Laserfiche WebLink
previous denial recommendation at Kona Bay Estates. What happened there is really a pretty <br />typical situation where the landowner basically came forward with this proposition. They have <br />a, they wanted to put a pool in the shoreline setback. It doesn€t really bother the public very <br />much because they have a seawall in front of their property and there is public access in front of <br />it but the shoreline comes right up to their sea wall. So there€s not really a harm to the public <br />and it will be much nicer for their property if they got to put the pool there. That€s not the <br />standard for a shoreline setback variance. And if you start taking that as justifying a shoreline <br />setback variance there are certainly hundreds of properties that the same kind of analysis will <br />apply to. That there is, there€s not really a big public harm and they would be much nicer to the <br />property owner to be able to do that. And when this initially came forward we looked at it very <br />much the same way. There is, they€ve come up with a proposal that does improve ADA access <br />to a portion of the property. If you look at the photos I think it€s also clear that just from a <br />standpoint of opening up and making it easier to get around the corner there for people who are <br />non- not ADA comply. You know people who don€t need ADA but need some kind of-, that are <br />justhappentobeoutonthelawn.Thatthisprojectwillalsotendtoopenupthatcornerareaand <br />to the north and make it more accessible and more, more useable to the general public. So, this <br />aspect of it does, is in the public interest and there is a public interest standard for a shoreline <br />setback variance. So then the question was raised about the trade off-, is public interest standard <br />really, can you do a trade off here. And, it€s, it€s not exactly, the ADA access is not exactly <br />project as the building out and the-, although you know they€re very closely related we€re talking <br />about an intrusion is into this area of space but the improved access is into the same area of <br />space. And I guess from, that we are very comfortable with the idea of a public interest trade off <br />that, that, that we look at, that creating something in the public interest can be, can meet the <br />standard for a, for a shoreline setback variance and are comfortable in recommending approval <br />of this based on that standard in this location given a very small intrusion into the shoreline <br />setback area. <br />ALAMEDA:Thank you Director Yuen. Commissioners questions for our Director or? <br />Go ahead, Commissioner Siracusa? <br />SIRACUSA:I sort of have another one for the applicant. And this is regarding the <br />handicapped access there. Not everyone with mobility problems is in a wheelchair. Some <br />people use walkers and some people just have trouble walking and I was wondering if your new <br />little ramp is going to include any handrails? Because I would strongly recommend one on each <br />side so that people who have a little trouble walking but can still walk you know would be able <br />to go up or down with the help of a handrail on both sides. Is that in the plan? <br />LIM:Yes Uncle Billy will put that into the plan. <br />SIRACUSA:Pardon me? <br />LIM:Uncle Billy has agreed to put the handrails into the ADA plan. <br />SIRACUSA:Good. Thank you. <br />ALAMEDA:Thank you Commissioner Siracusa. Commissioner Watanabe? <br />EXHIBIT A <br />12 <br /> <br />