►
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
B
A
A
We
have
regularly
scheduled
public
comment
tonight
and
then
I
have
two
public
hearings.
I
only
received
one
comment
for
public
comment:
Joanne
did
you
receive
any
more
than
that?
No
okay,
so
I'm
gonna
go
ahead
and
I'm
gonna
read
out
the
comment
that
I
received
from
Theresa
alts,
so
I
am
Teresa
all
206
Eddie
Street,
mostly
I,
want
to
cheer
on
the
work
around
CDBG
funds,
both
the
ongoing
work
plan
and
the
temporary
rental
assistance.
All
good
things
no
comments.
Just
me.
No
Corrections
needed
cheers.
A
Speaking
for
ethical
Democratic,
socialists
of
America,
as
well
as
for
myself.
We
commend
set
Martell's
commitment
to
introducing,
at
the
June
common
council
meeting
a
member
resolution
that
will
call
for
the
city
to
urge
our
US
senators,
as
well
as
representatives
to
back
HR
six
five
one
five,
and
especially
the
Senate
companion
bill.
This
bill
would
cancel
rents
during
the
crisis
for
any
renters
who
have
somehow
not
received
other
eight,
and
it
would
compensate
when
landlords
who
can
apply
for
federal
funds.
A
So
that's
Teresa's
comment
and
just
as
a
background,
I
exchanged
an
email
with
her.
She
had
written
us
before
the
council
meeting
asking
it
for
us
to
address
this
and
Steve
and
I
talked
and
we're
going
to
work
to
introduce
a
member
filed
resolution
in
June.
So
so
that's
the
the
only
that's
the
only
email
comment
I've
received
for
public
comment.
A
C
A
I
know
that
there
are
some
comments
that
are
already
in
the
agenda,
but
nothing
beyond
that.
All
right,
so
I'll
look
for
a
motion
to
close
the
public
hearing
moved
by
Cynthia
seconded
by
Laura,
all
in
favor
of
closing
the
public
hearing
that
carries
unanimously
next
up
is
the
public
hearing
on
the
waterfront
zoning
amendments.
As
their
motion
can
somebody
move
that
move
by
Donna
seconded
by
Steve,
all
in
favor
of
opening
the
public
hearing
and
that
carries
unanimously
so
I
know
Todd
is
here
to
speak
on
this
issue.
Did
we
receive
any
other
comments?
B
E
Ipad,
so
thank
you,
everyone
for
taking
the
time
to
allow
me
to
kind
of
speak
a
little
bit.
I.
Think
really,
you
know
all
that
we're
hoping
for
is
you
know
to
kind
of
just
slow
down
the
process
and
I
think
just
to
allow
us
to
you
know,
put
forward
our
plan,
so
I
think
everyone
can
kind
of
see
exactly
what
it
is
that
we're
proposing,
because
I
believe
you
know
just
based
on
the
team
that
we
have
the
progress
that
we've
made
so
far.
E
You
know
that
really
the
design
and
the
function
of
these
buildings
are
really
in
line
with
what
the
city
is
looking
for.
You
know
and
I.
Our
biggest
concern
is
that
you
know
when
it
comes
to
the
length
of
the
buildings
that
some
of
these
zoning
changes
could
just
make
the
project's
not
viable
and
I.
Think
the
response
that
we
had
you
know
with
the
amount
of
green
space
the
push
and
pull
of
the
buildings.
E
A
A
Thank
you
certain
motion
to
close
the
public
hearing,
Lorna's
seconded
by
Cynthia,
all
in
favor
of
closing
the
public
hearing
that
carries
unanimously.
So
next
up
is
the
2020
HUD
entitlement
program.
We
have
the
draft
2020
action
plan.
There's
a
resolution
in
our
packets.
Does
someone
want
to
move
the
resolution
dolores
there?
A
second
second
I
Steve
Seth.
F
G
I
thought
it
would
announce
here
that
I
know
this
has
a
potential
to
get
a
little
bit
confusing,
because
we're
talking
about
the
2020
HUD
action
plan
tonight,
we'll
also
be
talking
about
the
emergency
rental
assistance
that
is
being
proposed
and
through
the
biji
covet
specific
funding.
I
also
just
wanted
to
announce
that
IRA
yesterday
released
a
call
for
proposals
for
other
applications
to
the
CDBG
kovat
specific
funding
that
the
city
has
available.
We
have
about
a
hundred
thousand
dollars
available
for
just
the
RFP
process.
G
Hundred
ninety
thousand
is
going
to
be
utilized
potentially
by
this
proposed
emergency
rental
assistance,
and
then
we
have
some
set
aside
for
other
urgent
needs
so
wanted
to.
Let
everybody
know
that
the
deadline
for
that
kind
of
expedited
RFP
is
Tuesday
May
26th
at
noon.
The
application
is
on
IRA
website,
along
with
its
instructions,
and
I
am
available
virtually
anytime.
Anybody
needs
technical
technical
assistance,
I'll
be
available
in
the
evenings
on
weekends
anytime
that
anybody
needs
me
I
will
try
to
be
available.
F
Yes,
I
needs
tougher
for
people
like
me
who
don't
really
know
what
these
other
urgent
means
are.
That
would
qualify
for
the
hundred
thousand
dollars
in
or
up
to
one
hundred
thousand
dollars
in
funding
those
available.
G
Thank
You
Cynthia,
so
one
urgent
need
that
was
identified
by
Ira
was
the
emergency
rental
assistance
for
tenants
in
the
city
of
Ithaca,
that's
being
addressed
by
the
proposals
before
you
tonight.
Another
urgent
need
is
relief,
slash
prevention
of
kovat,
for
people
experiencing
homelessness
and
third
urgent
need
that
we've
identified
is
or
we're
calling
them.
Priority
needs
I'm.
Sorry,
the
terminology
is
a
little
confusing.
G
Is
assistance
to
nonprofits,
especially
anchor
nonprofits,
which
we
think
of
as
nonprofits,
that
will
that
provides
some
unique
service
or
a
community
asset
or
a
cultural
asset
that
may
rely
on
customers
ticket
sales,
a
particular
audience,
something
like
that,
those
nonprofits
who
may
not
have
been
able
to
access
relief
in
other
ways.
Those
are
the
three
priority
needs
that
we've
identified
and
then
this
RFP
that
we
have
released
with
the
hundred
thousand
dollars
attached
to
it
could
be
for
other
needs
that
have
been
identified
by
community
members
or
organizations
or
they
could
meet.
G
B
A
D
G
So,
as
you
may
be
aware,
generally
HUD
entitlement
funding
requires
that
low
to
moderate
income,
people
or
populations
receive
the
majority
benefit
so
for
most
projects
that
we
look
at
we're
looking
for
documentation,
at
least
51%
of
the
beneficiaries
of
the
project
or
low
to
moderate
income.
Now
the
community
gardens
has
encountered
the
difficulty
this
year,
especially
with
the
Kovach
crisis,
that
they
were
surveying
gardeners.
While
they
were
enrolling
about
their
income
level.
G
They
do
have
some
data
from
last
year
that
they're
working
with
and
they've
been
attempting
to
outreach
to
their
population
to
ensure
that
51%
of
the
gardener's
are
low
to
moderate
income.
So
they
have
some
good
preliminary
data.
That
seems
to
point
to
the
fact
that
they
will
be
able
to
assure
that
51
percent
of
their
gardeners
are
low
to
moderate
income.
However,
that's
been
hard
to
do
because
of
the
code
barrier
barriers
they
can't
reach
out
to
people
in
person.
G
So
what
we
are
looking
for
is
at
the
time
that
the
contract
is
being
ready
to
be
executed.
Have
they
documented
that
they
have
that
they
are
serving
51
percent
low
to
moderate-income
people
if
they
don't
that,
if
they
have
not
been
able
to
document
that
sufficiently,
then
the
money
will
be
returned
to
IRA?
Does
that
make
sense?
Yes,.
A
G
A
H
A
I
B
I
B
F
Actually,
I
just
have
a
comment.
I
just
want
to
express
my
appreciation
for
the
amount
of
work
that
has
gone
into
putting
these
programs
together,
how
thoughtful
I
think
in
this
election
it
was
really
looking
and
focusing
on
the
needs
that
are
emerging
in
our
current
crisis,
and
you
know,
as
I
looked
through
the
applications
and
then
the
ones
that
were
suggested
I
I
just
thought
they
did
a
stellar
job.
So
I
want
to
express
my
gratitude
to
to
everyone
who
worked
on
this.
Thank
you,
sir.
A
A
F
Again,
I
thought
this
was
very,
very
thoughtfully
done.
I
do
have
some
questions
basically,
based
on
the
comments
that
we
received
and
concerns
expressed
with
from
the
community
that
what
what
possibility
of
what
consideration
was
given
to
having
more
than
one
organization
administer
emergency
rental
assistance.
G
G
So
to
provide
the
most
seamless
approach
and
because
IHS
has
demonstrated
capacity
for
dealing
with
different
funding
streams,
they
would
need
to
deal
with
the
city's
entitlement
funny.
The
county's
CDBG
funding
different,
that's
from
the
state
and
other
funding
sources
that
they
had.
We
felt
that
a
NHS
was
a
good
perspective,
sponsor
also
I
really
want
to
acknowledge
that
EHS
reached
out
to
us
very
early
in
the
Kovach
crisis.
G
G
Other
providers,
some
of
their
some
of
the
public
comment,
addresses
some
of
the
concerns
that
people
in
the
service
providing
community
had
NHS
has
participated
in
those
meetings
again
as
recently
as
today.
So
perhaps
I
mean
he
just
might
want
to
at
some
point.
If
you'd
like
them
to
speak
more
about
how
they
might
be
working
with
other
partners,
but
really
what
it
came
down
to
is
we
felt
that
NHS
had
the
most
capacity
and
ability
to
field
all
the
different
kinds
of
inquiries.
F
I'm,
presuming
that
there
might
be
some
oversight
or
protocols
to
and
I
know,
Johanna
Anderson
is,
is
on
the
zoom
call.
You
need
to
make
sure
that
you
know,
since
they
are
also
renters
and
landlords
of
rent
ease,
to
make
sure
that
that
there
is
an
equitable
distribution
of
assistance
and
not
necessarily
any
kind
of
conflict
with
regards
to
their
their
own
rental
units
and
Johanna.
F
J
Of
course,
no
I,
we
fully
understand
that
that
could
be
a
perception,
but
we
have
worked
it
out
with
the
state
and
with
HUD
to
we've
gotten
clear
guidance
from
them
that
I
NHS
tenants
are
eligible
to
receive
this
assistance.
However
I
NHS
we
want
to
be
as
transparent
as
possible,
and
so
we
are
not
doing
any
sort
of
targeted
marketing
towards
our
tenants.
For
example,
there
will
not
be
any
Flyers
going
up
in
IEEE
NHS
buildings.
There
will
not
be
any
emails
targeted
specifically
to
AI
NHS
tenants.
F
K
F
The
other
question
I
had
is
that
is
there
a
cap
on
the
amount
of
contributions
that
would
be
given
to
a
household
so
say?
For
example,
you
do
have
a
household.
Yes,
they
exceed
the
31
percent
rent
income
ratio.
They
they
meet
the
cap
on
liquid
assets.
They
their
ami,
is
under
80
percent,
but
they
may
be
in
an
extraordinarily
expensive
rental
unit
that
might
be.
F
G
H
I
think
that
I
lost
I
lost
connection
there
for
a
while,
but
I
think
I
heard.
The
two
questions
were
our
back
fees
treated
in
terms
of
duration
and
also
the
cap
on
contributions
in
terms
of
the
back
fees
and
late
penalties.
Those
are
going
to
be
waived
for
the
duration
of
the
assistance
time
period
so
a
three
month
period
and
the
cap
on
contributions
is
going
to
be
said
in
the
program
we're
suggesting
that
it
be
said
at
a
rent
level
equal
to
a
hundred.
H
Fifty
percent
of
the
fair
market
rent
which
works
out
to
about
a
rent
equal
to
a
90
percent.
Ami
household,
like
that,
would
be
a
30
percent
of
a
household
earning
90%
of
the
area
meeting.
So
I
would
make
most
of
the
almost
all
the
older
properties
in
the
city
eligible
but
would
make
it
a
city
center,
for
example,
would
not
be
eligible.
The
Carey
building
would
have
to
hire
rent
those
newer
projects
wouldn't
qualify
for
that
standard.
F
H
It
is
being
worked
out.
There
are
a
lot
of
details
being
worked
out
as
inh
s
coordinates
multiple
funders,
but
this
is
they've
agreed
to
incorporate
this
into
the
agreement
that
the
ethic
urban
renewal
agency
will
have
with
the
I
NHS
so
for
the
city's
fund.
Just
this
will
be
a
standard
that
will
be
in
place.
L
Not
a
question
as
much
as
just
an
appreciation
for
everyone
who
pulled
together
this
emergency
rental
assistance
program
that
will
be
serving
the
lowest
income
renters
in
our
city
and
that
will
apply
to
three
months
of
relief
and
I.
Think
the
fact
that
people
need
this
desperate
assistance,
especially
those
at
the
lowest
income
levels,
is
really
a
very,
very
positive
program
to
be
able
to
implement
and
to
pull
together
this
quickly.
So
I
just
wanted
to
express
appreciation
for
that.
G
In
some
situations,
many
situations
involving
students
or
roommates.
If
the
landlord
creates
a
separate
lease
for
each
person,
they
may
not
qualify,
they
need
to
have
a
complete
household
that
has
a
kitchen
facility
and
everybody
on
that
lease.
So
we
can
envision
a
situation
where
possibly
undergraduate,
students
living
by
themselves
or
a
graduate
household.
A
Any
other
questions
comments
all
right.
Well,
thank
you.
I
just
want
to
echo
Laura's
comments.
Thank
you
to
everyone
who
put
this
together.
I
think
this
is
a
it's
a
very
meaningful
and
necessary
step
that
we
can
take
to
help
ranchers
in
the
city
so
definitely
applaud
these
efforts.
We
ready
to
vote
Oh
Cynthia.
Did
you
have
a
caller.
F
Resuming
this
lasts
more
than
three
months,
if
a
new
program
were
to
come
forward,
would
it
be
possible
for
a
new
program
to
come
forward
in
three
months
to
continue
assistance?
Is
there
funding
available
or
has
everything?
Basically,
through
this
action
plan,
we
would
have
exhausted
the
available
funds
for
a
program
like
this,
and
this
is
this
would
be
the
one
time
this
year
that
this
would
happen.
G
We
couldn't
create
the
same
kind
of
program
where
these
same
households
benefit
again.
We
would
need
to
structure
it
differently
or
have
a
completely
different
pool
of
people
who
benefit.
So
that's
one
part
of
the
question:
does
that
make
sense?
Yes,
I
think
so,
okay
and
then
the
second
part
of
the
question
is
there
future
funding
available
again
now
sits
in
some
recent.
He
pulled
together
some
recent
information
from
HUD,
but
this
this
CDBG
CV
kovat
specific
funding,
is
coming
through.
The
cares
Act.
G
It's
part
of
a
two
billion
dollar:
it's
two
billion
part
of
a
two
billion
dollar
allocation
nationwide
of
the
five
billion
that
was
directed
towards
CDBG
funding.
So
this
is
one
like
the
first
wave
of
it.
Now
we
had
been
hopeful
that
perhaps
the
city
would
be
eligible
for
a
second
wave
of
funding
which
HUD
has
is
in
the
process
of
developing
a
new
formula
for
rolling
that
out.
G
We
were
eligible
because
we're
an
entitlement
community
for
this
first
wave
of
funding,
so
the
second
wave
of
funding
it
looks
like
there's,
that's
gonna
be
going
to
States
and
then
the
third
wave
of
funding
they're
doing
on
a
rolling
basis.
That
is
a
little
bit
sort
of
still
uncertain.
So
we're
at
this
point
not
sure
that
we
will
be
getting
additional
funding.
You
know
we
have
three
hundred
twenty
thousand
dollars
total
available
through
CDBG
cv.
K
G
Will
say
that
that
is
a
possibility,
a
definite
possibility.
I've
also
seen
you
know
some.
For
example,
the
state
of
California
right
now
is
considering
a
statewide
measure
to
provide
emergency
rental
assistance.
There
is
some
talk
of
that
nationally,
like
you
know,
call
your
representative
and
try
to
get
a
federal
level
emergency
rental
assistance.
But
if
we're
just
talking
about
money,
that's
coming
from
the
federal
government
directly
to
communities,
it
is
uncertain
that
we
could
get
any
more.
Is
it
possible
that
the
state
might
do
something
or
additional
federal
level
relief
happen?
C
I
just
wanted
to
let
you
know
so,
in
addition
to
changing
the
use
for
the
CDBG
funds
with
the
county
in
order
to
provide
emergency
rental
assistance.
We
are
also
have
two
current
home
contracts
that
we
are
using
a
portion
of
for
emergency
rental
assistance
and
so
there's
the
potential
right
now
New
York
State
is
saying
that
those
funds
are
limited
to
three
months.
Potentially
they
come.
You
know
from
HUD
through
New
York,
State
directly
to
IHS,
there's
no
local
grantee.
C
Potentially
they
could
decide
that
we
could
help
households
for
more
than
three
months
with
CDBG
there's
strict
limit
that
we
have
to
make
the
payments
only
for
three
months
and
within
like
a
hundred
day
window
in
order
to
not
trigger
you
know,
in
order
for
it
to
be
considered
what
Anissa
said
in
an
emergency
use.
So
there
is
this
other
pot
of
money
hanging
out
there.
It's
not
right.
Now
we
have
a
hundred
thousand
in
Tompkins
and
Toyota
that
they've
approved
for
emergency
rental,
but
hopefully
more
will
come
in
we'll
see
where
that
goes.
F
D
A
All
those
in
favor
and
that
carries
unanimously
so
next
up
is
the
waterfront
zoning
changes.
We
do
have
a
leap,
lead
agency,
rep
resolution
and
also
the
environmental
review,
so
I
want
to
start
with
lead
agency.
Someone
want
to
move
the
lead
agency
moved
by
Laura
seconded
by
Cynthia,
so
this
is
just
Common
Council,
declaring
itself
lead
agency
to
conduct
the
environmental
review,
all
those
in
favor
that
carries
unanimously
and
then
the
environmental
review
to
the
negative
declaration.
Is
there
a
motion
on
that
move
by
Steve?
Second,
by
Laura
any
discussion
on
the
environmental
review?
A
Okay,
all
those
in
favor
and
that
carries
unanimously.
So
then
the
the
ordinance
itself.
We
discussed
this
at
the
April
planning
committee.
We
proposed
a
couple
of
changes
for
circulation.
It's
been
circulated.
It's
coming
back
to
us
now,
so
I
look
for
a
motion
to
move
the
the
ordinance
as
their
motion
on
the
order
moved
by
Laura
seconded
by
Donna
discussion.
A
F
F
Just
want
to
say
that
when
zoning
is
discussed,
it
should
be,
in
my
mind,
a
process
that
is
thinking
about
the
area
as
a
whole.
What
the
intentions
are
for
the
community
as
a
whole
for
the
long-term
plans
and
is
should
not
be
the
zoning
should
not
be
made
specific
in
order
to
accommodate
a
particular
project.
F
That
is,
in
my
mind
how
what
is
called
spot
zoning.
So,
while
I
do
appreciate
that
there
are
many
projects
in
the
works,
I
hope
that
we
can
have
a
conversation
with
regards
to
these
changes
about
the
waterfront
area
in
general
and
not
about
specific
potential
projects
that
are
in
the
queue
as
much
as
I
appreciate.
Todd's
speaking
further
I'm,
not
saying
that
this
needs
to
move
rapidly
along
I'm,
not
saying
that
if
it's
inappropriate
to.
A
F
M
Thank
you,
yeah
I
think
spot
zoning
also
works.
The
other
way,
though
right,
which
is
in
in
reaction
to
and
to
prevent,
a
project
from
moving
forward,
which
most
of
the
conversation
I've
heard
around
this
zoning
choice
is
specifically
in
reaction
to
a
specific
development.
So
I
think
at
this
point
it's
pretty
hard
to
divorce
the
considerations
we're
making
tonight
from
a
proposal
that's
already
on
the
table
and
I'd
yeah,
so
I
agree
that
spot
zoning
is
bad,
but
I
think
it
has
to
cut
both
ways.
B
Wanted
to
clarify
spot
zoning,
this
isn't
really
spot.
Zoning
possibilities
is
when
you
take
a
parcel
in
the
midst
of
many
parcels
and
you
zone
it
something
different.
So,
for
instance,
in
the
you
know,
an
all
one
zoning
district
and
you
do
one
parcel
as
a
CBD
50,
that's
spot
zoning.
This
is
not
spot
zoning.
B
D
My
colleague
George
urged
me
to
reread
the
waterfront
plan,
which
I
did
and
I
looked
through.
Also
the
waterfront
design
guidelines
and
I'm
convinced
that
we
really
need
to
encourage
the
continuation
and
perhaps
for
the
development
of
light
industry
in
the
Cherry
Cherry
Street
District
I
got
the
McGonigle
Torah
special
back
in
January
I
guess
it
was
when
we
were
allowed
to
travel
and
I
was
really
impressed
that
they
were
very
successful,
high-tech
businesses
back
there.
D
They
provide
good
jobs,
they
provide
doors,
leading
the
economy
and
I'm
really
worried
that
we
might
Zone
in
such
a
way
to
discourage
light
industry,
which
we
really
need
so
I.
Wonder:
I
really
want
to
be
careful
of
that
and
I.
Also,
when
I
was
rereading
the
waterfront
plan,
there
was
a
he,
but
there
were
several
places
that
George
pointed
out
that
emphasized
that
the
public
should
have
visual
and
physical
access
to
the
waterfront.
D
So
I
think,
given
the
spirit
of
that,
we
need
to
promote
well
more
space
between
buildings
and
more
setbacks,
be
very
careful
to
that
and,
as
I
said
before,
we're
dealing
with
the
waterfront.
So
we
have
to
be
really
careful
about
stormwater,
and
so
that's
another
reason
to
have
more
space
between
buildings
and
greater
setbacks,
to
prevent
erosion
and
to
encourage
the
absorption
of
stormwater.
D
So
I
think
that
we
need
to
ease
back
on
some
of
these
suggestions
and
I
think
that
either
George's
Cynthia
wants
to
make
a
motion
to
make
some
specific
changes
which
I
would
support
and
but
I
do
have
a
question.
I
noted
I
read
that
there's
a
25-foot
easement
along
the
flood
control
channel
but
I
in
the
design
guidelines.
It
also
specifies
a
20-foot
rear
setback
along
the
water,
so
I.
So
does
that
mean
if
there's
a
45
foot
but
basically
setback
from
the
water
or
is
that
a
contradiction?
A
N
Now
the
20
foot
setback
from
the
water
is
the
minimum
along
any
of
the
water
areas
and
in
the
Cherry
Street
district.
There's
that
25
foot
easement.
So
excuse
me
sorry.
The
20
foot
setback
is
included
in
that
25
feet.
It's
just
saying
that
no
development
anywhere
along
the
water
should
be
us
than
20
feet
from
the
water's
edge.
Is
that
clear?
N
N
D
D
A
So
I
think
Steve
was
next
and
then
I
saw
Cynthia
and
George.
M
Yeah
so
yeah
I
think
I
think
that
person
I
think
at
25
feet
and
I
think
25
feet.
It's
a
good
amount
of
space
to
have
for
that
walkway
there
and.
M
When
it,
when
it
comes
to
the
idea
of
having
physical
and
visual
access
to
the
waterfront,
people
will
have
physical
access
to
it,
because
again,
there's
going
to
be
that
trail
that
cuts
behind.
So
that's
to
me,
that's
almost
a
moot
point
again:
there's
we're
we're
building
space
in
that
back
area
that
people
will
be
able
to
physically
access
when
it
comes
to
visual
access.
I
I
stressed
this
point.
Last
time
we
got
together
and
I
think
it
bears
repeating
that
you
know.
M
I
went
I,
went
down
there
on
my
bike
to
to
look
around
the
area
and
to
really
get
a
sense
of
what
you're
able
to
see
if
we
preserve
a
physical
break
between
buildings
and
what
you're
able
to
see
on
the
other
on
the
other
side
of
these
properties
and
again
I'm
going
to
so
screen
sharing
is
disabled.
If
you're
able
to
enable
that
you
look
specifically
at
this
parcel
and
it
reads:
you're.
M
F
M
I'm
attacking
a
little
funny
I'm,
my
computer,
but
we're
good.
You
look
at
this
parcel
and
you
look
across
the
street
and
it
even
when
you
zoom
in
it
doesn't
read
like
waterfront
and
it
doesn't
read
like
a
hill.
It
just
reads
like
forest,
so
I'm
not
I'm,
not
sure
why
we've
decided
that
this
specific
cut
through
is
is
somehow
endemic
of
and
in
some
sort
of
a
preservation
of
the
waterfront
it
just
you
cannot
see
the
waterfront.
M
You
cannot
see
the
hills
from
the
street
level
at
this
point
in
the
property
and
so
I'm,
not
sure
why
we
would
go
about
limiting
this
property
to
or
many
of
the
other
properties
along
this
stretch
to
a
hundred
feet
and
require
these
20-foot
breaks
again
for
the
for
the
purpose
of
visual
access
to
the
waterfront.
It
just
doesn't
exist
there,
there's
nothing,
there's
no
amount
of
break.
You
could
have
between
buildings,
where
you're
going
to
be
able
to
see
the
water
problem
it
just
it's
not
possible.
So
I
I,
don't
I!
F
And
I,
definitely,
you
know
appreciate
taking
the
time
and
going
down
and
taking
a
look
at
it.
The
way
it
is
now
and
and
I
think
what
we
aim
to
do
as
we
look
forward
with
a
new
vision
for
the
waterfront
is
to
recognize
that,
while
it
doesn't
yet
exist
along
the
waterfront,
there
will
be
a
public
trail.
As
you
mentioned,
there
will
probably
be
some
some
light
landscaping,
although
I
think
the
canal
core
probably
is
eager
to
keep
that
as
clear
as
possible,
but
but
a
but
a
public
amenity.
F
Nonetheless,
that
should
be
active
and
would
provide
sort
of
like
this
transportation,
recreational
corridor
that
might
go
all
the
way
down
to
Buttermilk,
Falls
and
all
the
way
up
to
gigantic.
And
what,
although
right,
now
visually
looking
at
it,
it
you
can
say:
well,
there's
nothing
much
to
look
at
there.
It
is
the
to
provide
an
invitation
to
the
public
to
say
there
is
this
recreational
amenity,
just
one
parcel
away
that
you
are
invited
to
and
and
to
provide
breaks
in
in
the
development.
F
So
you
don't
have
just
sort
of
a
continuous
corridor
of
buildings
that
come
close
to
each
other
that,
with
their
with
their
density,
doesn't
you
know,
lends
you
to
think
that
there's
nothing
there
there,
because
you
have
this
continuation
of
buildings
where,
as
you
know,
Jane
Jacobs
would
be
like
okay.
We
need
to
build
in
these
access
points,
because
the
community
will
embrace
those
points
and
in
and
provide
a
vibrancy
of
development
to
it.
K
I
Just
to
clarify
I
want
to
thank
Donna
and
Jen
for
sorting
out
the
issue
of
what
the
setback
actually
is
on
Cherry
Street
25
feet.
Well,
I.
The
suggestion
I
was
making
was
to
add
a
10-foot
setback
at
the
rear
of
private
property,
so
that
would
be
a
total
of
35
feet
from
the
building
any
potential
building
to
the
edge
of
the
bank.
And
my
thinking
about
this
is
twofold:
one:
to
provide
a
little
more
elbow
room
on
the
trail.
K
Had
a
question
about
the
building
like
I
had
only
see
that
we
need
one
at
all,
but
if
we
were
going
to
enact
one,
would
we
want
to
focus
on
building
like
along
the
waterfront,
as
opposed
to
anywhere
I
can
say
along
the
trail
over
you
know,
the
the
dimension
is
perpendicular
to
the
water
matter
less,
for
whatever
little
view
shed
that
there
is
so.
Is
there
any
desire
to
kind
of
limit.
B
B
We
you
know,
as
it
reads
right
now,
it
would
be
in
that
whole
Cherry,
Street
district.
That
would
be
limited,
but
you
can
certainly
you
know
specify
where
you
want
that
if
it
were
along
the
water,
that's
what
you
wanted,
then
that's
where
it
would
apply.
It's
just
to
have
the
rip,
what
you
want
and
then
how
they
write
the
legislation
yeah.
K
What
I
mean
is
you
know
if
the
committee
is
insisting
on
having
one
at
all
it
make
more
sense
to
me
to
have
it
along
the
water
I.
Think
there's
like
a
downside
to
to
breaking
up
buildings
is,
if
each
of
them
we
had
the
same.
You
know
we
have
the
same
conversation
on
and
with
them.
Okay,
in
that
more
utilities
and
more.
K
M
Yeah
so
I
so
Cynthia's
going
about
like
the
way
things
are
designed
now
and
visibility
of
the
waterfront
I
think
just
like
geometrically.
The
water
level
is
so
low
and
you're
so
far
from
the
water
that
all
you
can
see
is
one
end
of
the
of
the
river
bank
and
then
the
other
end
of
the
river
bank.
There's
just
it's
just
not
physically
possible
to
see
the
water
unless
you're
standing
up
much
much
higher
than
you
would
be
on
the
street
level.
M
So
I
I
think
that
when
you
look
at
the
fact
that
there's
still
a
20
20
foot
setback
between
buildings
between
different
between
different
lofts
that
already
exists,
I
think
you're
you're
going
to
get
that
break
and
at
the
end
of
the
day
it's
not
like.
We
can
enforce
these
property
owners
to
also
let
people
cut
through
their
properties
to
access
this,
so
I'm,
not
sure
if
we're
not
actually
achieving
visual
access
to
the
water.
N
So
I
just
wanted
to
clarify
that
visual
access.
That
was
a
goal
of
the
plan,
and
that
was
a
huge
community
process
that
we
went
through
and
that
was
explicitly
a
goal
that
that
they
had
that
we
maintain
visual
access
to
the
waterfront
all
along
the
waterfront
areas.
Even
there
is
that
you
don't
see
the
water
as
much,
and
that
was
to
create
a
more
vibrant
waterfront
that
people
would
be
able
to
start
experience
the
loot,
the
water
even
from
the
street
side.
So
that's
not
that's
not
really.
N
A
F
Where
you
could,
you
know,
there's
breaks
in
in
the
development
and
as
Jennifer
articulated,
it
invites
you
into
to
recognize
that
they're
on
the
other
side
of
these
parcels
is
a
public
asset
that
that
you
can
enjoy
and
access
to
and
actually
is,
is
available
to
the
public
by
right.
I
understand
what
you're
saying
that,
of
course,
these
private
property
owners
are
under
no
obligation
to
provide
that
public
access,
but
that
that
visual
accessibility
reminds
the
public
that
it
is
available
to
the
public
and
was
put
forward
as
a
objective.
M
Yeah
I
appreciate
that
I'm
sorry,
oh
yeah,
so
I
appreciate
the
fact
that
this
is
a
the
result
of
an
extensive
public
process,
but
the
reality
is-
and
this
is
we
see
this
with
with
a
lot
of
public
plans
of
this
scale-
is
when
the
rubber
meets
the
road.
You
start
to
realize
that
things
fit
together
a
little
differently
than
maybe
had
been
visualized,
and
that's
okay
and
it's
okay
for
us
to
to
accommodate
around
the
edges.
M
The
reality
is
we're
talking
about
two.
Maybe
three
extra
breaks
for
a
building
that
won't
that
I,
just
can't
fathom
actually
provide
that
level
of
an
increase
in
invitation
to
that
area
for
one,
because
it's
just
not
it's
just
not
that
much
actual
extra
visual
access
what's
on
the
other
side,
isn't
as
isn't
as
alluring
as
you
might
see
when
you're
along
the
coast
or
when
you're
along
any
one
of
our
other
shores
and
then
for
the
third
part,
we're
not
talking
about
an
area
of
town
that
gets
a
ton
of
drive-through
traffic.
M
This
is
an
area
of
town
where
the
people
who
were
in
that
area
spending
time
in
that
area.
The
people
who
are
walking
along
those
sidewalks
are
highly
more
likely
to
be
the
people
living
in
that
neighborhood
and
I.
Think
it's
important
to
have
more
people
living
in
that
neighborhood.
Who
can
experience
that
neighborhood
on
a
regular
basis
than
to
build
this
for
the
few
people
who
will
who
will
be
coming
from
other
areas
of
town
or
other
areas
of
the
community
to
walk
along
the
sidewalk
on
the
other
side
of
the
buildings?
M
The
guy
decides
that
walking
down
Terry
Street
like
on
a
lark
I'm,
not
sure
who
actually
does
that
and
I'm,
not
sure
that
when
they're
entering
the
community,
that,
if,
when
they're
entering
this
this
area-
and
they
see
the
waterfront
trail
at
the
head
of
the
neighborhood-
that
they're
not
just
choosing
to
take
the
trail
anyway,
like
I
we're
talking
about
decreasing
the
number
of
people
who
can
live
in
a
community
on
the
water.
So
that
what
in
reality
will
likely
be
a
very
few
people
may
have
this.
This
increased
like
this.
F
F
A
A
N
A
So
I've
got
the
order,
is
Donna
and
then
Cynthia
had
a
comment
and
I.
Think
Laura
had
a
comment.
I
just
wanted
to
say
that
I
know
lots
of
people
who
walk
down
in
that
area.
It's
you
know
it's
an
access
point
to
the
fish
ladder
and
that
whole
area,
it's
pretty
popular
for
people
walk
there.
I've
walked
down
there
and
it's
only
going
to
increase
when
the
Black
Diamond
trail
goes
in
there
and
when
that
bridge
is
put
across
the
inlet,
it's
a
pretty
popular
spot,
so
Donna
and
then
Cynthia.
Oh.
D
D
Housing
is
encouraged
north
of
C,
so
people
alone
drive,
while
non
residential
commercial
light.
Industrial
manufacturing
will
continue
to
the
south,
so
we're
not
really
there.
There
could
be
housing
south
of
Cecil
B
a
long
drive,
but
we're
not
talking
about
building
neighborhoods
there.
That's
really
where
the
plan
and
the
design
guidelines
stress
that
we
have
to
protect
what
little
industry
we
have
in
the
city
in
that
area.
So
that's
not
really
where
we
want
a
whole
lot
of
big
apartment
buildings.
D
Yes,
it
will
be
somewhat
mixed
use,
but
we
we
kind
of,
do
want
to
restrict
people
living
right
there,
but
it
should
nevertheless
be
an
attractive
public
place
for
anybody
in
the
city
to
to
enjoy
the
waterfront
and
I
think
that
would
be
particularly
so
after
this
pedestrian
bridge
is
completed,
so
we
might
have
to
force
ourselves
to
think
differently
about
the
Cherry
Street
district
and
maybe
even
the
area
south
of
Cecil
B,
Malone
Drive.
When
we're
thinking
about
this,
these,
the
zoning-
that's.
L
Yeah
I
just
wanted
to
echo
something
stuff
said,
and
that
is
that
that
area
there
are
people
who
use
that
area.
There
are
people
who
go
to
the
Cherry
art
space
and
are
introduced
to
the
area.
In
that
way,
I
think
the
improvements
in
the
area,
the
pedestrian
bridge
is
going
to
draw
more
people.
People
on
bikes,
so
I
I
do
see
it
as
a
growing
area
of
interest
and
an
area
where
there
is
interest
in
greater
visual
access
to
the
water.
M
So
I
think
I
think
I
wasn't
being
clear
when
I
spoke,
it's
not
it's
not
that
there
are
folks
who
are
going
to
find
themselves
I
I.
Just
don't
think
there
are
folks
who
are
gonna
find
themselves
on
Cherry
Street,
knowing
that
there
are
these
other
things
that
can
attract
them
to
these
areas
without
having
chosen
those
those
things
in
the
first
place.
I,
it's
not
like,
knowing
that
the
black
diamond
diamond
trail
is
there
and
knowing
that
these,
that
this
infrastructure
is
going
to
be
built
out,
people
are
going
to
gravitate
towards
that.
M
Knowing
that
it's
there
I
just
don't
there
aren't
like
the
times
I've
been
down
there.
I
haven't
seen
the
number
of
just
happenstance
pedestrians
who
happen
to
find
themselves
in
the
Cherry
Street
area
without
knowing
of
the
things
that
are
that
are
bringing
them
so
I,
just
don't
I,
don't
I,
don't
know.
If
there's
going
to
be
these
moments
of
serendipity
that
we're
trying
to
create
with
a
cut
through.
A
So
so
it
seems
like
the
issue
is
more
the
visual
access
right,
because
physical
access,
you
would
be
trespassing
on
private
property,
so
it
really
is.
The
question
is
whether
we
want
to
preserve
visual
access
by
breaking
up
these
buildings,
and
the
Steve's
point
I
mean
Steve's
point
is
that
you
can't
actually
see
the
water
you
can
see
beyond
the
the
channel,
but
you
can't
actually
see
the
water
itself.
A
A
A
B
A
A
A
F
So
George
had
requested
that
we
introduce
some
changes
and
I
just
wanted
to
bring
them
up.
One
of
the
introductions
was
to
adjust
the
maximum
building
footprint
from
75
percent
lock
coverage
to
70
percent
lock
coverage.
This
would
be
consistent
with
existing
mixed-use
zoning
that
we
have
in
the
city
where
we
allow
only
70
percent
coverage
in
our
mu
districts.
F
F
Residing
in
these
neighborhoods
by
allowing
for
more
green
space
and
keeping
in
mind
that
when
I
looked
up
the
definition
of
what
green
space
is,
we
require
that
when
there
is
a
green
space
requirement,
75%
of
that
green
space
requirement
be
live
vegetative
covering
that
green
space
requirement
does
allow
for
sidewalks.
It
also
allows
for
playgrounds
and
recreational
uses
that
can
be
included
in
those
in
that
green
space.
F
A
M
D
Running
the
risk
of
contradicting
myself
here,
I
I
like
reducing
the
maximum
footprint
and
increasing
the
green
space.
But
are
we
thereby
limiting
the
size
of
the
light
industrial
buildings
that
we
want
to
have
south
of
Cecil
being
alone
and
I'm?
Sorry
to
keep
fixating
on
that?
But
we
so
rarely
talk
about
industry
that
we
really
need
to
really
need
to
start
talking
about
it,
because
we
need
to
diversify
our
economy
and
promote
light
manufacturing.
An
industry
in
tech.
N
I
was
just
gonna
say
that
we
can
specify
uses
that
are
exempt
from
that
from
that
requirement.
We
get
that
in
some
of
the
other
waterfront
you're
actually
in
the
cherries
tree
I
think
we
have
something
about
the
minimum
stories
for
industrial
uses
and
in
the
West
End
waterfront
I
think
we
have
it
also
for
waterfront
related
uses,
so
we
can
specify
a
new
set
exempt
from
a
certain
in
that
district.
Great.
M
I
I'm,
just
going
by
what
I
see
down
there
now
I
haven't
calculated
X
amount
of
green
space,
but
all
those
places
have
parked
big
parking,
lots,
probably
bigger
than
they
need.
Several
of
them
need
space
for
tractor-trailer
trucks
to
deliver
and
pick
up
materials
several
of
them.
If
you
go
down
to
the
electric
place
across
the
street.
From
from
all
this,
they
have
big
storage
areas
out
back
and
small
amount
of
grass.
B
Given
the
environmental
environmental
sense
of
sensitivity
along
the
flood
control
channel
I
think
we
would
want
to
see
some
restriction
on
the
amount
of
coverage
for
those
areas.
So
you
know
we
may
want
to
have
a
less
than
you
know,
allow
for
greater
lot
coverage,
but
I
still
think
we
need
a
green
space
requirement
because
we
do
need
stormwater
management,
and
so
you
know
to
have
infiltration
and
bio
retention
is
really
important
in
that
area.
B
M
I
George
and
I
spoke
on
the
phone
earlier
today,
so
he
knows
that
I
already
I
mean
I
I
think
we
already
came
to
a
compromise
in
our
last
meeting
when
we
just
that
was
75%
up
from
60
down
from
100
and
I
I'd
to
me
like
taking
70%.
Now
it
just
feels
like
an
effort
to
whittle
away
it
at
what
we
had
without
that
really
being
based
on.
As
far
as
I
can
see,
I
I
don't
know
where
that
number
is
coming
from
other
than
an
effort
to
reduce
what
we
have.
A
F
Again,
it's
it's
consistent
with
mixed
use.
My
understanding
is
that
it's,
it's
intentional,
that
there
would
be
both
residential
and
non-residential
use
and
and
with
residential
uses,
the
the
idea,
if
I
understand
correctly
and
I,
look
to
staff
to
to
clarify
this,
but
to
allow
for
more
open
space
on
the
property
for
for
for
families
and
individuals
who
who
are
living
there.
F
We
I
understand
that
you
know
there.
There
are
many
areas,
urban
areas
with
high
density
and
and
no
open
space,
but
we
live
in
Ithaca.
We
have
the
the
benefit
of
open
space
and
incorporating
that
into
our
mixed-use.
Residential
areas
is
consistent
with
how
we
have
zoned
our
city
for
many
many
many
years.
So
this
is
consistent
with
that
and
I
think.
If
anywhere
on
the
waterfront,
we
should
be
allowing
for
more
open
space
rather
than
less.
A
F
My
my
understanding
is
that
we
done
and
I
made
a
friendly
amendment,
but
Don
are
you
suggesting
that
this
should
apply
it
or
is
the
sentiment
to
have
this
apply
for
industrial
use
or
to
exempt
industrial
use?
I?
Guess
now
that
I
think
about
it?
Joanne
is
saying
it
does
not
mean
it
is
not
necessary
to
exempt
industrial
use
from
70%
lot
coverage
and
15%
green
space.
B
I
think
that
we
are
going
to
need
that
25%
green
space
for
stormwater
management,
stormwater
retention
and
just
good
environmental
planning,
especially
long
water
and
I,
also
don't
think
that
the
light
industrial
uses
need
quite
as
much
I
mean.
If
you
go
down
there
now,
you'll
see
those
huge
parking
lots
and
because
of
technology
they
just
don't
need
all
the
workers
that
historically
industrial
users
have
needed.
So
I
think
they
could
live
with
that
restricted.
A
A
L
B
Think
it
could
and
I
think
we
could
add
something
that
says
at
the
discretion
of
the
Planning
Board.
There's
something
we've
done
that
in
the
past.
If
there
was
a
really
you
know,
robust
industrial
use
that
was
being
proposed,
I
think
we
would
want
to
encourage
it
and
do
what
we
can
to
bring
them
here.
So
I
think
we
could
add
that
kind
of
language.
If,
if
that's
something
folks
would
feel
comfortable
with.
L
A
M
M
F
M
A
Sorry,
Donna
I
think
the
the
initial
proposal
that
I
said
was
to
exempt
that
light
industrial,
but
the
points
are
brought
up
that
most
light
industrial
uses,
they're
not
gonna,
require
they're,
not
gonna,
require
a
building
of
that
size
and
then
also
that
it's
going
to
be
important
to
have
green
space
on
those
sites
as
well.
So
I
think
we've
locked
it
back
and
we're
now
saying
that
it
should
apply
to
all
uses.
A
A
Are
we
ready
to
vote
on
this
amendment,
but
maybe
before
we
do
I
I
do
want
to
save
it?
I
I've
been
a
little
skeptical
of
this
just
because
I
I've
often
noticed
that
we
sometimes
get
in
the
situation.
Where
there's
a
project
that's
happening,
and
we
don't
there's
issues
with
the
project
and
we
ended
up.
We
end
up
rezoning
and
it
kind
of
felt
like
that
was
happening
in
this
case,
I
will
say
that
I
was
reading
through
the
waterfront
plan.
A
You
know,
George
has
been,
has
been
saying
this
consistently,
that
the
plan
actually
calls
for
green
space
calls
for
developers
to
incorporate
green
space
into
new
developments.
It
calls
for
amenities,
like
playgrounds.
You
know
making
sure
that
there's
visual
and
physical
access
to
the
waterfront
I
mean
that's
the
plan.
That's
what
the
plan
recommends
and
you
know
I
think
the
people
who
were
involved
with
this
plan
put
an
enormous
amount
of
time
into
into
this
and
recommending
it
and
as.
A
That
we
have
to
make
sure
that,
when
we're
making
zoning
changes
that
we're
not
doing
it
with
a
specific
project
of
mine,
so
I
am
supportive
of
this
I
think
that
you
know
even
at
70
percent.
This
is
a
pretty
dramatic
increase
over
what
the
zoning
wise
I
mean.
As
George
said,
it
was
like
50%
lot
coverage.
A
H
A
N
A
M
You
know
areas
where
you
actually
have
visual
access
to
the
waterfront.
Certainly
you
want
to
preserve
that
visual
access
to
the
waterfront,
but
areas
where
you
don't
have
visual
access
to
the
waterfront
I,
don't
think
we
should
be
treating
the
same
and
so
I
don't
think
we
should
have
a
blanket
100
foot
limit
and
the
ordinance
so
I
would
move
to
eliminate
that
bar
or
reword
it
so.
A
M
A
M
M
No
four
areas
where
you
actually
can't
see
the
water
from
from
the
road-
and
you
know
granted.
This
is
that's
that's
in
elegant
and
it's
a
little
Messier
but
I
think
just
as
messy
is
applying
one
blanket
policy
to
an
entire
district
where
there
are
peculiarities,
it's
a
very
funnily
shaped
district.
The
lots
are
different.
D
A
I
A
We
just
took
it.
We
had
a
motion
on
adding
the
ten
feet
so
that
to
the
sounds
like
that,
didn't
pass
I'm
guessing,
because
people
feel
that
25
feet
is
a
sufficient
amount
of
space
question
about
the
side
setback.
What
is
the
current
side
yard
setback
to
and
feet,
and
so
that
would
be
on
either
side,
so
you'd
actually
have
a
25.
What
space
between
buildings.
A
F
A
A
F
So
the
question
that
I
had
is
first
of
all,
just
a
reminder
that
in
many
areas
in
all
of
these
waterfront
districts,
we
have
major
waterfront
that
we
all
recognize
whether
or
not
it's
the
barge
canal
or
the
flood
reserve
channel
or
the
flood
channel.
We
also
have
where
six
Mile
Creek
comes
in.
That
goes
past
Wegmans,
which
is
also
a
waterway
and
then
there's
a
little
channel
that
goes
between
Wegmans
and
Nate's
floral
estates.
So
we
have
like
these
little
tiny
waterways
too.
F
So
I
just
want
to
remind
people
that,
while
we
tend
to
focus
on
the
inlet
on
the
other
side,
there
are
still
waterways
and
I
have
seen
plans
and
I
do
recall.
When
we
did
the
waterfront
plan,
we
had
conversations
with
Joanne
and
Jennifer
that
there
are
plans,
for
example,
Joanne
correct
me
if
I'm
wrong,
that
there
are
plans
for
like
a
recreational
trail
that
would
go
along
six
Mile
Creek
and
then
at
some
point
connect
all
the
way
in
and
that
doesn't
exist
yet
and
I'm
sure.
If
we
looked
back
there,
we
go.
F
F
F
It's
really
it's
difficult,
because
I
think
the
the
area's
Steven
that
you're
thinking
of
which
is
on
the
other
side
of
that
Cherry
Street
complex,
that
that
has
recently
been
developed.
That
actually
is
also
kind
of
waterfront
too,
because
there's
water
on
the
other
side
of
that
so
anyway.
So
sorry,
going
back
to
the
motion
I'm
pulling
out
my
my
table
here.
F
So
we
we
have
been
talking
about
the
flood
relief
channel
being
25
feet,
I'm
looking
at
our
table,
and
it
says
there
is
a
required
rear,
rear
yard
for
anything
near
the
water
of
minimum
setback
of
25
feet.
Otherwise,
if
it's
not
directly
adjacent,
then
it's
10
feet,
so
George
you're
recommending
I
think
you
were
saying
that
there
is
no
rear
setback,
but
I
do
believe
that
there
is
a
rear
yard
setback
for
any
properties
along
the
water.
So
I
just
wanted
to
clarify
your
intent.
I
B
That's
what
you're
proposing
the
25
feet
is
the
Dec
maintenance
right-of-way,
so
that
and
that
the
trail
can
go
on
that,
because
it's
not
a
vertical
obstruction.
So
within
that
25
feet
will
be
the
Black
Diamond
trail,
which
will
be
12
feet
and
you're,
suggesting
that
beyond
the
25
feet
an
additional
10
feet.
Yes,.
F
A
J
B
B
F
F
And
I
definitely
can
see
as
we
talk
through
these
things
and
as
as
George
has
articulated,
the
waterfront
trail
is
10
feet
wide,
and
so,
when
you
take
the
25
feet,
that
just
leaves
you
with
15
feet
and
that's
not
much
of
a
green
space,
especially
along
the
waterfront,
so
by
I
support
maximizing
the
green
space.
First
of
all,
because
I
do
believe
that
that
is
a
fragile
zone
along
the
waterfront
and
the
more
we
can
incorporate
green
space.
F
F
A
A
A
A
B
K
B
N
On
my
Island
on
on
the
east
side
of
inland
island,
they
can
go
up
to
the
water,
that's
the
only
spot
because
those
parcels
were
so
narrow
that
they
were
allowed
to
have
not
go
up
to
the
water
with
the
building,
but
they
can
have
like
a
deck
or
something
up
to
the
water
or
seating.
You
know
a
seating
area
up
to
the
water
on
the
west
side,
I,
don't
know
what
this
is.
A
B
N
K
F
Since
we
are
I
believe
just
specifically
talking
about
Cherry
Street,
just
to
I,
think
there's
a
difference
between
the
area
on
gigantic,
with
the
Barge
Canal
and
the
existing
little
buildings
that
are
just
coming
straight
up
to
the
Barge
Canal.
But
there's
a
very
where
we're
working
to
create
this.
This
public
amenity
along
the
flood
release
channel
that
has
a
different
feeling
to
it
than
than
the
Barge
Canal.
F
A
I'll
say
you
know:
I
was
in
the
chair.
Its
base
recently
and
I
was
really
struck
by
the
view
of
the
water,
and
you
know,
I
think
it's
kind
of
a
similar
effect
right
here.
You're
close
but
you're,
not
so
close
that
you
you're
right
up
against
the
water,
but
you're
still
close
enough
to
it.
That
there's
something
there's
a
visual
effect
I
mean.
D
D
B
B
But
you
can't
put
a
lot
of
vertical
elements
in
that
25
feet
because
that
would
have
done
obstruct
vehicular
are
use
for
maintenance
vehicles,
so,
but
that
is
the
planned
route
for
the
Black
Diamond
trail
once
the
bridge
is
built,
and
we
can
continue
it
down
from
the
western
side
of
the
flood
control
channel.
Okay,.
A
F
F
George,
who
has
spent
an
enormous
enormous
amount
of
time,
thinking
about
the
waterfront,
loving
the
waterfront
we've
shared.
He
shaped
many
many
many
stories
about
the
role
that
the
waterfront
played
in
his
years.
So
he
has
suggested
that
we
had
just
the
side
yard
setback
to
change
it
from
10
to
15
feet,
and
so
this
would
allow
that
beteen
structures.
There
would
be
a
30
foot
separation
between
between
structures
along
the
property
line,
and
this
would
increase
the
physical
and
visual
access
to
the
waterfront.
K
A
A
L
I'm
definitely
conflicted
on
this
one.
I
think
the
increase
in
the
amount
of
green
space.
The
reduction
in
lot
coverage
does
a
great
deal
to
improve
this
amendment.
This
this
movement,
but
I
I,
can't
support
the
the
increased
space
between
buildings.
I.
Think
much
of
what
I
wanted
to
see
achieved
is
achieved
by
the
increase
in
green
space
and
the
reduced
lab
coverage,
so
I'm
I'm
fine
with
that.
A
F
A
F
A
F
D
A
We're
we're
back
to
the
original
ordinance
with
those
changes.
Any
further
discussion,
we're
ativ
up
all
right,
all
those
in
favor
all
those
votes
and
that
queries
for
one.
So
thank
you
to
all
the
staff
and
and
thank
you
George
for
for
digging
into
this
and
making
these
these
changes.
I
know
that
you
served
on
the
waterfront
committee
and
you
put
a
lot
of
time
into
this,
so
I
appreciate
your
efforts.
Well,.