|
timeframes or methodology of the process would be for them. So if they’re saying in the
<br />stipulation it says the landscaping shall be trees or other plant material and, furthermore, said
<br />landscaping shall be implemented as part of the issuance of the Certificate of Occupancy, that in
<br />that, in between that what the process is from getting from putting in the landscaping and the
<br />Certificate, does it get cleared before it gets done? Do you understand? Does it get cleared out
<br />to get landscaped? I just want to understand in your process what they’d be doing; and if that
<br />can be clarified for the record then I will sign the withdrawal, the hearing can be today and -.
<br />ALAMEDA:Okay. Commissioner Galdones?
<br />GALDONES:Mr. Chairman, if it is in order, what I would like to propose is that we call
<br />for a short recess and let Mr. Hickman get together with Mr. Fuke and see if they can iron out
<br />their concerns.
<br />ALAMEDA:Okay.
<br />FUKE:Commissioner Galdones, I respect that. Except that we’ve already had the
<br />discussion and I think what the Hickmans want us to do is put it on the record; and I haven’t had
<br />an opportunity to kind of share with the Commissioners publicly and for the record what Mr.
<br />Kitagawa’s intents are.
<br />GALDONES:Follow-up question then. Mr. Fuke, then the discussion that you folks had
<br />and the concerns that the Hickmans had is the document that you had submitted over to us for
<br />consideration?
<br />FUKE:Correct. If I could, Mr. Chairman?
<br />ALAMEDA:Sure.
<br />FUKE:So in addition to that, you know, as the staff had mentioned, there’s this
<br />intervening parcel between Ocean View Drive and the subject property, you know, intervening
<br />parcel that’s about like 6,000 square feet that’s owned by the State. It’s on a month-to-month
<br />lease to the Kitagawa’s. What happened like in the last 6-8 months or whatever, Kitagawa’s, the
<br />Applicant did get a Minor SMA Permit to do basic grubbing in that area.And, so, basically, the
<br />vegetation within that area as well as the subject property portion, in the rear portion, that
<br />vegetation was removed. So over the last 6 or 8 months, the vegetation within the State portion,
<br />you know, has creeped up and, according to Mr. Hickman, he said it’s like about like 4 to 5 feet
<br />tall. And so he would like to kind of like have it retained and just let it kind of continue.
<br />In talking with Mr. Kitagawa, he said that, yes, you know, his plan is not to do anything more, no
<br />clearing no whatever, you know, within that area that belongs to the State land. Apparently, like,
<br />you know, from where the roadway at Ocean View Drive, there’s kind of like a depression, and
<br />then it kind of like comes up again, and there’s a small little plateau, and then hits onto the
<br />Kitagawa’s property. So if you look at the condition, the condition reads that Mr. Kitagawa is
<br />obligated, the proposed condition is obligated to provide landscaping on his property, not on the
<br />State’s property. So his plan is to kind of like landscape on that portion and somewhat like on, if
<br />he wants to, like on the adjoining State land; and that would provide the necessary screening.
<br />EXHIBIT A
<br />17
<br />
<br />
|