My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
COM 1077.001 2018-2020
ClerkCouncil
>
Council Records
>
Communications
>
2018-2020
>
COM 1077.001 2018-2020
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
9/30/2020 10:25:26 AM
Creation date
9/25/2020 10:18:35 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Communications
Communications - Type
COM
Communications - Council Term
2018-2020
Communication
1077
Point
001
Author
Michael Yee, Planning Director
Communications - Referred To
PC
Document Relationships
AGE PC 2020/10/06 (2018-2020)
(Related)
Path:
\Council Records\Agendas\2018-2020\Planning Committee (PC)
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
46
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
testimony in opposition to the amendments that was sent out by email. So at this point that's the <br />entirety of the additional correspondences that we've received. <br />With that, I'm happy to answer any questions the Commission may have. One last thing, I also <br />have—pardon me—also added the updated site plan, as well as the transect map that the applicant <br />supplied, if we want to, you know, reference that in our, in our discussion. With that, I'm happy to <br />answer any questions the Commission may have. <br />CARR SMITH: Thank you, Christian. Could you perhaps hide your screen for the moment? <br />KAY: Sure. <br />CARR SMITH: Thank you. Great. Commissioners, do, you have any questions for staff? Max, go <br />ahead. <br />NEWBERG: So, is the request in exemption for the affordable component still in place? They are <br />asking to not provide any affordable housing through the project? <br />KAY: I believe that their conditions .that they were initially asking relief from,, they've gone back <br />and put those conditions back in. So in terms of the Suffolk proposal, the requirement that the <br />housing, the rental housing for 20 years "was, `put,back in, as well as the representation that at least <br />20 percent would be, of the units would:.be at 80percent AMI. and then the remainder would be at <br />120 percent AMI. So those -two initial requests to rernove those eoinditions have been put back to the <br />way the conditions initially read: <br />NEWBERG: Thank`you-,. <br />CARR SMITH: Thank you. Anyone elsehave questions? Mr. Van Pernis? <br />VAN PERNIS: Yes, Christian, does that affordable housing requirement require construction of <br />affordable- housing, or does it�_provide the opportunity for some sort of substitution of land or credits <br />or whatever, so _that affordable housing is not integrated into the project? <br />KAY: I believe that the housing condition requires actual housing be built on site and does not <br />allow for the use of kind of affordable housing credits. So I do believe that their requirement to <br />build on site is, was part of,the original condition, and as that is going to be retained, that, or now <br />proposed to be retained, that would be incorporated. <br />CARR SMITH: Anyone else? Mike. <br />VITOUSEK: - - - sorry, is the, so the application that the applicant is putting in the revised <br />recommendation is maintaining the existing RM zoning? <br />KAY: That's correct. Maij a has got her hand raised, Madam Chair. <br />CARR SMITH: Hi Maija, go ahead. <br />15 <br />DRAFT <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.