My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
COM 0601.001 2020-2022
ClerkCouncil
>
Council Records
>
Communications
>
2020-2022
>
COM 0601.001 2020-2022
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
3/2/2022 12:36:14 PM
Creation date
1/21/2022 4:06:21 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Communications
Communications - Type
COM
Communications - Council Term
2020-2022
Communication
0601
Point
001
Author
Zendo Kern, Planning Director
Communications - Referred To
PC
Document Relationships
AGE PC 2022/02/08 (2020-2022)
(Related)
Path:
\Council Records\Agendas\2020-2022\Planning Committee (PC)
AGE PC 2022/02/22 (2020-2022)
(Related)
Path:
\Council Records\Agendas\2020-2022\Planning Committee (PC)
AGE PC 2022/03/08 (2020-2022)
(Related)
Path:
\Council Records\Agendas\2020-2022\Planning Committee (PC)
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
120
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
quite sure with any updated public access plan for the entire resort would have those kind of <br /> required signages as well. <br /> VITOUSEK: Cool. One, one thing I think you're great to add to your language is that the, the <br /> plan will assess the adequacy of the current use. The current adequacy of the current public <br /> access. So, we're looking at it multi-faceted. We're looking at is the current access enough? Is it <br /> too much? What's too much?What can this place sustain? How will the use of it affect the <br /> Special Management Area? And so, I think your language is good. I think we would add into it <br /> adequacy of the existing public access. <br /> PLUNKETT: So, we could take your consideration. I did discuss this concept with Sid, and so <br /> you know, we are good with this and Sid, I'll leave it to you to work out the fine tuning of it. <br /> FUKE: So, Mr. Chair, are you saying to also include a term like `adequacy of and `carrying <br /> capacity of the areas coastal use.' <br /> VITOUSEK: I would say-- <br /> FUKE: Or just adequacy of the coast—the coastal access? <br /> VITOUSEK: Adequacy of the current shoreline public access. <br /> FUKE: Okay. <br /> VITOUSEK: Because if, you know, if we're looking at it and we find that, "hey, that,the area <br /> can sustain a lot more people without causing any damage and there's only parking for we'll call <br /> it 10 people and 50 people want to use it, and 50 people can use it without damaging it, let's add <br /> another 40 stalls for, for people to use it so as long as it doesn't hurt the resource. <br /> FUKE: Okay. <br /> VITOUSEK: If that makes sense. <br /> FUKE: So, basically taking into consideration the adequacy of the existing accesses and <br /> incorporating same in the updated public access plan. <br /> VITOUSEK: Yup. <br /> KAY: Sid, I'm going to ask you to read that over one more time so we have it for the record so <br /> we can craft the condition accordingly. <br /> FUKE: Thanks Christian. I hope I can read my writing but, if you go back to Condition 5, so, it <br /> says, like the app-applicant shall update the approved public access plan, taking into <br /> consideration the adequacy of existing accesses and incorporating the public access facilities, <br /> proposed and the etc, etc. <br /> KAY: Okay. That consistent with what you wanted, Mike? Commissioner Vitousek. <br /> 47 <br /> EXHIBIT D <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.