►
From YouTube: June 17, 2021 Northside Green Zone Task Force
Description
Additional information at
https://lims.minneapolismn.gov
A
I'll
be
reporting,
this
is
the
june
17th
2021
northside
green
zone
meeting,
and
we
are
going
to
hold
off
on
roll
call
for
a
minute
just
because
of
not
having
quorum
yet,
but
so
the
purpose
of
tonight's
meeting
is
primarily
to
review
the
draft
upper
harbor
terminal
aur
comment
letter,
which
is
due
by
june
24th.
A
So
what
I
can
do,
if
it
makes
sense,
is
read
it
out
loud
or
if
everyone
has
it
in
front
of
them,
they
can
read
it
to
themselves
silently.
I
am
open
to
either
option.
A
Happy
to
all
right,
so
the
letter
begins
to
miss
hillary.
Deborah
says
the
northside
green
zone
task
force
submits
these
comments
in
response
to
the
draft
alternative
urban
area-wide
review
of
the
upper
harbor
terminal
redevelopment
project.
The
north
side
green
zone
task
force
appreciates
the
city
of
minneapolis,
completing
this
necessary
environmental
review
and
opportunity
to
provide
comment
in
reviewing
the
uht
auar.
A
The
northside
green
zone
task
force
was
specifically
looking
for
responses
to
the
questions
and
content
proposed
in
its
march
8
2021
comment
letter
on
the
aur
scoping
document.
The
task
force
requests
that
further
research
and
documentation
is
needed
around
cumulative
impacts,
air
pollution
from
both
stationary
and
mobile
sources
and
cleanup
of
site
contamination.
A
The
city
should
consider
the
aur
incomplete
until
these
issues
are
addressed.
Cumulative
impacts.
In
our
march
8
2021
letter,
we
wrote
an
expanded
cumulative
impacts.
Analysis
of
current
pollution
sources,
including
surrounding
facilities,
I-94,
etc,
must
be
conducted
to
assure
a
reduction
in
the
cumulative
pollution
legacy
in
this
area.
Doing
an
environment
an
overall
cumulative
impact
assessment
is
particularly
important
as
the
uht
site.
Neighbors
facilities
such
as
gaf,
do
not
have
to
undergo
permit
review.
A
Since
they
are
grandfathered
in,
we
would
like
to
know
how
the
city
is
assessing
the
cumulative
impacts
of
this
development
and
assuring
the
community
that
a
reduction
in
net
benefit
is
occurring
during
any
project's
construction.
Remediation
in
operation,
the
auar
interpreted,
the
rules
for
cumulative
impacts
to
only
include
future
related
projects.
While
it
is
important
to
consider
future
and
related
construction
phases,
the
task
force
would
specifically
like
to
see
an
analysis
of
the
existing
impacts
and
how
the
proposed
development
will
increase
or
decrease
impacts
in
this
environmental
justice
community.
A
A
How
do
you
individually
mitigate
cumulative
impacts?
Specifically?
The
task
force
would
like
to
see
an
analysis
akin
to
the
cumulative
levels
and
effects
law
authored
by
representatives,
clark
and
bergman.
The
cumulative
levels
and
effects
law
states
that
a
permit,
or
in
this
case
a
project's
environmental
review,
should
not
be
approved
without
analyzing
and
considering
the
cumulative
levels
and
effects
of
past
and
current
environmental
pollution.
A
Air
pollution,
as
noted
in
the
section
above
the
task
force,
is
particularly
concerned
about
existing
air
pollution
from
mobile
and
stationary
sources
that
cumulatively
create
some
of
the
worst
air
quality
in
the
state.
In
the
northside
green
zone,
the
aur
states,
the
auar
study
area
is
currently
meeting
all
national
ambient
air
quality
standards
for
the
criteria,
air
pollutants.
For
this
foreseeable
future,
the
trend
of
lower
per
vehicle
emissions
is
expected
to
at
least
offset
growth
in
vehicle
volumes.
A
Therefore,
the
auai
study
area
is
expected
to
continue
meeting
the
national
ambient
air
quality
standards
with
or
without
implementation
of
the
development
scenarios.
Based
on
the
proposed
volumes.
The
proposed
development
scenarios
do
not
exceed
thresholds.
That
would
require
a
quantitative,
I'm
not
actually
sure
what
msa
analysis
is
but
msat
analysis.
Therefore,
the
project
is
not
expected
to
adversely
affect
air
quality.
End
quote.
First,
the
national
air
quality
standards
is
a
floor,
not
a
ceiling
and
should
not
be
interpreted
to
mean
that
air
quality
is
healthy,
even
if
standards
are
being
met.
A
Also,
it
is
unclear
how
the
increased
number
of
vehicle
trips
generated
during
and
after
construction
will
have
no
impact
on
the
air
pollution
volumes
in
the
community
due
to
the
heightened
impact
of
air
pollution
in
this
area.
Qualitative
analysis
is
not
sufficient.
The
task
force
reinforces
its
recommendation
for
quantitative
cumulative
levels
and
effects
analysis
before
the
aur
could
be
approved.
A
Site
contamination,
the
aur
states,
additional
phase
ii
assessments
may
be
required
to
assess
the
extent
of
existing
contaminants.
Any
redevelopment
of
the
property
will
require
coordination
with
the
mpca
to
determine
the
appropriate
remediation
measures
and
handling
of
known
and
unknown
contaminants
encountered
and
quote
what
will
the
criteria
be
for
undertaking
additional
phase
ii
assessments?
The
task
force
would
recommend
that
the
city
and
developers
be
proactive
and
include
a
phase
two
assessment
prior
to
aur
approval.
A
However,
at
the
very
least,
the
city
should
share
the
protocol
for
additional
assessments
to
increase
transparency
around
how
this
decision
will
be
made.
In
summary,
the
northside
greenzone
task
force
appreciates
the
opportunity
to
submit
these
comments
to
the
city
of
minneapolis
and
ask
that
the
city
conduct
further
quantitative
analysis
of
air
pollution
and
cumulative
pollution
impacts.
Prior
to
approving
the
auar.
A
Yes,
no
problem,
so
michelle
added
a
comment
on
the
air
pollution
section
that
says
I
know
that
cumulative
impacts
isn't
a
state
law
yet
and
that
karen's
law
was
specific
to
east
phillips,
but
the
exact
same
pollution
problems
and
health
problems
exist
here
and
it
should
be.
Karen
shows
the
north
side
when
she
does
presentations-
and
we
know
the
health
impacts
based
on
the
botnet
study,
among
others,
I'm
sure
I'm
not
aware
of.
I
don't.
A
I'm
really
concerned
about
the
health
impacts
as
a
result
of
the
air
pollution
and
the
four
title:
one:
polluters,
meaning
those
falling
under
the
national
ambient
air
quality
standards
of
the
clean
air
act
that
are
just
within
that
are
within
a
mile
of
the
lowry
bridge,
just
seeing
what
those
polluters
physically
do
to
mississippi
river.
Huge
particles
should
be
enough
to
alarm
anyone,
not
sure
if
this
concern
translates
to
anything
for
the
letter,
but
I
needed
to
share.
C
Yeah,
I
just
feel
like
that.
Health
piece
is
a
huge
concern
for
me
and
I
don't
know
if
that
you
know
what
the
cumulative
impacts
like
does,
that
automatically
stout
health
to
people?
That's
my
question.
A
We
could
also
add
a
sentence
on
health
impacts
after
the
first
sentence
in
air
pollution
because
it
mentions
you
know
these.
This
pollution
sources
create
some
of
the
worst
air
quality
in
the
state
in
the
northside
green
zone,
so
that
we
could
also
reference.
E
F
A
A
A
G
A
A
And
then
we
will
come
back
to
comments
and
when
we're
ready
do
a
vote
so
for
roll
call.
I
will
call
your
name
unmute
and
just
say
here
or
present
or
whatever
way.
You
would
like
to
express
your
presence.
A
G
G
A
F
A
A
A
C
G
A
G
A
Wonderful,
so
that
motion
carries
and
the
agenda
is
accepted
and
the
meetings
are
adopted
and
the
meeting
minutes
are
accepted
back
to
discussing
of
the
letter.
Are
there
any
other
comments?
Questions
additions,
subtractions
that
we
want
to
make
to
the
letter
feel
free
to
raise
your
hand,
mute
yourself,
drop
a
comment
in
the
chat,
whatever
works
best.
D
I
have
a
comment:
go
for
it
yeah.
I
mean
there's
a
lot
of
frustrating
things
that
came
up
during
the
last
meeting,
but
one
of
the
things
for
me
that
was
the
most
egregious
I
thought
was
when
the
conversation
began
about
how
the
permit
would
not
allow
for
that
kind
of
building
based
on
height
and
all
of
a
sudden.
It
was
like,
oh
well,
we
could
just
change
the
permit
that
is
extremely
insulting
to
any
residents
living
around
this
area.
Marshall,
terrace,
the
north
side
that
have
been
dealing
with
gaff.
D
You
know
for
the
last
30
years
and
have
been
repeatedly
told
nothing
can
be
done
because
they're
working
on
a
permit
from
the
1970s
those
those
two
stark
contrasts
like
are
one
of
the
most
infuriating
parts
of
my
entire
time
being
involved
in
the
green
zone,
and
if
there
is
a
way.
D
Sound
to
me,
like
it
was
acknowledged
in
a
way
in
in
the
draft
you
read,
but
man.
I
would
love
to
put
a
little
bit
more
of
a
point
on
that.
It's
it's
it.
In
my
opinion,
it
personifies
everything,
that's
wrong
with
government.
You
know
it's
just
that
this.
This
group
of
people
for
this
purpose,
especially
when
it
involves
millions
of
dollars,
is
okay
to
change
permits,
but
for
the
hundreds
and
thousands
of
people
that
have
died
of
asthma
and
cancer
over
the
last
few
generation.
D
Five
generations,
like
you,
know,
screw
you
guys,
sorry,
nothing.
We
can
do.
D
I'm
sorry,
I
can't
be
more
articulate
about
what
that
verbiage
would
look
like
I
just
that
was
just
something
that
really
really
stood
out
to
me
during
the
last
meeting.
H
Well,
this
is
this
is
jim
with
cped,
so
I
I
don't
want
to
discount
anything.
Anybody
says,
and
I
don't
want
this
to.
I
purposely
stay
quiet
a
lot
of
times
in
these
meetings
because
I
feel
like
I
don't
want
to
get
into
sounding,
like
I'm
rebutting
what
people
say,
but
just
on
the
height
issue,
as
comparing
a
height
permit
to
some
of
the
other
permits.
It's
just
the
thing
that's
a
little
different.
H
You
know
that
still
would
have
to
go
before
our
city
processes
and
still
would
have
to
be
approved,
but
I
I
guess
the
the
difference
and
is
just
because
we
I
mean
you
can
look
at
any
planning
commission
meeting.
I've
worked
for
the
city
for
20
years
and
that's
something
I
did.
I
mean
there
are
every
meeting.
H
There
is
an
increase
in
height
of
buildings,
so
I
mean
it's
something,
that's
fairly
commonly
done
throughout
the
city
and
then
I
think
one
thing
that
was
confusing
people
a
little
bit
was
the
critical
area,
regulations
and
people
saying
well,
there's
a
height
there
and
you
should
never
get
a
chance
to
increase
the
height
or
not.
H
But
the
way
the
dnr
and
the
state
legislature
wrote
the
rules
and,
and
then
the
way
the
city
wrote
the
zoning
ordinance
and-
and
I
guess
I
I
don't
even
know
if
I
want
to
bring
this
up
but
the
reason
I
know
that,
as
I
wrote,
the
the
zoning
ordinance
for
that
is
that
we
said
you
know
you
have
height
limits
and
we
we
made
something
stricter
than
what
the
state
did,
which
we
did
some
tiering
in
some
parts
of
the
river,
where
we
we
lowered
the
height
from
what
they
wanted
and
in
other
areas
we
we
said
it
would
be
where
they
said
it.
H
But
there
was
always
this
provision
that
you
could
ask
for
a
conditional
use
permit
to
increase
height
in
the
river.
But
it's
not
that
hey,
I'm
not
going
to
meet
the
standard,
I'm
just
going
to
get
a
conditional
use
permit.
It
was
no
you
you
meet
this
base
standard
and
if
you
want
more
height,
then
the
plan
for
the
critical
area
details,
the
types
of
design
features
or
things
that
you
have
to
do
to
get
that
height.
H
So-
and
I
don't
know
if
lars
I'm
totally
addressing
the
comment
that
you
heard,
because
I'm
not
sure
what
comment
it
was,
and
so
maybe
I
might
be
conflating
issues
and
I
apologize
if
I'm
doing
that.
But
I
just
want
people
to
know
that
the
the
permitting
for
land
use
and
in
the
zoning
code
is
designed
to
have
things
like
variances
and
conditional
use
permits.
That
has.
D
D
Saying
just
so
you
I
understand,
I
understand
that,
but
you're
still
explaining
that
there's
a
process
in
place
to
change
an
existing
zoning
regulator
or
rule
and
and
there
doesn't
seem
to
be
the
same
process
for
anyone
to
change.
You
know
one
of
the
worst
polluters
on
the
river,
the
the
one
that's
going
to
be
right.
Next,
to
where
this
amphitheater
theater
is
going
to
be
built,
and-
and
I
mean
it
seems
to
many
of
us
that
they're
working
on
like
in
like
the
deck,
is
so
stacked
against.
D
You
know
everyone
with
gaff,
because
they're
working
on
something
no
one
can
seem
to
touch,
and
no
one
has
an
answer.
Why
that's
the
case?
I
mean
owens
corning
right
up,
the
road
has
a
completely
different
permit
than
gaff
and
they
do
the
exact
same
thing.
So
it's
it's.
It's
pretty
insulting
and
it's
pretty
frustrating
to
be
volunteering,
so
many
hours
of
our
time
on
this
committee.
D
As
you
know,
we're
basically
proxies,
for
you
know
the
the
residents
of
minneapolis
and
we're
repeatedly
told
there's
nothing
that
can
be
done
because
they
have
a
permit
that
they've
been
grandfathered
into
and
and
like
you
said,
I
I
I
I
know
what
you're
saying
jim.
I
appreciate
that,
but
you
know
you're
still
explaining
that
there's
a
process
in
place
to
change
it,
but
not
a
process
in
place
to
ever
do
the
same
thing
with
gaff.
H
H
So
to
me
I
I
just
want
to
finish
and
then
you
can
decide
whether
you
guys
think
I
make
any
sense
or
not
or
I'm
full
of
baloney,
but
to
me
the
way
I
would
lars
when
I
first
heard
it
it
felt
like,
and
I'm
not
saying
this
is
right
or
wrong.
But
if
I
was
a
government
person
reading
it,
I
would
hear
hey,
you
came
out
and
insulted
us,
and
the
response
would
probably
be
well.
H
You
know
we're
just
saying:
that's
the
process,
you
know,
and
I
mean
it's
easy
to
dismiss,
but
I
think
if
you
flipped
it
on
its
head,
like
you
were
doing
the
second
time
you
explained
it,
which
is
you
know,
the
city
develops
processes
for
for
flexibility
in
its
zoning.
Why
and
and
processes
for
evaluating?
Why
isn't
that
same
opportunity
afforded
for
these
other
permits?
Why
is
it
just?
D
Yeah,
so
I'm
the
first
to
admit
that
with
this
particular
issue,
I'm
I'm
way
more
emotional
than
rational,
so
any
any
advice
on
how
we
can
actually
reach
people
on
that
and
like
put
this
in
a
letter,
that's
constructive,
I'm
all
for
that!
That's
that's
fine
and
that's
great.
I
would
love
to
I
I
mean,
and
I'm
not
even
saying
I'm
the
one
to
do
it.
D
I'm
not
saying
I
have
a
great
way
to
articulate
that,
but
you
know
in
this
in
this
draft,
but
it's
just
one
particular
point
of
the
discussion
that
got
extremely
heated
last
week
that
I
didn't
make
a
comment
on
last
week,
but
I
I
wanted
to
this
week.
B
Yeah,
so
I
wanted
to
ask
how
we
would
go
about
putting
that
in
the
letter
like.
Should
we
make
a
new
section
to
talk
about
this,
or
should
we
try
to
work
it
in
some
of
the
other
sections,
because
I
also
got
mad
at
brandon,
who
put
in
the
chat
that
the
cpc
said
it
was
okay,
because
it
would
make
room
for
more
affordable
housing.
Without
commenting
on
how
much
more
room
we
could
have
for
affordable
housing
if
they
didn't
build
a
10
000
person,
amphitheater.
A
I
was
thinking
of
maybe
just
adding
a
new
section
and
putting
a
sentence
or
two
there
to
address
this,
and
I
think
to
jim's
point
so
the
letter
that
we're
writing
right
now
is
specifically
com
for
a
public
comment
period
on
the
environmental
review
process,
and
so
I
think
you
know
we
can
include
whatever
content
or
the
task
force
can
include
whatever
content
you
want
in
the
letter
and
and
make
those
points,
because
we
will
be
sending
this
to
the
city
council
in
the
mayor's
office
as
well,
but
a
comment
related
to
sort
of
the
inherent
inequity
in
those
having
permitting
processes
for
one
versus
the
other.
A
It's
not
going
to
be
addressed
in
the
environmental
review.
That's
like
a
bigger
systemic
issue
that
you
know,
I
think,
in
in
direct
and
indirect
ways.
This
task
force
is
confronting,
and
so
I
I
definitely
think
if
folks
want
to
include
something
like
that
in
the
letter
absolutely
do
it.
You
just
probably
won't
get
a
very
satisfactory
if
any
response
to
it,
because
this
again
process
this
specific
process
isn't
intended
to
address
that
systemic
issue.
A
It's
more
of
a
development
question
from
my
understanding,
so
jim.
Maybe
you
would
want
to
provide
your
two
cents
on
that.
I
think
what
the
concern
would
be
is
if
there
was
an
environmental
impact
of
the
proposed
height
increase
like
we
could
articulate
what
we
think
that
environmental
impact
would
be.
A
My
understanding
of
reading
through
the
auar
for
the
minis
for
the
mississippi
river
critical
area
overlay.
Is
that
it's
more
about
view
sheds,
so
the
ability
for
someone
standing
so
far
away
from
the
river
to
be
able
to
see
the
river
than
it
is
about
actually
protecting
any
environmental
issues,
and
so,
as
long
as
the
height
increases
are
done
in
such
a
way
that
it's
tiered
and
like
a
tall
building
as
it
builds
right
on
the
water
edge
in
front
of
a
short
building.
A
H
Well,
there's
a
here
there's
a
couple
different
things
going
on
there,
but
one
the
you
know
the
aur
is
really
again
whether
we
like
the
process
or
not,
is
more
of
a
discovery
document.
It's
not
a
when
it
says
somebody
needs
a
cup
for
height
or
a
rezoning.
It's
not
saying
approve
that
it's
just
saying
that
that's
the
the
and
then
the
the
process
you
know
so
they
can
be
a
little
frustrating
right
because
then
we
say
go
to
this
process
and
and
then
you
have
to
go
to
that
process
and
it's
tough.
H
But
as
far
as
the
critical
area
goes
yes,
the
the
so
I
mean
I
think
one
could
say
that
there's
an
issue
with
height,
but
I
think
if
you
say
the
height
asking
for
an
increase
in
height
is
not
allowed
in
the
critical
area.
That
will
be
very
easy
to
dismiss,
because
it's
factually
not
true,
I
I
don't
mean
to
be
harsh
about
it,
but
it's
not
I
mean
I
know,
because
I
sat
in
all
the
meetings.
I
read
the
legislation.
H
I
wrote
the
zoning
ordinance,
that's
specifically
written,
so
you
can
ask
for
an
increase
in
height
if
you
meet
certain
standards
now,
if
they
came
and
built
a
building
that
cut
down
all
the
trees
and
built
right
up
to
the
river
and
didn't
taper
and
tear
and
consider
view
sheds
yeah,
then
we
shouldn't
approve
it,
but
if
they
did
the
things
they're
supposed
to
do
it's
supposed
to
be
approved.
So
I
think
you
know
you
got
to
think
about
how
you
direct
your
comments.
H
Again,
people
can
say
anything
they
want,
but
you
know
if
you
say
things
that
are
factually
untrue.
I
just
know
from
doing
this
work.
It
makes
it
super
easy
just
to
dismiss
everything
and
dismiss
the
intent
and
everything
to
just
say
nope.
That's
not
what
the
critical
area
says
move
on,
and
so
you
know
I
would
try
to
avoid
doing
that.
If
you
you
can,
I
would
add,
on
the
critical
area.
Yes,
it
is
about
the
view
corridors
and
one
thing
to
be
aware
of.
Is
we
specifically
said
what
view
corridors?
H
You
know
there
are
setbacks
from
the
river
and
there
are
things
called
primary
conservation
areas
and
actually,
whether
one
agrees
with
it
or
not,
one
of
the
reasons
we
we
want
to
allow
some
height
is
you
know.
Maybe
somebody
can
build
the
taller,
a
taller
building
that
avoids
an
environmentally
sensitive
area
or
has
a
smaller
footprint
rather
than
a
longer
shorter
building.
So
again,
I'm
not
sure
everybody
would
agree
with
that,
but
that
was
the
thought
behind
it.
So
kelly,
sorry,
I'm
not
sure
if
I'm
answering
the
question
or
not.
A
Good,
so
do
others,
maybe
you
should
ask,
do
others
have
any
ideas
on
how
to
include
a
sentence
or
two
about
this
or
do
you
have
any
concerns
about
including
a
sentence
or
two
in
the
letter
related
to,
and
if
I
could
summarize
it,
the
inequity
of
having
a
process
for.
A
A
E
Gee
call
me
out:
why
don't
you
yeah,
I
can
go
in
the
document
and
write
write
something
up
while
you
guys
continue
chatting
if
that's
helpful,.
A
Okay,
that
would
be
great,
well
julia's,
working
on
that
are
there
any
other
additions
or
issues
that
we
would
either
want
to
address
in
this
possibly
flag
for
another
conversation
or
anything.
That's
in
the
letter
that
you
would
not
agree.
A
A
F
A
F
G
G
For
me,
I
got
kind
of
a
little
common
thoughts
but
pertaining
to
the
contamination
section
about
how
the
city
is
planning
to
do
more
assessment.
I
was
looking
at
the
npca's
website
on
what's
on.
What's
in
my
neighborhood
and
their
upper
herbert
terminal
site-
and
it
seems
like
they
have,
the
pca
has
some
kind
of
idea
of
what
kind
of
pollutants
are
present
at
the
site.
G
I
was
wondering
if
the
city
is
aware
of
these
resources
and
are
already
know
about
these
contaminants,
or
are
they
trying
to
pursue
with
more
assessment
of
other
contaminants
that
may
be
present
in
addition
to
the
ones
that
are
already
been
presented
and
the
site
that
another,
that
mndot
did
some
assessment
and
they
submitted
the
contaminants
they
found
to
pca?
I
just
wanted
to
know
if
the
city
like
incorporated
that
to
the
uart,
but
it
wasn't
really
clear.
A
Yeah,
no,
that's
a
great
question.
I
don't
know
the
answer
to
that.
I
don't
know
if,
if
jim,
you
have
any
insights,
I
do
know
that
this,
the
planning
department,
the
staff,
have
been
working
on
the
upper
harbor
terminal.
They
do
have
a
number
of
sort
of
like
site
contamination
documents
listed
on
the
upper
harbor
terminal
website.
I
don't
know
if
that
includes
all
the
ones
that
you
found.
A
G
I
think
some
of
the
contaminants
know
that
we're
volatile
organic
compounds
and
then
burnt
wood,
concrete
and
then
asphalt
concrete
from
a
previous
industrial
use,
but
also
diesel
range,
organics,
hydrocarbons
and
gasoline.
G
B
A
A
A
G
Yep,
I
dropped
the
link
to
the
mpc
website,
so
I
can
probably
look
at
that
if
anyone
wants
more
references,
but
some
of
the
ones
that
I
I
saw
in
the
letter
were
of
all
the
organic
compounds
and
then
burnt
wood,
concrete
asphalt,
metals,
polynuclear
aromatic
hydrocarbons,
diesel
range,
organic,
gasoline
range,
running,
organics
and
pesticides,
as
some
of
them.
A
A
A
A
F
A
A
All
right:
well,
I'm
in
the
document
and
I'm
seeing
what
julia
is.
Writing
I
like
it.
I
wonder
if
we
want
to
just
go
with
the
first
couple
sentences
to
start
with
and
then
see
if
there
are
like
these
first
three
sentences
and
then
see,
if
there's
any
concluding
statements
that
folks
want
to
add
in
julia,
do
you
want
to
read
what
you
wrote.
E
Sure-
and
I
saw
that
you
added
something,
so
thank
you
for
that.
Okay,
it
reads
the
north
side.
Green
zone
task
force
understands
that
under
the
mrcca
minnesota
river,
critical,
something
overlay
developers
may
legally
request
increased
height
allowances
through
conditional
use
permits.
A
Let's
say
the
zoning
and
it's
permit.
B
Maybe
we
could
end
with
saying
like
we
would
ask
the
auar
to
address
the
necessity
of
a
conditional
use
permit
in
the
development
plan
to
kind
of
tie
it
back
into
the
auar.
At
the
end,.
D
A
F
B
G
A
G
F
A
Thank
you
all
for
spending
your
extra
time
on
this
holding
an
additional
meeting
and
all
the
communication
between
meetings
unless
there
are
any
announcements
or
anything
else
that
folks
wanted
to
share
now.
I'll.
Just
note
that
our
next
meeting
is
a
joint
green
zone
meeting
with
the
southside
green
zone,
and
that
will
be
on
tuesday
june
29th
from
5
to
7..