2007-05-24 TALLIANCE - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

and details, which shall include agricultural activities, as contained within the Application for Special Use Permit, Alliance Redwoods Conference Grounds dated May 1, 2006.” GRAHAM: I’m not sure that that’s preferable to what we had in the Findings of Fact. Is that okay with you that we have the specifics of the Findings of Fact put in there, or -? How do you feel, Commissioner Siracusa? SIRACUSA: I have no problem either way -. GRAHAM: Either way. SIRACUSA: As long as that, we make sure that the ag component is in there -. GRAHAM: Okay, so -. SIRACUSA: And tied to the approval of the permit application. GRAHAM: All right. So I presume we can go ahead with what you suggested there then. I appreciate everyone’s patience as we go through all these little details, but it’s important that we do this, I believe. Mr. Yamamoto, or Mr. Blake, maybe I can ask you. I had one little thing that popped up in my mind, which was at the very end of the Order we’ve got two No. 16s, as you remember. One of them says that the applicant shall adopt guidelines and rules for its guests to place the gulches off-limits and to restrict access to the cliffs adjacent to the ocean, etc. I just had a personal sense that maybe we were overreaching a little bit saying that we restrict access to the gulches, which are right on the property.I mean we can put in all kinds of safety related things, but I don’t know if that’s something we need to do. However, if we were to remove that restrict access to the cliffs, not to the cliffs, to the gulches, I think then Commissioner Rho’s point about the archaeology would come into play that we wouldn’t -. If we took that condition out, then we’d expect the archaeological work to be done. So are you happy to have the condition the way it is right now, and there is no need to mess with that? BLAKE: I know during the hearing the intent of that was safety because getting near the cliffs. That was the intention. You know, there’re two gullies: The one, if you are facing the ocean, on the right is where like the Birthing Stone is, and one on the left. It does limit potential future recreational opportunities. If we realize that that’s what’s necessary, we will do that. It’s unfortunate -. I think it’s overstating the necessity. It’s primarily safety related for the cliff. That was the intent of the petitioner, which we agree with. There needs to be controlled activity, but it does limit the potential development in the future. That seems unnecessary – overstating the concern. GRAHAM: Well, that’s the way I felt and I’m glad you feel that way. But I think if we were to remove the condition, then we would expect that there would be the archaeological work done to preserve Birthing Stones or anything else that’s found in the gulches. And I don’t know how the rest of the Commission feels on that. Does anybody else on the Commission have any comment? RHO: Actually my initial -. EXHIBIT B 19