Business and Tourism Activity Panel (BTAP) Minutes
August 13th, 2003
Date: Wednesday, August 13th, 2003
Time: 9:30-11:30 AM
Landing Marine Laboratories
Ebert, BTAP Chair, SAC Business/Industry Representative
Bekker, Cannery Row Company, Monterey
Schieblauer, Monterey Harbor, City of Monterey
Haifley, SAC Recreation Rep, O’Neill Sea Odyssey
Fosmark, Alliance of Communities for Sustainable Fisheries
Seavey, Monterey Abalone Company
Saunders, Monterey Bay National Marine Sanctuary
Jolly, Monterey Bay National Marine Sanctuary
Galesh, Seacliff Village Plan Co-Chair
Schamberg, Seacliff resident
Randolph, Friends of Monterey Bay Sanctuary Visitors Center
Robinson, Santa Cruz Seaside Company
Robison, Santa Cruz Chamber
Kennedy, Vice Mayor, City of Santa Cruz
Miller, Sun Shops, Santa Cruz
Reilly, Mayor, City of Santa Cruz
de la Cruz, CA State Parks
Franke, Seacliff resident
O’Donnell, Santa Cruz Museum
Paulson, President/Board, Santa Cruz Chamber of Commerce
Notes – a Brief Summary of the Meeting’s Proceedings.
E., BTAP Chair gave welcoming comments and individual introductions
commenced. Dave explained that this special meeting of the BTAP was
scheduled to review the SAC recommendations on the Sanctuary’s
proposed citing of an interpretive center, hear additional public
comment, and develop a BTAP recommendation on the location of the
center to submit to the Sanctuary Superintendent and SAC. Rachel
S. reviewed the SAC’s recommendations on the interpretive center
from their August 1, 2003 meeting as follows:
visitor center for the MBNMS is a critical priority and NOAA needs
to invest in it.
the Feasibility study, a visitor center should be on a north end
of the bay, as the best Monterey site would not
Sanctuary Education Plan (SEP) should provide a recommendation
to the MBNMS Superintendent and SAC on the education
and challenges for the 3 remaining sites.
Business and Tourism Activity Panel (BTAP) should provide a recommendation
SAC on the tourism potential
and challenges for the 3 remaining sites.
information on each site’s partnerships would
be helpful to identify a single lead visitor center site – partners
should provide this info.
Santa Cruz City Boardwalk/Fun Spot and Seacliff State Beach are
the options that should be considered.
members of the public spoke about the citing of the interpretive center:
Cruz Mayor Emily Reilly – spoke in favor of citing the
facility in the City of Santa Cruz. Regarding the Fun Spot
site, the Mayor and Vice-Mayor emphasized the potential for very
the depth of support within the community, the nexus with
other facilities and the opportunity to reach large numbers of
Robinson (Seaside Company) – spoke in favor
of the Boardwalk site as a positive public/private partnership.
He said the
infrastructure was there and pointed to the large number and cross-section
already come to the Boardwalk. He described it as a melding
of tourism and education. He acknowledged issues of concern related
for the sanctuary and space and indicated that they might
be able to offer more space.
Miller – said that
a key rule of business is location, location, location. He suggested
that the sanctuary locate
the center where masses of people already are, as well as educate
those who might
not be as aware of the sanctuary. He was in favor of
locating the site in Santa Cruz.
O’Donnell – spoke
in favor of locating the site in Santa Cruz and talked about
the potential for sharing staff,
and programs between the museum and sanctuary and other
Galesh – spoke in favor of
locating the facility at Seacliff and talked about the attributes
of the site (view, no competition
distractions w/other facilities, easy access, atmosphere,
great partner in state parks, etc).
de la Cruz – spoke
of the strengths of the Seacliff site, the public-public partnership
that could be developed, and
opportunities working with state parks.
Paulson – spoke
in favor of Santa Cruz city sites, and said from
a strictly business perspective it made most
sense to locate
a facility where there will be maximum funding,
maximum exposure and maximum partnership opportunities.
Franke – suggested
that the major facility should be at Seacliff because it is a
true education/interpretation type of
with perhaps a smaller marketing arm located
at the Boardwalk.
Randolph – strongly supported Seacliff
and talked about what an inspiring location it is/would be and
inspiration and the idea of stewardship on to
Member Discussion and Recommendation:
H. indicated that from his perspective the key considerations were
and audience potential. He felt that locating the center in the
city of Santa
Cruz made sense. Kathy F. asked about AMBAG’s position
(which is to have a center in both Santa Cruz and Monterey).
whether the money for a center could be better used for something
else. Mike B. agreed that key consideration was location, location,
and that the idea was to reach as many visitors as possible and
get the most bang for the buck. Steve S. said that on behalf
of the City of Monterey
he did hope that the sanctuary would continue to consider a site
in Monterey per the AMBAG recommendations. He said that demographics
were very important considerations. Of the sites still on the
table, he leaned toward the sites in the City of Santa Cruz,
but was not
sure which was better. Dave E. said that he leaned more towards
because he felt a center could be developed at this site quicker,
that it had the right demographics and diversity and that it
could serve as
a model for public/private partnerships.
Dan H. made a motion that the BTAP support the Santa Cruz Beach
sites as the preferred sites. Steve S. seconded the motion (with
that the Monterey site was not a point of discussion). The BTAP
unanimously approved Dan’s motion and Dave E. said he would send a letter to
the Sanctuary Superintendent reflected the BTAP’s recommendation.
The meeting adjourned around 11 a.m. The next scheduled
BTAP meeting is September 17, 2003 from 9:30-11:30
a.m. at Moss Landing