►
Description
No description was provided for this meeting.
If this is YOUR meeting, an easy way to fix this is to add a description to your video, wherever mtngs.io found it (probably YouTube).
A
A
A
B
C
C
C
C
E
E
G
H
E
E
And
aurora,
this
part
of
the
lake
is
amazing.
It's
very
different,
very
windy,
which
I
was
not
expecting,
but
it
is
quite
beautiful
up
here,
so
I
could
get
used
to
this
yeah.
E
C
E
E
C
Yeah,
so
I
don't
have
his:
can
someone
text
him,
I'm
on
it?
Okay,
thank
you
and
just
tell
him
it.
Oh
who's
that
that
was
george
yeah
just
tell
them.
It
was
the
meeting
that
came
through
at
5
17.
E
B
C
In
the
one
we
just
did
it
at
5
30,
because
we
were
having
difficulties
and
we
wanted
to
be
sure
that
we
actually
could
get
it
set
up.
C
B
Yeah,
oh
laura
lewis,
says
she's
having
the
same
problem.
F
I
I
C
I
Okay,
so
welcome
to
the
august
meeting
of
the
planning
and
economic
development
committee.
I
guess
we
will
jump
right
into
the
agenda.
The
first
item
on
the
agenda
is
agenda,
review
any
changes.
I
I
Okay,
so
first
up
is
public
comment
and
I
know
that
we
did.
We
did
get
a
few
public
comments.
There
was
a
email
that
was
written
from
teresa
halper
and
also
from
teresa
all.
Are
we
reading
those
out
or
are
we
just
summarizing
those?
What.
C
So
they
did
send
them
in
on
the
official
form.
So
I
think
it's
probably
best
if
we
read
them.
I
E
We
also
have
other
comments
from
david
nutter
and
robert
lynch.
I
I
One
could
argue
that
the
city's
requirement
that
20
percent
of
the
units
be
affordable
to
households
at
75
ami
for
30
years
is
significantly
better
than
the
ida's
new
requirement
that
the
20
of
the
units
be
affordable
to
households
at
80
ami
for
20
years.
However,
this
is
not
my
main
argument.
If
it
were
just
a
matter
of
slightly
different
parameters,
I
could
see
why
you
would
want
to
combine
the
processes
and
give
one
clear
signal
to
developers
to
speed
the
approvals
along.
I
Rather,
the
problem
is
that
the
idea
version
has
a
fee
out
option
that
is
completely
out
of
line
with
what
the
city
is
attempting
to
do,
besides
not
having
a
requirement
to
build
suit,
substitute,
affordable
housing
anywhere
near
the
abated
project.
The
opt-out
fee
is
so
low
that
no
market
rate
developer
will
choose
to
include
the
affordable
units.
I
I
think
it's
easy
to
see
why
this
is
so
by
looking
at
a
concrete
example,
namely
what
would
have
happened
with
the
library
place
project
if
this
requirement
had
been
in
effect,
I'm
going
to
use
the
ida
parameters
in
this
example,
the
difference
would
be
even
bigger
if
the
city's
stricter
parameters
were
used.
The
numbers
I'm
using
for
the
development
are
based
on
information,
as
reported
in
the
local
press
are
from
the
city
and
county
websites.
I
I
realized
there
were
different
versions
of
the
project
coming
through,
but
I
used
the
most
recent
ones
I
found
and
the
exact
number
of
units
isn't
crucial
to
making
the
point.
The
point
is
that
the
red
rent
numbers
are
based
on
a
real
world
example
per
the
ethical
voice.
There
are
66
units
in
some
public
space
and
the
17
million
dollar
project
will
save
5.3
332
million
innovative
taxes.
I
Per
the
same
article,
the
proposed
rent
for
the
one
bedroom
unit
is
hundred
dollars
per
month,
using
2020
iua
figures
for
ami.
A
single
person
at
eighty
percent
of
ami
is
forty,
eight
thousand
dollars
a
year
or
four
thousand
dollars
a
month
gross
income.
This
is
the
income
of
a
young
legal
aid
attorney
or
as
a
senior
lpn.
The
rent
that
is
affordable.
This
person
is
twelve
hundred
dollars
per
month.
Now
apply
the
ida,
affordable
housing
requirement
to
this
project
at
66
units.
I
The
developer
would
need
to
provide
13
units
that
are
affordable
to
this
hypothetical
tenant.
Who
could
pay
1200
per
month
or
the
developer
developer
can
pay
a
fee
of
2500
to
25
000
times
the
13
units,
which
is
the
same
as
5
000
times
all
66
units
developer
would
pay
330
000
instead
of
receiving
5.32
million
in
tax
abatements
developer
would
effectively
receive
only
5
million
dollars
in
total
subsidy.
So
this
is
quite
long
and
I'm
sure
we're
running
up
against
the
three
minutes
soon.
I
So
I'll
just
say
that,
essentially,
what
she's
recommending
is
that
we
hold
off
on
passing
this,
and
then
we
take
a
look
at
the
opt-out
fee
and
the
adjustment
of
the
fee
to
see
if
it's,
if
it's
correct
in
terms
of
achieving
what
we're
trying
to
to
do,
which
is
produce
more
affordable
housing
in
the
city.
The
other
comment
we
got
was
from
teresa
alts
I'll
just
find
out.
F
So
I'm
sorry.
I
I
found
it
sorry,
okay,
this
one's
from
teresa
all
206
eddie
street.
You
will
have
to
stand
up
for
the
well-being
of
the
city
and
its
residents
and
the
environment
in
the
face
of
developers
whose
only
interest
is
profits,
aided
and
abetted
by
the
staff
of
the
industrial
development
agency.
You
were
quite
right
to
call
for
a
20
of
workforce,
affordable
components
and
new
developments
that
get
tax
abatements.
In
your
memo,
jennifer
kuzner,
echoing
heather
mcdaniel,
claims
that
the
ida
has
adopted
the
city's
20
requirement.
That
is
a
half
truth.
I
The
idea
adopted
the
20,
but
added
a
fee
to
opt
out
provision
in
principle.
This
can
be
a
constructive
approach
if
the
replacement
units
are
to
be
reasonably
nearby
and
if
the
fee
is
reasonably
set.
Also,
there
is
no
requirement
for
any
nearby
units
to
be
gained
and
the
fee
is
set
pitifully
low.
Moreover,
the
memo
and
proposed
legislation
suggests
that
the
city
give
up
its
public
information
session
early
in
the
process.
I
Bad
idea,
true,
the
public
information
session
is
an
extra
step,
but
why
shouldn't
developers
who
want
public
money
be
required
to
take
extra
steps
and
wouldn't
a
responsible
developer
want
to
get
a
sense
of
what
the
public
wants
and
what
it
fears
early
in
the
process.
While
it
is
still
easy
to
modify
plans
council.
H
I
You
don't
have
to
roll
over
and
play
dead
before
the
ida,
and
then
we
had
a
comment
from
david
nutter.
This
is
david
nutter
city
of
ithaca.
This
is
about
the
proposal
to
make
both
court
and
buffalo
one
way
between
fulton
and
meadow
as
someone
who
lives
nearby
and
travels
there
in
foot
and
by
bike
and
cares
about
other
local
folks.
In
this
situation,
I
have
several
concerns.
I
This
proposal
looks
to
be
a
serious
downgrade
in
safety,
convenience
and
pleasant
travel
for
pedestrians
and
people
on
bicycles,
traveling
through
these
blocks
and
for
drivers
and
people
on
bicycles,
accessing
locations
on
these
blocks.
That
is,
for
local
folks
living
or
doing
business
here
or
simply
trying
to
pass
through
in
an
inexpensive
and
environmentally
friendly
way.
All
of
court
street
is
currently
a
quiet
street,
which
is
the
best
way
to
bike
east
and
west
across
downtown
all
the
way
to
the
kuga
waterfront
trail
by
crossing
meadow
fulton
and
the
railroad
tracks.
I
What
is
now
a
relatively
simple
round-trip
will
become
a
time-wasting
trip
around
the
black
and
heavy
traffic
and
extra
traffic
lights.
These
locations,
including
ithaca
bakery
winks
and
the
veterinarian
in
between
risk,
lowered
value
and
deterioration.
Like
the
other
one-way
streets
of
the
west
end.
The
proposal
for
right
turns
for
fulton
to
buffalo
that
signal
phasing
can
be
changed,
so
the
southbound
right
turn
lane
never
stops.
Noises
are
green,
is
frankly
appalling
in
terms
of
pedestrian
safety.
I
Already
the
new
york
state
dot
controlled
signals
throughout
the
west
end
sacrifice
pedestrian
safety
in
order
to
move
extra
motor
vehicles.
The
dot
uses
solid
green
lights
to
send
drivers
onto
crosswalks
with
block
signals,
places
where
green
arrows
should
be
used,
which
turn
red,
so
pedestrians
can
cross
safely
as
a
pedestrian.
With
a
walk
signal,
I
have
nearly
been
hit
by
turning
drivers
where
right
turn
on
red
is
allowed.
I
I
This
proposal
does
not
even
make
that
right
turn
on
red
pretense,
a
pedestrian
safety
in
which
the
d.o.t
can
blame
drivers
and
law
enforcement
for
a
design.
Failure
and
said
this
proposal
formally
encourages
habitual,
unsafe
driving.
I
don't
see
what
good
this
proposal
does
for
drivers,
but
it
can't
be
so
good
as
to
be
worth
running.
The
neighborhood
ruining.
I
I
This
is
in
regards
to
the
dot
proposed
changes
to
west
end
traffic
pattern.
Dear
chairman,
merta,
I
wrote
my
dual
capacity
as
council
and
highway
liaison
for
the
town
of
enfield
and
is
chair
of
the
transportation
subcommittee
of
the
tompkins
county
council
of
governments.
I
write
to
express
my
concern
about
a
proposal
set
for
discussion
and
a
vote
by
your
committee
tonight.
The
recommendation
by
the
new
york
state
department
of
transportation
to
establish
one-way
traffic
on
one
block,
portions
of
west
buffalo
and
west
court
streets
to
purportedly
facilitate
ithaca
west
end
development.
I
I
believe
this
project
has
been
too
hastily
considered
without
sufficient
public
comment.
I
believe
your
committee
should
tonight
table
this
proposal
and
convene
a
public
hearing
to
enable
all
parties
to
weigh
in
on
the
proposed
changes.
Tompkins
county
lawmakers
first
learned
of
this
plan
when
it
was
shared
at
last
evening's
tompkins,
county
legislature,
meeting
by
one
of
its
members
who
read
the
report
of
older
person
when
legislators,
particularly
those
serving
districts
to
the
west
of
the
city,
were
surprised.
They
and
I
had
never
heard
of
this
plan.
I
frankly
don't
think
it
will
work.
I
I
believe
that
it
will
snarl
traffic,
particularly
during
the
evening
outbound
commute
may
actually
increase,
rather
than
diminish
the
likelihood
of
accidents.
It
needs
more
study.
In
my
opinion,
the
only
way
the
one-way
plan
would
succeed
is
to
construct
additional
bridges
to
carry
westbound
west
court
street
traffic
across
cuga
inlet
and
the
flood
control
channel,
a
financial
and
practical
impossibility,
otherwise
the
necessary
westbound
turns
and
lane
changes
will
slow
traffic
to
a
crawl
and
prompt
drivers
to
game
the
system
and
seek
roundabout
routes.
I
I
Yes,
why
don't
we
just?
Why
don't
we
jump
into
it,
then,
unless
there
are
any
is,
are
there
any
announcements
or
updates
or
reports
joanne.
I
Okay,
so
the
first
item
on
the
agenda
is
the
dot
proposed
changes
to
the
west
end
and
the
conceptual
approval.
So
I
want
to
stress
that
that's
what
this
is
conceptual
approval.
So,
even
if
we
were
to
vote
this
through
tonight
and
it
was
voted
at
council,
there
would
still
be
considerable
study
of
this
this
proposal.
I
But
with
that
you
know,
I
know
that
both
lisa
nicholas
and
tim
logue
are
here.
I
know
there's
probably
a
lot
of
questions
about
this.
This
is
a
pretty
significant
change
for
the
neighborhood,
that's
being
prompted
by
this
west
end
development.
So
are
there
any?
Are
there
any
questions
or
comments?
That's
that
for
staff
on
this
issue.
F
I
just
wanted
to
give
before
you
know:
tim
was
going
to
describe
the
the
the
proposal,
but
before
he
did
that
I
just
wanted
to
give
a
little
context.
Just
in
case
you
yeah,
I
wrote
about
it
in
the
memo
a
little
bit,
but
I
wanted
to
just
let
you
know
why
we're
bringing
this
to
you
now
if
in
case
you
didn't
see
it
in
the
memo.
F
But,
as
you
know,
you
know,
tim's
gonna,
do
the
proposal
and
we'll
talk
about
questions,
but
you
know,
as
you
know,
the
two
waterfront
projects
that
are
still
in
the
approval
process
had
improvements
to
route
13,
the
break-in
access
and
other
pedestrian
improvements,
all
of
which
dot
was
is,
is
response
jurisdiction
over
permitting,
and
you
know
there
was
a
somewhat
of
a
disagreement
between
the
city
and
d.o.t.
I
mean
it
was
not.
F
You
know
in
any
way
unfriendly,
but
dot
really
felt
like
these
two
projects
added
too
much
vehicular
traffic
to
route
13.,
and
so,
although
the
city
was
fine
with
adding
the
additional
pedestrian
amenities
to
mitigate
that
traffic,
dot
didn't
feel
like
this
was
enough,
so
they
they
propo
they're.
F
Proposing
the
this
concept,
as
required
additional
mitigation
for
the
two
projects
that
are
currently
going
through
the
approval
process,
which
means
that
so
that's
why
we
had
to
bring
it
to
you
now,
because
we
have
to
get
a
sense
from
you
or
what
direction
we
want
to
go.
And
if
the
city
is
not
interested
in
this,
obviously
there's
going
to
have
to
be
some
other
mitigation
that
happens
or
or
some
other
plan
for
the
projects.
F
But
that's
why
we
kind
of
had
to
bring
it
to
you
now
and
it
might
feel
sudden,
but
it
admitted
you
know,
dot
proposes,
is
proposing
it
as
required
mitigation
for
these
two
projects.
So
before
we
know
whether
it
can
be
required
mitigation,
we
need
to
know
what
you
think
about
it
and
the
direction
that
we
should
go
in.
So
just
wanted
to
give
you
that
context.
Does
that
make
sense.
I
Yes,
thank
you
lisa
all
right
laura
did
you
have
a
question.
G
Yeah,
I
I
have
a
question
this,
as
the
resolution
is
written,
it
is
proposing
this
in
concept
and
I
guess
my
question
is:
to
what
degree
does
this
commit
the
city
it
looks
like
the
time
frame
is
pretty
aggressive.
F
H
That
there's
any
formal
kind
of
requirement
here,
I
think
dot
is
really
trying
to
say
that
they've
come
up
with
an
idea
that
they
think
will
help
with
some
of
the
traffic
congestion
and
traffic
safety
problems
in
the
west
end,
but
they
want
to
make
sure
that
the
city
is
on
board
with
the
concept.
G
If
I
could
just
ask
a
follow-up-
and
that
is,
this
concept
has
not
been
shared
with
residents
and
when
we
were
discussing
the
break
in
action
breaking
access
rather
13,
it
was
shared
with
northside
residents,
and
I
I
do
have
some
concern
with
this-
not
having
been
shared
with
residents.
To
this
point.
G
I
E
Yes,
so
I
feel
like
we
have
a
couple
stage
process
that
I
would
very
much
support.
The
first
would
be
to
allow
this
to
be
circulated
for
review
both
by
community
members
residents,
neighboring
municipalities,
who
might
be
impacted
from
this,
so
that
they
can
provide
their
feedback
and
input.
So
I
I
would
like
to
see
let's
take
some
time
before
voting
on
this.
E
The
second
thing
is:
is
that
the
way
I
understand
the
res
the
resolve
to
be
written?
It
basically
says
common
council
approves
the
concept
of
the
couplet.
It
doesn't
mention
to
bringing
it
back
for
further
review
after
we've
had
a
chance
to
understand
the
feasibility
of
these
changes
a
chance.
It
would
be
good
to
understand
the
impact
that
this
would
have
on
neighboring
streets,
specifically
court
street,
what
impact
this
might
have
on
on
residents
who
will
be
using
these,
these
smaller,
more
pedestrian-focused
child-focused
school-focused
neighborhoods
as
a
main
conduit.
E
So
I
would
very
much
like
to
see
that
resolved
modified
to
give
council
the
opportunity
to
approve
this
once
we
understand
the
larger
scope
of
the
impacts
of
this
couplet.
I
Maybe
tim,
if
you
could
address
cynthia's
second
point,
is
that
your
understanding
of
this
that
it
essentially
approves
it,
would
we
can
council
have
to
come
back
and
like
approve
it
a
final
time
or
is
that?
Is
it
an
idea
once
you
approve
it.
H
My
sense
is
that
if
you
were
to
pass
the
resolution
as
written,
it
wouldn't
necessarily
need
to
come
back
to
common
council,
although
there
would
continue
to
be
a
fair
amount
of
technical
analysis
and
the
proposal.
That's
in
your
agenda
packet,
it
will
be
modified
in
some
way
like
what
you
see
in
the
proposed
condition
is
not
necessarily
what
dot
ultimately
will
require.
There's
no
things
in
there.
They
said
for
sure,
even
in
our
staff
conversations
with
them,
yeah
that
was
our
first
cut
at
it,
but
yeah
that
could
be
refined.
H
H
B
So
not
only
do
I
not
approve
the
cons,
not
agree
with
the
concept,
as
I
understand
it,
but
I
think
it
even
if
I
did
agree
with
the
concept.
I
think
it
would
be
horrible
to
move
this
on
to
council
without
a
notification
of
business
owners
and
property
owners
in
that
area.
As
you
pointed
out
earlier,
we
did
that
extensively
with
the
break-in
access.
B
So
I
I
don't
understand
why
this
is
tied
to
the
break
and
access
the
break
and
access
would
help
traffic
through
flow.
So
I
don't
know
why
they
would
stop
one
thing
to
help
traffic
flow.
It
didn't
agree
to
something
else
that
they
think
would
improve
traffic
flow.
I
don't
understand
that,
and
so
and
funny.
B
My
question
is
simply:
is
it
so
they're
arguing
for
this
change
because
they
argue
that
traffic
will
flow
more
swiftly
and
easily
directly
from
west
hill
east
along
buffalo
street,
and
that
will
move
traffic
along
which
in
turn
will
help
traffic
coming
along
route?
13,
where
the
new
developments
are
is.
Is
that
the
theory?
H
Yeah,
I
think
the
the
kind
of
crux
of
the
rationale
is
really
that
the
intersections
at
buffalo
and
fulton
is
really
the
core
of
the
whole
west
end
signal
system,
like
everything
basically
ripples
out
from
there,
and
they
came
up
with
this
idea
that
removing
all
of
the
westbound
buffalo
street
traffic
from
that
intersection
allows
you
essentially
to
have
two
particular
movements.
It's
either
eastbound
for
buffalo
street
or
it's
southbound
for
fulton
street.
That
allows
the
signal
operation
to
be
significantly
simplified
and
allows
them
to
process
a
fair
amount.
H
H
H
Other
concerns,
like
dave
nutter,
pointed
out.
You
don't
want
just
a
constant
flow
of
southbound
right
turning
traffic
headed
out
to
cass
park
and
route
96
you've
got
to
stop
that
traffic
for
pedestrians,
obviously,
and
there's
also
a
train
that
goes
through
there.
So,
yes,
it
would
have
to
stop
for
both
pedestrians
and
trains.
That's
the
kind
of
comment,
that's
like
useful
to
hear,
because
that's
something
that
dot
you
know
they
said.
Oh
we'll
have
constant
flow.
I
don't
think
they
meant
that
literally,
but
there's
a
whole
series
of
questions
like
that.
H
That
need
to
be
answered.
What
exactly
would
be
the
arrangement
of
traffic
at
buffalo
and
fulton?
How
would
the
signal
work?
How
do
we
know
that
that's
still
safe
for
pedestrians
and
the
train
and
for
motor
vehicles
in
general,
but
really
by
removing
that
westbound
traffic?
It
allows
them
to
really
simplify
the
signal
operations
and
really
move
a
fair
amount,
more
traffic.
The
same
thing
is
true:
at
buffalo
and
meadow
you
mostly
have
northbound
movements,
and
then
you
have
buffalo
street
heading
north,
and
so
it
really
simplifies
that
signal
as
well.
H
So
I
think
from
a
traffic
engineering
perspective,
there's
some
potential
benefit
here,
both
from
the
capacity
and
congestion
issue,
which
is
you
know,
not
something
to
be
dismissed
and
also
for
the
potential
safety.
But
what
we've
tried
to
do
so
far
and
eric
hathaway
is
not
available
to
be
here
this
evening.
H
It's
his
daughter's
fifth,
your
fifth
birthday,
so
we
let
him
off
for
the
night,
but
both
of
us
feel
like
really
the
important
thing
for
us
to
do
as
a
city
right
now
is
make
a
good
list
of
questions
that
you
need
answered
so
that
you
can
ultimately
decide
whether
this
is
something
you
do
prove
in
concept,
and
I
think
the
state
is
trying
to
be
sensitive
to
what
the
local
interests
are.
So
we've
tried
to
list
bicycle
and
pedestrian
issues.
Certainly,
emergency
response
to
the
hospital
is
a
huge
issue.
H
You
know
that's
really
important
for
the
fire
department
and
banks
and
the
police
department
how
the
impacts
of
traffic
would
flow
through
the
downtown
or
from
east
hill.
Do
we
feel
greater
pressure
on
court
street?
Does
more
of
that
traffic
pull
onto
seneca
street
or
state
street?
How
would
the
connection
of
13
and
89
to
96
kind
of
how
does
that
all
work
exactly
so?
Those
are
questions
that
we
have
started
to
list.
I
H
A
couple
factors-
probably
one
is
we've
done
a
preliminary
analysis
in
conjunction
with
the
ithaca
tompkins
county
transportation
council,
that
they
run
this
regional
travel
demand
model
where
they
can
look
at
where
origins
of
trips
are
and
where
destinations
of
trips
are
and
how
they
flow
through
the
network,
and
we've
asked
them
to
look
at
this
concept
by
changing
that
block
of
buffalo
street
to
see
what
those
impacts
look
like
the
one
is
we
need
to
look
at.
Where
do
we
think
the
at
least
orders
of
magnitude
changes
and
traffic
volumes
will
go?
H
Will
it
pull
more
into
court
street?
Will
it
pull
more
into
seneca
street?
How
many
people
northbound
on
13
would
just
go
to
state
and
toganic?
What
are
the
impacts
over
on
tiganic
boulevard,
but
then
also
we'd
go
and
look
at
the
individual
intersections
and
how
they
would
handle
that
kind
of
traffic
and
whether
we
really
need
two
left
turn
lanes,
or
would
we
be
fine
with
one?
Can
we
get
away
with
a
wet,
an
eastbound
lane,
or
do
we
really
need
both
lanes
to
be
westbound?
E
So
again,
considering
the
the
complexities
of
of
all
the
things
that
need
to
be
considered.
E
I,
I
think,
for
example,
of
all
the
improvements
that
we
made
on
court
street
to
make
it
a
bicycle
boulevard
and
reduce
traffic
because
of
giac
and
bjm
and
the
park
there,
and
if
traffic
then
diverts
to
court
street
in
order
to
make
a
straight
shot
down
to
fulton,
you
know
there
may
be
associated
improvements
that
need
to
be
made
there
and,
and
the
cost
of
that.
E
So
I
would
like
to
move
and-
and
I
think
I'm
hearing
from
tim
that
is
supported
for
us
to
do
this-
that
we
add
a
resolved
to
the
resolution.
E
The
final
resolve
to
be
resolve
that
final
design
approval
be
subject
to
a
second
vote
of
common
council,
just
to
give
it
back
to
common
council
to
have
the
opportunity
to
understand
fully
the
the
impacts
associated
with
this,
and
maybe
it's
it's.
I
I
think
making
that
educated
decision
would
be
appropriate.
I
I
Right
steve
moves
the
table.
Is
there
a
second
second
by
donna,
so
just
so
that
we
understand
we're
we're
tabling
this
for
a
month,
we'll
bring
it
back
to
the
committee
next
month
and
in
the
meantime,
we'll
do
some
outreach
to
the
neighborhoods.
I'm
assuming
washington
park
is
probably
the
neighborhood
that
would
be
most
affected
and
downtown,
so
it
might
be
good
to
like
reach
out
to
the
washington
park
neighborhoods
they
have
a
list
of
just
as
northside
does,
and
I'm
happy
to
do.
That.
I
A
Yeah
yeah
those
blocks
of
court
street
and
west
buffalo
and
there's
a
few
businesses
as
well,
and
so
those
people
are
going
to
be
impacted
and
they
need
to
know
about
this
proposal.
A
A
A
A
I
I
I
got
okay,
so
we
do
the
table.
E
E
Is
there
a
threshold
with
regards
to
the
density
of
that
development
whereby
it
would
not
necessitate
this
mitigation.
E
F
We
haven't,
I
would
say
that,
with
the
analysis
that's
been
done,
we
haven't
done
that
specific
analysis.
I'm
sure,
there's
a
number,
I'm
sure
there's
an
amount
of
development.
That
would
be
that,
wouldn't
that
they
would
find
acceptable
in
terms
of
traffic
impact.
C
But
we
don't
know
what
that
is
yeah,
but
isn't
it
true
that
a
lot
of
these
suggestions
are
to
deal
with
existing
problems?
That's
right.
You
know.
C
Yeah
they
feel
like
the
problems
that
we
have
right
now
need
to
be
mitigated
and
then,
of
course,
the
other
projects
will
just
add
so
yeah.
E
Sure
yeah,
I
I
don't
think
any
of
us
here
deny
that
there
are
existing
problems,
I'm
just
so.
I
guess
an
opposite,
then,
to
to
that
previous
question
is:
does
this
take
into
effect
also
the
possible
dot
development
and
on
which
case
will
we
could
we
find
ourselves
then
in
this
stage
again
where
another
mitigation
will
be
required
for
a
dot
development?
In
addition
to
something
like
this?
Are
we
looking
at
basically
this
whole
pandora's
box
that
is
being
opened
with
all
of
these
mitigations
that
are
being
required.
F
I
would
certainly
want
that
to
be
part
of
the
analysis
that
we
do
and
part
of
some
kind
of
agreement
or
conversation
with
dot
that
this
addresses
more
than
just
these
two
projects,
because
there's
many
many
projects
coming
through
in
there.
You
know
this
has
to
be
bigger
than
these
two
projects,
and
you
know
the
city
I
have
to
say
you
know
the
city
does
not
have
control
over
all
the
development
happening
outside
the
city.
That
is
also
adding
to
the
traffic
congestion
on
13..
F
So
it's
a
little
complicated,
but
it
would
have
to
deal
with
more
than
just
these
two
projects.
I
would
you
know
we
would
want
to
make
sure
that
we.
F
E
I
appreciate
including
that,
because
I
know
the
analysis
did
not
include
it,
so
I'm
not
sure
what
kind
of
of
course
it's
a
fictitious
development,
and
how
do
you
predict
what
that
would
be,
but
just
making
sure
that
that
we
don't
end
up
sort
of
back
in
this
situation
with
yet
another
addition,
as
a
result
of
that,
so
thank
you.
I
All
right,
so
we
have
a
martian
on
the
table.
This
is
the
table.
For
a
month
it's
been
moved
and
seconded
any
further
discussion,
all
those
in
favor
and
that
carries
inventively
thanks.
So
next
up
is
the
ctap
idea
discussion.
So
this
has
been
an
ongoing
discussion
since
we
passed
the
requirement
that
developments
in
the
city
that
are
receiving
a
tax
abatement
have
20,
affordable
housing
units
in
their
projects
that
triggered
a
whole
sort
of
negotiation
with
the
ida
and
the
ida
has
been
convened.
I
A
a
housing
working
group
that
has
met
and
has
come
up
with
its
own
proposal,
which
which
differs
from
the
proposal
that
we
recommend
in
the
city-
and
I
think
the
challenge
with
this
obviously,
is
that
ideas
is
ultimately
the
tax
abatement
granting
agency.
So
they
ultimately
have
the
power.
We
can
require
them
to
do
something,
but
they
can
basically
say
no
we're
going
to
go
our
own
way.
H
I
That's,
what's
that's:
what's
triggered
this
discussion
tonight
to
see,
if
maybe
to
clarify
the
process,
we
and
we
have
two
options
as
it's
presented
in
the
resolution
tonight
which
to
clarify
the
process,
we
could
potentially
get
rid
of
our
city
process
completely,
just
give
it
up
to
the
iba
or
go
back
to
the
simpler
version
of
our
of
our
ctap
process,
which
was
just
the
four
requirements,
I
believe,
the
location,
the
density,
the
height
and
the
the
municipal
compliance.
D
No,
I
think
you
covered
everything.
I
think
you
summed
it
up
pretty
good.
I
So
is
there
any
discussion
about
this
or
any
preference
for
direction?
I
know.
I
Some
comment
from
teresa
halper
and
also
theresa
alt,
yeah
donna.
B
I
really
appreciated
the
two
teresas
weighing
in
they
they
caught
something
that
I
would
have
overlooked
in
simply
reading
the
resolution,
so
I'm
really
glad
that
they
alerted
us
to
that
and
I'm
sympathetic
with
their
concerns,
but
sef
now
you
just
said
something
that
makes
me
curious,
so
the
ida.
So
we
in
the
city
say
we
have
these
rules
but
they're
not
really
rules.
The
ida
can
grant
a
tax
abatement,
even
if
somebody
an
applicant
doesn't
conform
to
the
city
rules
is
that
is
that
right.
H
I
I
So
I
think
that
worked
when
it
was
simple,
but
as
with
with
our
policies
have
evolved-
and
you
know
we
we
get
pushed
back
from
and
we
get
a
lot
of
people.
You
know
concerned
citizens
coming
to
us
saying
we
want
to
see
different
benefits
in
this
policy.
We
want
to
see
diversity
requirement,
we
want
to
see
living
wage,
affordable
housing
and,
as
we've
we've
responded
to
those
we've
worked
with
the
ida
at
times.
I
think
it
pushed
the
ida
and
we've
gotten
to
a
point.
I
I
I
think
what
we're
where,
where
we've
been,
where
we're
at
right
now
is
trying
to
come
up
with
a
compromise
with
them
that
will
that
will
work
for
their
purposes
and
work
for
ours
and
work
for
the
public.
I
B
I
Yeah
and
in
fact,
I
think
we
have
a
recent
example
of
that
in
the
art
house
project,
because
I
believe
they
did
get
a
ctap
tax
abatement,
but
they're
not
they're,
not
in
the
density
district,
so
it's
possible
that
the
the
ida
can
can
go
rogue.
If
you
will
can
can
do
its
own
thing.
I
mean
the
city.
The
ctap
requirements
really
tried
is
is
meant
to
give
it's
like
an
endorsement.
It's
like
a
recommendation,
I
think,
is
probably
the
best
way
to
think
about
it
and
and
these
rules
we're
passing.
G
I
I
Say
we
need,
we
think
you
need
to
tweak
it.
We
need
to
think
we
think
you
need
to
strengthen
it
to
improve
it.
I
think
that's
our
right
to
do
that.
You
know
kind
of
along
the
lines
of
what
theresa
halpert
was
saying
in
her
email.
C
B
Well,
I
I
think
it's
very
important
that
the
affordable,
the
the
requirement
to
build,
affordable
housing
in
the
development
or
very,
very
close
to
the
development
is
essential
I'd.
If,
if
they
give
cash
to
the
community
housing
development
fund,
then
somebody's
still
got
to
build
the
housing
right
and
we're
still
stuck.
B
B
Yes,
I
think
the
process
should
be
smooth
and
it
should
be
clear,
but
it
I
I
think
there
should
be
some
poops
to
jump
through
to
get
a
significant
tax
abatement.
That's
what
I
mean.
I
Cynthia
and
then
laura,
oh,
although
jennifer
did
you
have
a
response
to
that.
I
don't
know.
D
Yeah,
I
don't
know
if
it's
a
response
to
her
to
donna
or
to
you
just
the
way
the
process
has
worked.
D
So
in
the
last
year
we
we
had
passed
our
housing
criteria,
but
the
idea
didn't
have
a
housing
criteria,
so
there
were
two
different
processes
that
that
an
applicant
had
to
go
through
and
the
way
that
we
presented
it
to
applicants
was
that,
in
order
to
receive
the
city's
endorsement,
you
had
to
have
this
additional
requirement,
but
at
any
point
they
could
go
directly
to
the
ida
and
negotiate
abatement
because
they're
the
authority
that
grants
the
abatement.
We
don't
have
that
power.
E
G
I
was
just
going
to
echo
what
seth
said
that
the
city's
recommendation
is
has
been
just
that
it's
a
recommendation
to
the
ida.
It
is
the
ida
that
is
the
authority
to
grant
a
tax
abatement.
I
am
sympathetic
to
wanting
to
streamline
the
process
and
to
avoid
confusion
for
any
members
of
the
public.
I
do
have
some
concern
with
wanting
to
ensure
as
much
opportunity
for
public
information
session
and
for
public
input
as
possible
on
projects
when
we're
looking
at
significant
abatements.
G
So
I'm
a
little
bit
torn
on
that,
and
also
this
is
another
point
I
did
send
an
email
and
I'm
sorry.
It
was
quite
late
this
afternoon,
because
I
had
been
asking
about
the
parameters
for
the
city's
density
district.
I
think
jen
is
correct
in
saying
that
an
abatement
was
awarded
to
art
house.
The
cno's
project
on
cherry
street,
even
though
it
does
not
fall
within,
has
not
fallen
within
the
technical
parameters
of
the
downtown
density
district.
G
D
E
A
E
B
I
That
probably
would
be
a
good
idea
to
to
vote
to
separate
them
yeah.
We
would
probably
we
need
to
vote
on
that.
So
right
is
there
a
motion
to
separate
them,
moved
by
laura
exactly
by
steve,
any
further
discussion,
all
those
in
favor
of
separating
the
two
resolutions
and
that
carries
unanimously
okay.
So
now
we
have
two
the
two
resolutions.
Cynthia
did
you
still
have
some
comments
on
the
process.
E
E
Looking
at
before,
I
am
not
in
support
of
changing
the
city
ctap
to
exclude
housing,
local
labor
and
diversity
requirements,
and
so
I
would
support
streamlining
our
process
and
asking
the
ida
to
include
our
requirements
in
their
process.
I
E
C
I
think
that's
up
for
discussion,
we
talked
about
it
earlier
and
sometimes
the
public
information
sessions
are
are
useful,
but
that's
something
that
I
think
if
council
would
like
to
see
that
continue.
It's
certainly
something
we
could
do.
E
E
I
think
it's
important
to
retain
that
public
hearing
process
so
that
people
can
can
fully
understand
and
challenge
and
perhaps
seek
encouragement
to
modify
the
project
in
some
way.
I
think
that's
been
a
very
successful
process
in
the
past.
I
would
very
much
like
to
see
the
iba
incorporate
our
what
I
perceive
to
be
a
more
restrictive,
affordable
housing
requirement
than
what
the
ida
currently
has,
and
I
think
it's
important
to
retain
that.
D
Yeah,
so
that's
in
the
resolution
there
was
two
options:
the
one
retains
the
city
process.
It
just
changes
the
criteria
back
to
what
we
originally
had,
which
was
the
four
the
four
criteria,
and
it
leaves
those
other
ones
to
the
idea,
because
the
problem
is
is
if
we
have
two
slightly
different
criteria:
it's
confusing
for
the
applicant.
D
So
if
we
retain
the
ones
that
they
don't
have,
which
is
our
our
district,
that
it
be
located
in
the
density
district,
that
would
be
a
certain
size
and
that
it
have
municipal
compliance
and
did
I
miss
one?
D
I
missed
one
density,
size,
location
and
municipal
compliance,
but
then
we
take
away
the
other
criteria
and
let
the
idea
handle
those.
C
And
we
would
still
have
the
public
information
session
right
in
the
city.
The
same.
E
But
sorry
but
then
we
would
be
giving
up
the
the
affordable
housing,
the
more
restrictive,
affordable
housing
requirement.
D
That's
what
that
that's,
what
that
subject
is
because
well
part
of
the
problem.
Also,
is
that
any
of
the
criteria
that
require
it
to
be
tracked?
The
idea
is
the
body
that
does
that
the
city.
Doesn't
it
doesn't,
you
know,
check
to
make
sure
that
it's
affordable
housing,
it
that
would
be
in
the
hands
of
the
ida
and
so
that
it
made
more
sense
that
the
idea
be
the
body
to
do
that
as
well.
I
Well,
I
was
just
going
to
respond
to
that
and
say
because
I
think
what
you're
going
to
add.
Something
is
that
if
we
go
back
to
the
the
simpler
ctap,
the
idea
is
not
going
to
get
rid
of
its
policies.
It's
still
going
to
have
the
desert
diversity
requirement
and
housing,
but
does
the
city
lose
some
leverage
over
the
ida
in
terms
of
pushing
the
idea
to
to
adopt
more
progressive
policies?
And
I
think
that
is
a
legitimate
question
like
if
we
we
have
an
issue
with
their
housing
proposal,
which
it
sounds
like
we
might.
I
How
do
we
then
push
them
to
adopt
a
more
progressive
housing
proposal,
for
instance
to
change
their
opt-out
fee?
I
mean
that
I
think
that
is
a
good
question.
You
know,
maybe
we
just
pass
a
resolution
and
we
say:
hey.
We
as
a
city
recommend
that
you
adopt
this
adopt
this.
You
know,
that's
one
possibility
I
mean.
Maybe
we
don't
need
to
like
bake
it
into
the
ctap
policy.
I
A
Yeah,
I
obviously
I'm
not
voting
on
this
this
evening.
I
think
the
city's
recommendation,
if
it's
even
if
it's
not
binding,
it's
it's
worth
something,
and
we
spent
a
lot
of
time
on
these
requirements,
particularly
the
affordable
housing
requirement
at
20.
I
think
that's
very
important
and
also
the
local
labor
requirement.
A
G
G
I
mean
the
policy
adopted
by
the
ida
was
adopted
in
2016,
but
there
may
very
well
be
coming
from
that
subcommittee
that
working
group
recommendations
to
revise
and
and
update,
and
I
another
point
heather
has
been
able
to
add
some
staff
members
to
the
agency
that
I
believe,
will
allow
for
more
updated
reporting
on
such
things
as
local
labor.
So
I
think
it
it
is
headed
in
a
good
direction.
George,
to
your
concern.
A
E
Yeah
I
agree
with.
I
agree
with
george,
that
you
know
what
what
we
can
have
established
in
our
our
process
is
what
we
need
to
retain,
so
that
it
is
not
subject
to
modifications
of
who
is
on
the
ida
and
and
so
on.
It
should
be
codified
in
the
regulations,
but
you
know
more
so
to
to
donna's
point
talking
about
the
affordable
housing
component.
E
The
aspect
that
was
very,
very
powerful
to
me
that
the
city
requires
is
that
the
affordable
housing
be
built
as
part
of
the
process
of
the
project
in
the
city
of
the
same
size,
of
the
the
other
project
and
not
be
relocated.
E
Some
place
off-site,
perhaps
even
out
of
the
city
and-
and
I
think
that
is
a
very,
very
important
feature
that
that
is
consistent
with
our
principles
and
why
we,
we
felt
so
strongly
about
including
it
and
I'm
very
reluctant
to
give
that
up
in
order
to
expedite
the
process.
E
So
I'm
not
sure
if
we're
even
hearing
that
you
know
if
it's
the
case
that
the
the
two
options
are
we
give
up
these
cities
to
specific
requirements
because
we're
content
with
hoping
that
the
ida
will
pick
them
up.
I'm
not
I'm
not
sure
that
I
feel
supportive
enough
of
doing
that.
B
Getting
back
to
the
earlier
part
of
this
discussion,
does
it
what
what
does
it
mean
to
a
developer
to
have
the
endorsement
of
the
city
if
they
can
go
straight
to
the
ida
and
just
follow
the
ida's
guidelines,
a
requirement?
So
what
what
we
call
requirements
are
not
really
requirements
their
guidelines
or
recommendations?
B
What
what
does
it
mean
to
a
developer
to
have
our
endorsement?
They
don't
need
it
to
get
the
tax
abatement
right.
I
Well,
I
mean
in
order
to
get
the
endorsement
of
the
city,
they
need
to
meet
all
of
the
requirements
that
are
part
of
the
ctap
program.
I
mean
the
only
one
where
there's
a
discrepancy
between
what
the
city
is
proposing.
What
the
ida
is
proposing
is
on
the
housing
all
of
the
other
requirements
we
we
agree
on.
So
if
a
project
is
being
built
in
the
city,
it
has
to
it's
required
to
report
the
local
labor
numbers
it's
required
to.
I
If
it's,
if
it's
a
non-housing,
if
it's
a
single
use,
it's
required
to
have
a
diversity
plan
in
place,
and
you
know
what
we're
trying
to
figure.
H
I
I
I
think
what
that
means
is,
if
we're
going
to
keep
it,
we
need
to
come
up
with
a
policy
that
both
the
city
and
the
ida
are
comfortable
with.
You
know
one
benefit.
I
know
that
there's
some
discomfort
with
the
opt
out
fee
I
mean
one
benefit
of
it-
is
having
that
funding
go
into
the
community.
I
Housing
trust
is
that
it
does
go
to
affordable
housing
developers
that
are
then
able
to
leverage
other
tax
credits,
other
sources
of
funding,
so
you
could
potentially
build
more
affordable
housing
than
if
you
were
to
require
the
units
be
located
in
the
project,
and
also
I
mean
the
the
community
housing
trust
fund
can
can
determine
that
it
be
built
in
the
city.
You
could
say
that
projects
that
are
getting
funded
through
the
citap
be
located
in
the
city
and
that's
that's
definitely
something
that's,
I
think,
feasible.
I
And
then,
finally,
you
know
another
challenge
with
this,
I
think
we've
discovered
is
because
you
know
I'm
on
the
community
housing
trust
fund,
the
program,
oversight
committee
and
we've
had
a
lot
of
conversations
about.
You
know:
market
rate
developers,
smaller
developers.
Just
you
know
the
top
foxes
of
the
world
who
are
applying
for
who
want
to
do
affordable
housing,
they're
required
to
put
a
certain
number
of
units
into
their
project.
I
The
reality
is
that
a
lot
of
these
developers
are
not
experienced
with
building
affordable
housing.
You
know
it's
it's
pretty
complicated.
I
mean
to
apply
for
the
tax
credits
to
go
through
the
whole
process
with
the
state.
You
really,
you
need
some
knowledge
of
that
process.
It's
kind
of
a
specialty,
and
you
know,
organizations
like
inhs
or
vasino
that
specialize
in
it.
I
They
can
they're
much
better
at
it
because
they
have
that
institutional
expertise
and
they're
also
the
the
housing
once
it's
built
is
required
to
be
affordable,
for
I
mean
in
perpetuity
which
is
another
another
advantage,
so
I
do
think
there
is
some
benefit
to
that
opt-out
fee.
I
I
do
think
there's
I
hear
the
concern
about
making
sure
that
the
housing
is
built
nearby
to
market
rate,
housing
or
wealthier
housing.
I
mean
you
want
to
prevent
that
ghettoization.
I
B
I
I
Point,
I
think,
is
that
something
I
don't
know
jennifer
that
we
could
like
bring
back
to
the
ida
and
said
that
we
discussed
this
and,
like
we
would
we'd
like
to
open
the
conversation
about
potentially
increasing
the
hopped
out
fee.
D
Yeah
I
mean
we
could
have
a
resolution
too
asking
them.
I
mean
that's
the
same
way
that
we
created
the
density
district
and
and
the
whole
ctap
program.
Is
we
just
passed
a
resolution
asking
the
iba
to
do
these
things,
so
we
can,
in
our
resolution,
ask
that
they
increase
the
the
opt
out
fee
or
whatever.
I
D
G
Yeah,
I
was
going
to
suggest
that
we'll
give
it
another
month
and
have
a
conversation
with
heather,
because
she
did
put
quite
a
bit
of
time
into
coming
up
with
the
the
formula
for
such
an
opt
out
amount.
There
was
discussion
at
the
ida
of
having
a
larger
opt-out
fee.
G
This
this
notion
was
considered
a
few
years
ago.
I
believe
and
seth.
You
may
have
a
better
recollection
than
me
on
this
and
when
I
had
heard
about
it
previously,
I
was
concerned
that
it
would
in
some
manner
diminish
the
building
of
affordable
housing,
because
too
many
developers
would
pay
the
fee
and
opt
out.
So
I
think
the
fee
needs
to
be
set
at
a
level
so
that
it
doesn't
discourage
developers
from
building
affordable
housing,
but
at
the
same
time
that
it
doesn't
completely
squelch
any
development.
G
So
I
I
think,
there's
a
very
delicate
balance
and
I'm
not
one
two
propose
what
that
balance
should
be,
but
there
were
discussions
at
the
ida
and
I
think
it
would
be
good
to
talk
with
heather
about
this.
I
Okay,
cynthia
did
you
have
a
comment.
E
Yes,
thank
you.
I
appreciate,
I
think
we
do
should
have
time
to
work
with
them
to
look
at
the
the
opt-out
fee.
You
know
I
do
want
to
emphasize
that
we
do
have
identified
in
this
map
a
density
district
which
we
are
looking
for:
new
housing
close
to
amenities.
E
Presumably
this
is
the
location
that
we
want
to
have
affordable
housing
in
so
you
know
I
am
kind
of
reluctant
to
separate
it
out.
I
I
appreciate
all
the
things
that
you're
mentioning
in
terms
of
being
able
to
fund
or
to
provide
funding
to
leverage
housing
projects
using
the
the
fees
that
are
collected.
E
But
when
I
look
in
the
city,
for
example,
of
locations
that
would
be
remaining
that
are
not
in
the
the
area
that
is
already
included
in
this
map.
You
know
I'm
looking
at
route
13
south
and
looking
at
spencer
road,
where,
where
tc
action
is
I'm
looking
at
areas
which
were
probably
going
to
be
not
actually
the
ideal
places
that
we
are
looking
for,
affordable
housing
in
terms
of
accessibility
to
the
core
of
the
city.
E
So
beyond
the
recalculation
of
the
update
fee,
which
I
100
agree
needs
to
be
done,
I
I
would
like
to
see
more
specific
parameters
with
regards
to
where
affordable
housing
would
be
built.
With
this
opt-out
fee
generated
by
city
projects.
C
I
So
it
sounds
like
we
need
essentially
we're
going
to
table
this
piece
of
the
discussion.
Just
give
either
a
heads
up
and
then
we
can
return
to
this
next
month.
Does
it
sound
reasonable,
so
there's
the
other
piece
of
this,
which
is
expanding
the
boundary,
so
this
is
expanding
the
boundary
to
that
area.
That's
north
of
season
long!
Is
that
correct?
I
Yes,
yeah?
So
what
are
our
thoughts
about
this.
I
Are
we
comfortable
with
it
cynthia.
E
I've
basically
seen
two
projects
and
more
on
the
way
coming
in
seeking
development
in
this
area
without
the
benefit
of
a
tax
abatement,
and
so
I'm
not
at
all
convinced
that
a
tax
abatement
is
necessary
to
urge
development
in
this
area.
It
is
definitely
happening.
This
is
water,
effectively
waterfront
property
right
in
the
downtown
core,
close
to
shopping,
close
to
wegmans
close
to
the
trails
close
to
parks.
I
I
think
it's
highly
attractive
just
on
its
own,
and
I
don't
support
actually
expanding
the
map
to
include
it.
I
So
what
are
the
projects
that
are
being
proposed?
For
this
I
mean.
I
know
there
was
art
house
which
did
receive
a
tax
plan,
but
are
the.
C
I
Ones
did
todd
of
a
project
there.
C
Yeah
todd
has
a
large
project.
He
owns
two
parcels
down
there
and
has
purchased.
Excuse
me
has
purchased
other
parcels
in
that
same
area
and
also
jerry
dietz
is
proposing
a
project.
I
don't
know
if
he
was
going
to
go
for
an
abatement,
it's
a
smaller
project,
but
there
are
several
down
there
and
I
don't
know
at
this
point.
If
they're
gonna
go
for
the
abatements,
I
mean
todd,
probably
will
that's
usually
his
mo.
So.
I
C
It
may
be,
I
don't
really
know
I
have.
We
haven't
really
gotten
to
that
level
of
detail,
as
we
have
in
other
areas
on
the
waterfront.
I
know
that
the
our
house
did
drive
piles,
so
my
guess
is
that
is.
If
you
want
to
go
to
the
allowed
height,
which
is
five
stories,
you
will
probably
need
to
drive
piles,
so
that
does
drive
the
costs
up
and
I,
I
think
what
we
were
and
george
you
can
jump
in.
C
If
you
want
from
the
waterfront
planning
committee
we
did
not
want
to
encourage.
I
mean
we
wanted
to
encourage
industrial
south
of
cherry
street,
but
north
of
cherry
street.
We
were
allowing
residential
and
mixed
use,
which
we
weren't
allowing
south
of
cherry
street
in,
but
there
was
a
lot
of
discussion
about
that
and
and
jenner
george,
do
you
remember
the
reason
we
didn't
extend
the
boundary
to
cease
them
alone.
D
So
the
waterfront
group,
while
they
were
allowing
that
they
they
said
that
that
was
an
area
that
they
wanted
to
leave
open
for
additional
industrial
use.
And
so,
if,
if
projects
that
came
forward
were
mixed
use,
they
didn't
want
to
encourage
mixed
use
to
come
there.
They
wanted
to
allow
it
but
not
encourage
it
and,
and
they
the
thought
was
that
if
it
was
a
great
project,
they
could
go
directly
to
the
ida
anyway.
A
Yeah,
I
think
you're
right
jen.
I
we
were
hoping
frankly
that
that
there
would
be
still
interest
in
industrial
development,
north
of
cecil
b,
malone
kind
of
in
combination
with
smaller
scale
housing.
That
was
my
memory,
but
as
soon
as
we
rezoned
it
for
housing,
it.
I
C
Guard
anyway,
oh
there
you're
back
george.
Did
you
understand.
A
A
Sorry,
well,
I
I
agree
with
what
jen
said
we
were
hoping
for
a
more
mixed
result:
north
of
cecil
b
malone
with
some
light
scale,
industrial
along
with
housing.
That
was
our
our
goal,
and
it
doesn't
look
like
it's
going
to
pan
out
that
way.
I
So
other
thoughts
about
this
about
expanding
the
boundary.
G
G
Looking
at
the
city's
downtown
density
district
and
if
we
want
to
encourage
affordable
housing,
I
mean
art
house.
Is
there
being
built
right
now
and
there
are
a
couple
of
other
projects
in
the
planning
stages
in
the
conceptual
and
planning
stages.
Then
I
think
it
makes
sense
to
extend
the
density
district.
I
G
E
E
I
All
right,
others,
I'm
so
laura.
G
Yeah-
maybe
this
is
understood
already,
but
I
just
wanted
to
point
out
that
this
would
be
looking
at
the
section
of
cherry
street.
That's
only
north
of
cecil
b
malone
and
the
section
of
cherry
street
south
of
cecil
b
malone
would
still
be
zoned
for
industrial,
so
it
it's
allowing
for
a
corridor
along
the
waterfront.
That
includes,
to
my
mind
both
housing
and
light
industrial.
I
just
wanted
to.
C
Clarify
that
thank
you.
I
was
going
to
do
the
same,
laura
yeah.
So
it's
still
so
you
can't
have
residential
south
of
cecil
b
malone,
but
it's
still
zoned
industrial.
A
Yeah,
the
intent
of
the
waterfront
plan
is,
is
to
have
that
area
as
mixed
use
for
a
variety
of
uses,
including
housing
north
of
cecil
b
malone.
E
Yeah
and
just
because
this
for
a
matter
of
contact,
a
reminder
that
the
the
ithaca
rail
yard
is
located
south
of
cecil
b
malone
and
it
is
anticipated
that
watco
is
planning
on
bringing
up
their
250
rail
cars
to
be
stored
on
the
seven
tracks
that
reside
south
of
cecil
b,
malone
next
to
nate's
floral
estates.
So
the
rail
impact
on
this
area
is
significant,
especially
on
season
beam
alone
as
the
engines.
E
First
of
all,
they
are
housed
there
12
months
out
of
the
year,
but
they
will
be
backing
up
back
and
forth
across
these
beam
alone
to
place
those
200
train
rail
cars
on
those
tracks
on
a
daily
basis.
So
there
is
a
reason
that
cslb
malone
is
slated
industrial
to
be
more
protective
of
of
residents
so
that
they
aren't
immediately
or
daily
subjected
to
the
activities
of
the
ithaca
rail
yard.
E
And
you
know,
honestly,
in
the
areas
that
is
east
of
cherry
street,
that
is
currently
industrial,
which
I've
heard
speculation,
that
that
property
is
being
sold
for
residential
use,
that
that
property
is
also
most
immediately
adjacent
to
the
railroad
line
and
would
be
most
impacted
by
activities
on
the
rail
line
if
that
were
to
convert
to
more
high-density
residential.
I
I
do
have
a
question
because
I
am
feeling
like
a
little
bit
conflicted
on
this.
Just
you
know
cynthia's
points
that
maybe
this
isn't
needed
for
this
area,
and
maybe
things
are
going
to
be
built
anyways
I
mean
it
would
be
good
to
hear
more
of
a
rationale
for
why
this
is
required
in
this
in
this
area.
I
Do
we
know
for
sure
I
mean
we
know
that
there
is
a
history
of
in
like
downtown.
For
instance,
it's
like
just.
I
Of
developing
and
downtown
and
across
and
the
rent
structure,
and
for
all
different
reasons,
it's
it's
unlikely
that
anything's
going
to
get
built
without
an
abatement.
Do
we
know
that
to
be
true
of
this
area
of
the
waterfront?
I'm
I'm
most
certain
of
that.
C
I
don't
think
we
do
the
only
you
know
the
only
example
of
development
that
we
have
right
now
is
the
art
house,
and
they
did
go
for
an
abatement,
but
we
haven't
gotten
to
any
of
those
that
level
of
detail
for
any
of
the
other
projects.
We've
only
just
seen
them
with
a
sketch
plan
review.
So
you
know
we
really
don't
know
what
what
they
might
encounter.
C
I
don't
I
mean
jen
correct
me
if
I'm
wrong,
but
we
didn't
have
a
strong
feeling,
one
way
or
the
other.
We
because
the
our
house
did
get
that
abatement.
We
just
thought.
Maybe
it
made
sense
to
to
take
it
down
to
cecil
b.
I
G
I
just
wanted
to
comment
on
a
comment
made
earlier
that
the
price
of
land
there
on
cherry
street
is
not
is,
is
less
certainly
less
than
it
is
in
the
core
of
the
city,
but
as
we're
looking
at
need
for
more
affordable
housing
going
into
the
future
and
the
possibility
of
being
able
to
develop
housing
in
that
area,
I
think
the
costs
will
cost
of
land
may
very
likely
increase
cost
of
building.
G
Certainly
these
days
is
increasing
everywhere,
so
those
increasing
costs
going
forward
are
part
of
the
reason
that
I
would
argue
for
including
it
in
the
density
district.
I
I
mean
if,
if
we
do
have
a
project
state
that
comes
along
like
art
house,
which
is
like
affordable
housing
or
you
know,
there's
emmys
emmy's
organics
was
in
that
area
a
while
back
do
do
we
have
the
option?
Does
the
idea
have
the
option
to
grant
attack
somebody,
even
even
though
it's
outside
of
I
guess
they
do,
because
they
did
it
without.
I
So
it
is
even
if
we
didn't
expand
the
district
if
there
was
like
a
really
good
project
that
the
community
really
supported,
we'd
still
have
the
option
did
still
have
the
option
to
apply
to
the
idea.
I
just
wanted
to
clarify
that
yep
all
right,
any
further
comments,
so
this
has
been
moved
and
seconded.
C
I
And
then
we'll
we'll
reconvene
on
the
process-
ish
question
next
month:
yes,
after
we've
reached
outside
to
heather
and
had
that
conversation,
so
next
up
is
tim
still
here
we
have
the.
E
I
I
G
Yeah,
thank
you.
I
I
did
have
a
question.
I
just
wanted
clarification
tim
about
the
the
parking
spaces
future.
It's
a
good
children's
garden
and
trail
parking.
H
The
state
parks
trailhead
project,
what
has
just
tried
to
show
on
that,
drawing
where
the
children's
garden
and
trail
parking
would
go,
but
it's
not
a
part
of
their
project
right,
that's
a
project
that
the
children's
garden
is
sponsoring
and
the
city
has
dedicated
a
little
bit
of
funding
in
order
to
try
to
help
that.
So
in
this
year's
capital
program,
we
did
allocate
some
money
to
allow
us
to
start
the
preliminary
design
for
that
parking
lot.
H
C
And
so
the
parking
lot
that
you
see
the
future
parking
is
is
replacement
parking
because
the
where
the
existing
parking
is
is
where
their
expansion
will
be.
So
it's
not
it's
not
adding
more
parking.
It's
just
moving
the
parking.
E
So,
just
for
the
edification
of
the
public,
these
new
amenities
will
be
wholly
funded
and
maintained
by
the
new
york
state
parks
service,
correct.
E
Okay,
you
know,
I,
I
think
it's
a
wonderful
little
park,
that's
being
put
together,
I'm
very
excited
to
see
this
new
amenity
come.
I
I
think,
just
from
the
people
I
talked
to,
the
the
black
diamond
trail
is
very
beloved
to
a
huge
portion
of
our
community
who
use
it
both
recreationally
and
believe
it
or
not
to
get
to
and
from
work
for
people
who
live
out
near
trumansburg,
who
use
it
to
ride
into
town
by
having
this
amenity
here,
it
just
makes
a
welcoming.
E
Invitation
for
people
outside
the
area
to
to
be
invited
to
use
the
black
diamond
trail
and
travel
all
the
way
out
to
toganic
park.
I
also
want
to
express
my
appreciation
for
new
york.
State
parks
for
naming
the
pavilion
after
andres
zollins,
who
is
a
west
hill
resident,
has
been
an
incredible
advocate
for
cycling
in
our
community
and
a
very
passionate,
talented,
intelligent
man
who,
who
I
think
we
all
miss
quite
dearly.
So
I
want
to
express
my
appreciation
for
honoring
him
with
this
pavilion
great.
I
Thank
you
cynthia,
any
other
discussion
all
in
favor
and
that
carries
enough
sleep.
I
think
that's
the
end
of
the
agenda.
We
just
have
the
the
minutes,
as
amended
by
cynthia
someone
moved
the
minutes
moved
to
cynthia
seconded
by
steve,
all
in
favor
of
approving
the
minutes
and
that
carries
unanimously
and
motion
to
adjourn,
moved
by
donna
seconded
by
cynthia.