Q&A
Discussion on the 1% of ULURPs removed from council jurisdiction
4:47:48
·
64 sec
Council Member Brooks-Powers inquires about the 1% of ULURPs that would be removed from the council's jurisdiction under the City of Yes proposal. Chair Garodnick clarifies that it's less than 1% and involves only a couple of projects over the past 10 years.
- The chair emphasizes that 99% of ULURPs would still need to go through the council
- The council member expresses concern about the potential significance of the removed ULURPs
- The chair asserts that this change does not meaningfully reduce the council's power
Selvena N. Brooks-Powers
4:47:48
Hi.
4:47:49
It's me again.
4:47:51
Chair.
4:47:52
You mentioned earlier that in your review of the uluru actions, only 1% would have been removed from the council's jurisdiction.
4:48:00
Is that correct?
Daniel Garodnick
4:48:03
Only less than 1% of the total uluru.
4:48:06
Would not have to come for a usurp if City of Gas has passed.
Selvena N. Brooks-Powers
4:48:11
And while that may seem small, it could be one that has a significant impact.
4:48:19
So in that 1% are those the larger projects?
Daniel Garodnick
4:48:23
It it was it was it was only a couple of projects.
4:48:26
It was very small.
4:48:27
This was not a this was we can come back to you on precisely which action.
Selvena N. Brooks-Powers
4:48:32
It would be good to
Daniel Garodnick
4:48:33
be a win.
4:48:34
Most importantly, you know, 99 plus percent of Ulerps that needed to come through would still need to come through the council, and that includes all of them over the past 10 years.
4:48:46
So to me, that is not a meaningful reduction the council's power.
4:48:50
That's pretty much a wash as far as I'm concerned.
Selvena N. Brooks-Powers
4:48:52
So I think we should get clarity because even, like, today, I noticed in a testimony about the conversions of the office space, which I've told you I'm in support of, but that was based on our conversations of office space.
