|
forward, so there is housing—you know, I very honestly was not even aware of where the
<br /> campus is or wasn't even aware that there really, I've heard of it,but I haven't seen it—but I
<br /> think that it's more important that, you know, we have students who are able to go to school,
<br /> place for them to live, whether it's, you know, housing for the students, affordable housing for
<br /> people who may live there, that's most important, rather than trying to put in different
<br /> infrastructures that can wait.
<br /> CARR SMITH: Thank you, Faye. Any response? Go ahead, Steve.
<br /> COLON: We agree with those comments, and not only that, you know, again, 10 years ago, we
<br /> are, this is exactly what was in the, what, what we had already worked out with the Planning
<br /> Department, and it was Councilman Hoffmann at the time that said he wanted a park twice the
<br /> size, that the representative of the county Parks department at the time in 2009 said, we don't, we
<br /> don't want that, we don't have this, have the capacity,just like the other councilwoman [sic]just
<br /> mentioned here, they said, we don't, we can't take care of the parks we have. And so I feel
<br /> strongly that this proposed language here is acceptable and is something that makes sense, you
<br /> know, for us.
<br /> CARR SMITH: Mike, are you okay with backing off on that?
<br /> VITOUSEK: - - -
<br /> CARR SMITH: Mike Vitousek, you are on mute.
<br /> VITOUSEK: You know, I think that's something that the County Council may have to weigh in
<br /> on since they are the approving body on it. It's my opinion that this should be worded in a way
<br /> that doesn't allow for any ambiguity in the future, and that the design of the park in keeping with
<br /> the approval to allow the maximum of public benefit be done on them. Whether we are phasing
<br /> that to allow for more revenue to come in before that's completed, I don't have a problem with
<br /> that at all,but I don't want to look at us in terms of reducing public benefit from a project in
<br /> order for it to proceed. I think that, you know, giving the relief in the form of time to allow for
<br /> them to generate revenue off of that is significant relief. And so, to me personally, I feel like 1, 1
<br /> don't believe in reducing public benefit for the sake of the development to move forward when
<br /> that has already been agreed upon. I'm totally okay with extending the schedule and all that, but,
<br /> again, that's something that's—we are just a recommending body on this—that's something that
<br /> the County Council is going to have to go forward with.
<br /> CARR SMTIH: Thank you. Sid, did you have something you want to say?
<br /> FUKE: - - -
<br /> CARR SMITH: Can't hear you, Sid, sorry. Mr. Van Perms.
<br /> VAN PERNIS: As Mr. Col6n said, the 20-acre park was agreed to—(cough) excuse me-10, 15
<br /> years ago; the need has increased. And I think the, I agree with Mr. Vitousek that the public
<br /> benefit should not be reduced. If anything, it should be increased because this has been so long.
<br /> 28
<br /> DRAFT
<br />
|