Laserfiche WebLink
-2- <br />LMCD POSITIUN: <br />The LTICI) re'quesiiti that at minimum the site meet tt)c <br />P'ATking StAnd^^rds (which are enclosed) and contain no less <br />than the parking count in the settlement agreement. <br />UnDOT alternative l.E<. appears to meet the minimum <br />acceptable solution to LUCI). We further urge the Watersfied <br />District and other agencies to seek soluti.jns aid designs <br />which would yield larger parking counts, while balancing <br />environmental impacts against the public benefit of access <br />An increase in car/trailer parking would require some <br />increase in fill acreage. This would be a benefit to the <br />management goal provided that the need for flood storage bo <br />either re-addressed or a satisfactory mitigation found. <br />Alternate l.D or a comparable solution would be <br />beneficial and acceptable to LtICD if funding were available. <br />A historical background paper is enclosed to support our <br />position. <br />d