planning department, the mayor, his staff. after they reach out to the supporters among the community leaders, neighborhood associations and can influence the back of the project. only after the project is virtually insured legislative passage, political cover did they contact the neighbors. they have traded an uncooperative atmosphere with the stress of the people in the area. the project sponsor has purchasing deadlines for the building and they needed the zoning from the city. there is $4.4 million to spy out reach. no decision makers lived near the property. let me ask anyone watching this if you wish to speak in support of the appellants, please come up to the hearing room and we will give you an opportunity shortly. i am from the marina community association. the implication both of this and what they have during is to imply that organizations to not support use housing. we do. we think it is york responsibility to get the most that you can. the other problem with t
our issue is not affordable housing but any use that it serves. this is not chp or with larkin street. this is about the choice of this particular building in a myriad of zoning exceptions. the city could have avoided this process. i have a thought and with the outline and outreach plan. out reach in this case can mean identifying decision makers that will support and pass required legislation that includes the planning department, the mayor, his staff. after they reach out to the supporters among the community leaders, neighborhood associations and can influence the back of the project. only after the project is virtually insured legislative passage, political cover did they contact the neighbors. they have traded an uncooperative atmosphere with the stress of the people in the area. the project sponsor has purchasing deadlines for the building and they needed the zoning from the city. there is $4.4 million to spy out reach. no decision makers lived near the property. le
planning department, the mayor, his staff. after they reach out to the supporters among the community leaders, neighborhood associations and can influence the back of the project. only after the project is virtually insured legislative passage, political cover did they contact the neighbors. they have traded an uncooperative atmosphere with the stress of the people in the area. the project sponsor has purchasing deadlines for the building and they needed the zoning from the city. there is $4.4 million to spy out reach. no decision makers lived near the property. let me ask anyone watching this if you wish to speak in support of the appellants, please come up to the hearing room and we will give you an opportunity shortly. i am from the marina community association. the implication both of this and what they have during is to imply that organizations to not support use housing. we do. we think it is york responsibility to get the most that you can. the other problem with t
the city s approval of this project ignores the bright line rule of the supreme court case which the city must conform itself to. there is evidence this could have an effect on the environment. these are needed to exempt the project. this causes overcrowding. this might be a significant affect. the lead agency has been prevented with many for their arguments. thank you very much. thank you very much. we have a lot of speakers and we have several hearings. let s hear from the next speaker. our company built a mixed use project. we completed this in 2010. we were informed of the housing proposal by a neighbor. we were required by law to visit a potential condominium of hours. we have lost numerous sales because the mayor is speaking with the project sponsors. objections include it density, no drug free policy, insufficient staffing. findings must be made per paragraph two of the findings. this is for improvements with the potential development. these findings cannot be
ok. this is it. my name is jeff would. i am with the town hall association. i am interested in maintaining the quality of our neighborhoods. the city has proposed to change the zoning but it is not taking full responsibility for the new conditional use. by that, what i mean is, the city is waving open space requirements, they are waving parking requirements, they are waving a backyard requirements and there is virtually no common space in the plan that was proposed to the planning commission. community housing partners, to their credit, they recognized that these are problems with the proposed facility. they have quite willingly offer some solutions. they have offered to provide extra staffing. they have offered to provide an additional approximately 3000 square feet of common area community space for the residence. they have also suggested a community oversight commission committee. these suggestions need to be incorporated into the conditional use if the zoning controls