►
From YouTube: Historic Landmarks Commission Meeting - 6/28/2018
C
A
A
F
B
A
G
H
A
You
go
excellent.
Thank
you
very
much
wisher!
Well,
when
you
have
communications
with
her,
so
we
now
have
public
comment
period
and
I
have
a
card
from
mr.
Steven
pace
who
would
like
to
address
probably
the
rehabilitation
of
222
4th
Avenue.
So
if
you
want
to
come
up
and
just
take
one
of
the
microphones
make
sure
the
lights
on
and
take
a
couple
of
minutes
to
walk
us
through
your
clock,
I
hope.
I
You
all
think
I
some
paper
that
I
passed
out
I'm
going
to
talk
from
it,
but
you
might
want
to
look
at
the
last
page,
which
is
a
photograph
from
nineteen
five
of
the
site.
This
is
sort
of
an
anniversary.
It's
been
99
days
as
of
today
that
I've
been
trying
to
get
something
rolling
on
this
been
completely
frustrated.
It's
been
an
exercise
that
has
not
built
any
muscles.
I
I
Put
this
together,
I've
tried
in
a
bunch
of
dates
that
are
shown
on
this
first
page
of
the
handouts.
You've
got
to
see
if
we
could
rehabilitate
it
buttered
my
head
against
the
wall
now
for
30-some
odd
years.
The
lot
itself-
and
this
is
just
the
222
for
seven
and
a
lot-
is
about
8,500
square
feet.
I
think
it
is
the
biggest
piece
of
flat
unused
ground
in
the
at
least
in
any
kind
of
close
proximity
to
downtown
the
carriage
house,
which
is
the
white
building
in
the
white
roof.
I
Building
in
the
photograph
is
on
about
6000
square
feet
of
ground
I've
been
trying
to
figure
out
a
use
for
it
other
than
a
dwelling
unit
and
have
struck
out
totally
with
the
city
and
with
all
the
architects
that
nobody
suggest
that
I
do
anything
to
made
any
economic
sense
with
the
other
than
let
it
rot
or
scrape
it
off.
It
is
individually
listed
on
the
National,
Register
and
I.
Don't
want
to
do
that.
The.
I
The
only
thing,
that's
saving
the
thing
from
being
totally
obliterated
by
the
increased
homeless
population
out
there
I
think
is
that
it
is
in
such
lousy
shape
that
people
are
afraid
to
go
into
it.
The
roof
on
it
is
not
look
is
collapsed
in
a
couple
of
places,
but
it's
still
I've
rebuilt
the
other
property
which
were
an
equally
bad
shape
and
I'd
like
to
do
this
one.
I
So
the
purpose
of
me
coming
in
here
tonight
and
if
you
flip
to
the
middle
page
of
what
I
sent
you
this
is
where
I
kicked
off
with
Councilman
Wharton
99
days
ago.
The
suggestion
I
got
I'll,
try
and
wrap
this
up
in
about
a
minute.
The
suggestion
I
got
from
congressman
Wharton
and
then
also
from
the
deputy
planning
director
to
start
off
with
was
that
we
try
his
owning
text
amendment
to
allow
the
city
the
flexibility
to
if
other
things
were
appropriate.
I
As
far
as
the
city
was
concerned,
to,
let
me
rebuild
that
that
property
I
patterned,
that
after
the
Ogden,
rehab
orden
and
so
I
believed
I
suggested
to
the
city-
is
legal
in
Utah.
It's
been
in
effect
in
Ogden
is
a
last
resort.
Rehab
procedure
for
Historic
Register
buildings
that
are
in
danger
of
being
lost
and
the
response
I
got
was
well
sent
a
subtext
amendment
language
which
I
did
I,
got
a
call
back
saying
no,
no,
no.
This
is
too
narrowly
focused.
I
We
want
to
have
a
citywide
adaptive,
reuse,
ordinance,
I,
did
talk
to
the
deputy
planning
director
and
said
well.
That
means,
then,
apparently,
that
it
would
take
if
it's
citywide
it's
going
to
take
a
bunch
of
time
to
research
it
and
put
it
together,
and
it's
going
to
take
a
whole
bunch
more
time
to
deal
with
the
public
uproar.
I
It's
going
to
create
her
response
was
that's
right,
so
I
guess,
given
that
we're
going
on
now,
10
years
for
adaptive,
reuse
without
producing
any
reason
any
effect
on
the
housing
stock
in
Salt,
Lake
City,
and
we
just
saw
probably
the
most
colossal
freakout
politically
in
the
set
in
the
county
on
the
Olympia
Hills
project
in
the
south.
End
I
think
there's
something
not
making
a
whole
lot
of
sense
about
a
bunch
of
the
way
the
city
is
trying
to
plan
this
stuff.
I
If
it
were
me,
I'd
do
stuff
small
scale
a
bit
at
a
time
in
places
where
it
doesn't
piss
off
the
neighborhood,
try
to
learn
from
it
and
then
move
on,
but
the
city's
position
is
it's
apparently
that
it's
more
important
to
preserve
the
zoning
procedures
than
it
is
to
preserve
the
landmarks
and
that's
a
few
minutes
of
what
I've
been
concerned
about
and
I
would
very
much.
You
know
if
you're
interested
like
to
come
back
and
talk
it.
A
Well,
I
think
I
think
some
of
the
issues
that
you
know
important
issues
raised
and
an
important
needs
present
of
that
location,
certainly
and
I
think
what
the
right
thing
to
do
is
probably
ask
staff
to
give
us
a
report,
perhaps
of
the
next
Commission
meeting,
and
give
us
a
little
update
and
background
on
this,
because
this
is
all
new
I
think
to
probably
everyone
on
the
Commission
and
perhaps
schedule
as
part
of
a
future
work
session,
if
appropriate,
on
a
future
night
of
the
Commission.
So
thank
you
very
much.
A
A
There
are
no
other
sort
of
general
preservation
public
comments
this
evening,
we'll
start
with
item
number
one
on
our
agenda,
which
is
the
National
Register
nomination
for
the
house
at
7:01,
High
Street,
the
Lowell
and
Emily
parish
house
Sarah,
if
you'd
like
to
take
us
through
that,
hopefully
you'll
get
all
four
screens
there.
Thank.
J
E
J
You
so
yes,
this
is
a
review
of
a
National
Register
nomination
for
the
Lowell
and
Emily
parish
house,
which
is
located
at
701,
North,
I
Street
and
as
a
certified
local
government.
The
Historic
Landmarks
Commission
has
the
opportunity
to
review
National
Register
nominations
and
provide
a
recommendation
to
the
State
Historic
Preservation
Office
and
the
National
Park
Service,
the
State
Historic
Preservation
Review
Board
will
be
reviewing
this
nomination
on
August,
2nd
and
I
just
wanted
to
go
over
a
few
of
the
details
of
it
this
evening.
J
So
as
I
mentioned,
this
is
a
nomination
for
the
Lowell
and
Emily
parish
house.
It's
located
at
701,
North
I
street,
it's
located
north
of
13th
Avenue,
and
it's
on
the
west
side
of
I
street.
The
property
is
nominated
for
a
criterion
C
its
significance
and
architecture.
It's
an
early
example
of
the
Radian
modern
style.
It
was
designed
by
a
Lowell
parish
for
his
family.
It
was
built
in
1951
and
served
as
his
residence
served
as
the
family's
residence
until
his
early
death
in
1960.
J
This
particular
style
wasn't
common
in
Utah
at
that
time
and
the
other
examples
of
it
are
from
later.
In
the
50s
or
the
1960s,
it
was
included
in
an
avenues
Extension
survey
in
1994,
and
at
that
time
it
was
designated
out
of
period,
but
staffs
opinion
is
that
it
would
be
considered
contributing
if
it
was
resurveyed.
J
You
can
see
here.
The
East
elevation
facing
I
Street
and
the
I
strait
elevation
in
the
nomination
is
considered
a
secondary
facade
and
you
can
see
the
south
and
the
East
elevation
in
the
lower
image.
And
then
there
are
two
historic
photos
here
with
similar
views.
The
top
of
the
south
and
the
east
photo
and
in
the
South
photo
also
a
historic
photo.
K
L
A
A
E
So,
as
I
was
reviewing
the
materials
in
preparation
for
today,
I
saw
there
was
a
quite
a
bit
of
focus
on
Luis
Francis,
so
Luis,
Francis
and
I
were
coq,
lurks
at
the
Utah
Court
of
Appeals
about
twenty-one
years
ago,
or
maybe
a
little
longer.
He
was
the
best
friend
of
a
boyfriend
I
had
at
the
time,
and
we
spent
quite
a
bit
of
time
together.
I
haven't
seen
him
in
probably
15
years
or
so,
but
I
do
have
a
high
opinion
of
him.
K
H
E
A
A
A
M
The
city
has
an
economic
hardship
process
to
allow
the
applicant
the
opportunity
to
demonstrate
whether
the
denial
deprives
the
applicant
of
all
reasonable
economic
use
or
return
on
the
subject
property.
As
part
of
this
process,
a
three-person
economic
hardship,
Review
Panel,
was
established.
One
person
was
appointed
by
the
landmark
Commission
one
person
was
appointed
by
the
applicant
and
the
third
member
was
appointed
by
the
mayor.
M
M
So
as
far
as
the
landmark
Commission's
decision,
it
must
be
consistent
with
the
findings
and
conclusions
of
the
economic
hardship
panel
unless
the
Commission
finds
by
three-fourths
of
a
quorum
that
the
review
panel
either
acted
arbitrarily
or
based.
The
report
on
erroneous
findings
of
fact
and
I'll
have
Paul
go
over
some
additional
information
to
that
and
then
I
do
have
to
help
facilitate
the
discussion
tonight.
I
do
have
this
image
up
on
the
screen.
M
It
includes
a
photo
of
the
property,
the
petition
number
an
aerial
map
and
then
the
numbers
in
the
corner
are
the
same
numbers
that
the
report
of
the
hardship
panel
and
the
engineering
report
refers
to
the
buildings
as
buildings.
One
two
through
nine
and
then
also
just
a
reminder
of
the
this
application
is
vested
under
the
old
economic
hardship
standards.
So
I
do
have
printouts
of
those
available
to
if
anyone
needs
those-
and
at
this
point
I
can
turn
the
time
over
to
Paul.
H
H
As
Amy
said
under
the
former
ordinance
and
the
same
Amy
indicated,
your
role
is
to
take
in
the
evidence,
including,
very
specifically,
the
findings
and
conclusions
of
the
economic
hardship
panel,
and
let
me
sort
of
underline
something
that
Amy
said
it's
a
3/4
majority
of
the
Commission
required
to
overturn
or
to
reject
some
or
all
of
the
panel's
findings.
If
there
is
an
e
Rona
I'm
going
to
read
it
because
clumsy.
H
If,
if
you
think
that
there
was
an
error
in
their
findings
on
something
that's
an
insignificant,
then
you
know
we'll
just
let
that
dog
lie,
but
it
has
to
be
something:
that's
critical
to
the
the
standards
and
the
purposes
of
this
process
so
back
to
the
3/4
of
majority
of
its
of
a
quorum
present.
There
are
nine
of
you
here.
Your
rules
state
that
the
chair
doesn't
vote
unless
there's
a
tie,
if
there's
a
tie,
we're
not
hitting
3/4
anyways
so
because
you
have
nine
here
and
we've
got
to
reach
at
least
75%.
H
H
So
there
we
are
with
that.
If
there
is
a
finding
of
economic
hardship,
I'm
just
going
to
read
this
straight
from
the
old
ordinance,
if,
after
reviewing
all
of
the
Commission,
finds
that
the
application
of
the
standards
set
forth
in
Subsection
K
2
of
this
section
results
in
economic
hardship,
then
the
historic
landmark
Commission
shall
issue
a
certificate
of
appropriateness
for
demolition.
There
are
the
additional
steps
of
working
through
the
building
permits
and
making
sure
they
have
a
reuse
plan,
etc,
etc.
H
I
submitted
a
memo
to
the
hardship
panel
and
I
that
should
be
included
in
your
materials
on
some
of
the
the
Supreme
Court
case
law
surrounding
this
stuff.
These
are
delicate
issues
and
if,
at
some
point
in
this
meeting
the
Commission
having
a
discussion
to
discuss
pending
or
likely
litigation,
we
can
do
that
there
actually
is
pending
litigation.
There
was
an
appeal
filed
on
the
previous
denial
of
demolition,
but
in
my
opinion
there
would
be
grounds
to
have
a
closed
meeting.
If
you
determine
that's
necessary
on.
H
M
N
Afternoon,
mr.
chairman
members
of
the
planning
of
Stricker
landmark
Commission,
my
name
is
Bruce
beard,
I'm
counsel,
for
the
project
at
for
IRS.
Mr.
Donner
stirrings
here
with
me.
I
will
be
brief
for
several
reasons.
First
of
all,
I'm
sure,
you've
all
read
my
letter.
I
want
to
apologize
and
getting
it
to
you.
Late
I
sent
it
along
with
a
large
package
of
materials.
N
This
email
server
for
the
city
bounced
it
back
and
when
I
resent
it
I
attached
the
wrong
letter,
so
I
apologize
I've
figured
that
out
when
I
talked
to
Paul
the
other
day
and
resent
it
so
it's
my
fault
and
when
I
make
a
mistake,
I
acknowledge
it.
I
also
want
to
thank
Amy
and
Michaela
for
their
excellent
staff.
Work
on
this
they've
done
a
good
job
of
coordinating
a
difficult
argument.
N
The
other
reason
I
want
to
be
brief,
is
I
can
count
and
the
odds
on
me
getting
seven
of
you
to
determine
that
these
buildings
should
be
torn.
The
the
four
it
should
be
torn
down
are
are
pretty
close
to
zero.
I'm
gonna
try,
but
I
can
read.
Tea
leaves
and
I've
been
here
before
so
I'm,
not
going
to
waste
your
time.
A
lot
on
that
and
the
odds
on
getting
seven
of
you
to
vote
against
the
six.
N
The
buildings
that
were
recommended
for
being
torn
down
based
off
of
a
lack
of
evidence
is,
should
should
be
zero,
so
I
won't
waste
a
lot
of
time.
On
that,
mr.
Richardson,
you
asked
at
dinner
how
how
you
should
react
if
I
attacked
members
of
the
HLC
personally
and
I
guess
she
didn't
see
me
hiding
in
the
back
of
in
plain
sight,
but
I
I
don't
intend
to
attack
anybody
personally
here
on
this
panel.
I've
done
enough
of
that
with
the
excrescences.
N
I
did
have
a
few
biblical
verses
that
I
was
going
to
quote
since
I
quoted
Monty
Python.
In
my
brief
I
was
going
to
quote
from
Matthew
and
Jeremiah,
but
I'll,
let
you
guess
which
those
verses
were,
because
some
people
might
interpret
them
as
an
attack
and
I'd,
rather
not
do
that.
So
let
me
talk
about
the
legal
basis
for
tearing
the
six
buildings
down.
N
The
six
buildings
are
beyond
any
doubt
in
anyone's
mind,
going
to
fall
down.
It's
just
a
matter
of
when
not
if
and
they
cannot
possibly
be
fixed.
We
submitted
of
evidence
that
complied
with
all
of
the
cities,
utterly
unintelligible
standards
and
standards.
That
I
should
acknowledge.
The
city
repeatedly
admitted
were
unintelligible,
but
we
submitted
the
book
anyway
to
members
of
the
panel
found
that
the
book
was
sufficient.
I
think
based
on
so
I,
can't
lift
it
one
handed
based
on
mere
weight.
N
It
would
be
impossible
for
anyone
to
find
that
those
six
buildings
did
not
meet
the
standards
to
be
torn
down.
We
had
an
engineering
report,
we
had
an
economic
report,
we
had
appraisals,
we
did
everything
we
could
possibly
do
on
those
six
buildings.
We
also
did
everything
we
could
do
on
the
four
and
I'll
spend
a
little
bit
of
time.
Talking
about
the
four
when
I
talk
about
the
four
or
three
because
one
of
them's
a
duplex,
so
that's
what's
sometimes
it
gets
confusing,
whether
there's
nine
buildings
or
ten
buildings.
N
So
we
usually
refer
to
it
as
432,
which
is
the
big
building
on
3rd
west,
the
duplex
and
the
yellow
house.
That's
the
common
nomenclature
in
all
of
the
hearings.
So
let
me
just
take
a
few
seconds
to
talk
about
the
six
reasons
that
are
in
my
letter
or
the
five
reasons
that,
in
my
letter,
I
won't
repeat
them
in
detail,
but
I
have
no
idea
how
mr.
Francis
could
possibly
have
been
qualified
under
the
legal
standard.
I
have
no
idea
how
he
has
not
inherently
biased.
N
He
didn't
disclose
a
bias
that
he
had
and
he
blackballed
a
chairperson
of
the
committee
to
be
chosen
by
the
mayor,
claiming
that
respected
lawyer,
Scott,
say,
be
and
respected.
City
council,
member
Chris
McCandless
were
unqualified
and
inherently
biased.
That
alone
shows
his
bias.
If
you
just
read
the
transcript
of
his
commentary,
you
will
notice
that
essentially
no
question
he
asked
made
any
sense.
N
He
wasn't
miss
applying
the
standards
completely.
The
third
reason
is,
as
I
point
out
in
my
letter,
that
your
code
is
unintelligible
and
by
definition,
if
your
code
is
unintelligible,
it's
not
just
tie
goes
to
the
runner.
It
isn't
even
it
isn't.
Even
if
it's
closed,
we
win
if
it's
ambiguous
and
even
mr.
Francis
acknowledged
that
it
was
ambiguous.
Mrs.
O'grady
acknowledged
that
it
was
ambiguous
if
I
remember
the
last
time.
N
I
was
here
about
six
of
these
buildings
on
the
first
set
of
go-arounds
members
of
this
panel
acknowledged
that
it
was
ambiguous,
I,
believe
your
staff
has
acknowledged
that
it's
ambiguous,
the
Utah,
Supreme
Court
and
now
the
Utah
Legislature
are
100%
clear.
Then,
when
something
is
ambiguous,
tie
goes
to
the
private
property
owner,
because
zoning
laws
are
in
derogation
of
private
property
rights.
If,
if
you
just
acknowledge
the
mere
fact
that
it's
illegal
I'm,
sorry
that
it's
ambiguous,
then
we
have
to
win,
because,
in
addition
to
the
standards
that
mr.
N
N
I
think
I
did
that
nine
months
ago
and
begged
you
to
fix
the
code
when
many
of
you
acknowledged
that
it
was
ambiguous
to
date,
unfortunately,
because
I'm
sure
you're
so
busy
and
the
city
staff
is
so
busy
with
the
development
boom
that
we've
got
going,
they
haven't
had
a
chance
to
figure
out
how
to
deal
with
this
little
nuisance
of
a
problem.
The
final
of
the
next
two
final
reason
is
that
there
was
absolutely
no
evidence
submitted
by
anyone
to
the
contrary
to
establish
the
hardship.
N
Now
there
was
some
speculation,
especially
on
the
are
the
building's
going
to
fall
over
tomorrow
or
are
they
gonna
fall
over
next
week,
and
there
was
some
speculation
that
perhaps
the
tax
credits
might
miraculously
help,
but
there
was
no
evidence
and
no
math.
This
is
simply
a
question
of
math.
Can
the
buildings
be
restored
economically
or
have
you
taken
a
constituted
a
taking?
It's
not
a
question
of
math,
of
whether
the
five
standards
three
of
them
are
met
or
not.
N
That's
absurd
and
the
only
person
who
believed
that
further
emphasizing
his
bias
and
his
incompetence
was
Mr
Francis.
The
other
two
members
of
the
panel
didn't
bother
to
think
that,
and
it
clearly
makes
no
sense
when
you're
dealing
with
a
constitutional,
taking
merely
to
see
whether
there's
three
or
five
factors.
The
question
is
very
simple:
can
the
buildings
be
restored
economically
or
is
the
city
effectively
taking
them
by
denying
the
right
to
demolish
them
and
forcing
them
to
stay
up?
N
The
city
cannot
force
my
client
to
waste
more
money
and
pour
good
money
down
a
rat
hole.
Is
that
old
joke
their
boat
is
just
a
hole
in
the
water
in
which
you
throw
money
many
times
without
an
unlimited
budget
and
mr.
Richardson
I
know
this
is
your
business.
You
would
probably
know
better
than
almost
anybody
how
much
it
costs
to
restore
historic
buildings.
Ironically,
you
probably
would
have
been
quality.
You
would
have
been
qualified
to
be
on
this.
N
Panel
I
might
have
objected
because
you
might
have
been
a
little
biased,
given
your
historic
bent,
but
you
would
have
been
qualified
there's.
No
doubt
you
would
have
been
qualified
hell.
You
might
be
the
only
person
I
can
think
of
who's
actually
qualified
under
the
new
standard,
which
is
pretty
hard
to
get
somebody
qualified
under
the
new
standard.
N
Finally,
the
the
panel
simply
misunderstood
the
law
and
applied
the
facts
and
Miss
and
Miss
applied
the
facts
and
it's
in
its
and
it's
really
beyond
doubt
all
they
said
was.
Tax
credits
are
available,
therefore
check
the
box
number
five
on
the
standards.
Well,
tax
credits
may
be
available,
but
that
doesn't
matter
the
tax
credits
are
unusable
to
this
landowner
in
any
material
way.
To
make
the
economics
of
this
building
funk.
N
These
of
this
restoration
function
and
I've
run
through
that
in
the
letter
that
we
attached
from
the
accountant
I've
summarized
my
testimony
to
the
my
statements
to
the
panel
in
the
letter,
the
the
function,
the
focus
of
the
fetish
focus
on
fetishistic
focus
on
whether
these
buildings
were
going
to
fall
down
tomorrow.
As
ms
Grady
said,
is
there
a
quote
fatal
defect,
close
quote:
well
that
fatal
defect
is
not
the
test,
the
question
all
because,
as
we
all
know,
everything
can
be
restored.
N
It
just
costs
a
lot
of
money,
so
I
would,
in
conclusion,
and
I
took
a
little
longer
than
I
expected
and
I
and
I
hate
reading,
something
that
you
should
have
already
read,
but
I'm
going
to
do
it
anyway,
just
for
impact
the
seventh
page
of
the
letter
for
mr.
Condor,
and
we
we
submitted
this
supplemental
letter
because
it
seemed
that
some
members
of
the
panel
were
just
lost
in
how
to
apply
the
actual
engineering
standards.
The
seventh
page
of
the
letter
from
mr.
Condor,
which
is
the
signature
page
where
he
stamps
it.
N
A
professional
structural
engineer,
the
the
antepenultimate
paragraph
reads
the
extent
of
the
repairs
identified
above
and
that's
regarding
one
four
and
nine,
which
is
the
duplex
432
in
the
yellow
house
that
are
required
to
bring
the
buildings
within
the
minimum
code
requirements
for
life
safety.
Our
cost-prohibitive
repairs
would
require
the
building's
foundations,
floors,
walls
and
roofs
to
be
rebuilt.
There
would
be
little
if
any
of
the
original
structure
remaining
the
expected
costs
of
repair
are
typically
a
minimum
of
three
to
four
times
the
cost
of
new
construction.
N
It
is
my
recommendation
that,
due
to
the
cost
to
repair
these
buildings
that
these
three
buildings
should
be
removed
instead
of
repaired,
that
is
simply
a
summary
of
the
testimony
he
had
presented
to
the
panel.
But
because
some
people
on
the
panel
seem
to
be
confused
about
it.
We
asked
him
to
write
it
in
short,
plain
English
sentences.
N
So
we
would
respectfully
request
that
you
find
the
obvious
that
the
panel
is
decision
on
the
six
buildings
is
sustained
sustained
by
substantial
evidence
and
by
the
way,
Paul
will
tell
you-
and
you
probably
already
know
that
substantial
evidence
is
defined
and
Utah
has
that
evidence
which,
if
sustaining
alone,
would
support
a
reasonable
person
reaching
that
conclusion.
There's
no
possible
way
that
that
book
doesn't
constitute
substantial
evidence
on
the
sixth
buildings
and,
to
the
contrary,
the
substantial
evidence.
The
evidence
supporting
the
panel's
decision
on
the
four
buildings
is
this
blank
piece
of
glass.
Thank
you.
A
N
N
Well,
I'll,
be
blunt:
I
didn't
think
that
the
historical
landmark
Commission
would
choose
an
utterly
unqualified
biased
person
and
I
didn't
assume
that
the
the
utterly
unqualified
and
biased
person
would
blackball
rational
people
like
Scott's,
a
B
and
Chris
McCandless
and
I
assumed
obviously
I
made
a
mad
bad
mistake.
I
assumed
that
a
rational,
Historic,
Landmark
Commission
would
evaluate
I'm.
Sorry
economic
hardship
panel
would
evaluate
the
massive
and
uncontradicted
evidence
and
reach
the
conclusion.
I
didn't
know
whether
a
more
politically
appointed
body
might
reach
the
same
conclusion.
So.
N
B
D
N
That
sure
what
happened
is
some
that
was
based
on
the
estimates
were
based
on
some
preliminary
sketch
plans,
which
we
believed
would
be
able
to
be
turned
into
building
permits
and
when
it
came
down
to
getting
a
structural
engineer
to
actually
look
at
the
project
to
determine
whether
it
could
be
repaired
or
not.
No
structural
engineer
would
touch
the
project
and
give
it
a
stamp
of
approval
with
three
latex
gloves,
because
the
buildings
simply
cannot
be
restored.
N
So
what
we've
gone
back
and
looked
at
is
okay
in
reality
and
as
I
told
the
the
panel
I'm
reminded
of
the
famous
quote
from
Maynard
John
Maynard
Keynes,
when
he
was
asked
why
he
changed
his
opinion
on
deficit
spending
and
the
depression.
He
said
when
I
find
that
the
facts
upon
which
I've
based
my
opinion,
have
changed.
I
reconsider
my
opinion.
So
what
happened?
Was
we
looked
at
a
more
detailed
analysis
afterwards
and
simply
determined
that,
based
on
real
facts
and
real
building
codes
and
current
codes
and
current
requirements,
it
simply
doesn't
pencil.
N
N
No
there's
no
showing
that
mr.
day
and
I
and
I
addressed
this
in
my
letter,
that's
factor
a
in
the
hardship
analysis
which
is:
did
you
buy
the
property,
knowing
that
it
was
historical
assuming
that
we
dramatically
overpaid
for
it?
That
would
potentially
be
a
tactical
error,
as
you're
talking
about
people
make
purchases
based
on
the
assumptions
of
what
they
think
is
going
to
happen,
what
they
think
the
building
code
is
what
they
that
what
they
based
they
talked
to
planning
staff.
N
They
talked
to
building
staff
and
they're
told
what
they
think
they
can
do,
and
they
run
pro
formas
based
off
of
those
numbers
and
make
a
purchase.
Based
off
of
that.
When
you
subsequently
do
more
detailed
analysis,
sometimes
it
turns
out
you've
made
a
bad
decision
and
and
I
and
I
see
that
for
clients
all
day
and
I'm
sure
mr.
Richardson
sees
that
from
clients
when
client
comes
in
with
a
building
and
they
say
I
want
to
fix
this
building
and
Dave
gives
him
the
bill
and
they
go
holy.
D
A
You
other
questions
for
the
applicant.
If
not,
we
have
thank
you
very
much.
We
have
two
three
members
of
the
public
here
this
evening
that
wish
to
speak
to
this
and
then
you'll
have
an
opportunity,
as
you
know,
to
respond
right
after
that
first
David
Shearer,
and
we
have
a
few
extra
minutes.
We
could
probably
them
three
or
four
minutes
if
we
need
to,
but
please
focus
your
comments:
David
Shearer,
David,
Emmett
and
then
Cindy
Cromer.
F
Evening,
ladies
and
gentlemen,
my
name
is
David
Shearer
ice
I'm
here
to
support
economic
hardship
panels,
finding
that
no
economic
hardship
exists
for
2:48
Bishop
plays
to
65
and
67
Bishop
place
and
432
North
300
West
300
west.
The
panel
found
that
the
applicant
knew
that
these
and
other
other
Bishop
place
properties
were
within
an
historic
district
and
subject,
is
a
jurisdiction
of
this
commission
when
they
were
purchased.
F
It
seems
to
me
being
an
architect
not
a
lawyer,
that
any
loss
of
value
of
these
properties
cannot
be
due
to
the
Commission's
denial
of
a
demolition
permit,
since
in
so
doing
the
commercial
that
the
Commission
was
acting
under
ordinances.
In
effect
when
the
applicant
purchased
the
property
and
was
fully
aware
of,
it
appears
to
me
that
the
applicant
did
not
take
the
impact
of
these
ordinances
properly
into
account
in
their
decision
to
purchase
the
properties.
If
I
had
been
the
applicants.
F
Architect,
I
would
certainly
have
advised
him
that
there
was
a
great
deal
of
uncertainty
inherent
in
the
process
of
obtaining
approval
to
pursue
the
plan
that
he
presented
and
that
there
was
certainly
a
great
deal
of
reason
to
be
concerned
about
the
structure
of
those
buildings.
Just
looking
at
them.
It's
a
little
hard
to
believe
that
it
took
an
engineer
to
determine
the
fact
that
these
buildings
were
not
economically
restorable.
So.
F
O
There's
a
copy
for
their
two
copies
one
of
each
document
and
there's
copies
for
each
person,
including
the
staff.
Absolutely
my
name
is
Cindy
Cromer
Claudia
O'grady,
a
member
of
the
economic
hardship
panel
and
I,
are
the
only
two.
People
have
participated
in
the
process
for
busier
place
and
the
prior
one,
which
was
for
America
a
town
houses
with
a
record
of
over
two
thousand
pages.
I,
can
only
provide
bullet
points
tonight.
O
The
most
important
one
is
that
there
be
a
public
process
with
integrity
and
that
the
Commission
do
what
it
is
charged
to
do
within
the
ordinance.
We
have
already
had
an
absence
of
civility
and
we
are
likely
to
see
legal
maneuvering,
compliments
of
prior
litigation
and
the
state
legislature.
It
is
important
for
the
public
process
and
your
review
to
be
stellar.
Our
efforts
need
to
be
stellar
because
we
have
not
seen
a
threat
to
so
many
contributory
buildings
in
a
city,
historic
district.
O
Since
the
demolition
of
vernier
court,
the
site
plan
generated
by
the
applicants
shows
to
developable
Lots
I
believe
that
there
are
two
others
based
on
permissions
which
the
city
could
grant.
That
is
for
new
buildable
Lots,
which
I
did
not
hear
about
in
the
two
meetings
of
the
economic
hardship
panel.
Those
are
lots,
four,
five,
six
and
seven
lot.
Four
is
really
huge,
based
on
my
own
research
and
a
purchase
a
year
and
a
half
ago.
These
Lots
are
worth
at
least
$100,000
each.
O
That
is
what
I
paid
per
unit
and
I
found
a
parcel
comparable
to
the
ones
on
Bishop
Place
fruits
sold
were
a
hundred
and
fifty
thousand
dollars
a
year
and
a
half
ago
that
math
is
absent.
With
the
makea
townhouses,
the
Commission
sent
the
results
of
the
economic
hardship
panel
to
the
RDA
to
resolve
discrepancies.
The
outcome
was
that
the
RDA
found
that
the
six
flex,
which
you
have
a
picture
of,
could
not
be
considered
an
economic
hardship
because
of
its
density.
It
still
stands.
O
Making
a
profit
is
all
about
density
and
existing
zoning
allows
more
density
on
this
site
than
the
economic
hardship
panel
has
considered
with
the
historic
buildings
in
place.
So
it's
all
about
density,
that's
the
name
of
the
game
and
that
has
not
been
the
focus.
I
own
600
square
foot
frame
structure
without
a
foundation
I
plan
to
move
it
a
little
bit
and
capture
the
state
and
federal
tax
credits
or
move
it
to
blocks
without
the
tax
credits
either
way.
I
do
not
expect
to
lose
money
thanks.
P
P
This
area
is
one
of
the
last
few
low-density
old
neighborhoods,
the
last
old
neighborhood
left
in
this
part
of
the
city.
This
loss
would
be
a
serious
loss
to
the
neighborhood
and
totally
unwarranted.
Mr.
Peters
brought
up
the
point
that
what
did
the
RTA
see
when
they
brought
the
loan
in
I
wish
I
had
pictures
I've
lived
at
this
place
for
since
2007
I
wish
I
had
pictures
before
the
plate
before
Bishop
Place
was
sold.
Everything
on
there
was
rehab
'el
when
the
RDA
went
in
and
gave
their
approval
and
their
approval
for
the
loan.
P
Everything
in
there
was
rehab
Atal.
It
was
since
it
has
been
under
the
custodianship
of
mr.
Armstrong
that
it
has
reached
this
condition.
This
condition
that
looks
like
20
years
of
neglect
took
less
than
five.
They.
Actually,
if
you
go
in
and
check
the
developed
check
for
the
planning,
the
Building
Commission
or
there's
a
whoever
puts
out
the
red
tag,
the
stop-work
order,
you
will
find
that
one
was
served
on
every
building
on
there
for
uncaught
unpermitted
demolition,
which
meant
gutting.
P
Basically,
they
tore
all
whether
it's
stripping
off
they
gutted
the
interiors
they've
tore
out
window
roofs.
Anything
these
buildings
were
all
two
hundred
two
thousand
percent
more
rehab
abou
before
mr.
Armstrong
begin
work.
If
there
is
any
economic
hardship
on
this
I
agree,
it
was
a
terrible
business
decision.
He
is
asking
the
city
to
excuse
him
from
being
dumped.
He
is
that
he
said
he
paid
eight
hundred
thousand
for
this,
according
to
official
records.
P
Now,
according
to
my
best
research,
they
are
asking
ten
million
as
a
selling
price,
its
twelve
hundred
percent
increase
and
from
some
research
mr.
Baird
is
hardly
unknown
in
Salt
Lake.
My
best
estimates
that
I
can
get
from
rather
educated
sources
is
that
mr.
Armstrong
has
paid
somewhere
between
seven
hundred
and
fifty
thousand
and
one
million
dollars
in
legal
fees
and
for
the
book
of
which
they
are
so
proud.
P
Is
this
someone
with
economic
hardships
if
he
had
paid
that
much
unruhe
storing
these,
this
would
not
be
a
question
he
would
be
embraced
in
the
neighborhood.
My
last
point:
if
these
pass,
what
is
his
proposal?
What
is
his
replacement,
a
green
space?
Is
he
going
to
fence
it
off?
Is
it
going
to
be
a
locked-off
gated
empty
space,
or
is
he
going
to
leave
it
open
for
Salt,
Lake's,
recently
displaced
homeless
community?
What
is
the
proposal?
What
is
he
going
to
do
if
he,
if
he
gets
his
permissions
to
tear
these
down?
G
Good
evening,
I'm-
not
here
necessarily
representing
myself,
but
the
organization
for
which
I
work,
which
is
preservation
Utah
speaking
for
preservation
Utah,
we
were
not
entirely
satisfied
with
the
results
of
the
economic
hardship
panel,
but
we
do
see.
Adopting
the
recommendation
of
this
panel
is
the
best
way
to
preserve
any
piece
of
Bishop's
place.
G
Ultimately,
discussing
this
with
Kirk,
we
were
concerned
about
precedent
to
accept
the
developers.
Arguments
would
regarding
bishops.
Lace
would
send
the
message,
as
Griffin
Jenkins
just
indicated,
that
if
you
purchase
buildings
within
historic
districts,
let
them
decay
and
then
push
push
push
push
push
against
the
city.
You
can
ultimately
redevelop
your
property,
largely
as
you
like.
Despite
what
the
developer
says,
tax
credits
can
be
used
to
rehabilitate
the
properties,
the
three
that
were
selected
to
the
stand
by
the
economic
review
panel.
G
G
B
A
N
Thank
You
mr.
chairman
I,
will
address
the
points
raised
by
the
neighbors
seriatim
Mr
Shearer
only
focused
on
factor
a
which
I,
frankly
acknowledged
up
front,
but
it
doesn't
matter
because
factor
a
doesn't
impact
whether
this
constitutes
a
taking.
It's
simply
a
math
question:
it's
not
a
question
of.
Did
you
buy
it
unless
some
evidence
is
there
that
it
was
overpaid
for
at
the
time
and
there's
no
evidence
to
that
effect
in
the
record,
the
record
is
utterly
devoid
of
that
evidence.
N
I
found
it
interesting
and
if
I
have
to
cite
it
to
the
district
court,
I'm
happy
to
do
so.
Mr
Shearer
actually
essentially
agreed
that
the
buildings
were
quote
in
his
words,
not
my
words.
His
words
economically
unrestorable
I
agree.
The
buildings
are
economically
unrestorable
and
that
ends
the
argument.
Ms
Cromer
I
as
much
as
I
respect
ms
Cromer.
All
she
did
was
speculate
about
what
a
building
might
be
worth
with
some
change
of
four
Lots.
N
That
might
happen
at
some
point
in
a
speculative
rezoning
and
a
speculative
subdivision
process,
but
it
didn't
do
the
math.
There
was
no
math,
and
she
pointed
to
no
shred
of
evidence
in
the
record
to
contradict
the
math
that
we
showed
that
the
building's
should
be
torn
down.
What
happened
on
Marcia
is
utterly
irrelevant.
Mr.
Jenkins
offered
again
no
evidence
about
economic.
All
he
basically
said
was
you
shouldn't
have
bought
it
in
the
first
place
and
now
you're
trying
to
make
a
windfall
off
of
it
again
that
doesn't
it's
not
true.
N
First
of
all
and
second,
it
shows
that
there's
no
evidence
in
the
record
everything
he
referenced
was
irrelevant.
Now,
I
want
to
just
take
a
couple
of
seconds
and,
and
mr.
Hyde's
probably
looking
at
me
a
little
jealously
as
if
I
got
750,000
dollars
in
legal
fees.
For
this,
the
answer
to
that
is
no.
We
have
not
spent
seven
hundred
and
fifty
thousand
dollars
on
legal
fees
or
the
book.
That's
simply
a
made-up
number.
N
If
you
take
a
zero
off
of
the
legal
fees
between
me,
my
predecessor
and
put
some
engineering
on
there,
you
might
be
closer,
but
the
752,
a
million
dollars
in
legal
fees
and
engineering
fees
is
I,
have
a
word
to
hear
that
I
wanted
to
use,
but
I
won't
and
his
statement
that
we're
trying
to
sell
the
property
for
10
million
dollars,
as
is
equally
as
fictitious,
as
everything
else
did.
He
said
his
argument
about
what
the
buildings
might
be
done.
N
What
happened
to
them
once
they're
torn
down
is
also
Turley
irrelevant
to
the
question
before
you,
so
I
won't
bother
to
deal
with
it.
I
didn't
catch
the
name
of
the
gentleman
from
the
Utah
Preservation
Society,
but
basically
his
only
point
was
the
tax
credits
were
ignored.
No,
they
weren't
ignored.
We
specifically
in
detail
at
the
request
of
the
panel.
N
The
first
time
addressed
the
tax
credit
issue,
and
we
showed
that,
even
if
you
got
the
tax
credits
and
even
if
you
had
income
available
to
offset
against
the
tax
credits,
it
would
be
massive
amounts
of
income.
I
think
my
number
that
I
did
the
basic
math
on
was
you
would
need
to
make
IRS
IRAs
would
need
to
make
5.6
million
dollars
per
year
to
utilize
the
full
value
of
those
tax
credits
there's
no
possible
way
that
IRAs
makes
5.6
million
dollars
per
year
in
profit.
The
tax
credits
help
there's
no
question.
N
The
tax
credits
gets
you
off
the
ground,
but
that's
like
trying
to
get
a
747
off
the
with
one
engine
it
doesn't
fly
and
there's
no
math
in
the
record.
That
shows
that
it
flies.
The
simple
fact
is
on
all
six
of
these
buildings
and
I
do
credit
the
the
preservation
Utah,
gentlemen
for
being
candid
enough
to
acknowledge
that
the
six
buildings
should
stay
should
be
knocked
down
on
the
panel
should
be
sustained.
As
to
the
other
four
I
will
repeat
again.
N
There
is
not
a
shred
of
evidence
supporting
the
decision
based
off
of
the
illegal
ambiguous
unintelligible
standards
as
administered
by
the
biased
and
unqualified
person
on
the
panel,
mr.
Francis,
and
because
of
those
the
facts
are
clear
on
the
math
and
that
big
book
we
would
ask
you
to
sustain
the
panel's
decision
on
the
six
and
overturn
the
panel's
decision
on
the
four.
But
I
have
no
illusions
that
I'm
going
to
get
seven
votes
to
do
the
latter.
N
N
Intentional
neglect
was
addressed
by
this
panel
originally,
and
it's
not
a
pen,
it's
not
a
factor
in
terms
of
hardship,
but
it
also
is
untrue.
The
massive
demolition
that
was
claimed
and
the
neglect
that
was
claimed
is
just
not
the
case.
The
these
buildings
are
to
a
point
where
they
cannot
be
rehabilitated.
They
have
been
investigated
to
determine
whether
they
are
functional
investigating
you
need
to
take
down
some
of
the
interior
materials,
but
that
that's
not
an
issue,
because
you
have
to
take
them
down
to
restore
the
building
anyway.
N
The
analysis
this
is
excuse
me,
the
analysis
is
simply
almost
nothing
can
be
restored
from
these
buildings
to
restore
their
excuse
me
to
retain
their
historicity.
You
would
essentially
have
to
take
them,
apart
with
a
toothpick
store,
those
shreds
of
materials
that
were
reusable
rebuild
the
buildings
in
their
entirety,
with
new
foundations
and
make
them
comply
with
code,
and
even
then
they
wouldn't
be
historic,
because
the
historic
condition
of
these
buildings
from
the
night
from
the
1919
os
was
as
brown
clapboard.
N
All
of
the
gingerbread
on
there
was
added
later
it
was
not
part
of
the
historic
buildings.
To
the
extent
that
these
were
historic
worker
housing,
they
were
historic
worker
housing.
Some
of
them
were
transported
actually
from
off-site
apparently,
but
they
were
transported
in
Brown
clapboard.
The
city's
own
photographs
show
in
the
original
report.
The
thing
we
fought
about,
first,
it's
been
sued
about-
that's
not
relevant
to
the
hardship
panel
shows
them
with
people
standing
up
in
front
of
them
on
their
horse
and
buggy
and
they're
brown
brown
clapboard.
C
N
C
N
Q
Q
C
N
K
Q
My
experience
with
in
with
historic
restorations
has
been
very
much
in
the
shore
house.
Harvard-Yale
area
I
primarily
build
custom
homes
for
a
living.
It's
about
three
to
five
custom
homes
in
Philly
spent
Salt
Lake
is
primarily
I
focused
for
breehn
homes,
outside
of
that
I
do
a
fair
amount
of
investing
with
a
real
estate
development
team
in
the
remodel
and
Rehab
area
like
Cyd,
within
that
the
harvard-yale
area.
Currently
we
have
one
on
1484,
East,
Harvard
Avenue.
Q
Q
N
N
B
N
N
We
we've
done
this
so
many
times
where
we're
used
to
the
nomenclature
of
432,
the
duplex
in
the
yellow
house,
so
432
is,
was
an
acquisition
and
expenses
to
date
of
about
a
quarter
of
a
million
the
cost
to
rehab
it,
including
the
site,
work,
the
a
and
e
fees,
the
unit
rehab
or
within
our
approximately
a
million
dollars.
The
financing
on
that's
approximately
over
time
would
be
about
75.
We
estimated
the
total
rehab
costs
were
about
a
million
two
for
that.
N
So
therefore,
the
total
price
of
the
properties,
approximately
a
million
three
six
we
estimated
there
might
be
some
tax
credits
available
of
a
million
dollars
worth
of
the
rehab,
the
reappraisal
we
had
an
appraised
at
what
we
thought
it
was
worth.
It
was
four
hundred
and
sixty
five
thousand
dollars.
The
credits
are
one
hundred
and
ninety
seven
thousand
dollars.
You
had
the
marketing
of
forty
six
five,
which
means
a
net
proceeds,
a
sale
of
four
hundred
and
eighteen
thousand
dollars
for
a
net
loss
or
gain
of
approximately
three
quarters
of
a
million
dollars.
Mr.
N
The
duplex
is
the
total
and
I'm
going
to
just
add
these
in
my
head
and
pardon
me:
I'm
going
to
be
ballparking.
There's
there
about
a
250
for
acquisition
costs
again
the
site
costs
about
80,
the
soft
costs,
another
total,
so
the
toff
costs
total
added
sauce
to
the
rehab,
its
295
rehab.
The
financing
costs
are
another.
Twenty
three
thousand
the
rehab
costs
total
for
the
two
of
them
put
together
is
approximately
seven
hundred
and
twenty
thousand
dollars.
N
You
add
the
land
cost
that
makes
it
approximately
nine
hundred
and
fifty
thousand
dollars
of
which
approximately
six
hundred
is
subject
to
tax
credits.
The
reappraisal
for
the
pair
of
them
is
a
half
a
million
dollars.
When
you
take
off
the,
when
you
add
the
credits
you
get
about,
sixty
thousand
back
the
sales
marketing
at
ten
percent.
N
So
that's
two
hundred
fifty
thousand
total
the
ballpark
net
sales
proceeds
is
about
450,
which
leads
you
to
a
net
loss
on
the
to
prop
on
the
duplex
of
ballpark
of
four
hundred
thousand
dollars
on
the
duplex,
which
ones
the
yellow
house
is
two
fifty
eight
258.
Thank
you.
258
is
acquisition
expenses
to
date
about
155
thousand
site
work.
This
is
one
that's
more
expensive
because
there's
no,
you
got
to
fix
the
foundation,
the
there's
five,
fifty
five
thousand
and
a
and
e
fees.
Rehab
is
another
ballpark.
N
Three
hundred
thousand
dollars
you
put
in
sub
financing
costs
your
total
rehab
cost
258.
Your
total
costs
are
approximately
four
hundred
and
seventy
thousand
for
the
work
on
it.
When
you
add
the
value
of
the
land,
it's
six
hundred
and
twenty
that
you're
in
it
of
which
327
would
be
subject
to
tax
credits.
It
was
appraised
at
about
approximately
250.
If
it
was
rehabbed,
the
tax
credits
would
busy
add
sixty
two
thousand
for
that
sales
and
marketing.
Take
it
off
would
be
a
quarter.
It
would
be
twenty
five.
N
C
N
N
No,
we
our
burden,
is
to
put
in
what
we
believe
the
evidence
would
be
and
put
it
in
honestly
and
in
good
faith.
That's
exactly
what
we
did.
The
panel
asked
us
to
go
back
and
do
a
tax
credit
evaluation.
We
went
back,
we
talked
to
a
tax
accountant.
We
originally
didn't
think
there
were
tax
credits
available
based
on
some
statements
that
have
been
made
to
mr.
Armstrong
earlier
in
the
process.
N
When
it
turned
out
that
there
might
be
tax
credits,
we
immediately
went
out
and
took
a
look
at
tax
credits,
and
we
evaluated
that
evidence
fairly
presented
it
to
the
Commission
to
the
panel
and
showed
that
it
didn't
make
any
difference.
But
no,
we
did
not
to
be
clear.
We
did
not
go
out
and
try
to
disprove
our
hardship
case.
A
Q
When,
when
dealing
with
a
historic
rehabilitation,
you've
got
to
kind
of
hit
a
historic
level
that
you're
that
most
clientele
are
going
to
look
for.
When
doing
something
like
that,
for
example,
we
may
be
looking
more
at
a
wall
plaster
as
opposed
to
a
drywall,
so
something
like
that,
we
may
be
looking
at
a
nicer
granite.
They
can
get
a
a
higher
price
for
a
small
square
footage
in
the
particular
area.
So
yeah
they're
gonna
be
a
nicer
finish
for
sure
they.
Q
Q
These
numbers
were
generated
and
last
updated
and
trend.
Remember
when
the
last
time
did
it
was
about
five
months
ago,
six
months
ago,
sir
early
year,
and
that
was
really
if
you
want
to
talk
of
the
cost
that
was
prior
to
the
lumber
increase,
we're
seeing
right
now
the
tariffs
are
seeing
and
still
the
increase
in
cedar,
copper
I
mean
all
say:
that's
gone
up,
insanely
because.
A
A
So
I
contacted
a
friend
today,
a
friend
of
mine
today,
who
manages
a
great
number
of
apartments
throughout
the
Intermountain
West.
Had
him
run
a
report
through
day
of
service,
I
think
called
co-star
and
within
a
half
mile
of
this
address
on
third
west
the
range
this
was
at
the
at
the
absolute
bottom
end
of
the
current
market
and
it
almost
doubled
from
that
amount.
Admittedly,
how
that
translates
down
through
the
dollars,
as
is,
is
something
else
I'm
familiar.
N
With
several
of
those
projects
that
you're
probably
referring
to
and
most
of
those
are
heavily
amenitized
they're,
all
modern
I
mean
I'm
familiar
with
the
one
on.
That's
almost
certainly
the
one
you're
talking
about
at
the
high
end,
the
double
price,
that's
probably
on
fourth
west.
The
new
project
on
fourth
west
at
about
I,
think
that's
about
two
about
225,
a
foot.
N
A
A
Q
A
N
The
problems
for
shippers
we've
always
had
this
and
and
misterfrancis
tried
to
bring
this
up
as
well.
All
of
your
stuff
is
old.
Well,
it
wasn't
ARF.
We
can't
do
an
updated,
a
set
of
data.
Every
time
we
get
postponed
another
month
for
four
hearings.
We
gave
the
data
the
best
we
could
at
the
time
I
mean
it
wasn't
my
fault
that
mr.
Francis
rejected
Scott's
a/b
and
rejected
Chris
McCandless
and
wasted
30
days.
While
we
did
that
to
try
to
come
up
with
a
qualified
member
of
the
panel.
It's
not
my
fault.
N
It
was
not
our
fault
that
we
had
abduct
difficulty
getting
panel
members
to
hearings
and
I'm,
not
I'm,
not
faulting
them
I
mean
it's
busy
schedules,
it
just
happens
and
time
flows
inexorably
and
we
dipped
our
toe
in
the
moving
River
and
at
the
time
we
could
and
we
updated
it
as
we
needed
to,
and
our
data
is
as
good
as
it
could
reasonably
be
and
you
could
quibble
with
it.
Nobody
did
below.
A
Mr.
Brean,
what
what
kind
of
average
or
high
and
low
dollar
per
square
foot
rehab
costs?
Have
you
had
and
I
think
one
thing
we
need
to
maybe
back
up
from
as
the
definition
before
the
definition
of
rehab
and
restoration,
because
the
descriptions
I
think
of
carefully
dismantling
with
a
toothpick,
the
historic
buildings
and
numbering
all
the
pieces
and
reestablishing
and
rebuilding
is
a
museum-quality
restoration
that
you're
talking
about
and
the
tax
credits
and
the
standards
that
this
commission
uses.
A
Our
rehabilitation,
which
is
recognizing
that
a
historic
building
has
many
deficiencies
and
consequently
has
to
be
adapted
and
brought
up
to
code
and
made
responsive
to
modern
needs
and
that
those
changes
are
compatible,
not
necessarily
restorative
sure.
So,
I'm
kind
of
curious
about
what
kind
of
historic.
Q
Q
None
of
those
I
will
say
some
of
those
have
included
adding
on
square
footage.
None
of
those
have
come,
have
included
completely
removing
house
redoing
a
foundation
and
trying
to
work
around
a
complete
removal
of
the
property
property.
So
to
speak,
and
that's
again,
that's
that's
being
very
candid
of
m'p
ich
and
put
in
I
mean
they
they
can
be.
You
can
the
level
detail
you
take
into.
These
can
can
very
incredibly
I'm.
N
Confused
somewhat
mr.
Shepherd
and
the
reason
I'm
confused
somewhat
is
because
the
standards
are
virtually
inarticulate
unintelligible.
In
this
point,
what
you're
saying
is
we
should
be
using
as
a
replacement,
cost
phoE
or
a
facsimile
restoration
of
what
I
said.
Okay,
I
just
want
I'm
just
trying
to
understand
it,
I
mean
what's
the
level
between
toothpick
by
toothpick
and
rehabilitation,
but
it
doesn't
really
matter
because
these
buildings
are
structurally
unsound.
N
You
would
have
to
tear
them
down
and
put
something
new
back
up.
The
evidence
from
the
structural
engineer
is
that
they
cannot
be
rehabilitated.
That's
undisputed
evidence
well,
undisputed,
that
it
can't
be
look.
I
said
that
anything
can
be
done
as
long
as
you're
willing
to
spend
enough
money
on
it.
The
question
is:
are
we
willing
to
spend
enough
money
on
it
and
there's
no
evidence
that
they
can
be
economically
rehabilitated?
Zero.
A
A
N
A
N
A
A
H
K
K
A
C
You
know,
and
and
quite
honestly,
I
guess
I'm
frustrated
that
you
know
the
the
the
that
I'm
not
hearing
that
you
know,
I
find
it
kind
of
insane
that
432
North,
300
West
rehabilitation
costs
in
sales
costs
are
a
million
dollars.
That
does
not
seem
sound
rational
to
me,
although
many
of
any
any
examples
that
I
could
cite
are
irrelevant
to
the
the
matter
in
front
of
us.
Clearly,
many
people
choose
to
rehabilitate
older
structures,
pre
1960s,
pre,
seismic
design
and
and
yet
they
do
and
and
they
they
seem
to.
C
That
and
so
I
do
think
that
we
need
to
perhaps
hold
ourselves
a
little
bit
accountable
in
not
having
you
know,
had
the
economic
hardship,
representatives
be
more
grounded
in
the
economics
and-
and
you
know,
discuss
or
go
to
greater
task
on
that,
but
anyway,
I
just
I
just
felt
I
feel
compelled
I
I
am
concerned
that
we
do
have
a
number
of
structures
here
in
an
older
neighborhood.
That
would
be
just
about
any
neighborhood,
and
you
know
any
home
that
is
older
than
60
years
would
not
survive
an
economic
hardship.
C
Also
there
you
know,
while
they
need
to
be
safe
and
habitable,
you
know
they're,
not
the
change
of
use.
You
know
that
they
they
many
of
the
conditions
while
they
may
be
unsafe
I
would
think
that
they
could
be.
You
know
some
of
the
issues
are
grandfathered
in
in
terms
of
non-compliance
with
current
code
and
I.
Think
that's
a
little
incorrect
I
live
in
unreinforced
masonry
home.
C
Although
I've
made
several
with
a
sandstone
foundation,
I've
made
several
investments
into
it
and
I
think
many
people
have
and
again
I
know
it's
irrelevant
to
the
matter
in
front
of
us.
But
you
know
those
were
those
improvements
that
I
took
made
to
my
home
are
entirely
voluntary.
You
know
they
were
not.
They
are
not
required
by
building
code.
I
could
remodel
my
kitchen
and
not
have
to
do
a
seismic
upgrade.
B
Really,
like
Paul
offered
some
insight
earlier
into
you
know
just
some
areas
of
liability
and
how
we
should
be
proceed
with
caution,
while
deliberating
and
I
have
a
lot
of
thoughts
right
now,
and
a
lot
of
conclusions
that
I
could
draw.
I
would
really
appreciate
some
clarity
from
your
vantage
point,
so
yeah.
H
The
word
of
caution
was
not
as
to
anything
specific.
It's
just
that
when
we're
dealing
with
a
typical
land
use
case,
the
the
consequence
of
a
decision,
that's
contrary
to
law,
is
that
you
go
to
an
appeal
hearing
officer,
you
go
to
court
and
they
send
it
back
and
say:
do
it
over
when
you're
talking
about
the
potential
for
a
regulatory
taking,
there's
money
involved
the
city
in
a
recent
case
and
that
wasn't
a
regulatory
wasn't
I
actual
taking.
H
B
From
my
two
cents,
I
I
have
a
few
things
that
I'm
thinking
but
I
don't
want
to
verbalize
on
the
record
in
the
place
that
could
lend
exposure.
But
I
would
like
to
check
them
with
someone
who
knows
legally
what
to
do
to
make
sure
that
I'm
considering
things
in
a
way.
That's
consistent
with
code
precedent
and
what
I'm
supposed
to
the
scope
of
what
I'm
supposed
to
be.
Considering.
H
A
H
A
A
One
discussion,
sidebar
discussion
that
we've
had
today
is
that
we
don't
have
necessarily
in
this
staff
report
a
suggested
motion
and
I
know:
we've
had
some
discussion
earlier
during
the
week
offline
about
bulk
motions
on
on
these
groups
of
buildings.
If
that
seemed
caped.
In
fact,
what
we
want
to
do,
the
Commission
wants
to
do
Paul
or
Amy.
Could
you
address
recommendations
on
that
front?.
H
A
D
D
That
said,
I
I'm,
not
not
completely
convinced
of
the
validity
of
their
cost
estimates.
I
would
really
like
to
have
seen
something
independently
produced,
and
this
is
not
the
fault
of
the
applicant
for
not
producing
that
they're
perfectly
on
the
right
to
produce
what
they
wish.
It
would
would
have
been
helpful
to
see
something
to
give
it
some
balance.
When
we
put
a
project
out
for
bid,
we
endeavor
to
get
two
or
three
different
bids
on
it
from
various
contractors.
So.
H
H
The
neighbors
present
the
other
I
think
it
would
be
unreasonable
to
expect,
as
Cromer
or
Mr
Shearer,
to
Commission
a
structural
engineer,
to
do
an
analysis
of
what's
going
on
on
property
that
they
don't
own
and,
by
the
same
token,
it
would
be
unreasonable
for
the
city
to
incur
the
expense
of
preparing
an
analysis
that
similar
what
you're
describing.
So
you
to
some
extent,
have
to
take
the
information
for
what
it
is.
You
are
entitled
to
determine
if
you
believe
that
that
information
is
wrong.
D
L
Can
can
I
ask
a
sincere
question:
what
do
you
mean
they
haven't
attempted
to
make
it
work,
you
mean
they
haven't
attempted
to
renovate
it
or
they
have
an
attempt
to
do.
You
don't
think
they've
presented
there,
they
made
their
effort
in
good
faith
to
show
why
it
should
be
demolished.
What
do
you
mean
by
they
haven't
made
it
good.
D
How
would
that
fell
apart
and
how
things
changed
and
how
for
some
years,
went
by
and
we're
at
a
position
now
where
yeah
costs
are
way
up
and
I
I
completely
agree
with
the
applicant
that
at
today's
cost
it
is
going
to
be
a
challenge
to
do
anything.
But
how
did
we
get
here?
You
know
there
were
a
bunch
of
people
who
made
a
bunch
of
mistakes
or
you
know
I,
don't
quite
understand
what
happened
four
years
ago.
It's.
L
D
A
E
To
point
out,
maybe
the
obvious,
but
it
looks
like
the
findings
on
432
North,
three
hundred
West,
two
sixty-five
to
sixty-seven
Bishop
place
and
two
forty
eight
Bishop
place.
The
findings
are
really
detailed
and
they
look
pretty
solid,
so
I
don't
think
we're
having
any
issue
there
and
I
guess.
What
troubles
me
a
little
bit
more
is
that
we
don't
have
the
same
level
of
detail
on
findings
regarding
the
other
six.
So
that's
where
that's,
where
I
have
some
difficulties
in
evaluating
it,
yeah.
A
E
A
Do
anything
other
than
the
findings
to
find
a
to
find,
however,
to
word
it
to
revisit
these
requires
notice.
Our
definition
of
specific
deficiencies
in
the
analysis
of
deficiencies
is
a
good-enough
term
there
that
they
did
and
that's
I,
think
that's
it
well.
I,
don't
disagree.
I
think
I
think
we're
all
concerned
about
those
they
some
of
the
various
numbers
that.
E
Information
has
not
been
provided
related
to
a
reuse,
new
construction
plan
for
the
properties.
The
evidence
provided
is
for
demolition,
so
it
just
seems
like
there's
an
absence
of
evidence.
No
information
has
been
provided
regarding
marketability
of
the
property
for
sale
or
lease
within
the
previous
two
years.
I
mean
there's
just
a
real
absence
in
terms
of
findings.
L
So
Charles
I
guess
I'd
like
to
I'm,
not
in
a
rush
to
get
out
of
here,
but
I'm
interested
in
kind
of
moving
along
here
and
and
maybe
I
can
start
at
a
global
level
and
and
just
ask
manista
me
like
or
just
say
it
seems
to
me
that
the
process
has
taken
this
to
a
to
a
panel
created
by
law
and
they've
spent
a
lot
of
time
on
this
and
made
a
decision
that
three
three
could
three
should
stay
and
six
could
be
demolished
and
and
I.
Just
wonder.
L
L
And
so
you
know
I'm
inclined
to
support
what
they
did
in
both
directions
and
and
that's
a
motion
I
would
make
if,
if
people
want
to
go
that
way,
but
otherwise
we
were
just
starting
over,
aren't
we
in
revisiting
what
they
did
and
and
substituting
our
judgment
for
the
errors
and
in
making
these
nine
decisions
again.
But.
L
E
E
L
But
I'm
three
of
them
you're
finding
Shelley
that
you're
gonna
keep
them
up
so
you're.
You
know
there's
grounds
for
you
know
Rena.
They
didn't
find
grounds
to
keep
the
others
and
renovate
them,
and
so
there's
not
much
to
say
except
I've.
Looked
at
all
this
and
I,
don't
I
find
that
it's
not
worth
keep
I
mean
they.
L
Well,
they're
adequate
for
me,
you
know
they're
making
a
decision
in
their
mind
whether
these
different
standards
that
they
go
through
have
been
met
and
I
guess
you
could
always
argue
about
how
much
level
of
detail
where
people
explain
how
they're
voting
or
why
they're
voting
we'd,
listen
to
all
these
facts
and
we
go
through
everything
and
then
we
make
decisions
and
we
don't.
You
know
and
I
know
they're
supposed
to
lay
out
their
findings
but
I
just
don't.
We
could
disagree
on
the
level
of
detail.
The.
E
E
A
D
L
K
A
E
A
A
E
The
first
finding
was
that
the
applicant
had
knowledge
of
the
landmark
designation
at
the
time
of
acquisition,
so
that
was
the
first
finding
and
then
there
was
the
finding
I
pointed
out
that
was
kind
of
the
only
meaningful
finding
which
was
there
may
be
value
in
the
property,
but
that
cannot
be
realized
until
the
property
is
sold.
There's
no
current
income.
E
E
B
P
B
G
The
property
for
sale
or
lease
considered
in
relation
to
any
listing
of
the
property
for
sale
or
lease
and
price
Aston
offers
received
if
any
within
the
previous
two
years
so
and
then
it
lists
this
can
include
testimony
and
relevant
documents
regarding
any
real
estate
broker
or
firm,
engaged
to
sell
or
lease
the
property
reasonableness
of
the
price
or
rent
sought
by
the
applicant
and
any
advertisements
place
for
the
sell
or
rent
of
the
property.
If
that
stuff
doesn't
exist,
okay,.
E
A
B
A
A
B
Last
line
of
the
finding
that
Shelly
pointed
out
says
that
the
report
only
addressed
demolition,
I
think
that's
problematic
again:
I,
don't
Paul
I'd
appreciate
some
guidance.
If
I
understand
they
don't
have
to
go
and
get
multiple
bids
and
do
an
RFP
kind
of
thing.
But
if
we're
doing
economic,
is
that
something
rational
to
have
expected.
M
M
They
also
seemed
to
separate
the
structures
by
whether
or
not
they
had
a
foundation,
and
so
the
three
that
they
said
had
did
not
have
a
hardship,
those
have
foundations
and
the
the
six
that
they
said
did
have
a
hardship.
Those
do
not
have
foundations,
so
they
didn't
have
a
lot
of
information
on
the
other
standards,
as
it
says
in
the
findings,
but
it
was
largely
based
on
the
engineering
report
that
is
from
my
recollection
what
they
used
to
base
their
conclusion
and
findings
on
we're.
A
M
M
Findings
and
then,
during
their
discussion
on
these
particular
structures,
those
were
the
findings
that
were
made.
Some
of
them
had
I
can't
remember
if
we
separate
it
out
who
said
what,
but
there
we
also
included
the
dissenting
opinion
as
well
in
some
of
the
findings,
so
because
it
was
a
2/3
vote
on
both
of
the
groupings.
We
did
include
both
opinions
on
those.
A
So
the
finding
the
findings
statements,
the
1,
2
3,
4
5.
Finding
statements
are
I'm
still
confused
or
they
are
they
city
summary
of
the
main
statements
and
then
those
were
those
were
put
in
print
and
the
three
panelists
then
said:
yes,
I
agree
with
those
and
and
or
no
I.
Just
don't
disagree.
All
right.
A
D
A
C
B
E
B
B
G
L
A
B
L
H
H
H
L
H
K
Applicants
numbers
just
been
the
cost
breakdowns
that
were
included
with
the
economic
hardship,
material
and
the
square
footage.
That's
also
noted
on
the
applicants
it's
kind
of
interesting.
There
are
three
of
these
buildings
that
the
the
cost
to
renovate
is
sky-high,
it's
out
of
the
ballpark
and
then,
if
there's
one,
that's
like
rehab
'el
and
then
they're,
two
they're
kind
of
in
the
middle.
K
They
probably
work
with
tax
credits,
but
there
are
three
here
that
using
these
numbers
are
just
you
know,
using
the
applicants
on
numbers
which
you
know,
take
it
or
leave
it,
whether
you
believe
them
or
not.
They're
way,
high
and
one
that's
I,
think
kind
of
low,
and
you
know
to
come
in
the
middle
I'm
just
observe
a
ssin
I
hit.
K
I
came
up
a
high
of
614
dollars,
a
square
foot
for
and
there's
these
around,
they
call
it
this
inside
of
you
know:
262
bishops,
place
and
a
low
of
$219
for
249
bishops
place.
Everything
else
is
in
between
and
I,
don't
know,
I
suppose.
Based
on
that,
we
could
do
a
contrary
motion
building
by
building
to
the
findings
of
the
economic
hardship
panel,
and
we
could
start
with
with
the
easy
one
which
is
249
and
see
if
that
flies
and
if
it
doesn't
doesn't
then
I
doubt
any
of
those
will.
K
A
K
A
You
know
that
this
per
square
foot
cost
is
an
aggregate
of
many
things.
I
don't
know
if
we
need
to
dive
into
a
deeper
specific.
You
know,
like
I,
have
a
note
here
on
the
on
that
lowest
one,
the
249,
that
the
foundation
was
only
you
know,
foundation
work
was
only
twenty
seven
fiftieth
square
foot
where
some
of
them-
and
there
was
one
that
was
just
astronomical-
probably
two
sixty
to
ninety
three
dollars,
a
square
foot
right
with
the
foundation
work-
and
these
are.
C
H
A
The
time
I'm
wondering
you
know
you
make
the
point
about
432
and
we've
just
supported
its
preservation
or
finding
with
it
with
the
review
panel,
but
we
did
not
necessary
did
not
specifically
reference
the
cost,
their
costs
if
they
choose
to
spend
two
hundred
dollars
a
square
foot
or
eight
hundred
dollars
a
square
foot
to
renovate
to
successfully
renovate
those
buildings
is
kind
of
immaterial
I.
Think
I
mean
not
not
to
them.
L
So
you
know,
and
I'd
surely
make
the
argument
that
we've
already
approved
it,
because
it
says
it
says
that
we
that
the
panel
the
Commission
will
approve.
It
must
approve
it
unless
two
three
four
voted
against
it,
so
we
made
a
motion
to
approve
it
and
over
1/4
of
us
approved
it.
So
that
means
the
Commission's
approved
it.
I
concur.
H
A
H
C
K
First,
the
the
the
masonry
buildings
or
we're
always
the
through
the
three
that
we
approve.
We
agree
with
the
economic
hardship
on
there
they're
kind
of
a
no-brainer,
it's
black
and
white.
It
appears
as
though
they're
going
to
work,
the
others
all
fall
into
a
gray
area.
I
mean
we've.
Everyone
agrees
that
anything
is
restorable,
it's
just
not
practical
in
all
cases,
so
they
fall
into
the
gray
zone
and
it's
hard
to
make
a
motion.
There.