COM 0679.000 2004-2006 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

And I know that this other matter is not before you right now because they haven't actually filed any of their paperwork yet to the best of our knowledge. But we're fighting the fight on the other side. Right now as we speak the grading is taking place on Iolani Street for the proposed warehouse which also isn't in the General Plan. And that zoning request hasn't yet hit you; but it's coming. So I appreciate the fact that you see that we're in the middle of a box and that we are slowly being boxed in and, effectively, forced out. But when it comes to our neighborhood, we've been there a long time. We like it there. We like walking where we're going. It's convenient, it's familiar. It's home. And I'd really like to stay. And when you say that the next two lots that are probably going to come up, when your remarks about, oh, then it'll be this one and it will be that one, it will be that one - Well, let me tell you, it won't be any of my three. Okay? Those will stay green. I'm done. ALAMEDA: Thank you, Ms. Black. Any questions, Commissioners? Thank you. You may be seated. BLACK: Thanks. ALAMEDA: Mr. Fuke, you can return to the table. Any other follow-up comments? FUKE: No, not really. You know, as Ms. Black had indicated, at the last meeting we, you know, she had raised essentially the same concerns; and at that time we tried to address them through the various conditions that the Director is now suggesting, to which the applicant is also receptive to. So the only addition, of course, is like, you know, kind of following up with what Commissioner Iwashita was asking about added participation — is that, you know, I kind of like drafted something up not knowing that there was going to be a revised condition. But, you know, there could conceivably be like a condition that would say something like "Further, prior to submittal of plans for plan approval for any new structure on the subject property, the applicant shall confer with owners or occupants of all adjoining single family residential zoned lots." And, again, you know, this is to give the adjoining property owners like Ms. Black an opportunity to comment on the proposed plan. And the Planning Director does have the approval through the plan approval process to require additional setbacks, additional design or, you know, related type of mitigative conditions. So I think this provides an opportunity for the neighbors to get involved in the design aspect; and provided that you can convince the Planning Director that the suggested mitigations are reasonable, then I think they can be accommodated. The only other comment I had to the staff's amended recommendation is that under Condition C, you know, it says like setback requirements for the RS district," I would like to suggest that it be RS -10 district. Because within the single family residential zone, you know, your setback requirements vary whether your property is RS -7.5 or RS -20 zone. You know, so I think what we're trying to achieve here is that the landowner would be given no additional rights over and beyond what the current setback and height requirements are, which is an RS -10 zone. ALAMEDA: Thank you. Director Yuen? 11