot”

• Off waterfront options (?)

Other Option?
Public On-Street
 Retention of existing unregulated spaces on
Commercial Street
 Creation of a Marine Parking Hang Tag system
 Questions:
• Who is the target market?

 Harvesters only?

• For use at which street spaces?
 Hourly regulated?
 Metered?

• Geographic extent?
 Commercial Street only?
 Elsewhere?

Other Option?