►
From YouTube: Tuesday, February 16, 2021 5:30PM Planning, Economic Development and Land Use Committee
Description
The Committee reviewed Local Law M of 2020, Ordinance 21.92.20 and Ordinance 46.122.20. Local Law M of 2020 strengthens the Historic Resources Commission’s oversight of emergency building demolitions and stabilizations in historic district neighborhoods. Ordinance 21.92.20 strengthens oversight of emergency demolition and stabilization actions in historic district neighborhoods. Ordinance 46.122.20 is necessary to give the USDO consistent numbering and to increase user-friendliness in terms of layout and readability. This ordinance makes no substantive or policy changes to the USDO.
B
Okay,
thank
you
well
good
evening.
Everyone.
This
is
the
february
16th
2021
meeting
of
the
common
council's
planning
land
use
and
economic
development
committee
committee
members,
president
council,
member
judy
dausche
councilmember
tom
holly
from
the
committee.
Other
council
members
are
councilmember,
richard
conte
council
staff,
michelle
andre
and
john
rafael
ricciardo,
and
we
have
city
staff,
aaron
glennon
from
the
planning
department,
brad
glass,
director
of
planning.
B
We
have
director
of
buildings,
rec
le
joy
and
valerie,
I'm
forgetting
your
title,
valerie
scott
welcome
and
we
also
have
john
myers
from
the
historic
resource
commission
thanks
for
coming
john,
and
I
should
also
mention
alfredo
ballerin,
who
is
a
committee
member
also
councilmember
ballard
is
here,
welcome
everyone
erin
did
I
get
you?
Yes,
I
did
okay
we're
here
tonight.
We've
got
a
like
another.
B
We
will
then
be
discussing
ordinance,
20,
21,
92
20..
That's
also
sponsored
by
richard
conte,
an
ordinance
amending
building
article
9,
which
is
building
construction
regulation
and
article
11a,
which
is
the
vacant
building
registry
of
part,
two
building
construction
of
chapter
133,
building
construction
of
the
code
of
the
city
of
albany
in
relation
to
emergency
building
actions
in
historic
districts,
and
then
we
will
turn
to
ordinance
46
122
20,
which
is
an
ordinance
amending
chapter
375,
the
united
unified
sustainable
development,
ordinance
of
the
code
of
the
city
of
albany.
By
remembering
such
chapter.
C
Yeah,
so
let
me
just
to
recap,
some
things
and
I'll
note
that
this
was
discussed
at
the
hrc
meeting
of
february
3rd
and
also
a
previous
hrc
meeting.
I've
listened
to
both
and
to
the
discussion
by
members
and
staff
at
those
meetings,
and
I
think
there
was
some
some
confusion
or
some
lack
of
clarity
as
to
what
the
intent
was.
C
The
the
overall
intent
is
just
to
establish
the
hrc's
role
to
some
extent
in
oversight
of
emergency
actions
and
help
and
development
of,
or
give
them
the
authority
to
make
recommendations
on
policy.
But
let
me
quickly
and
the
local
law
and
the
ordinance
go
together,
even
though
they're
separate
proposals
just
because
the
way
the
code
is
structured,
one
has
to
be
done
by
local
law,
one
by
ordinance.
C
C
C
The
intent
here
is
to
establish
their
authority
to
have
oversight
or
review
of
emergency
actions
with
within
a
historic
district
and
also
to
provide
them
the
authority
to
periodically
from
time
to
time
make
recommendations
as
they
see
fit
to
the
council
and
to
the
mayor
and
that
it
be.
You
know,
a
standing
item
on
the
agenda.
You
know
we
have
bodies
ordinarily,
have
in
an
agenda
form
that
they
follow
through.
Sometimes
there
is
nothing
on
that
agenda
section,
so
it
wouldn't
be
discussed,
but
this
is.
C
This
is
separate
and
distinct
from
section
three
of
the
local
law,
and
I
think
there
was
some
confusion
or
maybe
lack
of
clarity
in
the
hrc
discussions
that
I
heard
about
the
the
difference
between
section
two
and
section
three
they're
separate
and
distinct
from
each
other
section.
Two,
the
amendment
to
subsection
b
is
meant
to
give
the
hrc
ongoing
general
oversight.
C
Section
three
is
an
unconsolidated
amendment
or
unconsolidated
section
of
local
law.
It's
not
an
amendment
to
the
city
code.
It's
a
stand-alone
loan
provision
that
just
requires
that
the
hrc
do
a
one-time
report
to
the
council
regarding
policy
and
procedures
related
to
emergency
emergency
actions
and
to
make
such
recommendations
as
I
see
fit
to
the
council.
C
That
was
just
supposed
to
be
a
one-time
report,
kind
of
an
overarching-
you
might
say,
foundational
report
for
them
to
look
at
a
comprehensive
look
at
policies
and
procedures
if
they
wish
and
then
to
make
a
report
to
the
council
very
separate
from
the
the
amendment
in
section
two,
the
local
law.
So
they
are
separate
issues.
You
know,
and
they
don't
they're,
not
they're,
not
contradictory
they're,
you
might
say
complimentary
and
that's
what's
in
the
local
law,
some
of
the
information
that
would
be
provided
to
the
hrc.
C
That
would
give
them
greater
authority
to
review
emergency
actions.
That's
that's
in
the
ordinance
and
the
ordinance
again
to
clarify.
There
is
some
general
language
here
about
standards
for
emergency
action,
but
the
meat
of
of
it
is
to
provide
intended
to
provide
the
to
provide
to
the
hrc
from
the
buildings
department
information
as
to
when
an
emergency
action
takes
place
in
an
historic
district
so
that
they
receive
notification
and
that
they
receive
the
information
that
is
the
basis
of
that
emergency
action.
C
The
information
that's
complementary
to
the
oversight
authority,
that's
granted
in
the
local
law,
and
then
it
also
amends
the
section
dealing
with
the
vacant
building
registry
reports
just
to
include
in
there
and
information
that
relates
to
the
number
of
vacant,
building
registrations
and
actions
within
historic
districts
and
to
break
that
down
and
I'll
note
that
on
january
7th,
the
council
did
receive
the
january
quarterly
report.
I'm
always
trying
to
figure
out
which
way
best
to
hold
these
things
so
that
the
camera
catches
it.
C
But
you
know
I'll,
say
rick
in
terms
of
the
report
that
he
provided
actually
included.
He
included
the
information
that
I
had
proposed
to
be
included
via
the
ordinance
amendment
under
the
ordinance,
and
that
was
a
breakout
of
registrations
in
historic
districts
by
individual
historic
district.
The
total
number
of
the
amount
that
had
been
in
the
amount
that
had
been
subject
to
I
don't
know,
do
you
have
it
here
wreck
the
total
property
is
known
to
be
vacant
by
historic
district.
C
I
know
we
eliminated
that
a
while
back
because
of
concern
that
it
almost
provided
a
road
map
for
people
who
were
looking
for
vacant
properties.
You
know
it
is
what
it
is,
but
so
the
vacant
building
registry
report
is
really
just
a
statistical
report.
Now
that
gives
you
numbers
and
it
provides
that
you
know
I'm
trying
to
make
it
more
useful
as
far
as
what
the
impacts
or
the
breakouts
are
in
historic
districts.
C
So
that
was
the
intent
and
then
we
did
get
earlier
today,
which
we've
gotten
a
little
bit
earlier,
a
memo
from
amy
in
court
counsel's
office,
reflecting.
I
think
the
discussion
at
the
last
hrc
meeting
and
recommendations
for
revisions
from
based
on
the
hrd
discussion
and
from
planning
staff.
I
don't
know
if
everybody
got
that
michelle
did
sounded
out
earlier
today
and
I
don't
know
if
anyone
did
not
get
that.
As
far
as
members
of
the
committee.
B
No
yeah
we
did,
it
was
sent
out
to
everyone
all
council
members
by
michelle
yeah.
My
question
would
be
about
that.
Richard
is
there's
just
you
know.
She's
made
amy's
made
quite
a
few
different
recommendations
here
and
yeah.
It's
important
that
you
have
an
opportunity
to
go
through
those.
I
don't
think
we
have.
D
B
B
C
D
D
Okay,
so
as
far
as
local
m
councilmember
conte,
you
had
in
section
one,
this
was
dealing
with
the
appointments
and
the
30-day
provision
in
discussions
with
staff
and
the
hrc,
it
was
felt
like
30
days,
was
a
short
time
to
find
appropriate
people
in
the
community
to
take
those
appointments,
especially
because
the
requirements
for
appointment
to
the
hrc
are
fairly
strict
in
some
cases.
So
you
know,
we
felt
that
adding
that
30
days
would
make
it
more
onerous
for
the
board
and
the
mayor
to
find
qualified
people.
D
So
I
you
know,
I
certainly
do
recognize
the
council's
concerns
as
far
as
appointments
go,
and
so
I
did
add
in
here.
You
know
that
when
vacancies
occur
during
a
term
of
membership,
that
the
appointments
would
be
filled
by
the
mayor
with
the
advice
and
consent
of
common
council,
I
don't
think
that's
really
necessary
to
add
in
there,
because
advice
and
consent
of
the
common
council
is
provided
for
in
subsection.
D
C
I
I
mean
I
find
taking
the
whole
section
out
and
dealing
with
it
separately
in
a
different
proposal,
because
you
know
right
now.
The
the
effect
of
it
is
is
that
the
hrc
members
serve
at
the
pleasure
of
the
the
mayor,
because
there's
no
incentive
to
either
submit
reappointments
or
new
appointments
and
that
that
kind
of
takes
away
the
council's
advice
and
consent
authority.
But
as.
D
You
know
I
I
think
I
I
saw
this
in
a
similar
manner
to
you
in
terms
of
you
know,
adding
this
power
to
the
hrc
so
that
they
could
make.
You
know
periodic
reports
on
historic
demolitions,
but
I'm
not
I'm
not
sure
that
it
needs
to
be
quite
as
specific
as
you
had
the
language
and
the
hrc
had
also
expressed
some
concerns
about
making
recommendations,
specifically
with
policies
and
procedures
under
the
building
code,
which
is
not
within
their
jurisdiction.
D
C
It
makes
it
general
to
the
point
that
it's
very
general,
I
you
know
they
they
right
now
they
do
review
demolition,
non-emergency
demolition
requests
so
to
some
extent
they
they
look
at
those
issues.
Now
I
I
don't
necessarily
think
it's
outside
their
purview
to
look
at
or
to
be
able
to
and
they're
not
they're,
not
really
giving
you
know
approval
or
we're
not
suggesting
that
they
have
prior
approval
of
emergency
demolitions
because,
by
its
nature,
an
emergency
emergency.
C
But
the
idea
was
that
they
would
be
looking
at
after
the
fact
prop
demos
and
possibly
learning
from
the
factors
that
went
into
those
demos
and
some
of
the
recommendations
aren't
they're,
not
all
necessarily
related
to
procedures.
They
could
be
related
also
to
the
factors
that
led
to
a
situation
where
an
emergency
demolition
was
necessary
because
of
factors
that
related
to
the
deterioration
of
the
structure
or
neglect
and
things
of
that
nature.
So
it
is
broader
than
simply
looking
at
the
policy.
C
C
C
My
language
gives
them
more
authority
to
look
at
the
action
itself
versus
the
more
general
language
that
you
have
in
terms
of
just
making
recommendations,
so
it
fits
into
what's
in
the
ordinance.
As
far
as
the
I
have
no
problem
making
a
little
bit
more
general,
but
I
think
reviewing
actions
within
districts
and
being
able
to
make
periodic
recommendations
is
really
what
he
wanted
to
do.
D
I
think
I
think
that
there
was
a
little
bit
of
you
know.
Maybe
confusion
on
our
part.
In
terms
of
you
know,
you
have
in
the
language
that
you
would
propose
the
review
of
emergency
actions
as
a
standing
agenda
item,
which
seems
to
relate
more
to
the
specific
demolitions
like
you're
saying,
but
then
there's
also
the
part
that
talks
about
periodic
periodic
recommendations
being
made
based
on
this.
So
I
think
I
think
it
would
be
helpful.
D
Exactly
and
that's,
and
that's
somewhat
why
I
moved
it
out
of
the
unconsolidated
law
that
you
had
and
and
had
a
more
specific
type
of
review
procedure
for
the
hrc.
So
as
as
I
understood
it,
this
would
kind
of
expand
on
that
subsection,
13
and
and
include
more
of
the
particulars
there,
so
that
they
would
have
a
little
bit
more
guidance
in
terms
of
what
this
review
entails.
D
As
so,
I
put
together
this
provision-
I
don't
know
if
I
got
the
numbering
right
or
you
know,
if
you
guys
need
to
change
that
feel
free.
You
know,
so
I
basically
the
first
subsection
here
says
that
they'll
review
demolition
orders
after
they
receive
notification
of
any
demolition
order
from
buildings
and
regs
under
section
133-55.
So
that's
the
ordinance
that
goes
along
with
this,
so
that
effectively,
as
I
see
it,
makes
it.
D
You
know
an
agenda
item
whenever
there
is
an
emergency
action
for
them
to
review
as
opposed
to
having
it
just
be.
You
know
a
standing
agenda
item
when
there
may
or
may
not
be
demolitions
to
actually
look
at
and
then
under
subsection.
Two
here
I
thought
that
the
180
days
was
maybe
a
little
bit
fast
in
terms
of
producing.
D
You
know
this
type
of
broader
report,
so
I
made
it
an
annual
reporting
requirement
and
then
I
tried
to
set
out
a
few
of
the
you
know,
sort
of
broader
categories
of
what
I
thought
these
reports
and
recommendations
might
entail.
I
looked
at.
I
looked
at
ordinances
from
a
number
of
other
municipalities
to
try
and
like
get
some
of
this
information,
I
wasn't
able
to
find
any
ordinance
language.
That
was
really
any
anything
like
what
you're
proposing
here.
D
So
I
did
kind
of
throw
this
together
from
a
few
different
places,
but
I
think
I
think
that
it
gives
a
bit
more
guidance
to
the
hrc
in
terms
of
what
what
this
review
should
be
looking
at,
and
you
know,
and
the
types
of
information
that
they
would
want
to
give
to
the
common
council
to
the
extent,
certainly
that
you
think
that
you
know
they
should
be
looking
at
different
things.
I
I
would
say
you
know,
please
feel
free
to
add
them
in.
F
D
In
subsection,
a
the
last
sentence
that
you
had
added
there,
I
wasn't
entirely
sure
what
it
was
adding
to
this
to
that
subsection.
In
terms
of
it,
it
seems
to
just
say
that
there's
a
direct
hazard
to
health
when
there
would
be
a
direct
hazard
to
health
if
notice
had
to
be
given.
So
I
I
felt
that
it
was
just
a
little
bit
circular
and
kind
of
restated
what
was
already
said
in
section
a
in
subsection.
C
D
D
This
this
sets
out
in
a
little
bit
more
detail.
What
that
notification
should
actually
include.
So
this
is
the
information
that
would
be
sent
to
the
planning
board
and
or
sorry,
the
hrc,
and
again
this
this
kind
of
listing
of
particulars
was
based
on.
You
know
the
discussions
with
hrc
and
staff
and
then
also
various
other
ordinances
from
cities
and
towns
in
new
york
and
some
other
places
just
to
try
and
find
some
of
the
you
know
more
relevant
issues
that
come
up
with
these
again,
I
wasn't.
D
I
think
that
this
would
be.
You
know
sufficient
for
hrc
to
fulfill
the
type
of
review
that
you
want
them
to
do.
Okay,
I
would
also
just
mention
that,
for
the
most
part,
buildings
and
regs,
I
believe,
would
already
be
you
know
putting
this
information
together.
Certainly,
you
know
the
description
of
the
premises.
The
engineering
report,
a
statement
of
what
work
is
going
to
be
done,
the
timetable.
D
You
know,
I
think
it
it
is
a
bit
there.
There
is
more
information
here
than
they
probably
put
together
now
in
terms
of
I'm
not
sure
if
they
include
a
map
or
a
site
plan,
they
don't
provide
photos
prior
code
violations
and
information
about
salvageable
materials,
but
you
know
I
talked
with
staff
at
buildings
and
regs
and
they
believed
that
you
know
it
would
not
be
too
onerous
to
provide
this
information
and
then
also
the
last
few
of
these
items
they
do.
F
E
Let's
see
as
we
go
through
them,
I
mean
a
lot
of
stuff
is
pretty
ready
readily
available.
The
engineer
report
is
one
that
you
know.
We
don't
typically
get
for
a
few
weeks
out,
and
you
know
after
the
fact
just
trying
to
see
I
mean
photographs
are
usually
in
the
engineers
report.
We
don't
take
photographs,
that's
you
know
the
engineers
doing
that
the
prior
code
violations.
We
certainly
would
have
that
you
know
in
our
in
our
possession.
E
C
Lifetime
val,
I
mean
I
know
when,
when
you
do,
when
there's
an
emergency
demo
or
emergency
action
in
my
ward,
I
right
away
get
an
email
from
you.
I
I
think
that's
simultaneous
with
the
notice
and
order,
not
the
details
in
terms
of
what
the
issues
are,
but
just
the
the
notice
and
order
which
is,
I
think,
the
boilerplate
language,
and
I
think
you
sent
that
out.
Simultaneous
with
the
with
when
a
decision
is
made
correct.
H
J
And
I
think
one
of
the
things
that
we
had
discussed
at
the
hrc
meeting
and
then
planning
stephan
stuff
with
amy,
was
having
that
immediate
notification
declaration
either
be
distributed
from
the
planning
department
to
john
to
them
be
distributed
or
having
the
chair
of
the
hrc
be
added
to
the
distribution
list.
For
the
immediate
notification
of
the
declaration.
D
I
didn't
change
this
extensively
in
talking
with
brad
and
aaron.
We
suggested
that
you
know
to
the
extent
that
the
vacant
building
registry
you
know,
is
city-wide
and
deals
not
just
with
the
historic
districts
but
plenty
of
other
buildings
throughout
the
city.
We
thought
that
the
planning
board
might
like
to
get
those
reports
as
well.
Yep,
that's
fine,
and
then
I
just
as
as
far
as
the
language
goes
you
know
throughout
where
you
had
had
historic
resources,
overlay
districts.
D
C
One
thing
that
might
not
be
here
is
just
the
emergency
actions
taken
within
the
quarter
and
I
don't
think
you
have
including
number
of
mercy
actions
by
historic
districts,
both
that
were
taken
within
the
quarter
and
in
the
preceding
quarter,
because
that
was
meant
just
to
provide
a
kind
of
a
comparison.
You're
right,
I'm
sorry,
one
other
thing
I
noticed
by
the
way.
I
just
noticed
this
today,
I'm
not
sure
why
maybe
whatever
that
cross-reference
there
to
section
133-78.3
e2,
I
was.
C
Yeah
it's
incorrect.
I
don't
know
why
it
was
not.
I
didn't
notice
before,
because
it
refers
to
tax
maps.
The
correct
reference
is
133
dash,
78.3,
subsection
h,
which
is
the
fee
categories
which
breaks
it
down
by
one
two,
three
four
to
whatever
different
size
properties,
so
that
it's
just
to
make
I'll
make
that
correction.
But
that's
the
correct
cross
reference.
D
I
I
would
just
note
you
know
in
looking
at
ordinances
from
plenty
of
other
places,
mostly
mostly
new
york.
I
looked
at
a
few
other
kind
of
like
older,
rust
belt
type
cities,
and
I
think
that
the
the
letter
that
hrc
sent
in
which
they
talked
about
demolition,
delay
provisions
and
other
options.
I
would
I
you
know
I
would
suggest
maybe
looking
at
a
few
of
those
types
of
ordinances
which
seem
to
be
pretty
popular.
C
I
think
you
were,
I
won't
recall
previous
whatever,
but
I
would
like
to
be
able
to
move
this
forward
and
then
there
are
broader
issues
to
look
at
at
some
point.
But
I'd
like
to
be
able
to
move
this
out
a
committee
with
some
revisions,
because
I
think
it's
it's
it's
a
start
and
it
it's
it's
intended
to
try
to
get
the
hrc
information
involved.
And
you
know
in
terms
of
other
committee
members
and
discussion.
G
Yeah,
I
think
there
has
been
a
lot
of
discussion
about
photographs
and
it's
largely
centers
around
the
context
of
the
building
being
lost
and
having
some
last
snapshot
and
record
so
that
we
know
what
was
there
and
it
can
guide
some
decision
making
on
replacement
options
for
that
particular
site.
If
it's,
you
know
retained
as
an
individual
building
site
or
if
it's
amalgamated
into
something
larger
but
yeah.
I
know
jack
mceninny
has
always
been.
You
know
very
vocal
about
the
idea
of
getting
photographs
and
having
a
real
understanding
of
what
the
loss
is
again.
G
B
L
The
other
thing
that
I'm
interested
in
hearing
a
little
bit
more
about
is
amy
mentioned
that
there
are
provisions
in
other
municipalities
for
the
potential
delay
of
a
demolition,
and
she
mentioned
that.
We
may
want
to
take
a
look
at
that,
and
I
don't
necessarily
think
it
should
hold
this
up.
But
as
long
as
it's
fresh
in
my
mind
and
in
expression
amy's
mind
having
done
the
research
if
she
could
expand
a
little
bit
on
what
exists
that,
in
other
municipalities
that
she
thinks
that
hrc
may
want
to
take.
D
I
think
aaron
might
actually
be
a
little
bit
more
familiar
with
demolition
by
or
demolition
delay
ordinances
than
I
am.
I
didn't
I
didn't
read
them
too
carefully,
since
I
wasn't
looking
for
them
necessarily,
but
I
would
be
happy
to
you
know
to
put
together
a
couple
of
them
from
other
municipalities
in
new
york
and
other
similar
type
municipalities.
G
J
I
B
K
Yeah,
I
just
wanted
to
add.
I
think
that
you
know
all
non-emergency
demolitions
are
either
referred
to
the
hrc
or
to
the
planning
board,
if
they're,
outside
a
historic
district.
So
I
think
those
entities
do
have
sort
of
a
de
facto
authority
to
delay
the
demolition
based
upon
circumstances,
but
it
might
make
sense
to
look
at
those
existing
ordinances
and
see
if
that
needs
to
be
called
out.
More
specifically,
I
know
that
there's
been
some.
C
C
I
don't
plan
to
pass
on
thursday
simply
because
the
local
law
has
to
age,
but
you
want
to
be
ready
to
have
it
amended
on
thursday
and
then
pass
it
as
a
package
at
our
meeting
in
march.
But
I
think
I
can
turn
some
language
around
for
amy
on
this
and
then
I
think
we're
we're
basically
in
the
same
area.
Judy
has
her
hand
up
still,
I'm
not
sure.
If
that's
a
leftover.
B
L
So,
yes,
I
I
think
we
have
to
move
these
out
separately,
but
I
would
like
to
go
ahead
and
make
a
motion.
First,
with
regard
to
local
law
m
of
2020,
to
move
it
out
of
committee
with
a
positive
recommendation
with
the
elimination
of
the
provisions
in
section
one
and
substantially
the
modifications
I
think
that
were
put
forward
by.
L
By
ms
levine,
however,
with
some
reworking
of
what
provisions
go
where,
with
regard
to
what
mr
conte
is
looking
to
achieve,
I
think
that
there
is
agreement
on
essentially
the
substance
of
that
and
it's
just
a
matter
of
leaving
it
to
them
to
work
out
the
language
differences.
So
that's
my
motion.
I'd
love,
a
second
second.
B
L
Unless
such
information
is
not
readily
available,
in
which
case
it
should
be
made
available
to
the
and
transmitted
to
the
hrc
at
the
earliest
time
possible,
and
then
also
noting
that
the
quarterly
reports
there's
been
some
minor
modifications
there,
including
transferring
also
putting
the
planning
board
on
notice,
making
a
change
to
the
category
set
forth
in
subdivision
d
and
noticing
that
there
are
that
the
reports
will
include
the
similar
information
for
the
preceding
quarter.
So
there
can
be
a
comparison
made.
L
L
Don't
give
you
a
lot
of
information
about,
what's
really
going
on
so
again
to
the
extent
the
information
is
available,
if
there
can
be
additional
attachments
to
that
email
providing
that
notice.
That
contains
some
of
that
additional
information.
That's
my
intent,
but
it
is
not
it's
not
being
detailed
which
is
going
to
be
available
at
which
time,
so
we
have
to
leave
it
to
staff
to
make
those
determinations,
I'm
just
making
it
clear
what
I
think
would
be
beneficial.
C
Yeah
and
again
I
don't,
I
don't
think
the
information
that's
actually
available.
Bi
is
going
to
be
beyond
the
notice
that
val
sends
and
the
more
detailed
information
is
not
going
to
be
available,
because
I
think
in
written
point,
because
a
lot
of
that
is
observation,
termination,
discussion
on
site
and
things
of
that
nature
before
actual
written
material
is
put
together.
E
B
E
B
B
K
Yeah,
so
you
know
I
was
able
to
review
the
most
recent
documents
sent
by
general
code.
I
did
confirm
that
per
my
reading.
All
of
the
items
that
we
had
put
together,
I
think
judy
head
had
provided
a
list
of
comments
and
some
others
from
other
members
that
I
then
incorporated
into
a
word
document
and
forward
that
along
as
well
as
attaching
the
ordinance
that
have
been
passed
since
the
original
code
was
adopted.
K
So
far,
as
my
review
can
tell
those
were
all
included
in
this
most
recent
version
and
with
respect
to
the
date
in
following
up
with
general
code,
they
indicated
that
that's
a
manual
change
that
needs
to
be
made
with
respect
to
the
footnote
on
the
date.
You
know
why
that
went
from
september
19
to
6
117
wasn't
entirely
clear
to
me,
but
they
did
update
it
to
state
the
publication
of
february
2021,
which
would
be
consistent
with
where
we
are
now,
and
you
know
nothing.
K
I
did
sort
of
a
broad
review.
Nothing
jumped
out
at
me.
As
being
you
know,
missing
or
clearly
deviating
from
you
know
anything
that
we
had
reviewed
prior.
So
you
know,
my
belief
is
that
it
is
consistent
with
the
2017
code
as
amended
per
the
four
or
five
council
ordinances,
as
well
as
the
comments
out
of
the
prior
two
discussions,
two
or
three
discussions
of
this.
This
committee.
B
L
L
L
I
expected
that
the
2000
the
september
2019
document
would
then
be
what
is
been
amended,
and
my
concern
is
that
possibly
gen
code,
somebody
at
gen
code
was
given
our
list
of
changes
and
they
inputted
into
a
document.
A
prior
document
that
was
dated
june
1
2017,
which
then
my
review
of
the
september
2019
document
is
somewhat
irrelevant.
L
Because
who
knows
what
additional
other
differences
there
are
between
the
june
1
2017
document
and
the
september
2019
document?
And
I
don't
think
we
have
a
clear
answer
from
gen
code
as
to
why,
if
this
date
is
manually,
inputted,
why
it
was
sitting
there?
And
the
obvious
answer
is
just
like.
We
got
all
these
prior
documents
that
were
actually
from
2020
that
were
dated
september
2019.
L
This
one
from
june.
1
of
2017
is
a
prior
version
of
it
that
we
that
we
have
not
reviewed
that
they
then
made
changes
to
that's.
You
know
if
we
had
not
gotten
a
document
for
which
the
redlining
was
not
accurate,
and
then
we
were
told
that
there
were
no
content
changes
and
there
indeed
were
differences
in
the
content
and
other
things
that
were
missed.
L
I
would
not
would
not
have
a
concern,
but
I
I
gotta
tell
you,
having
spent
40
hours,
doing
that
kind
of
detailed
review
on
a
september,
2019
document
kind
of
churns,
my
stomach
that
I'm
now
being
presented
with
something
that
indeed
had
a
june
1
2017
date
on
it,
and
one
of
the
reasons
why
I'm
asking
jr.
If
he's
had
an
opportunity
to
do
a
review
of
it
is,
you
know,
was.
B
A
The
only
thing,
the
most
recent
document
that
that
came
out
with
the
dates
the
date
changes
that
I
reviewed.
I
looked
at
them
briefly
and
just
looked
at
them
to
see
if
they
had
the
most
up-to-date
amendments
to
it,
and
none
of
them
had
like
the
blood
plasma
or
the
hoey
amendments
in
there
only
one
of
them
that
I
believe
brad
sent
a
while
back
a
little
bit
before
these
dated
change
on
them.
They
had
it,
but
I
couldn't
tell
if
they
had
the
other
changes
that
were
also
made.
K
A
Did
ask
if
that
was
the
which
copy
wasn't
if
you're
saying
that's
the
one
then
I'll
review
that
one
more
in
detail,
because
I
couldn't
tell
with
three
of
them
three
three
dot:
three
pdfs
with
300
pages
each
I
couldn't
do
a
it.
Just
would
not
be
impossible
to
do
which
a
detailed,
which
one
was
correct.
K
Yeah
I
mean
we're
in
an
unfortunate
situation
where
we're
three
and
a
half
years
past
where
a
code
was
adopted,
several
versions
have
been
floated
around
and
transmitting,
and
I
think
we're
doing
the
best
that
we
can
to
align
this
with
the
current
state
of
where
we
are
and
again
I
I.
It
appears
to
me
that
the
date
change
was
merely
a
mistake.
K
There
weren't
content
changes
associated
with
that,
but
can
I
definitively
say
I
went
line
by
line
and
read
through
no,
I
can't
I
mean
that
that
would
be
a
significant
task
that
that's
what
we
need
to
do.
That's
what
we'll
do,
but
you
know
I
do
have
confidence
that
you
know
that
this
version
incorporates
all
the
changes
and
it
is
consistent
with
the
adopted
version,
which
was
six
one
seventeen,
so
you
know,
I
think,
the
extent
that
that
date
was
being
utilized.
You
know
that
is
the
original
adopted
code
date.
B
L
L
If
I
got
a
document
that
was
dated
at
the
bottom
september,
2019,
whether
it
had
one
numbering
of
tables
or
another
numbering
of
tables,
doesn't
matter
so
much
me,
then
I
would
feel
comfortable
just
focusing
on
what
we
then
had
decided
needed
to
be
added
as
amendments
it's
it.
I
don't
know
what
this
other
document
is.
K
B
K
K
If
anything
that
should
have
originally
wrote
written
that
should
have
read
june
1st
2017,
you
know
again,
we
had
gone
down
the
road
of
making
changes
to
the
document,
in
addition
to
the
copy
edit
changes
in
the
hopes
that
we
could
codify
the
content
changes
and
the
copy
edit
all
at
once.
That's
where
I
think
the
september
19th
2019
version
is
derived
from
you
know.
Again,
I
don't
I,
I
think
all
those
content
changes
were
removed.
K
I
think
when
we
did
the
diligent
review
of
that
document,
we
went
through
and
caught
a
few
things
that
were
remaining
in
there,
that
we
then
took
out
or
asked
general
code
to
take
out
as
a
part
of
these
changes.
So
again,
I
I
don't
think
there's
any
difference
between
the
documents,
apart
from
the
the
naming
at
the
bottom
as
well.
As
you
know,
we
discussed
there
were
a
number
of
tables
that
were
requested
to
be
renumbered
in
october
november
of
last
year
that
are
also
present
in
the
2021.
K
I
I
kind
of
agree
with
judy's
sentiment
and
I
have
frustration
after
spending
x
amount
of
time
on
a
very
large
diet
going
by
line
you
try
to
cash
anything
that
was,
you
know,
an
error
and
and
now
not
knowing.
If
that's
the
document
that
we're
going
to
be
asked
to
vote
on,
I
I
understand
the
frustration
I
get
that
100
and
trying
to
figure
out.
I
Don't
know
what
other
way
to
make
sure
that
we,
you
know,
are
voting
on
the
actual
document
that
we
reviewed
in
the
actual
document
that
we
spent
a
lot
of
time
on
making
sure
that
we
cross-referenced
from
the
original
document
to
make
sure
that
if
there
were
any
changes
we
spoke
about
it
adjusted
and
moved
on.
So
I'm
I'm
not
sure.
I
If
there's
another
solution,
I'm
hoping,
maybe
someone
has
another
solution
that
I'm
not
aware
of,
but
I
don't
know
if
I
feel
100
comfortable
voting
on
something
that
we
don't
know
is
the
same
document.
We
already
reviewed-
and
I
know
it's
a
huge
chunk
of
a
document,
but
I
I
I
100
understand
why?
Why
why
judy
so
frustrated?
I
L
The
document
that
is
dated
6
1
2017
is
the
document
as
we
adopted
it,
which
makes
sense
because
we
adopted
it
on
may
15
2017,
that's
what
we
adopted,
but
we
got
a
different
document
back
in
december,
a
different
document
that
had
a
lot
of
edits
in
it.
It
wasn't
just
the
table
remembering
there
were
a
lot
of
other
minor
edits
in
that
particular
document
and
there
were
some
more
substantive
edits
in
that
document,
but
it
wasn't,
it
wasn't
just
what
we
adopted.
So
there
are
places
where
you
know
they
picked
up.
L
L
L
A
B
L
B
L
K
B
A
K
K
M
M
A
L
Have
a
significant
level
of
discomfort
that
they
made
the
changes
that
we
asked
for
to
a
document
that
was
in
existence
on
june
1
2007,
as
opposed
to
the
one
that
they
made,
that
we
that
we
all
reviewed
in
detail.
Do
I
know
that?
No,
I
don't.
I
don't
know
what
any
more
than
brad
knows
what
happened
here
with
it,
and
it's
unfortunate
that
you
know
we're
we're
in
this
situation.
M
To
find
out
could
we
is
there
a
way
that
we
could
have
gen
code
and
represented
from
genco
meet
with
the
committee
that
we
could
kind
of?
You
know
this
is
an
award.
You
know
the
usdo
is
part
of
the
legislative
stuff
that
the
council
is
responsible
for.
Is
there
any
way
we
could
talk?
Have
somebody
there
that
we
could
pick
their
brain
bread?
Is
that
something
that
you
think
we
might
be
able
to
do.
K
I
I
can
ask
I
I
will
say
that
you
know
we've
expended
the
budgeted
amount
for
this
project
and
I
had
to
well
you
know
all
of
your
headaches.
Edits
were
helpful
in
getting
them
to.
You
know,
provide
all
the
changes
that
we
asked
for
and
so
far
as
I
know
they
haven't
charged
us
for
any
of
those.
But
you
know
we
were
sort
of
at
our
the
end
of
our
rope
with
them,
but
I
I
will
be.
K
K
B
K
I
will-
and
I
say
this
reluctantly,
but
I
may
be
reaching
out
to
the
council,
to
you-
know-
request
an
extension
of
the
time
to
deliver
the
six-month
changes
to
you.
You
know
just
due
to
the
amount
of
time
it's
taken
to
go
through
this
project
process
and
again
you
know
it's
not
yeah.
I
I
bear
some
of
the
responsibility
for
that.
K
K
To
deliver
the
the
larger
package
of
you
know:
usdo
changes.
I
do
still
plan
to
get
the
the
data
of
all
the
statistics
for
the
projects
that
we've
reviewed
to
the
council
for
the
march
march
third
date:
oh
okay,
but
you
know
between
that
and
following
up
on
this,
I
think
over
the
next
couple
of
weeks
you
know
gonna
have
a
full
plate.
So,
okay.
M
M
Funding,
I
don't
know
where
we
would
get
the
money,
but
I'm
just
asking
you
is
that
something
we
could
you
know
think
about,
or
you
know
like
I
said
this
is
such
an
important
document
to
throw
a
little
bit
more
money,
so
we're
not
rushing
and
doing
something
that
we're
not
sure
of.
I
would
be
in
favor
of
voting
to
give
them
more
money,
but
I
don't
know
how
everybody
else
makes
me
feel.
B
K
B
B
L
L
If
we,
the
council,
are
responsible
for
these
changes
because
we
didn't
get
the
printed
version
for
a
month,
we
immediately
reviewed
that
we
immediately
had
meetings
on
it.
We
shared
information
on
it
and
then
what
we've
gotten
back
is
something
with
you
know
different
dates
and
then
there's
been
some
confusion
about
tables.
L
K
No,
I
don't
believe
the
council
was
the
cause
of
delay.
You
know,
I
think
we've
had
a
very
constructive
dialogue.
You
know,
I
think
you
know,
particularly
with
respect
to
the
prior
version.
There
were
in
fact,
some
errors
and
again
I
think
that
it
took
a
significant
time.
Unfortunately,
we
would
have
loved
to
have
it
codified
when
it
was
originally
passed.
There
wasn't
the
funding
to
do
at
that
point,
so
I
don't
think
we
very
responsibility
for
that,
but
this
has
been
a
long
time
coming.
K
So
you
know
I
do
understand
the
you
know.
I
I
understand
that
the
concern
you
know,
unfortunately,
general
code
hasn't
served
us
perfectly
as
well.
The
number
of
times
they've
surprised
us
surprised
us
by
posting
the
code
online
or
you
know,
making
sure
it
ended,
edits
the
document
or
not
making
certain
edits
to
the
document.
So
you
know,
I
think
it's
just
like
you've
said
a
number
of
times.
It's
a
it's
a
350
page
document.
K
You
know
anything
related
to
it
and
particularly
looking
at
it
holistically
is
you
know,
a
challenge.
I
think
we're
always
going
to
point
fingers
at
each
other
to
some
degree
and
you
know
fairly
or
unfairly,
but
my
intent
here
no
is
not
to
cast
blame
on
the
council
for
this.
I
think
we're
happy
to
be
here
working
together
and
you
know
making
sure
that
we
get
it
right,
I'm
looking
forward
to
get
this
codified.
I
know
that
never
want
to
see
this
happen
again.
K
L
Well,
I
just
want
to
say
I
appreciate
that
very
much
brad
and
I
just
you
know
I
have
worked
my
butt
off
to
review
the
document
in
two
and
a
half
weeks.
A
350
page
document
detail
try
to
provide,
you
know,
communicate,
I
think,
essentially,
what
I'm
trying
to
say
is.
I
am
ready,
willing
and
able
to
do
whatever
it
takes
to
keep
us
moving
forward
on
this.
My
problem
at
this
point
is
having
just
spent
40
hours
going
over
you
line
by
line.
L
K
I
So
my
question
is
this:
if
this
new
document,
that's
getting
cleaned
up,
is
going
to
the
document
that
you're
going
to
be
presenting
to
us
or
similar
to
the
document
that
you're
going
to
be
sending
to
us,
why?
Why
do
we
have
to
push
back
that
date?
You
know
part
of
cleaning.
This
document
up
is
preparing
for
the
final
document
that
you're
going
to
send
us
in
in
march.
I
So
I
have
some
hesitations,
but
let's
just
keep
moving
the
date
back
on
the
document
that
you
know
if
this
is
the.
If
the
document
that
we're
going
to
be
asked
to
vote
on
it's
the
same
document
that
we've
been
reviewing
for
the
last
few
weeks,
that
should
also
be
the
same
document
or
a
very
similar
document.
I
That's
going
to
have
all
of
the
more
substantive
changes,
so
I
don't
understand
why
that
pushes
it
back?
A
whole
month
when
you
know,
if
anything,
we're
only
pushing
this
possibly
back
two
weeks
so
now
we,
you
know,
I
I
just
you
know
if
we
were
if
we
would
have
passed
this
today,
you
know
that
would
have
given
us
14
days
from
roughly
12
days,
12
13
days
from
the
first.
K
K
You
know
when
we're
going
through
the
code,
you
know,
and
that
requires
the
council
to
pass
it.
So
I
think,
having
this
document
codified
and
all
accessing
the
same
document
through
general
code
will
be
helpful
in
conducting
our
review.
But
I
think
what
we're
talking
about
you
know
is:
I
do
have
to
go
line
by
line
through
the
document.
You
know,
I'm
I'm
confident
it's
it's
the
same
document
we're
reviewing,
but
you
know
that
does
take
time
to
go
that
level
of
detailed
review.
M
I
I
I
just
have
a
problem
with
us:
keep
pushing
the
date
back,
but
I
have
to
be
honest
and-
and
my
concern
is
okay,
so
now
we're
gonna,
say
april,
you
know
and
then
something
else
is
going
to
happen
or
it's
going
to
take
more
time
to
get
something
else
approved,
and
then
we
keep
pushing
it
back
to
may
and
then
something
else
comes
up.
I
mean
I
I
just
feel
like.
I
If
we
already
know
what
the,
if
you
already
know
what
the
changes
are,
then
you
know
let
us
let
us
know
what
what
you,
what
you
see
as
the
changes
that
are
going
to
be
so
we
can
start
talking
about
them.
If,
if
we
know
there's
going
to
be
some
controversial
changes,
let's
have
those
discussions
now,
so
that
when
we
actually
have
the
final
documents
vote
on
a
lot
of
the
back
and
forth
has
been
settled.
K
I
think
what
we'd
like
to
do
to
some
degree
is
let
the
actual
case
statistics
and
you
know
the
cases
that
we've
reviewed
and
they're
familiar
with
guide
us
in
making
changes.
So
I
do
believe
you
know,
provided
that
we
are
going
to
be
going
through
those
as
soon
as
march,
2nd
that
that
will
probably
provide
an
opportunity
to
raise.
You
know
a
lot
of
those
those
issues,
you're
referencing.
K
You
know
what
the
intent
of
the
code
review
was,
which
was
to
look
at
what
you
know.
We've
learned
from
applying
the
code
and
you
know
any
inconsistencies
or
missions
or
errors
that
we
found,
and
I
think,
to
some
degree.
I'd
also
like
to,
rather
than
present
specific
detailed
text
changes,
leave
it
a
little
bit
more
open-ended
so
that
we
can
discuss
the
issues
and
conclude
upon
the
appropriate
means
of
pursuing
and
some
of
that
language,
as
opposed
to
me
delivering
you
all
the
preconceived.
K
You
know
solutions
and
expecting
you
to
necessarily
endorse
those.
So
you
know
again,
I
I
I
think
the
conversation
is
still
going
to
start
on
march
2nd.
You
know,
and
I
I
think
that
I
think
it'll
help
us
get
some
issues
out
on
the
table
and
and
have
some
initial
dialogue
as
to
how
we
can
proceed
with
those.
So
I,
I
guess
I'll
say
I'll.
Leave
it
at
that
and
I'll
I'll
ask
for
you
know
the
council's
consideration
in
you
know
a
more
detailed
product
to
come.