Council Member Santosuosso questions on withdrawal, R7D height, and grocery store
Council Member Santosuosso asks the applicant to confirm they are proceeding without withdrawing despite the community plan. She clarifies the revised R7D building height is 115 feet (below the 125-foot maximum) and the grocery store is no longer the primary ground floor goal.
I will now call on Council Member Santos also for questions.
So I just want to just briefly clarify that you all are aware that we're launching a neighborhood planning process and it continues to be that you're continuing forward with the application and not withdrawing.
Correct.
In absence of withdrawing your application, will you agree to be part of the plan post-entitlement, should you receive it, to ensure your building conforms with community's calls for contextual design and other elements?
Yes.
I just want to clarify.
So you initially proposed in your first proposal, you proposed a building of 145 feet.
You are now in this revised R7D in response to the community's concerns.
You've brought that down.
And even though an R7D allows for 125 feet, the building you're proposing now is?
115.
115 feet.
Okay.
And you just said that in response to the community's concerns about traffic and congestion, you're no longer moving forward with the grocery store as the primary goal moving forward on the ground floor.
Correct.
Can you speak about your efforts to reach an agreement with 32BJ?
Yeah, I think that.
It was a little slow in starting, but we've engaged them with a very productive dialogue in the last days.
And I believe that as we're arriving here this morning, we have indication that we have an agreement.
For a neutrality agreement, a traditional neutrality agreement, and that we intend to, you know, we were going to do prevailing wage anyways.
So the idea of working with the union in this case seems like it's a reasonable request.
Okay.
So it is your intent to reach an agreement with 32B for the building.
Okay.