Might have. Otherwise excuse me, theres a general item for an upcoming meeting, perhaps in august. I think it would be timely with the onboarding of commissioner gray and commissioner smith joining us that we can have a deeper policy dive in terms of exploring not just the one of the items that are here before us today, but also other things that we had previously considered as a commission and can go through what we have been calling the policy prioritization station plan. I think we have done this on a quarterly basis, but looking at the overall portfolio of potential projects, it has been some time. I think it would be a good time to do grounding in terms of all that has come forward and matters before is now, and have a robust discussion of the full commission on where to go in the future both on the short medium and longterm. I think the timing would be good, because as you can see, a lot of these projects are in the later stages right now. The regulations that you approved hopefu
Adjacent buildings, that it contains a gable roof, like several on the block. It contains a raised entry, like several on the block. And it contains some doublehung fixed encasement windows, all of which are found throughout the neighborhood. Therefore, doesnt meet that criteria of the ordinance. The project, although compatible with the mixed character, does not prescriptively conform with the height scale forms and architectural details of the entire surrounding neighborhood, as the neighborhood itself is quite mixed. The project, although it did add density, it did not add affordability equal to or greater than the existing building being demolished. So it wouldnt be approvable under that criteria. And the units, although similarly sized and with similar exposure, full floor flat plus down, and the other is floor floor unit and up, it exceeds the cap placed in the ordinance. Both roughly 2,000 square feet each. And lastly, the project includes the garage, which is also prohibited un
May have been some liability that we ought to have caught. We have a handful more matters under investigation. We are up to 93, twice as many matters under investigation then waiting for our triage. The amount of time that it takes investigators to get through those has either leveled off or begun to decline coming in now at 14. 5 months. Excuse me, mr. Pierce. On the preliminary review matters there was some Public Comment that came in on agenda item number six. I would just note for our discussion next month, and also for your consideration as you think about this, the comment had suggested adopting the practice of using warning letters. I would like to make sure that we include that as part of our discussion Going Forward where it would be i think its in between so you are not doing outright just so. It does not lead to a fullblown investigation either. Is it a good middle ground that i think is worth discussing and employing explain the benefit of adopting get thank you for flaggin
Of Credit Recovery or because of their grades, and if we dont get their grades on track and they still wont have access to that. Similarly, during the summer, they have to go to Summer School so summer jobs arent available to them. We are trying to build up about 5 million that has been put into the oh, ew d. Budget. A good portion of that is, around a million of that is specifically for the Service Providers to be able to help with Community Outreach and engagement. The studies that we are seeing show that young people and people in general, in terms of moving from moving out of poverty, need to feel valued in their community, and we want to make sure we are also valuing the Community Partners that lead that work. There is a little over a million that is put in for education liaisons and support. There is also money specifically for hope s. F. Students and africanamerican achievement Leadership Initiative groups to get yearround. We found, the last two summers, just through during the
Some of the largest concerns are about the undefined terms and unaccessible day that we need to have to implement this code section. Were also concerned about the entirety of the penalties being collected, except for our time and material costs being diverted away from our Code Enforcement fund. Thats a fund that our department relies on to continue our Code Enforcement work in the first place. Most importantly, not being able to seek a permit for five years, if youre found to be in violation, we worry that may lead to buildings falling into disreplayer or Property Owners abandoning those buildings all together, if they determine the cost to legalize the work and wait to go through the new approval process isnt going to pencil. So going into all other violations of the planning code, which are handled through section 176. So it would increase the daily fine from up to 250 a day to up to 1,000 im sorry, to 1,000 a day. There would be no discretion, a straight 1,000 fine. And the board o