Insufficient or inadequate. They believe the circumstance eirs were not enough as well as a different project to be approved. Sequa requires study of a reasonable range of potentially feasible alternatives, promoting informed decisionmaking and public participation. Here, the eir presented circumstance alternatives including two full preservation and too preservation alternatives. Lhias position is that ten alternatives should have been study. This is unnecessary and not required by sers qua. Sequa. This contains the legally required reasonable range and provides ample information for analysis and consideration by you, the decision makers. And for an additional alternative not in the eir to be legally ar required, it must be different from those presented in the eir and must clearly lessen the projects significant impacts. On the last day of the Public Comment period, lhia submitted narratives and sketches for two projects and followed up with two more after the final er was published
Reduce loading impacts as dwell times for trucks and loading times would be reduced so they could get in and out of the building. This is not sequa issue. The appellant fails to meet the burden that the record supports reversal of the Planning Commission and dpw. It did not and cannot provide evidence in support of its evidence. The records supporting the determinations is thorough consisting of multiple years of study and analysis and based on facts and evidence rather than argument and infect allegation. Speculation. This project will transform and underutilized wallofftioff tens sites with 744 new homes. , 185 affordable units for seniors, childcare uses and neighborhood serving retail and commercial uses. We ask you reject these appeals and move forward today. Thank you, supervisors. Thank you. Any questions . I have a question of the proje project, is there a reason why it was infeasible to make a family unit affordable . So this project through the Development Agreement, it was d
Consistent with the policies and objectives of the citys general plan. The appeal also demands specific modifications to the project including the following. Limiting the height and modifications to the reuse Center Buildings and a reduction of the new building near laurel and euclid to preserve more open space and further limits on the types of nonresidential uses proposed. Related to the height of the Center Buildings, the Planning Commission supported the overall scale including the height because their placement in the center of the site set back from the public rights of way was a project objective. The project would place shorter buildings along the perimeter between 40 and 65 feet to serve the transition to the taller buildings in the center. A reduction in height of the Center Building would result in a reduction in dwelling unit count or to keep the unit count consistent, 744, and increase to other proposed New Buildings along the perimeter and compromising the compatibility.
Will remind you that in addition to considering the project the inkind agreement regardless of whether or not it gets approved or otherwise needs to be continued. And we would propose december 12. Ill accept the motion for the inkind agreement going to december 12. We can handle that with other you dont have to take that up separately. We can combine that with the project. Theres no other speakers here. I just wanted to be sure to what pushed me over the edge on this one was the prioritizing of the spanish emerging childcare. I witnessed two speakers up here with translators speaking as employees in favor of this project. I also heard some of the opposition saying that this group was displaced. So that kind of put me over the edge on this one. Commissioner fung. Starting perhaps with the things that are in my mind a little easier, there were a few points brought up regarding the design, regarding conforming to codes and i didnt see anything in there in looking at that reflects a challe
The inkind agreement regardless of whether or not it gets approved or otherwise needs to be continued. And we would propose december 12. Ill accept the motion for the inkind agreement going to december 12. We can handle that with other you dont have to take that up separately. We can combine that with the project. Theres no other speakers here. I just wanted to be sure to what pushed me over the edge on this one was the prioritizing of the spanish emerging childcare. I witnessed two speakers up here with translators speaking as employees in favor of this project. I also heard some of the opposition saying that this group was displaced. So that kind of put me over the edge on this one. Commissioner fung. Starting perhaps with the things that are in my mind a little easier, there were a few points brought up regarding the design, regarding conforming to codes and i didnt see anything in there in looking at that reflects a challenge to the overall project. In terms of how this project res