Laserfiche WebLink
ARAI: Christian, I'm sorry for whatever reason I'm not able to see the entire condition on the <br /> screen. It's truncating at the very bottom. <br /> KAY: Oh shoot, so the only changes that we're proposing Daryn are the ones in red. <br /> ARAI: Okay. <br /> KAY: Everything else came from your proposed condition change. So, talking about the <br /> easement for being allow unrestricted public access until such time as the construction of <br /> sidewalk improvements and so on. So, our proposed changes to your proposed changes are in <br /> red. <br /> ARAI: Okay. <br /> KAY: Yeah. <br /> ARAI: I don't have any problems with the proposed amended language. <br /> FUKE: Yeah, we're like the Tweedle-dee and Tweedledum of the applicant for this so, yeah, I <br /> agree with what Daryn is saying. I think that it clarifies and addresses the point about the ADA <br /> compliant and it actually goes without saying that whatever we submitted will still be subject to <br /> the approval of Planning and Public Works. So having that statement in is totally acceptable <br /> itself. My recommendation would be to go along with the proposed amendment as <br /> recommended by the staff. <br /> KAY: Commissioner Clarkson has his hand raised. <br /> AU: Go ahead Commissioner Clarkson, I don't see you, sorry. <br /> CLARKSON: Yes, I just wanted to make one suggestion if it's appropriate at this time, <br /> considering that we're amending the qualifying Commissioner Lin's motion. Based on ADA <br /> compliance standards that were relayed by Ms. Matsumoto, I think we need to retain the 8-foot <br /> width rather than allow dropping back to a 3-foot width. This will be I think more traveled than <br /> a 3-foot width would talk accommodate. So, I'm fine with the paved, but I think we should <br /> retain the 8-foot width. <br /> KAY: So, Commissioner Clarkson what I hear you saying if we changed it back to ADA <br /> compliant, minimum 8-foot-wide paved pedestrian path so on and so forth. <br /> CLARKSON: That would be my suggestion. <br /> FUKE: And the applicant would have no objection to that because that was the original <br /> representation to begin with. <br /> AU: Okay, thank you. Ms. Matsumoto any comment? Okay, well, so that is the motion on the <br /> floor. That is the amendment to Condition K. So, could I get a second? <br /> 15 <br /> EXHIBIT C <br />