REMARKS
Council Member Hudson Rejects 962 Pacific Street Proposal
0:09:11
·
4 min
Council Member Hudson articulates opposition to the 962 Pacific Street rezoning proposal, emphasizing a preference for a comprehensive planning approach. Detailing the progress of a neighborhood-wide initiative designed to produce over 4200 apartments, including 1200 affordable homes, Hudson underscores the importance of coordinated development to ensure community benefits and criticizes the applicant's attempt to bypass the planning process.
Speaker 3
0:09:11
Thank you, chair Riley.
0:09:13
You covered many of the reasons why I do not support this application.
0:09:16
To begin with, I wanna emphasize size that disapproving this project is not a vote against housing and new development.
0:09:22
The comprehensive plan that I've been working on with my community and the apartment of city planning will create over 4200 apartments, and the applicant's property will be rezoned as part of this initiative.
0:09:32
So the plan is fundamentally a pro housing strategy that is focused on providing my community sorely needed affordable housing.
0:09:39
In my view, it is much more effective to focus on an overall plan that is going to provide over 1200 affordable homes than allowing individual projects to spring up here and there in an uncoordinated, unplanned way.
0:09:52
My comprehensive approach to the neighborhood will allow the very people who make this neighborhood so special to stay, raise families, and have access to fair wage jobs, schools and open space.
0:10:03
The second point that needs to be emphasized is that I am fully committed to finalizing this comprehensive plan and we are well underway in making the plan a reality.
0:10:11
As I detailed during my remarks at the public hearing, we have put a lot of work into this plan.
0:10:17
Applicant the applicant claimed during the public hearing that the planning for this neighborhood has dragged on for years and that they should not be made to wait any longer, which I find to be disingenuous.
0:10:28
I entered office in January 2022, in March 2022, I wrote a letter to the Department of City Planning, asserting that a comprehensive plan for this area of my district could no longer wait and needed to be completed.
0:10:40
In April of 2022, DCP responded to my letter recognizing the need for a comprehensive plan and stated that it would partner with me to complete the plan.
0:10:49
We proceeded to select a community engagement facilitator, and in January of 2023, we began the public engagement process.
0:10:57
This critical engagement culminated this past summer in a report that sets out the community's vision and priorities.
0:11:03
Based on this report, DCP issued a draft zoning proposal in September of 2023.
0:11:09
In October, DCP started the required environmental review process for the plan with the stated objective of officially certifying the proposed rezoning into ULYB later this year.
0:11:20
We've achieved all of this in just 2 years and we are closing in on the last step of this planning process or Ulerp.
0:11:27
So from my perspective, my office along with DCP have been very in developing this comprehensive plan, and the applicant should wait until its property is rezoned as part of the plan later this year.
0:11:38
The other argument the applicant made at the hearing that I would like to address is that the proposed development project is consistent with the draft rezoning proposal and therefore, the applicant's proposal should be approved.
0:11:49
This is a presumptuous argument to make.
0:11:52
Planning is an iterative iterative iterative, excuse me, community driven process.
0:11:57
Although we are far along in finalizing the comprehensive plan, the process is not done.
0:12:03
The applicant is effectively trying to cut short this process and lock in its development project.
0:12:08
In the coming months, DCP will certify a proposed final plan that the community and I will review and formally vote on.
0:12:15
During this final review, the community and myself may modify the plan until the community and this Council votes on a final plan.
0:12:22
The applicant cannot state with certainty that its proposal will be consistent with the comprehensive planning for this area.
0:12:28
Again, I see no reason why a private applicant should be able to shortcut cut short the ongoing planning process.
0:12:36
The last point I would like to make is that my position should not come as a surprise to the applicant.
0:12:41
I've been very consistent from the start of this comprehensive planning process that the piecemeal redevelopment of this area cannot continue.
0:12:49
In my letter to DCP back in March of 2022, I specifically requested a neighborhood plan to stop the piecemeal development of my district.
0:12:57
I reiterated this position in 2022 at a public hearing regarding 2 private developments before the neighborhood plan was formally launched.
0:13:04
I also stated my position as part of the community engagement after the launch of the plan and added a number of in person working group sessions that the applicant attended.
0:13:13
In fact, a community board member, Gib Vaconi, stated at a CB8 meeting that, quote, it is true that the council member has stated that it's not preferable to have additional private applications, end quote.
0:13:25
The bottom line is that this applicant has known about my position since the moment it brought the project to my attention.
0:13:31
In conclusion, I did not support this proposal because we are in the midst of finalizing a comprehensive plan for this area.
0:13:38
And the public's interest in making sure that the public review process is not cut off short and that the applicant's project is actually consistent with the finalized comprehensive plan that outweighs the applicant's private interests.
0:13:56
Thank you.
