2003-12-04 TCLIFTO120403 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

HAYASHI:Mr. Chair, while weÓre waiting, I just want to also add that the staff had, the Planning Director had submitted a recommendation to you on this particular request, and that is the recommendation at the top itÓs dated 11/26/03; and the Planning DirectorÓs recommending approval of the SMA Use Permit. YUEN:Mr. Chair, if I could just state my position that I have no objection to Mr. Fuke making additional comments, including discussion of what happened at the Council. FUKE:Okay. GALDONES:With that statement and, Mr. Fuke, I was looking over t recommendation to see if the final action was supposed to be taken by the County Council or it was going to be taken by the Planning Commission. But looking it over, the recommendation, the Planning Commission will make the final deci any problem with the testimony in reference to the County Council be introduced on this one. FUKE:Okay, sure. Thank you very much, Mr. Chair. So in light o information, then, IÓd like to kind of bring the Commission up-to-date as far as like what happened at the last Council Planning Committee meeting. And I also noticed, for the record, that the Chair of that Council Planning Committee is also in the audience, Mr. Leningrad Elarionoff. Generally, on zone change applications, the Council acts on that like three levels. You know, you have the Planning Committee and, then it has to, depending on what the Planning Committee does, then it goes up to the full Council for first reading, and then, ultimately, the second reading. The Planning Committee, if memory serves me correctly, generally consists of like all members of the Council. At the CouncilÓs Planning Committee meeting on Tuesday, by vote of six-to-two, the Committee recommended that the rezoning, the project district rezoning, be approved and that it be approved with several changes as, several changes that were somewhat different from what the Planning Director and the Commission had forwarded to the Council for consideration. One of the most significant change from the ApplicantÓs perspect cap to what the original representation was, which was from 200 to 400 maximum transient accommodation rooms. They also clarified that affordable housing would be applicable not only to the multiple-family portion but to the transient accommodation portion. That was a change that was also made as a condition. And, finally, the third change was they clarified that the archeological preservation plan, which is your Condition 33, your proposed Condition 33 of the draft SMA recommendation that the Director had prepared, they had proposed some change, some language change to that which was more editorial in context. So, substantively, the major difference between the DirectorÓs position and the Council Planning CommitteeÓs positio basis, was just the question of the rooms; and so the Committee had agreed with the ApplicantÓs proposed request of 400 maximum number of rooms. 4