There are 11 ayes. President yee okay. Without objection, this appeal hearing will go to october 27, 2020. Please go to our next special order. Please call items 5659 together. Clerk comprised public hearing of associate motion for the appeal of determination of Community Plan evaluation for the proposed project 1088 howard street. President yee okay. This will be continued to a later date. Is there a motion to continue this item to october 6, 2020 . I want to make a motion to continue the items to next week october 6th. Ive in touch with the appellants and the project sponsors. They are amendable to the continuance. President yee is there a second . Supervisor mandelman second. President yee are there any Public Comments on the continuance of these items. Clerk operations do we have anyone in the queue . I have one caller in the queue. I didnt want to speak on this item. Im just queuing up for the next item. You can identify my call p. P. P. Clerk thank you. Anyone else in the queue .
Clerk you can do it. It makes sense to do so. President yee is there a motion to continue this item to a particular date . Clerk the date noted on the agenda is october 27th. President yee made by supervisor press ki peskin and d by supervisor mandelman. Lets have Public Comment. Clerk operations, do we have members of the public queue in the ready to speak on continuance to october 27th for items 5255, the 617 sanchez street appeal . No callers in the queue. Clerk mr. President i recommend we wait just about 20 seconds in case theres someone watching television and they are faced with the delay. Anyone in the queue . I have one caller. Clerk please put them through. That caller hung up. There are no other callers in the queue. Clerk thank you. President yee thank you very much. I will call Public Comment is closed now. Theres been a motion and seconded it. Madam clerk, lets go ahead and call the roll on the motion. [roll call vote] there are 11 ayes. President yee okay. Without object
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.