2006-06-02 TMochida - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

particular property which is the Aburamen property is being deferred since the current General Plan is Industrial. So the only area under consideration for rezoning at this particular time would be the Mochida property consisting of two lots. th At the May 5 meeting, there was a motion to send a favorable recommendation on this particular request. The motion did not carry. There were four aye votes for an unfavorable recommendation and one no vote. This matter is being brought before you again for discussion/deliberation. ALAMEDA:Norman, can you share that, what was the roll call the last time? HAYASHI:Okay, those voting for the unfavorable recommendation were Commissioner Iwashita, Commissioner Galdones, Commissioner Graham, Chair Alameda; and the sole no vote was by Commissioner Salavea. ALAMEDA:Thank you. This is a round two again. Fellow Commissioners, any additional questions that you might have regarding this? Any more information we might need? Commissioner Watanabe. WATANABE: Norman, do we have two more meetings on this or just this one? HAYASHI:This would be the last meeting. WATANABE:Thank you. ALAMEDA:Will the applicant or his representative please come forward. Mr. Fuke, all right, we swore you in, got your address already. Again, anything to add or take away regarding this application? FUKE:Well, first of all, I’d like to acknowledge the absence of the owner. He had a prior commitment on Kauai so, you know, he’s not here today. Essentially, if I can just kind of summarize, as you mentioned, you know, Mr. Chair, this is the second round so I don’t want to go into detail. But, in summary, the property is like about an acre and a half because we’re focusing only on Mr. Mochida’s property. And, you know, one alternative that he has is that given the size of his property he could do a 6-lot subdivision and create like 12 rental homes on the ohana basis without paying any impact fee, satisfying affordable housing requirement. What he’s proposing to do, on the other hand, is to basically double the density and try to create like about 25 townhouse units on the property; and in so doing having to be responsible for impact fee, and having a 20 percent affordable housing requirement and more critically fostering home ownership at a more affordable level, rather than having 12 rental units on the property. I do understand that there are concerns relative to infrastructure, drainage, traffic. As we pointed out at the last time I think like on the drainage issue there are already appropriate mitigative measures that can be taken or will be taken by the applicant and further enhanced or required by the County, if the County accepts the staff’s proposed recommendation relating to curb, gutter and sidewalk fronting the property. There will be ample on-site parking, because these are all townhouses, a project, basically you have to look at like a typical residence where you would 2EXHIBIT B