|
KERN: Thank you. That was as clear as
<br /> DEFRANCO: Yes
<br /> FUKE: It was like a two-part, I think like, you know, Commissioner Knowles has asked a
<br /> two-part question. So, the answer to the second question is that the reason I wanted to get at least
<br /> some clarity or some understanding from, from the attorneys, I guess, you know, your attorney, is
<br /> that if there is some culpability on the part of the Commission for this condition, then my
<br /> suggestion is that like since he's already committed himself to saying that I'll set aside for, this
<br /> area for public parking, then, you know, if to kind of like quote-unquote cushion the law, they can
<br /> just, you know, add a caveat to the beginning to say as represented by the petitioner, or by the
<br /> applicant, and so this is what he is representing and so he is going to keep that area, you know, the
<br /> balance of the language is going to be it's going to keep that area for public parking.
<br /> Then the other thing to enable him to exercise greater management of that area, you know, it's
<br /> easy to kind of craft the language that would essentially say that, you know, if he decides to
<br /> exercise control, that controls shall be submitted to the Planning Director, not, you know, for the
<br /> Planning Director, for public information. I don't know—and you can ask this question of the
<br /> Director—whether the Director would want to be in a position to say like whether you charge, you
<br /> know, one dollar or two dollars or twenty-five dollars, you know, per hour, whatever have you, to
<br /> be in that kind of position to negotiate what the appropriate fee should be, but the whole notion of
<br /> like how it's going to be structured, what kind of improvements are going to be made and all that
<br /> stuff, should he decide to exercise greater management, he can submit that kind of management
<br /> plan to the Planning Director for the information. Then, you know, it would be clear to the public,
<br /> clear to the Commission, at least there is kind of like a management plan in terms of what he is
<br /> going to do. I can see an issue becomes if the director is subjected to giving approval of that plan;
<br /> now like, you know, you are getting into the financing aspect of it, what is reasonable, how do you
<br /> charge, you know. And so, to remove that kind of like issue but nevertheless have the public and
<br /> the Commission aware that there is, you know, this kind of controls are going to be in place, it's
<br /> something that was part and parcel of the original request that we had made.
<br /> DEFRANCO: Thank you.
<br /> VITOUSEK: To me, it makes sense that a management plan would be approved by the Director at
<br /> a minimum, by the Commission as a whole as a maximum. It's determining how that coastal zone
<br /> will be used. And for me, this is, this is strictly in terms of SMA criteria. The presence of public
<br /> parking adds to the beneficial use of the coastal zone. And what capacity that would be in, I think
<br /> we can work that out. I'd be comfortable that you guys could work that out with the Director, so
<br /> that's something that I would be comfortable saying. As a Commission, I don't think we need to
<br /> have you go back and prepare a plan and then come back to the Commission. I'd be comfortable
<br /> saying why don't you guys work that out and make a good deal that works for the community and
<br /> works for you. Because to me those are our options is, do you, do we send you back now and say
<br /> come back to the Commission with the plan, or do we approve this with the condition saying work
<br /> it out with the Director. What do the Commissioners think about that?
<br /> 21
<br /> EXHIBIT A
<br />
|