Good afternoon. Welcome to the business, housing, and zoning committee. I will call to order this regular meeting for December 2nd, 2025. My name is Orin Chowry, and I am the vice chair of this committee. Before we begin the meeting, I want to remind everybody that these meetings are broadcast live to enable greater public participation. They include real-time captioning to increase the accessibility of our proceedings to the community. Therefore, all speakers need to be mindful of the rate of their speech so that our captioners can fully transcribe all comments for the broadcast. We ask all speakers to moderate their speed and clarity of their comments. Members, we will be using speaker management for this meeting. So, please make sure you are signed in. At this time, I will ask the clerk to call the role so we can verify a quorum. >> Council member Vita, >> present. >> Cashman, >> present. >> Jenkins is absent. Chavez >> present. >> Vice Chair Chowry >> present. >> Chair Osman is absent. There are four members present. >> All right, let the record reflect. We have a quorum. I will also note that council member Osman, chair Osman is away for a part of this meeting because he is at a press conference um and he will be joining us shortly. Our agenda is in front of us and we will begin with the consent agenda. Item number 11 is approving six liquor licenses. Item number 12 is approving eight liquor license renewals. Item number 13 is approving one gambling license. Item number 14 is approving a building permit extension for Silva on the River. Item number 15 is authorizing agreements for the Great Street's Facade Grant Program. Item number 16 is accepting a grant from the Federal Transit Administration for the Blue Line Extension. Item number 17 is authorizing agreements for the 2025 Emergency Solutions Grant. Item number 18 is authorizing two loans to the Martisore Hospitality Group on Nicollet A. Item number 19 is reauthorizing the stable home stable schools appropriation and contract. Item number 20 is approving a street vacation for the location at 4301 Lake Street East. Item number 21 is authorizing a settlement of a loan to TLC Precision Technology. Item number 22 is authorizing a grant agreement with Certis Financial for Rehabilitation at the Heritage Park. Item number 23 is approving Bruce Brunner to seat number 10 on the Minneapolis Advisory Committee on Housing. Item number 24 is authorizing a temporary construction easement at the Upper Harbor site. Item number 25 is approving an ordinance related to the minimum building height requirements in the zoning code. Item number 26 is receiving and filing the prolonged vacancy enforcement report. Item number 27 is authorizing a great streets gap loan to newbie 314 property holdings. And lastly, item number 28 is receiving and filing a report related to pet restrictions and rental properties. With that, do any of my colleagues have any discussion or questions? I will recognize that council member Jenkins has also joined us and then um I'll just quick speak to item number 19 which is reauthorizing the stable home stable schools appropriation and contract. I am authoring um this resolution. This is um taking a budget amendment from the 2025 budget that myself, Council President Payne, Council Member Chavez authored to create um a pilot program for stable home, stable schools for middle school children and children um at early age 0 to 5. Unfortunately, there is a fiscal cliff that the stable home, stable schools program is currently facing. And um this came to light earlier this summer. Um it was not something that was apparent to the city and our partners at stable home stable schools last year in our budget. And while we are um regretful that we won't be able to expand the program to include middle-aged middle school age children and uh early childhood children and families to the program. We want to make sure that the program is able to function and still support the thousands of families um that are supported across Minneapolis public schools for elementary school age children and their families. And I just wanted to make that comment because I felt that it was important to share that clarity and also important for us to make plans into the future across government and in our communities to find ways to support expanding ways we can address homelessness. Um, we are seeing uh an increase in youth homelessness as reported by Minneapolis public schools and this is a moment in which local governments need to come together um to figure out how we're going to strategically address this and this is one step forward to ensure that we don't fall into this greater fiscal cliff. Um the other item that I will note is um regarding item number 28 which is a report related to pet restrictions and rental properties. We will not be taking up that report today. That will be hopefully coming up in the next term in January. And with that I will recognize council member Kashman. Thank you Vice Chair Chowry. And I'm glad that you brought up the stable home stable schools. and in in a little while we'll have a public hearing on a family shelter application from Henipin County and I just think it's important that we're you know addressing this in collaboration with the county. So I thank them for that and we'll be talking about that shortly. But I just wanted to take a second to thank the staff who work so hard on the ownership and opportunity fund loans and gap financing loans that were hopefully approving today. I think this is just a really incredible program that the city has to help get ownership into the hands of um BIPAC entrepreneurs in the city that can own their buildings and and grow their businesses along the commercial corridors of our city. So, thank you so much for putting those forward and I'm happy to uh be supporting them today. Thank you, Council Member Cashman. With that, I will move all items for approval and file items number 26 and 28. On that, all those in favor say I. I. Those opposed say nay. The eyes have it and the motion carries. Now we will move on to our public hearings. Our first item today is for a liquor license approval submitted by Curioso Coffee Bar at 3001 Henipin Avenue. I will have Beth Dominguez from business licensing to speak more on this item. Welcome up, Beth. Uh, thank you chair and committee members. I am Inspector Beth Dominguez with Licenses and Consumer Services. I'm presenting an application for Curios LLC. Uh, doing business as Curioso [snorts] Coffee Bar located at 3001 Henipin Avenue South sweet 1170 to 1175 Minneapolis, Minnesota. And that's in W 10. The applicant is requesting an on sale wine strong beer with limited entertainment license. If approved, they intend to provide acoustic music, organized meetups, instructional art gatherings, comedy shows, trivia, etc. Uh, this is located on the first floor of the Seven Points Mall and occupies two suites. It includes an area for seating and entertainment with a kitchen and bar for 35 patrons. Interior hours of operation are 7:00 a.m. to 8:00 p.m. Monday through Friday and 8:00 a.m. to 8:00 p.m. Saturday and Sunday. Public hearing notices were sent to residents and property owners within 600 ft of the premises. Notices were also sent to South Upton neighborhood and South Upton neighborhood and business association. Council member Chug Tai, we have received two comments in support from the community and no significant issues concerning the business have been found. The licenses and consumer services division recommends approval of an on sale wine with strong beer and limited entertainment license. And this concludes my presentation. and I will stand for comments or questions. >> Thank you. I will look to the clerks to see if we have anyone signed up for public hearing. It doesn't look like we have anyone signed up for Curioso, but I will ask with as I open the public hearing if anyone would like to speak to this item. >> Yeah. Um Luke from Curios is here. >> Welcome up. Um, please introduce yourself. >> Hello. Uh, I'm Luke from Curioso and, uh, just here to, I guess, give you a little background. We are primarily a coffee shop. Uh, we're just hoping to expand into, uh, wine and beer uh, just to expand our funding model. We are planning to host events and we have hosted events previously. Um, so really just hoping to expand the the funding model for that. >> Great. Thank you. Um, if you want to give the clerks your name and just sign in, that would be great. Thank you so much for coming up here. >> And then I will ask if anyone else would like to speak to this item before I close the public hearing. Okay, seeing no one else wishing to speak, I will now close the public hearing and then I will call on Council Member Cashman. Thank you, Vice Chair Chowry. I'd like to move this item for approval and thank you so much for for coming into the committee today, but also for doing business in Uptown on the on the ground floor there. That block in between Lake and 31st along Henipin has a lot of new life and it's really exciting to see a lot of new entrepreneurs coming and bringing new concepts to the table. So, I'll move this for approval. Great. That has been moved for approval. On that on that motion, all those in favor say I. >> I. Those opposed say nay. The eyes have it and the motion carries. Best of luck. Next, we have a general entertainment and business plan amendment for Lumi Restaurant and Bar on Nicola Avenue. I will have up Christina Stitcher from business licensing to speak more on this item. Welcome Christina. >> Thank you Vice Chair Chowry and committee members. I'm Christina Stester, lead license inspector with licenses and consumer services. I'm presenting an application from Lumi Restaurant and Bar owned by Tulso LLC located at 921 Nicollet Mall in Ward 7. The applicant is requesting an upgrade in entertainment level from limited to general entertainment. They would like the ability to offer a DJ and dancing in the lowest level of the restaurant on weekend evenings. The hours of operation would be 6:00 a.m. to 2:00 a.m. daily with also a sidewalk cafe that operates from 6:00 a.m. to 12:00 a.m. On November 12th of this year, 24 public hearing notices were sent to residents, I'm sorry, were sent to taxpayers uh within 450 ft of the premises. Notices were also sent to the downtown council, the Minneapolis, I'm sorry, downtown Minneapolis Neighborhood Association, Council Member Cashman's office. As well, no responses were received. There have been no 311 or police calls for service as a direct result of the business's operations. An updated business and safety plan were reviewed by my office which addresses the new operations at that location. The licenses and consumer services division recommends approval of an upgrade of entertainment license. This concludes my presentation and at this time I can stand for any questions or comments you may have. >> Thank you for that. First, I will open up the public hearing for this item and see if there's anyone that would like to speak. Doesn't look like we have anyone signed up with the clerks, but we have someone here. Welcome and please introduce yourself. >> Hello, my name is Tang Gord and I am the owner of Lumi. So, we are like the planning to extend our like the operating hours from 10:00 p.m. to 2:00 a.m. We are located in Nicollet Mall which we are trying to bring more people to increase the people existing over there and if there is any question I could be able to like answer. [clears throat] >> Okay. Thank you. We'll we'll call you up and see if there's any questions that come forward. But thank you for coming and testifying. Um, is there anyone else that's wishing to speak on this item before we close the public hearing? Okay, seeing no one else, I will close the public hearing and I will now go to discussion and I will call on council member Vita. >> Thank you, Chair Chowry. Um, just a couple things. So, I had folks reach out to me about um when they received the notice for this and it was over the holidays. They wanted to speak with staff about the safety plan and some other things. I did talk to um uh Amy Lingo about the possibility of staff speaking with um these community members who have um businesses in the area. It wasn't it's not that they're not supportive. They just wanted to have a conversation about the safety plan and some other things. So, I was going to propose moving this forward without recommendation and hoping that staff could confirm that they will schedule this meeting with um these community members. Please. >> Sure. Um I received one question um from a community member, but I answered the questions um and it was regarding whether or not a safety plan had been reviewed and so forth. We have no problem um coordinating um community me um with everyone. I I was told that they didn't get the notice until a little bit later um possibly because of the holiday. if you could um forward maybe that person's information and we can contact them and I can contact the person that did contact me directly to try to arrange um make sure that they're not missed um in scheduling a meeting. That would be great. That Thank you so much for that. And I I spoke with Amy Lingo earlier and we talked about putting a list of folks together so we make sure that we get everyone included on this. We can do that so much. Thank you. Great. Next, I'll call on Council Member Jenkins. >> Thank you, Chair Chowry. I am in queue for um Council Member Rainville. >> Okay. Welcome, Council Member Rainville. >> Thank you. I'm just curious if staff could uh let us know, have the police signed off on on the safety plan? The lieutenant at the first precinct did review the safety plan, but in general did not sign off on the safety plan. And part of the well, the main reason was because this application first presented to him right before the summer began. And so his concern was with the location of the restaurant um being on Nicollet Mall and the majority of like um the officers being concentrated to the downtown west 1st avenue henipin district. They wouldn't have the resources um to to cover this restaurant if if things um didn't go as planned. Because of that, I continued to work with the owner over the summer. We continued to um update and revamp that safety plan and then um decided to wait until the wintertime to actually put it into play so that they had a little bit of time to operate before the next summer happens so that they can work out any bugs or kinks or anything like that that might arise. Um, so that was the only reason why it wasn't signed off on by the police department, but the police department is aware um that this would be going forward um without their signature even though um we do recommend approval on it. >> Thank you. So your office recommends it, but the police do not. >> The police will not sign off on it. So whether or not that particular lieutenant wanted it to happen, you know, that might not be the case, but our office does recommend approval on it. >> Thank you. >> You're welcome. >> Chair Ch, if I may use a little bit more of my time. >> Of course, Council Member Jenkins, go ahead. I >> I'm just curious uh from the owner, what type of dance club does he envision? Um >> why don't we welcome him back up? Why don't you come up, sir? >> Top 40. [laughter] So, >> yeah. What kind of dance club are you thinking? >> So, like the our restaurant, I don't know if you ever been in the restaurant. It's like the it's just like a little bit like the high-end restaurant and the purpose that we are going to keep it. We do have like the so many like I'm from Turkey and we do have like the dancing culture that it comes from the but right now like we do have like the rooftop we do have basement and we do have like the actual restaurant space. So we are not allowing to do dance. They cannot dance. But in Turkey like whenever they hear music they can just like stop dancing. But because our license is like the eliminating for them to like the stop dancing. We need to keep go like the tell the customer can you please not sign because they are putting us in trouble. So this is like the our like the main purpose we came from. also like the we do have like the a lot of like the customer like the I am Muslim and the Muslim community that they are coming over there they want to have like the wedding for example but our license is not allowing to them to dance over there. So like this is keeping the I mean like the we are doing business and we are like the keep like the almost like the 50 people working over there for our restaurant but limitating to like the getting more people over there is like the just keeping like the us going down and using like the space not like the very >> Yeah. So it's more cultural, >> correct? The cultural and even though if it's going to be the let's say like if it's going to be nightclub, it's not going to be just regular nightclub. It's going to be all dress code like the high-end nightclub as well. >> Thank you. >> You're welcome. >> Okay. Thank you. >> Yeah. Any other question? >> I don't think I have any other I don't think there are any other questions. I have myself in Q and I think you answered a key component of that. So I don't have any questions for you. I'll just say I think it's helpful um to understand kind of like the the purpose of the dancing and the later night events. It sounds like trying to be more of a cohesive event space and also like you're having people already dance in your restaurant. You have to tell them to stop and um trying to create that type of space. Um I I will say I have patronized your business many a time. It is like a very lovely sidewalk cafe. Great activation, great food. Um, and I don't envision um, this becoming a rowdy nightclub based off of the restaurant experience that I've had. And, uh, I also will note like I I asked similar questions as you as council uh, council member Rainville on the safety plan. And it's my understanding it's not um, uh, like opposite of a recommendation. What is that? A denial, right? It's just not adding a signature. And I think it has to do with the fact that like it's outside of this zone for late night areas that usually go until 2 a.m. So, it's geographical and it's under the inspector's discretion to choose if they're going to sign off or not sign off or lieutenant I I suppose. Yeah, Lieutenant Kluco. Um, one thing just to clue you in, sir, is um moving this forward without recommendation is not a denial. Um, this is just taking it to the next step. Our next final council me meeting is December 11th. And so we just want to I support your motion, council member Vita. Just want to create an opportunity um for you and the other businesses and neighbors you have in the area to have a conversation with business licensing and address any concerns and then also just ensure that your business is a success and the corridor that it's going to be in continues to be a success. Thank you. >> Yes. >> Next, I'll call on Council Member Cashman. >> Thank you, Vice Chair Chowry. I just wanted to thank you uh Sedkin for doing business on Nicola Mall and for bringing Turkish food to Minneapolis because we have very little of it. I wish we had more. Uh so, thank you so much for that. and I'll support the motion move forward without recommendation, but just want to be uh clear that I do want to make sure that you can get approval before the new year because we don't have council meetings until February of next year, end of January. And so that this December 11th will be the last one. Um so just want to make sure that you can open and start this as soon as possible while still considering all the safety needs of the area. Um, and just wanted to note that it's great to have late night options on Nicollet Mall because the the Armory is a venue that's not too far away and there's not a lot of [snorts] uh postshow places to go near the Armory and Nicollet Mall is attracting a lot of those customers that just next to you, you know, Bario and those the local and other pubs. So, I think it's great to add another late night option to this downtown corridor and I look forward to being able to visit the rooftop in the summer. >> Council member Vita. >> Thank you, Chair. I agree. Uh, Council Member Cashman, I too want to get this done before the end of the year. This is not in no way um an opportunity to delay this any further. This is just for us to um allow for in conversation. I also want this business up and operating and moving forward before the year is over. [clears throat] >> Great. Is there any other discussion from committee members? All right. Seeing no further discussion. Um we have council member Vita's motion to recommend this without approval. All those in favor of the motion say I. I. Those opposed say nay. >> Nay. No nays. The eyes have it. And then the motion carries. Next is a public hearing on an interim use application submitted by Spencer Agnu at Henipin County for an emergency shelter at 2194th Street South. I will have up Alex Kohhos from CPED planning to speak more to this item. Welcome up Mr. Khos. >> Thank you Vice Chair Chery and committee members. Before you today is an application for an interim use permit to allow an emergency shelter with up to 50 beds as an interim use for the property at 2194th Street South. The applicant is Henipin County which owns the property and which would operate the shelter in this case until no later than August 31st of 2026. Uh on the slide here is a photo of the building. This proposal would uh involve the main level and basement only and there would be no use of the upper levels above the ground floor for the shelter. Uh just showing the zoning map of the property. Uh this is downtown. The subject uh the parcel is highlighted in red. This is right across the street from our current location here in the public service center. Uh the building on that property does take up virtually the entire footprint of the parcel. Here's some floor plans showing the main level and the front of the building is towards the right. Uh the main level would primarily consist of common areas including for shelter guest admittance uh showers and other staff spaces. Uh shelter guests would only be admitted to this location through referral uh by by Henipin County. And uh in addition to providing services such as security and cleaning, uh the county would also have uh staff available periodically to provide referrals for guests to other county services. Then this is the basement floor plan again showing those 50 beds that are proposed for this emergency shelter. I will note that for zoning purposes, emergency shelter uses allow stays with a length between 24 hours and 6 months. Uh as the committee members are aware, all intermuse permit applications are subject to required legal findings as articulated in uh the zoning code and that includes some findings specific for interim use permits in addition to needing to satisfy the findings for conditional use permits. The staff analysis for all the required findings is articulated in the staff report. Uh I'm happy to go through any of that in more detail if anyone is interested. But in the interest of time, I'll just summarize uh with the staff recommendation which is for approval upon finding that all of those uh uh required findings would be met. There was one written public comment which was received actually just this morning, a letter of approval from the downtown Minneapolis Neighborhood Association, uh which should have been forwarded along for your consideration. And I believe Henipin County has representatives here who can uh speak to this application if uh the committee is interested. This concludes my presentation, but I'm happy to stand for questions. >> Thank you, Mr. Kolhas. I will now open up the public hearing for this item. Would anyone like to speak to this? We don't have anyone signed up. All right. Seeing no one wishing to speak, I will close this public hearing and I will now go to discussion and I'll first call on council member Kashman. Well, thank you vice chair and thank you Mr. Kolhas for the presentation and for engaging with the DMA, the neighborhood association. They just had some questions about the different services that would be provided and what type of um folks in our community will be served by the shelter and how long people can stay. So, thanks for helping get that information to them. and I'm just very grateful to have this opportunity to serve more families who are exper experiencing housing instability. Um so I'm going to move this item for approval. Thank you. Is there anyone else wishing to speak? Um I did have a couple questions for Henipin County. I feel like they're short questions. Um if they're available to answer them. Um, I'll start off just by saying I I took a look through the staff report and I am very supportive of this conditional use permit. I think it would just be helpful um to hear from uh you miss uh a little bit about um kind of what the next steps are once this goes through approval. um this is a family shelter. How many people are anticipated to serve and then um we can kind of just go from there. >> Thank thank you so much. Uh so uh we have uh it's it's a first stop for families. So we are a shelter all polic uh we have a shelter all policy for families in Henipin County and the goal is for no child to sleep outside. So the safe space is really an opportunity to make sure that all families can get in, be triaged, assessed, and then quickly be referred to a private room and then additional um case management is given at that time. So uh this is um the location that we're using for right now. We have the average household size about 3.5 people. We have about 10 families in the space on average at any given time, which is about 30 to 35 people. Families are allowed to stay on site for 247, although many families go off-site, work, school, life. Uh, but we have staff on site at all times to make sure that if anybody wants to get connected to services um or benefits or anything that we're available. And then of course we always talk about housing. So, um I'm happy to answer any questions, but one thing I do want to highlight is that due to this program, we've had zero turnaways since it started. was at a different location uh starting uh Christmas in 2023 and since then we have been able to serve all families that have requested shelter and so this program is really important to ensure that that stat remains. >> Thank you. And then once this conditional use permit if it is approved what's the next step and then what's the timeline for this to come come uh online? >> Absolutely. So, um, we we are currently there. So, we're operating right now. And our plan is to eventually move to a different site. So, we're just making sure that we're good neighbors, good partners, and coming here um and kind of going through all of the the process, but it's a temporary site for right now. So, the next steps will be to move to our long-term site eventually. Uh, but we never want to um interrupt continuity of care or services in the meantime. >> Great. Thank you. That's all the questions for me. And seeing no further discussion and with the motion for approval before us, all those uh in favor say I. I. Those opposed say nay. The eyes have it and the motion carries. All right. Next, we have our fourth public hearing item approving modifications to the tax increment financing plan for 59 tiff districts. I will welcome up Matthew Hendrickx from Finance and Property Services to speak more on this item. Welcome. Thank you, Vice Chair Chowry and committee members. [clears throat] Tax increment financing, often referred to as TIFF, is a funding tool that cities and counties may use to support community development. TIF is enabled by state law, and the Minnesota legislature establishes TIFF rules and key definitions. TIFF law requires that most of the revenue generated by a TIF district must be spent within the boundaries of the TIF district. However, some of the revenue may be spent outside the boundaries for certain eligible purposes and this is referred to as pooling. In 2021, in the context of a global pandemic and a very challenging landscape for community redevelopment, the Minnesota legislature passed special legislation that granted additional flexibility to pool tiff funds. Pursuant to this legislation, the city council authorized the transfer of just over $17 million from our tiff accounts to support development through the affordable housing trust fund. These funds have been awarded to specific affordable housing projects and will be fully expended by year end 2025. To clarify an open question about how this 2021 special legislation should interact with other technical provisions of Minnesota TIFF law, the Office of State Auditor has advised that the city could update the budgets for TIFF districts that made transfers under the 2021 law by adding the transfer amounts made by each TIF district to the budget for that district. These modifications clarify that expenditures authorized by the 2021 special legislation should be viewed as additions to the budgets of the participating TIFF districts. As a matter of efficiency, we are also updating TIFF plan budgets to accommodate potential future pooling for affordable housing for most active TIF districts. The addition of budgetary capacity to pool for affordable housing does not [clears throat] excuse me does not mean that any specific amount will be pulled. However, having a designated budget line item allows pooling for affordable housing within the limits of tiff law and based on actual revenues and obligations of each district. In total, the two actions before you would result in uh updating 59 TIFF district budgets across two resolutions. The first resolution covers districts that pulled funds per the 2021 special legislation and the second resolution covers districts that were not involved in that process. These resolutions do not appropriate funds to any programs or projects. Any spending that might be enabled by pooling would be directed by future city council actions. That concludes my presentation and I'm happy to stand for any questions. >> Thank you so much for the presentation. With that, I will open up the public hearing. Would anyone like to speak to this item? Okay, seeing no one else, no one wishing to speak, I will close this public hearing and then I will ask council members if they have any questions. Okay, we're not seeing any discussion and I will move this item for approval. All those in favor of this motion say I. I. >> Those opposed say nay. The motion carries and the item has been moved for approval. Thank you. Next, we will have a public hearing approving three planning commission appointments. I'll have up Kimberly Helen from CPED planning to briefly speak on this item. Welcome. >> Good afternoon. Uh, Vice Chair Chowdery and Council members, before you are three reappoints to the planning commission. Uh, so Kelly Jones, uh, Dave Shepard, and sorry, [snorts] are currently serving on the commission. Dave Shepard actually filled a uh, midterm appointment and um, is coming back for another full term. And Tom Wagner and Kelly Jones both just completed full terms and are coming back for another term. Um due to the length of today's agenda, I offered to just pass along uh their thanks to all of you for being considered. And with that, I can take any questions. >> Great. Um before that, I will open up the public hearing to see if there's anyone that would like to speak. Call out to the audience. Okay, with that, I will close the public hearing and see if members have any questions. I'll just very briefly state that uh these three members are very dedicated. They're my peers on the planning commission and I'm really excited to see them come back. So, I'll make the motion to move this for approval. Seeing no discussion um on that motion, all those in favor say I. I. >> Those opposed say nay. The eyes have it and the motion carries. All right, we're more than halfway through the public hearings. Next, we have a public hearing for a property assessment for clean energy located at 222 9th Street South. I'll have a Becky Shaw from CPED to speak more on this item. Welcome, Becky. Thank you. Good afternoon, Vice Chairs Chowry, and committee members. I'm Becky Shaw from business development. You have before you a request to pass a resolution to adopt and levy an assessment and adopt the assessment role for Pace Energy Financing at the 222 property located at 222 9th Street South. You also have before you a request to authorize an amendment to the related joint powers agreement with the St. Paul Port Authority for the PACE program. The 222 property is a 41-story commercial building with over 720,000 square ft of rentable space and four levels of below ground parking. The 222 building through their real estate entity has requested PACE financing for a portion of a major retrofitting and energy efficiency improvement project. The project includes $31.7 million in improvements such as HVAC modifications and replacements, insulation, lighting, heat recovery, water use, efficiency improvements, automatic energy control systems, and a new chiller system. The St. Paul Port Authority administers the PACE program for multiple jurisdictions throughout Minnesota, including the city of Minneapolis. St. Palport Authority has approved $12.5 million in financing for a portion of the property improvements. The loan will be repaid through a special assessment placed on the property by twice annual payments over 30 years starting in January of 2027. The city of Minneapolis will receive special assessment payments from Henipin County, then remit the payments back to St. Paul Port Authority as outlined in the joint powers agreement between the city and the Port Authority. In addition, prior to placing the special assessment, the city and St. Paul Port Authority will execute an amendment to our current joint powers agreement to align with PACE programmatic and eligibility language passed by the Minnesota State Legislature in 2023. And I do have an individual here from the St. Paul Port Authority. That concludes my presentation and I'll stand for any questions. >> Thank you so much, Miss Shaw. Um, with that I will open up the public hearing and see if anyone would like to speak to this item. Great. Seeing no one wishing to speak, I will close this public hearing and ask members if they have any questions or comments for discussion. Okay, I am not seeing anyone in discussion. So, I will move this item for approval on that motion. All those in favor say I. >> I. Those oppose say nay. The eyes have it and the motion carries. Next, we have a public hearing for an amendment on to this to the land cells sideyard program properties resolution to add two properties. I will have Narin Siaong from CPAD housing up to speak. More on this item. Welcome. >> Thank you. Good afternoon, uh, Vice Chair Chu and council members. My name is Narin Sihong. I am a supervisor with CPAD real estate services in the housing uh division. So I'm here to provide information on the public hearing to consider the amendment to the land sale sideyard program properties resolution to add two properties two sideyards we considered um yeah 1900 Penn Avenue North and 2756 Queen Avenue North. Uh they're both in the fifth ward, Jordan and Willard Hay neighborhoods. Um some background information. On January 23rd, 2016, the city council approved the resolution authorizing the sideyard sideyard program for sales of certain sideyard properties without identified buyers. Uh so and these sideyards are to be sold to the adjacent neighboring uh property owner. Well, and this public hearing is to consider adding these two properties, 1900 Penn Avenue North and 2756 Queen Avenue North. Uh that completes my presentation and I can take any questions if there are any. Thank you, Mr. Seabong. I will first open up the public hearing and see if there's anybody that wishes to speak to this item. See no one wishing to speak, I will close this public hearing and see if there's any questions from council members. Seeing none, thank you for your work on this and the presentation. I will move this item for approval. On that motion, all those in favor say I. I. >> I. >> Those opposed say nay. The motion carries. >> Thank you very much. >> Thank you. All right. Public hearing item number eight for an ordinance related to requirements with the demolition and wrecking of structures within the building code. I will have Steve Poor from CPED to come and speak to this item. Welcome. >> Thank you, Vice Chair Chadri, and council members. Um Steveore uh development services seeped um today and before you we're going to amend the wrecking permit ordinance. Uh we had some recent events this year that identified some gaps in maybe public noticing. So the heart of this ordinance is really to kind of bring it in line with the construction management agreement ordinance that gives a broader notice when there's going to be a demolition of a property under the CMA as we call it. single family homes uh that are going to be demolished send out a 350 foot mailing to the adjacent properties to let them know what's coming. Similarly here uh we want to give better notice to residents. Uh we're trying to make a better effort to contact non-propy owner uh residents in the areas with a particularly attention to seeing uh to looking at sites that may have possible contamination on site or it had some type of uh state environmental permit, an air permit, a local permit or that had hazardous waste that have been identified uh being stored on the site. With that, uh, we will partner with our colleagues in the health department to identify possible sites that would require extra review to ensure that there's, uh, uh, to mitigate any environmental nuisance that may occur from the demolition of the property. Uh, one of the things we learned over the summer is that, uh, we have to monitor high winds. So, we we've got a clause in there that talks about when the winds are exceeding 15 miles an hour that uh demolition would need to stop. Uh and if there's additional mitigation that's required, uh plans would be reviewed by the health department that would be able to place conditions on the wrecking permit before it's issued. So, that's what I have today and I'd be happy to stand for questions. Before we go to questions, I will open up the public hearing to see if anyone would like to speak. It doesn't look like we have anyone signed up. Okay, seeing no one wishing to speak, I will close the public hearing and I will call on Council Member Chavez to speak to this ordinance. >> Thank you, Chair Chadri. Uh, and thank you for the presentation, uh, Steve. In 2025, there were some wrecking permits issued for Smith Foundry, an industrial and commercial site where nearby residents were not aware of a prior demolition work commencing. Uh, the site had a particular history where environmental concerns and the demolition process became a great concern for the surrounding communities. Specifically, there were concerns with residents that the property surrounding the demolition sites were not given prior notice to the work commencing and that no information regarding environmental mitigation was available to share. In response to those concerns, community members, neighborhood associations, folks, and Phillips came together with our city staff and worked together on an internal work group to come up with recommendations uh where both our staff and the community were able to come together to bring this ordinance forward. And I just wanted to uh mention that because I think it's important to recognize that both our teams here at city hall, our city staff along with the community members were able to collaborate on this ordinance to rectify an issue that we identified last year. Uh the proposed amendments are aimed at broadening the notice civil wrecking permit application being submitted from only noticing immediate adjacent property owners to the property owners within 350 ft of the subject property. The amendments also enable staff to require an environmental mitigation plan when a structure or the site the building is located on meet certain criteria for hazardous materials or hazardous waste associated with the subject property. Um I appreciate the change uh with the wind and you know which can cause uh more pollution into our neighborhoods particularly in Phillips where the work uh for this ordinance began. So, I just want to thank our staff for working closely on this and I also want to give a big shout out to the community who pushed us all year long on making sure this happened. So, I'll move approval of this ordinance. >> Thank you, Council Member Chavez. And maybe we could amend your motion a little bit to move approval for item number eight on the agenda. um to amend the ordinance and return um returning to author of considerations of changes from chapter 599. >> Correct. Thank you. >> Wonderful. I'll next call on Council Member Cashman. >> Thank you, Vice Chair, and thanks for your work on this. Um Mr. Por and Council Member Chavez, I just had a couple questions about the amount of demolition permits that we're um that this will impact. Does this impact every permit for a demolition or just a specific type of demolition? [snorts] >> Uh, Vice Chair Chry, Council Member Cashman. Um, they potentially could could affect every wrecking permit that's submitted. It just depends on where they're at. So, we'll work, as I mentioned, we'll try to work on existing databases, known information about possible contamination. the health department will review that to see if there's an added mitigation plan that needs to be put in place. If if it's a relatively new building with no history of any contamination, uh no no contamination stored on site, uh things like that, it would it would not require the plan. So, that's going to be at a staff level to make those determinations. Um we we saw a few this year, so we think the change is very well warranted. And I just want to uh comment on council member Chavez's comment that we did have very productive and useful discussions with the neighborhood to understand their concerns and how we could improve the ordinance. Mhm. >> So, the reason I ask, and I totally understand the Smith Foundry case was pretty bad and impactful uh to the neighbors, but I want to make sure that this doesn't >> really get in the way of buildings that really do need to come down in a neighborhood, not wanting to go even get a permit because there's too many, you know, steps in that process. So, I want to make sure that it sounds like you're using your discretion and your expertise to decide which buildings do need to go through these extra steps. Uh, Vice Chair Childrey, Council Member Cashman. Um, let me be clear. Emergency demolitions um due to a fire or a car going through a building would not go through this process. Emergency demolitions are to pro protect the public safety. Uh, other structures um that were to be fully demolished require a wrecking permit. >> And part of that is because um there are things that are required. There are uh utility disconnections, fire uh you know fire suppression systems, water gas. So uh we don't get many people that try to demolish a building without getting a wreck wrecking permit. But the goal of this amendment is to address existing sites that um are likely to or have been identified to have uh a certain level of contamination that warrants a mitigation plan. >> Okay. Uh I'm going to support this today. I just wanted to flag that um it would have been great for the community environmental advisory commission to be able to take a look at this and hopefully next year we can have another round of uh another review of this ordinance for sustainability purposes because out of all of our zero waste strategies the only one we haven't started is in um increasing building deconstruction salvage and so there they the environmental advisory commission has great ideas about creating some type of notice so that salvage companies can plan and attend demolitions and salvage the materials. Um, and I don't want to, you know, hold up this ordinance from addressing that issue, but I'm hoping that, um, next year there can be some engagement about how to address the sustainab sustainability issues involved with the materials that are coming down as part of a demolition. Thanks. Um, Vice Chair Chowry, Council Member Kman, um, in the past several years, we've actually looked into this a number of times. Um, there have been pilot programs that I have been involved with, and at that time, there was not a market that supported the activity. We've had deconstruction, full deconstruction of homes, um, by certain vendors. Um, so it's not a new idea. Um, we are trying to address what we we perceive to be a more immediate concern given that there are, as we've seen with some fires, there's some older buildings that high highly likely have contaminants, but we are happy to continue that conversation. We'll see if the market has changed to receive that type of deconstruction that would make it a viable option. So, thank you. >> Thank you. I put myself in quue. Thanks for all of your work on this, Mr. Poor, and thank you, Council Member Chavez, for all of your work on this. Um my question is about uh kind of a little bit outside of like the noticing and it's more on penalties and enforcement because very clearly our code states that you have to get a wrecking permit and especially for um for for structures that have contaminants that's really really important. Does this change tackle any of the penalties that um an entity may face if they do not obtain a wrecking permit? >> We did not uh vice chair Chowry um we did not address penalties. We have issued fines. They escalate fines. They're much like the adsite program, $200 fines. They double and accelerate. Um, I would say that even on a normal demolition where we don't identify pre-existing conditions, if people see asbestous, things shut down, contractors are currently required to look for these things in all cases. But back to your original question is no, we did not address the fines. Uh, and it's something we could look at again. >> Yeah, thank you. That's a that's something I would be very interested in like working on that with you specifically considering how we can like bring up to our current time. Uh what a good penalty would be for someone to just wreck a building without a permit. And then also like what does it mean to have maybe even a higher penalty for a building that has contamination and that occurs because right now um and you and I have worked on a case like this with a low penalty um there it can have an unintended consequence of a contractor perhaps acting in bad faith going ahead and pursuing the wrecking and not going through the steps. And so if we're creating more steps, I think failing to um obtain the the required licenses and permits should have uh a higher penalty. So I would love to work with you and CPED in determining how we can do that in the next term. >> Vice Chair Chowry, um thank you. Um I would just say that when we look at fines, fines are intended to be coercive, not punitive. And to your point, I think some of those fines do not coers better behavior. >> Yes, precisely. Okay. Um, thank you so much. Is there anyone else that would like to get into discussion? I am not seeing anyone else in discussion. And we have the motion from council member Chavez before us. On the motion, all those in favor say I. I. Those opposed say nay. The eyes have it and the motion carries. Okay, now we are on our final public hearing item. However, there is a quasi judicial hearing item after this, so don't get too excited. Um, we have a public hearing on an ordinance entitled uh tenant protections, tenant opportunity to purchase, which will be related to the housing code. I wish to make some remarks before opening up the public hearing. So, thank you to all of our community members and stakeholders for taking the time to attend our community's business, housing, and zoning committee meeting to share public testimony on the proposed tenant opportunity to purchase ordinance. I want to share some remarks on behalf of the authors of this ordinance, council member Ellison and Council Vice President Chugtai, who do not serve on this committee. from them. Tenant opportunity to purchase ordinance is not a radical departure as some have suggested. It is a practical proven policy tool used around the country to curb displacement and create fair opportunities for renters who rarely get a seat at the table when buildings change hands. Minneapolis renters, particularly lowincome households, black, native, and immigrant families, face disproportionate housing instability and exclusion from home home ownership pathways. Tenant opportunity to purchase offers them a meaningful chance to stay in their homes, build collective power, and in some cases take steps towards ownership that the market almost never makes available to them. It is fundamentally an anti-displacement policy rooted in fairness, stability, and wealthb buildinging. While this policy has been diligently crafted by our teams, stakeholder engagement, community feedback, and staff buyin as crucial ingredients in good policy, good policym. This policy is in and in conclusion, this policy is in need of more time beyond this current council term to ex execute all of the parts that are necessary. Therefore, the co-authors are not recommending a vote to occur by the end of term. And so for this reason, others, the co-authors have requested council takes no action at this time, meaning we're not going to take a vote on this today. It's going to stay in this committee and through the end of the term. And what does that mean in terms of the functions of this council? It means that this ordinance will be here to the end of the term. The term will conclude on December 11th and then in the next term any returning council members are able to essentially bring it back through um the beginning part of the legislative process which is noticing and um putting it forward through a committee process. Um with that we aren't receiving a staff presentation. However, if members are interested in asking any questions of staff, they are welcome to do so. Um, I know this may also change some uh arrangements in terms of the public hearing process. And so, I will call your name and you can let me know um if you're planning on speaking or you don't have to come up to speak if that's a choice that you're making. But we s certainly welcome everyone to still share their comments and thoughts because it is still valuable commentary feedback for us to carry into the end of this term and then into future term. Um with that I will now open up the public hearing and the first person that I have here is patients. Welcome up patience. and everyone will have two minutes to speak. >> Good afternoon. My name is Patience. I've been a resident of Minneapolis for 27 years. For 22 of those years, I was a renter. And 5 years ago, I bought the rental property I'd been living in from my landlord. He approached me first. I have a partner. Same exact thing happened to happened to him. I have a friend that lives down the street. Same exact thing happened to him. Um, I'm telling you this to illustrate that this ordinance is creating nothing new. All of this already exists. Rental property owners are already free to sell to their tenants if they want to or nonprofit. What this ordinance does is it now forces rental property owners to prioritize selling to those the government, you guys, say it's okay to sell to. You are infringing on the rights of citizens to freely sell their private property. You're putting yourself between private citizens and a free market. And the last thing every citizen needs is more government overreach and intervention in our lives. Instead of creating incentives for sellers to approach renters first or nonprofits, you choose force. I don't believe that qual any qualified organizations you put together will not be a result of discrimination, palm greasing, and favoritism. And I'm curious how that process uh of creating that list of qualified organizations will be created. So, had my landlord not spoken uh or had not offered me the property first, yes, that would have sucked and yes, I I would have been very sad. But it was none of my business who he sold to. I believe that then and I believe that now. And it's also none of your business. And just FYI, I have no skin in this game. The property I own is exempt from this ordinance. So, it affects me neither way. Thanks. Thank you. Next, I will call up Miles Artist. Welcome. >> Good afternoon, Vice Chadri, fellow council members. My name is Miles Artis. I'm the director of government affairs uh for Minneapolis area realtors. Uh, MAR is a trade association with 8,000 members who represent homeowners, current and future home buyers, sellers, tenants, and landlords. We appreciate that you are trying to find pathways for home ownership for tenants, and we are the gateway to home ownership, understand the path, strategies, and obstacles intimately. Today, tenants can already inquire about the sale of their building without the tenant protection ordinance. The real obstacle to buying for most tenants is the difficulty qualifying for mortgages. Most tenants once they qualify to buy choose to buy another more permanent home on the open market. So what can we do together? We need to expand our firsttime and first generation down payment assistance program. Expand financial literacy and home buyer education and as well as education and assistance programs on how to maintain and keep your home. We all want to help tenants and all city residents uh find housing security. Home ownership provides long-term home housing security and affordability. And today you will hear from realtors on the reasons why you should rethink and oppose this policy. So let's continue to work together and on city programs and advocate together for county, state, and federal programs to help our communities obtain home ownership. Thank you. Thank you so much. Next, I'll call up John Styles, speaker number three. >> Thank you, Vice Chair Chowry, and committee members. Uh, my name is John Styles. I come to you from experience as being a renter in Minneapolis for many years, followed by being a rental property owner for many years. Uh in addition to that, I am a realtor uh who focuses on selling rental properties in the city. So my concern is simple. Um this ordinance makes it extraordinarily difficult to sell a rental property in the city. A normal sale can take, you know, 30 to 60 days. There are of course some variables, but under this ordinance, the stacked time frames for tenants and qualified organizations can easily stretch that to 8 months or more. In that time, financing collapses, other buyers walk away, and 1031 exchanges die. This will accelerate the exodus of good local rental housing providers from our city. On top, excuse me, on top of that, this ordinance creates a new valuable right for tenants that did not exist previously. The minimum $8,500 buyout proves that if a tenant can charge $8,500 to wave their rights, then that value had to come from somewhere, it came from the existing property owner and not by choice. It came by force from the city. This is not fair. it will not be effective and it will reduce not expand affordable housing in the city. So I respectfully urge you to uh not further consider this ordinance uh but rather reconsider other opportunities that are already in place and I'd be happy to be a resource for those. Thank you very much. >> Thank you very much. Speaker number four is Ray Peterson. Hi. Um, name's Ray Peterson. Live in Ventura Village neighborhood. First like to report that our neighborhood organization opposes the ordinance. I also oppose the ordinance and my comments are personal, not from the neighborhood organization. I do think the ordinance needs a lot of work. I don't think it can accomplish what it is pretending to do. Mainly because it needs a companion program if tenants and tenant associations are going to be able to use it. that provides access to down payments, access to financing, legal assistance, training on how to be a property manager and and other technical assistance. I al also think that um there's problems with the deciding whose qualified organizations are. We have a number of both profit and nonprofit uh low-income housing providers who may qualify for being an organization such as this who are horrible landlords. And you're not by allowing these organizations to purchase the property, you're not doing the tenants any good. Uh, so you really need to establish guidelines for who's going to be that and and stick to them and not let some of the ones who you currently allow and actually support to to um be part of that group. >> [snorts] >> I also have concerns because it um exempts any units that are above section 8 rent rental income. And I think this will concentrate poverty and basically ghettos. You'll have low-income areas where there won't be enough u people to support services like grocery stores. I think you need to look at where the units that are affected by this ordinance are located and if there's any geographic and also racial discrimination. Um, and those are my my main points. I have seven total. I've submitted them in writing and um they're basically things I think could improve the ordinance or need to be looked at. Thank you. >> Thank you. Next is speaker number five, Pat Pollson. Welcome. >> Thank you, Vice Chair Chowdery and council members. I'm Pat Pollson, uh, past president of the Minneapolis area realtors. Last month, I celebrated my 40th anniversary as a realtor. That's 40 years of helping tenants become homeowners and helping sellers navigate the process of selling. I've seen multiple market cycles and I've watched our city transition from a majority homeowners to majority renters. I saw investors buy up many single family homes during the market downturn 10 to 20 years ago. And I've seen many first-time and first generation buyers return to the market in recent years. I warned city staff about the first look program rolled out in 2009 which granted the first right to buy foreclosed homes to qualified organizations very similar to this proposal. I watched as these organizations used their unfair advantage to buy hundreds of the best properties before other buyers had a chance. I've seen a lot in 40 years, but there are some things that I've not seen very much of. One is tenants buying the property they live in. Uh they're either not ready at the time or they're not interested. I've seen it maybe five times in 40 years. Uh another is property sales causing displacement. Leases are not cancelled with a sale. I appreciate that you're trying to address real problems, but there are better strategies to increase home ownership, preserve affordability, and reduce displacement. We want to work with you on these efforts. I urge you not to pass this ordinance. It will cause considerable harm to sellers and buyers with minimal benefits and it'll add administrative costs to the budget, putting upward pressure on property taxes. Thank you. >> Thank you. Next is speaker number six, Connor Carroll. Uh, Vice Chair Chowry and committee members, uh, my name is Connor Carroll. I live in Kingfield in the eighth ward. Uh, I've been a renter in Minneapolis for 10 years, and I'm really comfortable in my apartment now, and I would like to stay there for many more years to come. And I worry that, um, if my building is sold, then I might be displaced, and it would mean a lot to be able to stay in my home and have an opportunity to purchase it. Um, I do like renting and I live in a one-bedroom apartment and I would someday like to buy a two-bedroom apartment or a condo and about once a year or so for the past decade, I'll go on Zillow and uh check and see if I can afford a two-bedroom condo in my neighborhood or nearby. And every time I check, it's like, okay, I can't afford anything cuz the mortgage would be two to three times my current monthly rent. So, maybe someday. Um, but in the meantime, I'd be in a much better position to buy my current smaller apartment, which is an in an older building, and I'd be able to build equity over time, buy a bigger home if my needs change, and I think a lot of renters in Minneapolis are in a similar position and would benefit from this. Um, the status quo is not a free market. Large corporations and institutional investors, which have benefited from preferential tax treatment and mortgage interest deductions, will always have an advantage over individual renters. when it comes to buying a property, a topo ordinance would level the playing field. Um, finally, I just want to say that uh I really think too would work well in Minneapolis. Um, in my 9-bedroom apartment building, it's very simple to coordinate with my fellow tenants about any number of things, and I'm confident that we could easily form a co-op and manage the building together, and I think we would do a better job of it than many landlords. Thank you for your time. of speaker number seven, Jennifer Spotin. Good afternoon, Madame Vice Chair Chowry, members of the committee. My name is Jennifer Spedini. I'm a proud resident of the city of Minneapolis, W 7, and I'm a property manager in the Twin Cities area, focusing on apartment buildings, 10 units and less. My [snorts] first concern is the buyout provision. The ordinance is a minimum of 8,500 or 3 months rent. That's a high floor for a small property owner. It's also not clear what happens when people share a unit. This creates confusion leading to risk for both the resident and the property owner. A simple voluntary agreement would be more appropriate here. Second, the exemption. The exemptions. A five plus unit is only exempt if it has had no units at or below 50% of area median income for the last 5 years. That means if you have one resident that's long-term lower rent resident in a market rate building, that would trigger full ordinance. The messaging to the small owner is raise the rent or you will be penalized. That's all for my comments. Thank you. >> Thank you. Next, we'll have up speaker number eight, Will O'Keefe. >> Welcome. >> Thank you, Vice Chair Chadri, and council members. Uh, my name is Will O'Keefe and I serve as the W 8 representative on the housing advisory committee for the city. Um, while I strongly support the goals of promoting tenant stability and expanding home ownership opportunities, I can't support this ordinance in its current form. Um, the housing advisory committee did meet. We had a long time to discuss. We didn't have quorum, so there was no official vote taken, but there was a lot of time that went into the analysis of this even though there was very little information provided and there were no authors in attendance. Beyond that, we have seen that existing programs are effective in the city. We should be putting more resources into those pro proving programs rather than creating new untested ones. Topa model is an interesting question that uh the authors have suggested is proving successful. If you look at the DC policy cent's report, that is not the case. uh that has a long-standing tradition, a 40-year old policy with very limited success. We also have an interesting question on stakeholder engagement. When COPA and TOPA came up previously, there was a lot of conversations with nonprofits, the vast majority of which said they do not have the budget or the capacity to expand their scope beyond what it is today. Who wants this program? who's going to serve as a qualified organization. There have been other people to speak on the proposed inefficiency of the stack timelines. I would also argue in uh listening to city staff during the housing advisory committee meeting. It was also clear that there hasn't been a budget uh or a a fiscal note study done nor an analysis on the impact of the city staffing. So, thank you very much. Thank you. Next, I'll call up speaker number nine, Stacy N. >> All right, welcome up. >> Thank [snorts] you. Greetings, vice chair and members of the committee. Um, my name is Stacy Neyer. I serve as a senior vice president of property management at Bader Management. We're a multi-generational familyowned real estate firm founded in 1964 um managing multifamily housing around the Twin Cities. Today we manage nearly 15,000 apartment units and they run the gamut from tax credit properties to Noah to luxury across apartments, town homes, senior communities and student housing. >> [snorts] >> Um, Bader Management strongly supports the goal of promoting tenant stability and expanding home ownership opportunities in Minneapolis. However, after careful review, we have significant concerns about the ordinance as currently proposed. We do not believe it will achieve its intended outcomes. While there's a number of things I find concerning with the ordinance, I believe the long timelines central to the plan are particularly problematic both for property owners and for management staff. The sale process will easily be delayed by 6 to 12 months, which will make it exceedingly difficult to line up financing, complete 1031 exchanges that are within legally required time frames, or even respond to a volatile interest rate market. [snorts] These delays don't just affect the owners, they stall reinvestment in the properties. They delay improvements for our residents and discourage lenders from working in Minneapolis housing. Beyond that, the proposed durations would create a great deal of uncertainty for property management staff and the residents that aren't involved in the purchase. Worse, there's no reason to believe that this will lead to increasing rates of homeownership and preserving and/or expanding affordable housing. We share the goal of tenant stability, but without realistic timelines, this ordinance risks reducing housing investment rather than expanding their opportunities. Thank you very much. >> Thank you. Next, we'll have up speaker number 10, uh, Karen Nielsen. >> Welcome. >> Thank you. Thank you, Vice Chairman. Committee members, my name is Karen Mika Nielsen. I'm the incoming vice chair for the government affairs committee with the Minneapolis Association of Realtors. I want to start by saying we all share the same goal here. We want housing stability. We want renters to feel secure. And we want to preserve affordability in our city. >> Do you mind backing up from the microphone, please? Just a little bit. Thank you. Absolutely. But the path of this ordinance takes puts a heavy excuse me but the path this ordinance takes puts a heavy and I would say unrealistic burden on property owners. Under this proposal, a seller may have to wait through a very long series of steps. 14 days, 30 days there, 60 days for negotiation, 90 days to close, and then the right of first refusal. And after that, the process starts again for a qualified organization, which we still don't have a clear criteria for. [snorts] If you add up all of this, a sale could easily be tied up for months. For many sellers, that's simply not possible. People sell because they're going through foreclosure. They're dealing with a health issue. They're facing a divorce or a breakup of an LLC. They need to move quickly and predictably. And as we all know, real estate markets don't stand still. Conditions can change dramatically while someone is forced to wait. We genuinely respect the intention behind TPO, but as written, it shifts all the uncertainty and financial risk onto the sellers, many of whom are already under stress. So, we are asking the committee to reconsider this version. Let's slow down, bring more stakeholders to the table, and find a balanced approach that helps tenants without creating massive hardship for property owners. Thank you for listening. >> Thank you. Next, I'll call up speaker number 11, um, Jessica S. >> Welcome. >> Thank you, Vice Chair, council members. My name is Jessica Shaminsky and I am a policy attorney from the Housing Justice Center and a homeowner in W 9. Um, Housing Justice Center appreciates the city um, creating opportunities and pathways for renters to stabilize their homes and build community ownership. The time to pass this policy was yesterday. Minneapolis renters have been pushing for this for over seven years, and countless properties are being lost to corporate interests. In the meantime, TOPA policies have a proven track record of success. In DC, an average of over 1,100 affordable units were preserved or created each year from 2006 to 2020. Naysayers of TOPA will claim that the policy doesn't work, but the numbers show otherwise. We support the passage of this policy, but urge the council to implement several improvements that will make TOPA actually effective for the Minneapolis renters who need it most. First, we encourage the council to remove the complicated affordability based exemptions currently included in the draft ordinance. All Minneapolis renters deserve the opportunity to purchase. No other TOPA or COPA policy in the country exempts buildings based on affordabil affordability levels and Minneapolis should not set that precedent. This exemption creates confusion, narrows impact, and undermines the core goals of the policy. If um if the council is implementing affordability based exemptions, then a rent registry would be essential in implementation. Second, we ask that the policy language is clear and easy to understand for everyone with straightforward rules and strong enforcement mechanisms so renters and landlords alike know that their rights and obligations know what their rights and obligations are, leaving no room for confusion or loopholes. And finally, TOPA policies are most impactful when paired with robust supports for tenants. We urge the c uh the council in the city to pair TOPA with dedicated funding and resources for tenant organizing and legal assistance, grants, and affordable financing to help with acquisitions and rehabilitation and long-term technical support for sustainability. Thank you. >> Thank you so much. Next, I'll call up speaker number 12, Kathy Bennett. Thank you, Vice Chair Chowry, and members of the committee. My name is Kathy Bennett. I'm the executive director of Twin Cities Housing Alliance. We are a coalition of over a hundred uh housing providers who are deeply committed to preserving and expanding housing affordability in the city of Minneapolis. However, we believe the proposed TOPA ordinance will work against the goals of maintaining quality housing and preventing displacement. The ordinance ordinance risks slowing property sales, discouraging investment, and making it harder to maintain and improve affordable homes. The ordinance also places heavy burdens on the nonprofit providers who lack the resources to acquire properties at the scale envisioned. The real real barriers for tenants are financing and support, not the first right to purchase. Instead, we urge the city to strengthen proven programs like the voluntary 4D initiative, invest in first-time buyer resources, and fully leverage existing policies and programs. We thank the authors for not moving this ordinance forward and would welcome the opportunity to meet with council members to discuss ways to increase housing supply, ensure that the existing housing stock is quality, safe, and secure, and also evaluate ways to strengthen opportunities for tenants to purchase. Thank you for your time. >> Thank you. Next, I'll call up speaker number 13, Kyle S. >> Welcome. >> And thank you, vice chair and council members. My name is Kyle Senoinski. I am the incoming chair of the governmental affairs committee at the Minneapolis Association of Realtors, and we oppose this ordinance. uh we feel that we have very similar goals um to be accomplished but we don't think that this ordinance is the way to accomplish those things um with um this ordinance is going to cause a lot of harm to sellers as well as buyers the sellers with the extended timelines that this is going to cause transactions um the survey of thousands of home sellers by the National Association of Realtors um found that 15% of sellers had a very urgent need to sell quickly and another 42% had a somewhat urgent need to sell within a few months. Um so this having significant time delays um would put sellers at risk um as well as this harming buyers. In reality, most buyers don't purchase their rental home, although those rentals typically go to the open market. um the landlord can offer that sale to the the buyer or to the renter, but because of um oftentimes they don't buy their their home. And so this ordinance basically goes into a qualified organization and in 2009 um they passed the qualified organization the first option um to to purchase and because of that they bought up all the the best properties and took inventory much needed inventory off the market. Um so it provides less inventory for buyers and it creates um a unneeded burden on sellers to to sell. Um so thank you. >> Thank you. Next I'll call up speaker number 14th uh Cecil Smith. >> Welcome. >> Thank you. Uh, vice chair and members of the committee, my name is Cecil Smith. I reside in Ward 1 and I am president and CEO of the Minnesota Multi-Housing Association. I appreciate the opportunity to testify today. MHA is strongly opposed to the ordinance because the net effect does not help renters and does lasting damage to the Minneapolis housing market. I want to highlight two serious problems with this ordinance as proposed. The timelines mean that a standard transaction that can now be executed in 30 to 60 days could be pushed out to almost a year. This inability to close transactions in a timely fashion would severely limit the buyer pool. Furthermore, aggressive enforcement tools, including recision of transactions, will deter buyers and even title insurers. The result of these two factors is lower sales prices, a long-term erosion of quality housing, and a shift of property taxes onto homeowners. I urge the committee to disavow TOPA. It is a policy that does not work and would limit future housing opportunities in our city. Thank you. >> Thank you. Next, I'll call up speaker number 15, Nils Snider. Welcome. >> Good afternoon. My name is Nell Snder. I'm standing up as a small business owner. I own and operate multifamily units in Minneapolis, but I'm also a real estate broker. This ordinance, as written, covers all units from a single family to multifamily buildings. Is crazy to think that this that small buildings like a house or a duplex that already go through a typical sale process would be burdened by a time time-consuming process that is fraught with errors and potential challenges. As an example, I owned a single family home for over 12 years to the same family and every year I begged them to buy it and they said no and I did not sell it until they left because I did not want to displace them. As a real estate broker, this ordinance will cause significant issues. It will push out timelines further and it will greatly impact the sale process. I'd like to make sure you understand that the sale process when we market a property, we engage with the community and potential buyers and reach out to all potential buyers we can identify. As a purchaser is identified, there's multiple rounds of offers. The process goes into multiple rounds of negotiating a sales agreement. After the purch agreement is signed, the due diligence process starts. Many times as due diligence takes place, more and more negotiations take place based upon the process and the and this ordinance each and every time when make the negotiation process go back to the start. I have seen the sale process even have a final negotiation at the closing table, meaning that you have to again reopen the entire process again. This ordinance also makes me question if the city of Minneapolis really wants small owners to operate housing. The ordinance is full of issues and requires owners to lawyer up to make sure they don't run a follow of the law. While large owners and corporations have these resources, small owners like me do not. I would think that you would prefer small owners who have a stake in our community rather than large corporate owners. >> Thank you. Next, I'll call up speaker number 16, Rean R. >> Welcome. >> Thank you. Good afternoon, everybody. Um, my name is Reagan Reek and I'm here in my capacity as homelines managing organizer as well as a facilitator of housing justice league. Um, I'm here mainly to speak about the importance of a strong community influence topa for Minneapolis renter. This is a city where over half the population is renting and that number is only increasing every year. Creating opportunities for people to own their own homes outside of traditional pathways is integral to supporting a thriving Minneapolis that works for us now and in the future. I have talked with hundreds of renters across the city and as it stands, many of them do not see a pathway that offers stability in their housing or communities. They understand that the housing market in Minneapolis is not meant for them as renters or future homeowners. On the other hand, there are a number of people in this city who have deep pockets and an interest in not having their business ventures and profit margins known to us renters as our homes interrupted by the inconvenience of the people that live there. The oppos opposition has been saying that too will put undue burden on sellers. But the reality is that the speed of the market is leading to increased corporate speculation in this city and community harm. We have a choice as a city. Build a system to support local ownership or sacrifice renters in the name of market efficiency. We believe in the right for renters to remain in their homes, not the right to profit as quickly as possible. Are we going to continue putting short-term potential profits over people's ability to set down roots and contribute not only financially but to the development and prosperity of Minneapolis for decades to come. Topo was necessary 10 years ago and it will be necessary 10 years from now. This policy as is is a strong foundation for the future of Minneapolis that the residents and this administration wants to support. But every resident in Minneapolis deserves access to this opportunity. It needs to be clear and legible to the public and have strong community engagement that actually reflects what people are asking for. And we've heard a lot that it is does not reflect that right now. Um and we are asking that every member here, council member here, um bring that to Minneapolis in the future. Thank you. >> Thank you. Next, I'll call on speaker number 17, Juan Louise R. Good afternoon. My name is Juan Lucia Vare Reyes. I'm a coalition or organizer with the Alliance for Metropolitan Stability um and also one of the 15 member organizations of the Housing Justice League. I'm here to speak um as a voice for for the desire for a stronger tenant opportunity to purchase. We know that the desire and the dream of owning one's home is one that many renters, especially BIPAC renters, have had for generations. We recognize that we are the only ones that have the vested interest in truly assuring that we can continue to live our lives in our homes and that those homes are safe and dignified. We also know that we have never benefited from the realities of trickle down economics and understand that the viability, our viability comes from our ability to come together to be organized in demanding the realities that we want to see. Minneapolis has been a city for generations that has recognized whether it's in housing, grocery stores, cafes, and many more that cooperatives and collective ownership are vital for our communities to thrive in ensuring that we have the tools necessary to preserve our long-standing stability and combat displacement. This idea that tenants have no way to cooperatively own or purchase their building is a false narrative that can easily be disbuned with 10 minutes of research. There are dozens of housing cooperatives in the city of Minneapolis alone that have existed successfully for decades. They are located in almost every ward and are tailored to the needs of the folks that live there. Thank you for your time. Thank you so much. Next, I'll call up speaker number 18, Andrew Falstrom. Welcome. I won't read anything, so I'll try to make it more interesting. Uh, right now your city, Minneapolis, is under federal occupation and siege, and their target is Somali and Latino immigrants who are renters. Council member Chavez was out on the streets late last night, this morning. We need to support our people. I've helped renters buy their homes. I've sat across from one of the lauded landlords in this city, Steve Friends. uh a friend of Ceil, a friend of the Hornigs as he at his church downstairs when he said, "I will never sell to my tenants. Doing so is evil and comes from the devil and it's socialism." Those are his words. He would not accept any sale to the people who paid him money year after year just because he had the privilege of buying more homes than he could use. I've sat with my neighbor, Miss Linda, whose landlord tried to walk away from the sale of her home to her after she had lived there 18 years. If you choose to prioritize and listen to the people who have the privilege, small business owners or not, to own more homes than they will need in their lifetimes or their famil family's lifetimes over the needs of the people in this city who own zero property and who are just begging at the chance to own their homes, the places that they live in, that they contribute to, that they are paying for. you are missing out on every single opportunity to advance equity and to support the people of this city that most need it. Thank you. >> Thank you. Next, I'll call on our last signed up speaker, Bernardet Homus. Good afternoon. My name is Bernardet Hornig. I'm a property owner and manager here in Minneapolis and I'm here today to urge you to take uh to table this ordinance and idea not only through the end of the year but permanently. I believe this ordinance will not accomplish what you want to accomplish and what the speaker before me just indicated that he wanted to accomplish which I think is a lotable goal. We do want wealth building. We want equity and we want renter protections. However, owning apartment buildings is a lot of work and it's fraught with risk. Often buildings, especially older buildings, change hands when significant capital investment is needed. Saddling new buyers with capital intensive buildings in cooperation with an unknown number of virtual sangers is a disastrous model that will not set up owners for success. Frankly, if you can't afford a mortgage on a condo or a co-op, which are existing vehicles here in the city, you're not going to qualify for a mortgage on an apartment building. Not to mention the funding required for additional capital needs like roofs, boilers, and taxes. Renting is, and I know obviously I'm in favor of renting, but renting is within is the ultimate protection in that you pay a fixed rent for a fixed period of time. I can tell you that owning older buildings is not does not guarantee that you're going to have a fixed payment for a fixed period of time. A boiler that cost $30,000 years ago now cost a few years ago now costs upwards of $70,000. It is not a leap to to say that collectives will not have the financial wherewithal to care for these precious housing resources as a group. Thank you. >> Thank you. Is there anyone else that has not signed up to speak that would like to speak? I'll call one more time. Is there anyone else that would like to speak that has not gotten a chance to speak? Okay, seeing no one else willing to speak, I will now close the public hearing and go to discussion. First, I will call on Council Member Vita. >> Thank you, Chair. Um, I I'm not uh asking to discuss the issue. I really just wanted to make a motion to return it to the author. I I don't understand what your um uh motion is, but I'd like to just try at least to return it to the author. >> Thank you. I I I will say there's not a motion. I did not make a motion on the table. The action that I want to take is no action and leaving it in committee. >> Okay. >> So, it just would not go to full counsel. would just sit and this is uh me um being a good colleague and honoring the wishes of the authors and that's what I would like to do today in committee. So I won't be supporting returning to author today. Um but just wanted to give you a little further clarification on what the what the non-action is. >> Okay. >> Yeah, >> I got it. >> So I would like to make that motion though. >> Great. I will next uh >> second. >> Second. Okay, thank you. Um, well, now we have the motion before us to return back to author and so that's what we'll be discussing discussing, but we also have the public hearing and everything beneath it. So, I'll go to Council Member Chavez. >> Uh, thanks, Ch. I just wanted to talk about the ordinance. >> Yep. >> Okay, great. So, one, uh, I want to thank community members for showing up today speaking about the tenant opportunity to purchase act. I will be supporting the mo the recommendation uh by the chief authors of this ordinance not because I don't want to take action on the tenant opportunity to purchase act. In fact, I think we needed to pass this polic policy years ago. Uh I can tell by the folks in this room that the real estate lobby and the landlord lobby have clearly showed up into this room. And what I have noticed is that the real estate lobby and the landlord lobby likes to come to city hall to advocate against renter protection policies. Whether it's pre-eviction policies, whether it's against being pro raising your rent, um coming into being against renter protection policies in the city of Minneapolis. So, I'm not really surprised to hear folks in this room advocate against renter protections that are meant to keep people in their homes. I think the reason that I am a big advocate of the tenant opportunity to purchase act is for a variety of reasons. One of the reasons being that it is meant to be an anti-displacement policy. It is meant to keep people in their homes. I think about Miss Linda who was almost forced to leave her home and you had Powder Horn Park neighbors come together, fundraised and helped keep Miss Linda in her home. Neighbors would have not had to do that should we had a strong tenant opportunity to purchase act policy in place by this city of Minneapolis. And instead what happened is neighbors had to fund raise thousands of dollars to make sure that a resident of the port horn park neighborhood who had been there for years did not get displaced and thrown out her own home. I think about the number of immigrant neighbors that I have heard about them being kicked out of their own building even in part of Horn Park and across W 9 uh and then having to have no place to go. So for me the tenant opportunity purchase act should have passed years ago. I'm sad that we're not taking action on that today but I understand that we need to uh work with community to make this stronger, make it more effective. But I didn't want my vote being misconstrued with agreeing with the landlord or real estate lobby. It is to agree with the community that we can work on improving this ordinance, not say that we're never going to touch this again because in fact we should have done this a long time ago. So with that, I'll support keeping this in committee, but I am I wish we would have taken action. Thank you. >> Thank you, Council Member Chavez. Next, I'll go to Council Member Jenkins. >> Thank you, Madam Chair. Um, you know, I I really wasn't going to speak because I think a lot of the concerns that I have have been um spoken today. Um, a lot of concerns that I have with this ordinance. However, you know, I just do think it's unfair to categorize um some of the testimony that we've heard today as the landlord, lobby, etc. Um, we heard from very small business owners or property owners who provide affordable housing for tenants. um in that this would significantly uh create problems for them when they try to sell their single family home, one to four unit buildings. Um and we should we should listen to those folks. Clearly, the authors have heard these concerns and um are [clears throat] willing to go back and and um try to work on this ordinance to make it uh more reasonable. You know, I I I hear about the Miss Linda, who I who I know very well, I've known for decades. Um, had this ordinance been in effect at the time, she would not have been able to purchase the house, she didn't have the resources. That's why the neighborhood community members had to come together and help to build those resources. It would have been the same thing with TOPA. Someone would had to come forward and help her raise the money. So, the ordinance doesn't make a difference whether or not I I literally have my house up my two family uh home up for sale. I asked both tenants, do they want to purchase it? They said no. So, you know, TOPA is not going to solve the affordability crisis. More and more housing support for people to purchase homes is what we need to do and we need to build more affordable units. That's how we solve this problem. >> I put myself in queue and I wanted to speak to this. So, I'll be supporting keeping this in committee um as [snorts] the wishes of the authors. I think that's a fine thing for us to do. I also had wished that we were able to have a robust discussion and take some action on this today. I know that community members have been working on this ordinance, not just for a long time in this term, but since 2018, 2019. I I remember when um Council Member Fletcher, who I work for, was one of the authors for tenant opportunity to purchase and had brought in experts from Washington DC to kind of speak to how the policy worked there. And so this has been a longtime conversation. And I think a truism about housing affordability and displacement is there's not just a singular solution that is going to solve the problem, right? We need a constellation of tools that give everyday people, working people more collective power. And I think I got an I got a chance to celebrate the the saving of Miss Linda's house and like what we're trying to create what I think in the city of Minneapolis needs is like a way for everyday people to come together to build up those collective resources. I think it's important to create spaces where it's not relied on an individual to stay home. I think home is a human a home is a human right and like your community should be a part of making sure that you have a home to stay in. And that's what I believe is the spirit of tenant opportunity to purchase. And I think we can go back and forth about different anecdotes of tenants that said that they would not be willing to purchase or would be willing to purchase. Um, but there are many that would given the opportunity and given the tools and given the collective resources. It's looking at creating a different model of how we keep people in our community and we create more wealth-b buildinging opportunities that stay here that is neighbor to neighbor and does not have a large bank right in between it. And I think there is a lot of work still to be done and that was really clear um through the decision by the authors and I'm hopeful that we'll continue to have uh a robust conversation next year. um and more meetings and really really go through what's possible and create a foundation um for what's what we can get done cuz I would like to not have nothing done for the next four years. I would like us to start building the blocks that we need necessary and really continue to think through what does it mean to not just look at housing as uh a commodity and a profit model really something that belongs here in the community and is a right of all people. And I'll also just say like the the free market um as a status quo is not one that is balanced towards everyday people and working people. And I think there was someone that gave a testimony specifically to that point, right? uh working people, renters, immigrants, uh people who do not have generational wealth or maybe have a collection of different experiences that have led them to being lower income or struggling with death. They they are up against large large uh organizations and groups that have access to capital, influence, relationships, lawyers, ways to navigate these really complex and I would say purposefully complex systems that cut them out from opportunities. One to get a chance to build their own wealth, but also just to stay in their own community. And that is something that we're going to have to tackle in the city of Minneapolis more and more, especially as we're seeing the cost of living continue to rise. And we can't just rely on us building new apartment buildings as a mode of keeping the rents down because that's only going to last for so long as we're seeing in other cities across the country. Um, and this is also decades and decades of conversations of people who have struggled trying to figure out how they can have a chance to just be in a connected community to feel safe. And that's the spirit of tenant opportunity to purchase. And so I'm looking forward to the further conversations that we have. I'm not going to be able to support this motion today. I think um I think I made my point clear on why I I'm deciding to do so. So, thank you to everyone that came and testified and reached out. Really appreciate the conversation and next I'll go to Council Member Beta. >> Thank you, Chair. Um I I really just wanted to take the time to thank everyone who came today, the advocates on both side. I was not going to be supporting TOPA, but I do appreciate the advocates who took time to talk to me about um and that's either you know meetings here or for months folks have been reaching out on both sides of this. I do appreciate folks taking the time to advocate for. I think it's important that people on both sides get to speak and that they come here to get to speak. Whether you're a small business owner, a lobbyist, um a large business owner, whomever you are, I really do think you should be able to come here and speak on the matter on either side that you want to speak or say whatever you want to say about it. I also think it's important um to acknowledge that we have lobbyists here at the city of Minneapolis who go out and carry our legislative agenda and speak on our behalf and I hope that they're welcome into environments and they get to speak on behalf of our legislative agenda. So, you know, I know there's been some disparaging comments made and I I just want to be clear that um I appreciate the comments that folks got up and took the time out of their day to come and speak for two minutes and hope that a buzzer doesn't go off before you get to uh make your comments. Thank you all so much for sitting through this very long last meeting of um this term and taking the time to speak. And as you've heard, there's not going to be any action. There's a motion and I would love for us to begin uh the vote on that motion. >> Is there anyone else that wants to get into discussion for the motion to return to author? Okay. I'm not seeing anyone else. So on council members Vita's motion to return to author, I will have the clerk call the role. >> Council member Vita >> I. Cashman, >> no. >> Jenkins, >> I >> Chavez, >> no. >> Vice Chair Chowry, >> no. >> There are two eyes's and three nazs. >> All right, that motion fails and so we're back to just leaving it in committee. Um, which means we'll just move forward to the next item. I did want to say thank you to everyone for sitting through this long portion of the meeting and coming and taking time out of your day to come to city hall and testify. Stay warm out there. It's really cold. All right. The next item is our last hearing item. It's a quasi judicial item. It's a conditional use permit appeal, site plan review appeal, and an administrative height increase appeal. All submitted by Thomas Dink. I will have Lindsay Silas from CPED Planning up here to speak more to this item. Welcome, Lindsay. >> Thank you. Good afternoon. Uh, Vice Chair Chowry, members of the committee. Uh, my name is Lindsay Silus with CPAD Planning. I'm here today to present an appeal related to a four-story building proposed at 4109 and 4113 Sheridan Avenue South. There are two components to this appeal. one uh piece being an appeal of the city planning commission's decision and one piece being an appeal of an administrative decision. Um the site in question is a uh two parcels in the London Hills neighborhood fronting on Sheridan Avenue South. These are in the corridor 3 built forum overlay district uh which allows three stories by right and up to four stories with a provision of a premium. The rear of the lot, as you can see on the zoning map there, is located in the Shorland Overlay district, but is on the very edge of the boundary, so is approximately 1,000 ft away from protected waters. The applicant has proposed to demolish the existing duplex and detached garage and uh construct a new four-story residential building with 13 dwelling units. Um there are a couple of different pieces to this as I mentioned. of the city planning commission approved two applications related to this on at its meeting on November 3rd. That was a conditional use permit to increase the height of the portion of the building that's located in the Shoreland Overlay district from two and a half to three stories and site plan review. And then there were two administrative applications that were part of that um project. One was an administrative increase to the floor area ratio and one was an administrative increase to the height at the front of the building from three to four stories. as those were administrative applications, they were approved by staff and the height increase application was uh appealed as part of the current appeal. And so um the appeal encompasses those three applications. The administrative FC increase was not touched by the appeal. Um so the the site in question is uh shown in the aerial here and I'll just briefly go through the um the plans. Um, there are 26 parking spaces proposed in an underground garage to serve the 13 dwelling units located in the four stories of the building. And this is the the first floor, second floor, third floor, and then fourth floor plan just has the one unit on it. And you can see on the plan, if you look closely, there's a diagonal line showing where the Shoreland Overlay District cuts through the property. [snorts] Um, and here's some elevations that I'll just go through quickly. showing the uh setbacks and and orientation of that fourth floor which is really limited to that front portion of the building and a rendering submitted by the applicant. Um so uh the appeal was filed of the the administrative height increase and this is a unique property because of the location of the Shorland Overlay district cutting through the site. So, some of the findings for an administrative height increase and for the the conditional use permit to increase the height in the Shorland Overlay district are extremely similar and you will see that in the staff report. Um, but I will kind of just briefly touch on the fact that an administrative height increase is something that's allowed by the zoning code as long as um a property is in a district that allows it and as long as a premium is provided. And so the applicant has proposed to comply with the environmental sustainability climate resiliency premium subsection B which is the provision of not less than 50% of the building's energy usage as renewable energy either by on-site solar production or renewable energy credits. Um those things are worked out later in the process but that is what the applicant has proposed as part of the height increase. And so staff approved that administrative height increase for that front portion of the building. The conditional use permit then is required for that rear portion of the building. The height, the maximum height in the Shoreland Overlay district is 2 and a half stories or 35 ft. The applicant has proposed um a height increase from 2 and 1/2 to three stories and then the overall height from 35 ft to 40t 6 in. Um and conditional uses are those that uh are allowed as long as the conditions are met and uh gives the city that additional oversight. However, conditional uses must be allowed where they do meet those standards. And so denial of conditional use permits must be based on real documented harms that cannot be mitigated through the use of conditions. Um and so just kind of paint the picture here, a a a building that is three stories at the front and two and a half stories at the rear would be permitted. So the conditional use permit is just to increase the height of the rear of the building from that 2 and 1/2 to three stories. And then the administrative height increase is to increase the height at the front of the building from 3 to four stories. There's no conditional use permit or variance required for that front portion increase. That is just administrative and they're able to do that because they are providing a premium. [snorts] um staff was able to make all of the findings for the conditional use permit, the the building footprint, um the the building orientation, the setbacks, all of that is complying with the zoning code. Um and staff did not find that there would be any off-site impacts or undue harm of increasing the height of that rear portion of the building by that um half a story and uh 5 1/2 ft. Um and then to touch on some of those specific height related findings, there is a provision about um impact on adjacent properties and solar energy systems. And so some of some of uh the slides in this presentation will go into the shadow studies that were submitted by the applicant. As I mentioned, this is corridor 3 here. So three-story buildings are permitted. Um a three-story building would only require a 5-ft sideyard setback. And the applicant has proposed a four-story building, but that it would have 9 foot sideyard setbacks. And they've done some modeling showing the proposed height increases compared to buildings that did not require um height increases. And their findings were that there would be no additional shadowing on the adjacent solar energy system on the building immediately to the north. [snorts] Um and that allowed staff to meet the findings for that height increase that that the proposal does further comprehensive plan goals and is not um causing those additional shadowing impacts. So I you know I don't know how well you can see these shadow studies on your screens there. um the the this is three uh modeled buildings with the building the proposed building here at the left of the screen and then the two modeled buildings that would be allowed by right in the middle and to the right. Um, and so the building that the applicant has proposed has additional height, but it also has additional setbacks. And as you can see in the models, those additional setbacks are mitigating that additional height as far as shadowing impacts go on that neighboring solar energy system immediately to the north. Um, and there are shadow studies for various points in the year. Um, I'll just go through them quickly, but you can see that there's almost no difference whatsoever between the different modeled buildings. The two buildings that would be allowed by right and then the one building that is proposed that has um the administrative height increase and the cup for the additional height as well. Um, and then site plan review was also required for the building. There were only two requests for alternative compliance as part of site planner review. One was for building placement. The building is placed is proposed to be set back farther than 15 ft from the front property line in order to um align it with other properties on the street and then to give more relief for vehicular and ADA access. Staff recommends granting alternative compliance for that request. There was another alternative compliance request for blank walls and staff recommended compliance so to remove that blank wall. Um, besides that, there was no additional requests for alternative compliance. Staff recommends that the biz committee deny the appeal. And that concludes my presentation. I'm happy to stand for any questions. Thank you so much, Miss Silus. Um, we'll start by opening up the public hearing, but before that, I'll just say, um, I will be giving the appellant and applicant each seven minutes to address the committee. And after that, anybody else that wants to speak will be given 2 minutes to address the committee. And if you are planning on speaking and if you haven't signed up yet, please go to our clerks and sign up over there. So now we'll formally open this public hearing and take comments. And I will first welcome up the appellant. >> Welcome. Good afternoon, uh, Vice Chair Chowy, members of the city council. I'm Tom Dink. I'm the attorney, uh, for the appellant, the Lynen Hills Community Coalition, and the coalition would ask that to matter um, be sent back to planning. My client's not against the project. Uh, we're against some aspects of the project, and we'd like it to be in conformity with the existing code, but without the conditional use permit. Uh that's objectionable to the coalition. Uh and we think the administrative height increase which which adds an entire floor to the project right on Sheridan Avenue is objectionable at this phase of the project. Um we don't think it's been earned. Um this project proposes a 13-unit condominium with 26 underground parking spots. Um it it asks too much. Ask too much and it gives too little and it's earned too little under the code. um specifically the applicant failed to meet the criteria that you would need to get a conditional use permit and specifically failed to meet uh the special criteria, the additional criteria that apply when you're trying to get a conditional use permit in the shoreland overlay district. It's a special protected area. Um and um when we look at conditional use permits, you know, these are when you're building uh something that you don't have a right to build. You have to kind of make it fit better, right? That's the the north star. The overarching question is does it fit? Uh because we're making it bigger than it should be. So we look at the massing of it, the scaling of it. Um and and here um the the the the impact on the use and enjoyment of the neighboring properties. And I will sort of defer and rely upon some of the neighbors to the project who are here uh this afternoon to talk about the impact. But suffice it to say that the applicant did not satisfy that criteria. They sort of glossed over what the increase in size would mean. A legal build here would be uh three stories on Sheridan and two and a half on the back side of the project which is in the shoreland overlay. And instead we're dealing with four stories on Sheridan and three stories on the back on the alley side of the building. And in in reaching that conclusion that these increases in the project size were appropriate, um planning uh which narrowly approved this. By the way, the vote was only four to three and really at at the hearing it seemed that uh some members of the planning commission really wanted some more time on this specifically because of the increase in the shoreland overlay district. um and um the uh many residents who spoke about the impact this would have. Uh it's a it's a corridor of single family homes that's experiencing transition and specifically on conditional use permits. They talk about uh is the increase in height appropriate in the context of the neighborhood and the transition of the neighborhood. And here we're plopping a a pretty large building around a bunch of other buildings that are a lot smaller, single family homes. And so it doesn't really fit and it is oversized. And so what we have is well, it's just one half story on the back and it's just one story on the front and that's administrative. Well, the one story on the front is a climate resiliency premium. And what we're told is, well, the applicant says they're going to generate renewable energy. Um, I know my clients asked, "Is it going to be leadcertified?" The developer said, "No, it's not." We don't have anything in the plans that I saw. I couldn't locate where this renewable energy is coming from. Uh, we're told, "Well, that comes later." My client respectfully thinks it should come now. Uh it's not realistic to say go ahead and build the four stories and then we'll check and see if there's compliance with the climate resiliency uh qualities that earn them the hype premium. Uh that should be part of the plans today and the impacted neighbors should be able to see that. If they're saying we're going to have renewable energy generate more than half of the power should be part of the plans now so that the impacted neighbors nearby know why that premium is happening and whether it's in fact earned. As the record stands right now, it doesn't show that that premiums have been earned and that's one of the basis for the appeal this afternoon. Members of the council, as I talked about conditional use permits, yes, additional criteria need to be meet met. Even more additional criteria need to be met when you're in the shoreland overlay district. Um, and as senior planner Silus mentioned, um, specifically in the code is what's the impact of this project on nearby solar installations? And one of the members of the coalition, they have solar panels. they're right near this project and their solar panels appear to be now rendered essentially mostly useless. Um, that's not really addressed in the planning document sufficiently. It it's called out in the code, but again, I think more time needs to be spent. I I think numerous members of the planning commission felt that way. So respectfully, the coalition would ask that the appeal be approved and this project be sent back to planning uh for further consideration specifically on the administrative height increase on the front and then the um conditional use permit for the half story on the back side of the project. Um in closing, I wanted to thank senior planner Silus for her assistance and kind of helping me walk through work through the process. Very helpful and I do appreciate it. Um, if there are any questions from the council members, I'm happy to address those. >> Thank you so much. Um, before we take up any questions, I think we will, uh, hear from the applicant and open up the public hearing. [snorts] >> Thank you, Vice Chair Chowy. Thank you, uh, city council members. >> Thank you. Next, I will call up the applicant. And you have seven minutes as well. Welcome. >> Thank you. Good afternoon, Vice Chair Chowdery and Council members. Thank you for your time. My name is Josh Seagull, founder of JLS Design Build, the applicant for the Sheridan condos. Today, the question before you is very specific. Did the planning commission correctly apply the city ordinances when approved conditional use permit, height premium, and site plan? This is not a new application. It is a review of a decision already supported by the staff report ex after extensive public testimony and the commission's adopted findings. Our goal in the next few minutes is simple to reaffirm how the project meets the cup and shorland overlay standards. To clarify our environmental compliance for the height premium and to show that the appeal does not ident identify any error in process analysis or required findings. We respectfully ask the council to deny the appeal and uphold the commission's approvals. I'll begin with the conditional use permit increase from two and a half stories to three stories within the Shorland overlay. The CUP standards require that the use not be detrimental to health, safety, or general welfare and not injure the use and enjoyment of other property. Staff reviewed these standards in detail and the commission adopted these findings and voted to approve the plan. The Peele disagrees with that judgment, but it does not identify a missing or unsupported finding. We submitted several full shadow studies comparing byight massing to the CUP height. The incremental shadow difference is limited, seasonal, and does not remove access to light and air for neighboring homes. Staff found that these effects were acceptable and consistent within the shoreline overlay approvals. In fact, staff asked us numerous times to revise our display of the modeling because the comparable studies were so similar, it was difficult to depict any variations from our proposed project to a by right project. Our civil engineer designed a storm water system that meets city and watershed district requirements with full on-site recycled management and no increase in runoff onto adjacent properties. Staff reviewed and accepted the civil plans. Nothing in the appeal challenges the engineering or provides evidence of drainage impacts. Minneapolis 20 240 specifically designates this corridor for additional residential intensity. A project can be taller or denser than existing conditions and still be fully compliant. That is exactly how the comprehensive plan is intended to function. Next, Shorland overlay height factors. The ordinance requires the commission to consider human scale on Sheridan transitions to adjacent built form massing in bulk and shadows and views. The building was intentionally designed to perform well in all four. It step it steps down toward neighboring properties, uses highquality residential materials, incorporates articulation and balconies to maintain human scale and places landscaping to further soften the massing. The entirety of the proposed building front is stepped back more than the required 15 ft to accomplish each of the explicit considerations. The increased front yard allows for landscaping which will not allow which will not only support the human scale experience at the sidewalk but also enable in enabled inclusion of storm water best management practices for a rain garden for increased infiltration on site. The balconies at each building corner also soften the massing by allowing air and light further into our lot. The partial fourth floor is stepped back even more from the building front and is kept entirely outside of the shoreline overlay specifically for the objective of transitioning to existing adjacent built form. The commission explicitly evaluated these factors. The appeal simply reargues preference not criteria. For these reasons, the CUP and Shorland standards are met and properly supported by the record. Now to the height premium which allows the project to go from three stories to four stories in the front portion of the building. Our project has committed on record to 50% renewable energy procurement on-site generation. Staff evaluated the commitment and recommended approval. The planning commission adopted that recommendation. The appeal repeatedly claims that because the project is not marketed as lead and does not pro promise rooftop solar on day one, we cannot qualify. But that is not what the ordinance requires. The ordinance requires performance, not branding, and performance is verified during the building permit and energy modeling stages. Nevertheless, we expect to achieve nearly all renewable energy from our own rooftop solar on day one. Regarding the neighbor solar array, we studied its location and model the incremental shading from the approved height. The result showed no impact that would preclude the height premium under the ordinance. This analysis is in the record. The appeal offers no contradictory technical evidence. In short, we comply with the premium's environmental requirements. The commission has had the evidence and the appeal does not show otherwise. We want to speak briefly to engagement in our presence in the community. We live and work in southwest Minneapolis and take our relationships with neighbors very seriously. That is why we have always implemented an open door policy before and during the planning commission process. We met with several neighbors direct directly, notified and hosted in our office, the Linen Hills neighborhood, responded to resident questions, and incorporated feedback into the design. Examples include adjusting setbacks and stepbacks, refining facade materials and articulation, and enhancing landscaping and pedestrian level design. We understand that residents felt frustrated by the timing of notices or staff reports. We made every attempt to show up in good faith and we have we will continue to do so through permitting, construction, and completion. In closing, we care deeply about the city and we care deeply about adding more housing. Sheridan Condos offers exactly what the Minneapolis 2040 envisioned here, a variety of all housing types in all parts of the city, including the affluent neighborhoods who have the resources and the audacity to say, "Not in my backyard." In this case, highquality owner occupied single-level homes, housing for residents who want to age in place or downsize while staying in the neighborhood, a walkable transit supported building with strong sustainability performance, and a scale consistent with other recent project approvals around Lake Harriet. The planning commission has had the full record, applied the ordinance standards, and reached a supportable, defensible decision. We respectfully ask the council to deny the appeal and uphold the approvals for the conditional use permit, height premium, and site plan. Thank you for your time. Thank you so much. Next, we will go to those have that have signed up for public comment. If you did not sign up, you can sign up with our clerks right over there. The first person that we have is speaker number one, Connor Carroll. Uh, Vice Chair Chowry and council members, thank you. Uh, my name is Connor Carroll. I'm a volunteer with Neighbors for More Neighbors. I live in the Kingfield neighborhood in the eighth ward. I've been a renter in Minneapolis for the past 10 years and I've lived in several neighborhoods that feel very similar to this part of Sheridan Avenue. Um, those neighborhoods are Harrison, Haywatha, Ncomomas, and then now Kingfield for the past four years. In each of these neighborhoods, parcels that had originally had one or two uh single family homes or duplexes were redeveloped into multif family apartments or condos. And each time I saw the same thing, more activity on the street, more families playing at the local park, more customers at local businesses, and just a more welcoming community in general. These [snorts] projects didn't take away from what made the neighborhood special. They actually strengthened the neighborhood. This building at 4109 and 4113 Sheridan is the kind of building I would like to see more of in my own neighborhood. I like apartment living, but would someday like to buy a condo in a nice building like this one uh many many years from now. Um I care a lot about the city's future and like many people, I worry when I see rising property taxes, budget gaps, and the increasing cost of maintaining essential city services. Market rate multif family buildings like this one are an important part of the solution. bringing in new property tax revenue, more sales taxes from C new customers for small businesses and park dedication fees. That increased revenue means more funding for schools, transit, street safety without pushing property taxes even higher in residents. This project would create muchneeded new homes in a neighborhood people love and in a form that aligns with how Minneapolis needs to grow sustainably uh gradually and supporting the city's fiscal stability. Change is uncomfortable and I recognize that. But in my experience living in Minneapolis the past decade, the city and its neighborhoods have become stronger when it grows and welcomes new neighbors. For these reasons, I urge the committee to reject the appeal and uphold the planning commission's approval. Thank you very much. >> Thank you so much. We'll go to speaker number two, Chris Meyer. Welcome. >> Good afternoon. I'm Chris Meyer and I'm on the planning commission, but I'm speaking today just as an indiv individual to ask you to support this project and deny the appeal against it. uh next week you are going to be approving your budget and you're going to have a lot of really difficult decisions for that. So I want to pick you to picture in your mind what the most important thing to you is to add to that budget. It might be public safety or cultural corridors or um stable homes, stable schools. And then I want you to consider the revenue that comes from projects like this. One of the easiest ways the cities can generate new revenue is to allow more market rate housing to be here. They bring in a lot of new property taxes. They bring in new park dedication fees that have to be used within the Lynen Hills neighborhood. Uh they bring in new construction jobs and maintenance jobs. Um they bring in new customers that will go to the businesses here and support the local sales tax and commercial property taxes. They add to our census numbers which adds to our political clout and adds to the formula based funding from the state and federal government. So there's a lot of money that can be generated by these projects that can help with whatever budget priorities you may have. This project is located on a corridor 3 uh zoning. The reason it is corridor 3 is because it's close to the new eline bus rapid transit station and it's really important uh for us to allow more housing to be built nearby those. I understand why a lot of neighbors don't support this because it's going to bring a lot of change to the neighborhood. But the reason we need needed this corridor 3 change uh is because you know climate change is going to require us to make a a lot of adaptations in response and this is one of the ones that we should make. So I ask you to support this project denial the the appeal. This is good for climate action, good for the economy, good for our city. Thank you. >> Thank you. Next we'll go to speaker number three, Jeff S. Welcome. >> Good afternoon. I'm uh Jeff Steinley and I live at 4106 Linen Hills Boulevard uh along with my wife and our six kids. Um I've lived in Minneapolis for 28 years and we've lived in our current house since 2011. Um so I I am the person who this is in my backyard. So the this proposed development would adjoin the backyard of my property. Um and there is no alley. Um so this would be you know so when I look out my backyard this would be a 40ft wall um rising about 7 ft off the back of my property. Um so we're very supportive of increased density um and multif family housing in our neighborhood and in fact even in our backyard. Uh but we strongly oppose this development as it's currently drafted and would ask you to grant the appeal and send it back to planning. Um the the reason that we oppose the development is simply because it doesn't fit um it doesn't fit the scale um of our house or our neighborhood um or the character of our neighborhood and we don't think it fits the 2008 plan either. Um it blocks our sun. Um it eliminates green space. It creates traffic and safety issues on Sheridan. Um, and for my backyard, you know, we'll have a wall, right? You know, seven feet from our back property line with no landscaping, no trees, and no screening. Um, so our request is really simple. Um, please grant the appeal. Um, we we think that the development should respect the limitations of the 2040 plan as drafted without the conditional use permits and also and also respect the limitations of the shoreland overlay. Um, we think that the city council can really have it both ways. It can respect the neighborhood and the character that we have in our homes and our neighborhood and what makes our neighborhood really special um while at the same time increasing diversity. Uh, but this plan really sacrifices the traits of our neighborhood um for for a density that's really really not needed. So, we think you can do both and we'd ask you to grant the appeal. Thank you. >> Thank you. Next, we'll go to speaker number four, Matt L. It might be Matt. It might not be Matt. It's like M A. >> He had to leave, I believe. >> Okay, he left. Okay. All right. Take him off and then we'll go to speaker number five, Bob Yund. >> Thank you for two minutes. Um, members of the council, I am a resident in Minneapolis for 78 years. I have lived in my house for four four doors down from the proposed monstrosity for 55. Um, listening to the gentleman from the planning commission understands or explains to me why they came close to passing this and allowing it to happen. His interest is in money. He's looking for tax benefit. He wants to spend somebody else's money. I understand that the zoning codes have nothing to do with construction materials. That's different. Zoning codes deal with neighborhoods. Neighborhoods make up the city. The city is made up of people, not plots, not buildings, but people. And the neighborhood here, first off, no, we weren't all notified as they said that they sent out this notification for a meeting. A lot of people were missed. And that was for a distance of 350 ft. I think if we went out 1,000 ft, we would have gotten a whole lot more people to a meeting and very few of them would have wanted this built on Sheridan Avenue. They shoehorned this in because of Minneapolis 2040 because of greater density on a transportation line. Do you think people in a $1 million condominium are going to go down and catch the bus? They have 26 [clears throat] underground parking facilities. That's two per condo. Are they not going to have children who are old enough to drive and own a car? Thank you for your time. Have a wonderful day. >> Thank you, sir. Next, I'll welcome up speaker number six, um, Sadi Streuss. Hello, my name is City Stress and I moved to my house on Sheridan A 5 years ago. I lived two houses down from the proposed project. Prior to living to Lynen Hills, I have lived both in Brooklyn, New York and London, two cities who balance historic neighborhoods with highdensity living. I want to live in a neighborhood with multif family and mixeduse buildings. I believe in the importance of buildings with more housing, but I think it needs to be done correctly and considerately. And when I look at this proposal, I have two concerns. Community safety and environmental impact. I have two young kids. We walk and bike to get to Lake Harriet Lower School along Sheridan A. And during this walk, I see firsthand everything that is asked of the street. The proposed project has additional 13 units which will need gas delivery and repair parking. The 26 cars pulling out of the underground parking will have difficulty seeing the many walkers coming down the sidewalk who use Sheridan AB to connect with 42nd down to Lake Harriet. Cars will be busy. There is no crosswalk in this area of Sheridan and due to the staggered intersection on 42nd, pedestrians are often crossing at unpredictable spots. The city of Minneapolis has also has a goal of pedestrian and biker safety with their vision zero plan. And I urge the city to not approve this proposal at this time until we are able to do a proper safety consult of the intersection and the impact this new development will have on the safety and walkability of this neighborhood. My second concern is with the environmental impact of the development. To create this new development, two naturally occurring affordable housing units were removed and the finished development will block the effective solar panels that have already been installed. The city the development should be expected to match the sustainable sustainable building expectations of city-f funded Minneapolis multif family units. I'm asking the city to not approve the conditional use permits for height until a new more sustainable building plan is put forward. The developers state the 2040 comprehensive plan goal three and goal 9 for why their project request should be approved. Goal three states affordable and accessible housing, but in this case, two Noah buildings were removed and luxury units are being proposed that are very out of reach for most of the Minneapolis, which has a medium average income of 80,000. Thank you so much for your time. >> Next, we'll welcome speaker speaker number seven, Steve Higgins Whiteside. >> Welcome. >> Thank you. Hello. My name is Steve Higgins Whitesside and I live with my family at 4105 Sheridan Avenue South adjacent and directly north of the proposed construction project. I'd like to thank each of you uh on the committee for hearing and considering our appeal. We object to the proposed project based on harm to our property and the harmful precedence it will set for the rest of the residents of Minneapolis. First, we object on the basis that the proposed four-story building will block our existing solar panels. This imposes a financial cost on us personally. It also contradicts the explicit priorities of the 2040 plan. The Minneapolis 2023 climate equity plan as well as initiatives by Henipin County in the state of Minnesota. This detrimental effect is compounded by the fact that the height increase premium to four stories is granted under the environmental sustainability climate resiliency standard despite the complete absence of any submitted plan to meet that standard. Approval of this project will set the precedent that rooftop solar is a risky risky investment that can be blocked without recourse. In addition, granting environmental premiums without tangible evidence that the pledges can be fulfilled undermines these programs and the city's future ability to enforce changes needed to meet the 100% renewable energy goal set forth in the climate equity plan. Second, we object to this project based on the lack of adequate safeguards to maintain the stability of our foundation while the land is excavated to accommodate 26 underground parking stalls. It seems unlikely that individuals paying upwards of a million dollars for a condo with two heated underground parking stalls will utilize the city's buses. Approving a development with 26 parking stalls on a rapid transit bus line directly undermines the rationale for encouraging greater density and transit corridors. More broadly, approving a project that replaces two multif family dwellings providing four units of naturally occurring affordable housing with luxury condos directly contradicts the overall intention of the 2040 plan. These actions increase the likelihood that future projects will replace affordable housing with higherend development, resulting in gentrification that adversely affects more vulnerable residents. Today, we are presented with the opportunity to put the city's goals to increase affordable and sustainable Minneapolis first. Thank you for your consideration. >> Thank you. Next, we'll go to speaker number eight, Christa Anders. Welcome. Thank you. My name is Christa Anders and my partner and I live directly behind this proposed development. We're asking you to reverse the planning commission's narrow 4 to3 approval and send this application back for proper review. We support increased revenue for Minneapolis and we support increased density on Sheridan Avenue as a transit corridor, but we're asking that it be done legally and safely. This project currently fails basic legal and safety standards. First, critical infrastructure protections are missing. No structural assessment has been provided for adjacent retaining walls despite construction just feet from our property line on an elevated alley. No drainage plan exists. The developer plans to field adjust storm water management for a massive imperous surface next to our existing home. We already experience water filtration. It defies sense that this won't get worse when the two lots are entirely covered by a massive building. Second, the city's own environmental goals are being undermined. The developer hasn't proven they'll meet required energy standards, but they got the hype premium anyway. There's no financing for the solar panels that Mr. Seagull just said was in the plan. The city should not approve projects that are just wish lists. Third, the city code protections were ignored. City code requires height increases to demonstrate gradual transition and human scale design. This project is a massive structure next to smaller homes with no transition. Fourth, the approval process bypass basic due diligence. The staff report on the not injurious standard simply restated dimensions without analyzing impacts. Counter to Mr. what Mr. Seagull said earlier, there was no detail. If Minneapolis approves projects that skip structural assessments, ignore storm water plans, undermine climate goals, and violate shoreland protections, we're setting a precedent that will harden neighborhoods across the city. At the planning commission, 19 neighbors testified in opposition. Three commissioners raised serious concerns about the inadequate analysis that happened. Our ask is simple. Send this back. Thank you so much. That was our last speaker who had signed up. Is there anyone else that would wish to speak before we close the public hearing? Gone once, twice. Okay, seeing no one else wishing to speak, I will now close the hearing and then we will go into discussion. Um, I did have a couple questions for staff available. Thanks, Miss Silus. Thank you. Um I wanted to just ask about um the height premium um in regards to sustainability. So it's my understanding based off of the staff report they there there there are two requirements and only one of them need to be fulfilled. could you speak to um the 40% renewable requirement that's being fulfilled here and then um should the should the applicant uh fail to fulfill that what would occur? >> Yeah. Um, Vice Chair Chowy, members of the commission committee, um there there's essentially a slate of options that applicants can choose from. And this applicant has chosen to provide the um the environmental sustainability premium which says that at least one of the following at least one of the following standards shall be met. And the first is like lead certification or some other sort of um passive house or similar certifications. And then the second option is um for renewable energy generation. And actually uh there is a typo in the staff report. The staff report says 40% the uh the um ordinance was changed uh since our template was updated. It's actually 50%. The applicant's aware of that. So it will be at least 50% of energy will be from on-site solar or renewable energy credits. um there is a condition attached that all all premiums need to uh exist for the d the duration of the life of the building. And so if the applicant were to come back to us at the building permit stage, which is the stage where we would evaluate all of the plans to ensure that they're showing that they're going to comply with whatever premiums they've chosen. If they come back at that stage and say, [snorts] "This isn't working for us. We want to do something different." then then they would need to submit a revised site plan with a with a revision to what premium they would be proposing. So um you know some of the more technical premiums I mean even the kind of lead certification passive house standard that part A of this premium we don't evaluate that at this point we just have the applicant submit the administrative height increase application and indicate to us which one they are intending to pursue. we attach the condition that says that they have to you know persist with any premiums for the life of the structure and then when they come in for preliminary development review and building permits is when we take a a little bit closer eye to ensure that they are meeting the letter of those standards. >> Yes. Okay, that feels clear. So if they were not to persist with um any of the slate of options before them, they would not get an administrative hype premium. Right? So we're just at the first part of a long process before development actually development and construction begins. >> Yeah, Vice Chair Chadri, that would be correct. They um you know, we we have multiple levels of reviewing the project as it comes through just to make sure that they're checking all the boxes that they need to um and if if plans change, then they would have to resubmit for um a revision to their site plan application. >> Thank you. And then my second question is in regards to the shadowing between um what is allowable and what is um being proposed through the conditional use permit. Um in the staff report it shares it shares that comparing the two properties there would be very little change and meaningful shadowing. Could you just speak to that a little bit more? or I know you showed us um those renderings on the shadowing study, but if you wanted to touch on that. >> Yeah, Vice Chair Chowry. Um the overall the shadow study showed very minimal impacts on the adjacent solar energy system and it's a little hard to tell. You know, it's pretty zoomed out, but the shadowing of all of the modeled buildings ends at essentially the edge of the building. So for almost all of the year round, any of the possible buildings that were modeled by the the applicants team do not shadow the solar energy system. It's only really in the depth of winter where you see any shadowing at all. And the differences between shadowing on those solar energy uh systems is extremely minor. So, um I think I can show you here that it's a little hard to see because there's some texture shown on the plans that could be seen as shadowing, but in fact, all of those all of that south roof line of the that north structure is unshadowed in all of these plans. And it's really and these are showing March at uh March 21st at different times a day which would be equivalent to September 21st at different times a day. And then if you go to December, you're seeing some shadowing impacts. There is a little bit of a difference between the modeled buildings, but being in the depth of winter, there's going to be a lot more shadowing for any structure. And um there those those shadows are going to persist throughout the day, but the rest of the year any shadowing whatsoever is very minimal um between any of the modeled structures. >> Thank you. Um and that there's a version of this project that doesn't require going before the planning commission, coming before the council, and my understanding is the shadowing impact between that project and this one, as you laid out, is pretty minimal. Um so I believe that uh the planning commission um in their discussion uh applied our ordinances accurately and also I think our staff report had some pretty strong findings. Um and I think the requirements the special requirements that were the additional require criteria for shoreland um overlay was met and frankly this felt like a very solid project that came before us altogether um after seeing many projects. So I will move to deny the appeal and adopt staff findings. second. >> And then um I know we have a number of folks in quue. Um I will call on council member Palmisano. >> Um did council member VTO want to speak before me? I I can just I can just go. I think I saw her gesture to you. Yeah. >> Um go ahead. Thank you. As you for members of the audience, I'm not part of this committee. Um, but this particular project is in my ward and I wanted to say a few things. Thank you for allowing me to speak here and be part of your committee today. Um, here are some things I've said before to people who have reached out to me. The upzoning of Sheridan Avenue occurred with the Minneapolis 2040 plan. That was back in December of 2018. While many members of the public were focused on the elimination of family zoning, I was especially focused on this stripe zoning of corridors. Um, one of those reasons I was focused on that was about how completely impractical it would be to get affordability into these multi-unit buildings. Another of my objections was about Sheridan Avenue specifically, as I don't see it as a corridor 3 type of zoning. It doesn't feel that way as a residential street, but I was unsuccessful back then in being able to change that and I tried. I live in Lynen Hills myself and while I haven't lived in the neighborhood quite as long as many of you, only 27 years, I don't see Sheridan as a street like Xerxes or Upton or France where I live. Um, but the 2040 plan passed and it is the law of the land. Next term, we'll have an opportunity to shape the 2050 plan. [snorts] I don't get to make decisions that go outside of this. That means property rights. The zoning within this plan is now their legal right and we have to work within them. It also allows for increased housing density along this street. And concerns that I've heard from neighbors through this process have been thoroughly researched. While some object to the parking under the building, I think that people would probably object more if all of the parking was out on the street. Another concern is its lack of affordability. And that's true. And developments are not required to do inclusionary zoning unless or until it is is a significantly larger number of unit units, which wouldn't even fit here. Um, I am taking everyone's concerns here to heart, but I'm first and foremost considering this appeal in a quasi judicial capacity with an obligation to apply our existing ordinances, the ones that exist today. Staff has made the necessary findings to support approval of this project, specifically the conditional use permit to increase the height of the building in the Shorland Overlay District. However, I would like to propose um that we impose a condition that the applicant shall work with staff to provide enhanced landscaping consisting of trees, shrubs, or other plantings in the rear yard and the south interior yard related to finding number two for the conditional use permit. That finding says the conditional use will not be injurious to the use and enjoyment of other property in the vicinity and will not impede the normal and orderly development and improvement of surrounding property for uses permitted in the district. The rear side of the site is in the shoreland overlay district and the project is only meeting the minimum requirement for trees and shrubs. I have heard the concerns from neighbors, especially those whose properties immediately border the back of this new development about how this fits into the neighborhood and impacts directly their properties. Um, I hope this can help just to mitigate some of those concerns and increase the privacy in the green space of the property. I am not on this committee, so I can't make that motion, but I do have it before you um and would ask Council Member Vita if she'd be willing to make that motion. Or we can add it to this. >> Yeah, to add it. >> Whatever. >> I'd like to add it to >> We Yeah, [laughter] >> thank you. >> I think we're adding it. Um I mean, I'm okay with that friendly amendment. I I I'm looking over to the applicant. Is that condition a viable condition for you? Excellent. Um and also my understanding is that staff has worked with you on this and that is always great. So, we have the updated motion before us. Council member Vita, you're still in Q. Would you like to speak? >> Only to the motion. Not not speaking, just making [clears throat] the motion. >> Okay. So, >> so the motion's made. >> Yes. >> Perfect. Is there anyone else that would like to speak? Great. >> Okay. So seeing no further discussion on the motion to deny the appeal, adopt staff findings and then um take this additional condition brought forward today in committee. Um all those in favor say I. I. >> All those against say nay. The eyes have it and the motion carries. All right. Thank you everyone. We have one more item left in our last business housing zoning meeting of the year. This is receiving a presentation on encampment closure reports during quarter 2 and quarter three of this year. And we will have our final pre presenter of the year. And welcome him up, director of regulatory services, Enrique Velasquez. Welcome. Thank you so much, chair. Oh, I'm pressing buttons. Good afternoon, Chair Vice Chair Chowry, committee members. It's an honor to be the very last presenter of the year for the business, housing, and zoning committee. I recognize I'm the last thing separating you from other activities for the rest of the day. Um, so I'm here to present the encampment closure report for both quarters two and quarter three. And just as a recap, based off of the encampment closure reporting ordinance, there's a number of different items that we are tasked with looking at closures over the prior quarter, inter agency collaboration, outreach and engagement efforts, housing outcomes, health and safety, community impacts, and then status of disposition for residential or unsheltered residences personal belongings. So with respect to data collection, there's a number of different items that are incor incorporated here. We're looking at outreach and engagement. All these different items listed here by uh regulatory services, Minneapolis Health Department, public works 311 service center, uh MPD 911, and Henipin County also providing some additional support here. In these two reports, they include an overview memo, a data dictionary, shelter availability for each of the different quarters, encampment closure data if we have any. You'll see in quarter 2 that there were no closures. Uh 311 calls disagregated by encampment location as well as 911 calls for service disagregated by encampment location. And the decision to close an encampment is primarily driven by four specific uh factors. Number one, public health. Number two, public and life safety. Number three, community livability. And number four, any other external or environ environmental factors such as presence of vulnerable populations or close proximity to schools, bus stops, things of that nature that would create allowing that encampment to exist to pose a risk, an immediate acute risk to those individuals. Uh so looking specifically at second quarter there were no city supported closures here. Now while I believe there were some closures that happened with other agencies the city was not a part of those different closures activities. So what we're doing here is also highlighting that two different things. Number one, because of the uh police chief's special order with respect to how police officers show up and respond to encampments, that's forced our homeless response team to shift how they engage. Their focus has previously been primarily at encampments. And with fewer encampments, they've had to go out into a variety of other spaces to identify individuals and do outreach in a number of different spaces that are unfit for human habitation. identifying people who are living in their vehicles, living in uh doorways, living in a variety of other spaces, alleys and whatnot along the w along the waterways to be able to engage in those specific conversations, offer support and offer shelter. The second thing, uh, since there were no closures, I wanted to take advantage of the opportunity to highlight the the level of engagement that our homeless response team has done during this period rather than simply state there were no closures and turn the page and move on. [snorts] U so over the over this period from March 18th through June 30th, the homeless response team visited 834 sites. These are not necessarily unique sites. total unique locations is 225 of that vehicle only sites were a subset of that 212. So 58 of the 225 locations are specific to vehicles and 71 vehicles total across those 58 locations. We gave supplies 212 times. So that's food, it's snacks, it's water, it's socks, it's underwear, it's um other basic needs that we provide as engagement mechanisms for individuals. Housing outcomes over the the course of second quarter, HRT staff engaged 484 times. Those 484 engagements led to 93 housing referrals. Uh, regrettably, we aren't able to get data at how many of those individuals actually took up those housing referrals. We just know that there were 93 referrals made and six shelter reservations made. And we also completed six intake assessments. The intake assessment is an important component of that entry point for the coordinated entry system. And the homeless response team just started doing u intake assessments just this year u at about the midpoint of the year. So we were able to complete six of these. Henipin County Office of Housing Stability. They're able to report that 174 people exited unsheltered homelessness and moved into shelter or stable housing. What they're not able to tell us is how many of those people came from an encampment, much less any encampment. That's not data that they collect in terms of where did you sleep the night before you entered shelter. Um they just know that 174 people moved from an outdoor environment that's unsuitable for human habitation to indoor spaces. shifting to third quarter. Uh so July 1st through September 30th, we had one city supported closure that happened in that time frame and it was within Ward 9. Um we estimate that there are about 60 unsheltered residents that were affected by this closure. In terms of housing outcomes, uh, homeless response team offered shelter 279 times uh, ahead of the closure leading up to that specific event. 28 housing referrals were part of the outcomes from that. Six shelter reservations made and 12 intake assessments completed with as part of the coordinated entry system. I'll also note that there were seven individuals that wanted to move into shelter that were unable to because there was not enough space. It's not listed here, but I wanted to name that that while the team is doing everything possible to make sure that we are reaching individuals and promoting that they move into shelter. Sometimes the reality is that there just is not enough shelter space available at that moment that they're seeking it. Uh Henipin County did report that there are 141 individuals that moved from unsheltered homelessness into shelter or into stable housing. In terms of city resources that were allocated towards the encampment closure, uh we see in terms of cost, um the total cost is $16,382 for this one closure. Primarily this cost was borne by public works solid waste and recycling to do the clearing and cleanup of the site. Uh second was Minneapolis police department for officers there. And then third regulatory services for homeless response team members and traffic control to uh secure the perimeter uh to make sure that the area was safe and clear for uh the school right next door so that buses could get through. And then lastly, Minneapolis Health Department. In terms of total hours for this specific closure, 142 and 3/4 hours with the majority again public works. Uh second, regulatory services for their staff, Minneapolis Police Department, and then lastly, Minneapolis Health. Some additional key takeaways. Um the top row focuses on activities and engagement leading up to the closure and then the bottom row is focused more on the day of closure and what were some of the different outcomes there. So an encampment duration it was there for 76 days from when we were first alerted that the encampment was going to be set into place up until the date that it closed. This was not a previous site of an encampment. This was the first time the homeless response team visited 27 times. Not noted here is that the Minneapolis Health Department also made multiple visits to the location and were nearby to provide some additional health services. Uh there were on the day of the closure there were while we estimate that there were about 60 people at the location we were able to do outreach with 30 individuals and were able to there were three that accepted shelter on that day. There were no arrests made during the closure and this was private property not a multi-jurisdictional effort whatsoever. some additional individual and community impacts. As we look at 311 and 911 calls for the period prior to the encampment formation to the period where the encampment was in place to afterwards, we see an 84% decrease from while the encampment was in place to the after uh for 311 calls and 90% down for 911 calls. And with respect to personal effects and belongings, residents were not per permitted to return to the site on the date of closure to retrieve their personal belongings. Um, as we may recall, this was the site of a very tragic set of events with mass shooting and multiple people injured and I believe loss of life that prompted the closure. And there were some circumstances that prevented the city from allowing people to return to the site to collect their personal belongings. Some of the learnings through the data reporting process. We've been actively engaged with Henipin County's office of housing stability on refining our data on both sides for the county as well as for the city with respect to u how we identify people who are unsheltered number of encampments just to make sure that we're utilizing common language common terminology and counting in the same way. Uh we're also looking at and this is more speaking more towards the the side of Henipin County. We've had many of conversations about the journey for our unsheltered residents. What does that look like from unsheltered all the way through the continuity of care into stable, safe, secure housing? And the county has been working to make some adjustments to their systems over the course of the past two quarters. They've undergone some additional training and have implemented some different changes that will at least provide some additional data points from the moment that somebody enters shelter and carries that through all the way until they reach stable supportive housing. Um so that we can kind of project what that what that retention rate looks like and how successful we are collectively as a system. So, we expect that we'll be able to have some additional information that we can share after um first quarter this next year. Um that's how long the county expects that it'll take to start seeing some of these different changes work their way through the system as they incorporate them. And we've also established some protocols with the county to pre-reserve shelter spaces in advance of a planned closure. Now, this is predicated on the fact that if there's going to be a closure, we need to be planned full in advance. We need to provide advanced notice to our partners and specifically to the county of multiple days in advance so that they can start working through their process and reserve spaces for the number of individuals that we identify at an encampment that are ready to move into shelter or move into housing in a situation like what we had. Um here in third quarter with the suddenness of the closure, there was no real opportunity to pre-reserve spaces with the county. Though we did work with them around the clock um basically and community members to help individuals that were ready to move into shelter to help find space and help them make that a reality. Some additional learning opportunities. Uh we need to continue improving our notification process and the tracking of that notification for um other staff for our partners so that they're aware of what's going on and so that we can start doing a better job of tracking when we're telling them versus when the closure actually happens. So just that we're completely transparent on that. And lastly, continuing to refine our unsheltered homelessness dashboard. The dashboard we have had historically has focused solely on encampments. Recognizing that unsheltered homelessness happens in a number of different ways, in a number of different places, we want to be able to demonstrate that and be very intentional and planful with where we are locating individuals, how we're supporting those individuals, and how each one of these different cases are different. So, we're making enhancements to the dashboard to be able to reflect that. This completes my presentation and I will gladly stand for comments or questions. >> Thank you so much for the presentation, director. Are there any questions from my colleagues? You you're going to get on quue. Okay, Council Member Chavez. >> Uh thank you, Chair Chery, and thank you, director, for the presentation. I think first of all I think it would be great if we can get this presentation up on limbs. Uh that would be really helpful for the public to be able to review it. But I will make a ask if we could add that bullet point uh for that instance where seven individuals weren't uh didn't have access to shelter because of shelter capacity. So it would be great for us to get this on limbs but also adding that update because I think it's important for the public to know that. I think this is something that a lot of community advocates, folks that work in the shelter system, individuals that help people get into shelter, whether it's temporary, permanent, you name it, have long been talking about uh about the lack of shelter capacity in uh the city and in the county. Obviously, that changes on a day. It changes when it's 11:00, when it's 5:00 p.m., and at midnight. Uh, but I think that's really important and I think this is the first [snorts] time I'm hearing the administration acknowledge that there is a lack of shelter capacity in this moment or at least on some of the days and I think that's a good first step and I think the next step is then what can we do as a city to address that gap in our shelter system. So, I at least wanted to start with that and make that comment. I saw on the presentation I think there was a part that said that encampment residents were not permitted to come back for their belongings. I'm assuming that it's in relation to the encampment in Longfellow. That's correct. Correct. Okay. Um I guess I would ask why not why were individuals not allowed to come back to get their personal belongings. Uh many other individuals there like witnessed a mass shooting and that was their home. And it's, you know, very traumatic experience when you witness people that you care get shot and to not allow them to come back to get the belongings is really hard to hear. I think part of the reason we did this ordinance is to get that information because if we hear that's that's happening then what can we change? So I guess my ask to the administration would be residents should always be permitted to come back for their belongings. That is their personal property. That is their livelihood, right? So, I guess if you can answer me that question, but I also wanted to make that comment because I think I saw that and it like hurt my stomach. >> Yeah. Thank you, Vice Chair Chowry, Council Robert Chavez. Um, it hurt to even put it into my own presentation. It hurt on that day. I couldn't even imagine the the gravity of the situation on the field um for those individuals and their loved ones and what was happening. Um I did ask some of my colleagues to be here to help me answer that question. Uh regrettably I do not see them. So if I can take that question and we can respond in in with a written memo. >> Yeah, that would be great. >> Thank you. >> Yeah. So put that for administrative followup. Thank you. And then the other component I would like to ask and if it needs to be a written memo because I know we're [clears throat] running out of time it would be helpful is so individuals were not offered storage the day of I guess when were they offered storage I would love to figure that out. Was it the day before the week leading up to why don't we offer storage the day of which I think is probably one of the most important times that storage should be required to be offered. So, I guess that would be my question. >> Certainly, Vice Chair Chowry, Council Member Chavez. Um, so we do not currently have a storage vendor. We have gone out to RFP a couple of times for this and did not receive any responses beyond the downtown improvement district that wanted to provide storage for more of the transient environment that's downtown, >> not for community. Um so when we have engaged in the past to provide storage utilizing this downtown improvement district storage option people who are at encampments uh have only taken [snorts] up storage just once over the I believe five years in which we have offered it just once and they have never returned to actually collect their belongings. So, we're still interested in providing storage options for individuals because we believe that's important and we're gonna keep trying. We're going to keep finding different ways to try and make that happen. >> Yeah. And I guess the feedback I would give to you in that instance is that location matters. If we're having an eviction of an encampment in South Minneapolis and you're asking folks to pack their bags and lock it up in a locker uh in downtown Minneapolis, that makes it really hard. So the locations do matter and as [snorts] uh myself and some of my colleagues up here have talked about, we're happy to help make sure that we can help find locations in locations like South Minneapolis. So I would say that is a part of probably the issues we're dealing with storage the locations and then not being offered the day of. I I I noticed that storage is not often offered the date of an eviction and I would say that's also probably part of the issue as well. So I want to at least name those. I think that this ordinance in getting this report is meant for us to see the data and figure out okay we clearly saw a set of individuals in one of these instances wanted to move indoors. There was no shelter. That is a big red flag. That means that we as a city in partnership with the county and other individuals need to figure out what are we doing to address that gap that is impacting whether someone can have a place to sleep at night or not. So and I think staff coming back with this presentation and showing some of the learnings of this report is a good thing. So thank you. Thank you. >> Yeah. Thank you. I have some questions and uh committee members I won't take up too much time. I will note like we do have extra time because um Chair Osman and I worked uh with our clerk's team to move down the HPC meeting because we knew that this was going to be a marathon until the end. So, we're not getting kicked out, but I'm not going to keep you until 5:30. Okay. I promise. [laughter] >> Yeah, I do, too. I just got to ask my couple questions and then we're ready to go. Um, thank you for the presentation. I think I really appreciated sharing like how more conversation is happening with the county and like improving data tracking. I think that's really really important as it comes to addressing unsheltered homelessness and talking about a population of people that do not have a lot of advocates. Right? We know who all the advocates are for our unsheltered community. And oftentimes there are narratives that are put out that I think are really dangerous and lead to direct harm to people who are unsheltered and create a subclass of citizens within the city of Minneapolis. And that's why this data is so important to to talk about what individuals are experiencing. And I think the word that you use was journey. And I think that's a correct that's a correct term. And like the better we can get more information on how people are moving through their journey to having a secure place to live, a dignified place to live, re-entering into community and feeling held in that way is really really key. And I think those are some things I'm really interested in working on um with Henipin County and our county commissioners over there to talk about how do we have better tools to inform the city of Minneapolis and also inform the county on what's happening. I think like that piece about okay we made the housing referrals but we don't know what were the outcomes of those house housing referrals is important. Also doing triage of like where does an individual come from when they do accept shelter. I think it does matter if they're someone that's from an encampment or if they're accepting um detox services. Is it is there a correlation between day of closure or the type of outreach that they had? Who who helped them get to the place that they are? I feel like that's really important information. Um I had just a couple questions on the reports. So for quarter two two with no closures conducted does that what does that mean in terms of existing encampments throughout the duration of quarter 2 on private and city property cuz we may not have closed any encampments but I mean I'm willing to bet that there were encampments um throughout the city of Minneapolis. Could you just kind of share what that means for that quarter of like the state of encampments during that duration of time? >> Certainly. Thank you for the question, vice chair. Um, so yes, there were encampments of course. Um, in certain instances, it was the residents of that encampment that chose to move indoors or they chose to go somewhere else, find a different location. So, yes, encampments did quote unquote close or disappear. Um but it wasn't necessarily due to city action. They there were individuals that moved into a variety of different spaces is what we observed. Um and what our colleagues in public works would observe when they would drive around as part of the uh clean city team and see that properties just left left behind. Not a tent, but just belongings just left there. And were some encampments just like left to just be there without intervention through throughout that time? It just didn't feel appropriate to move forward on closure. Uh so where there were individuals with encampments, yes there were encampments that were very much like that where we continue to do engagement, continue to do triage with individuals and help them find a path forward into stable indoor supportive housing. >> Okay. And then for quarter three, I I'll concur with a lot of the feedback that Council Member Chavez stated. I'll say like I was in the field um the night of the shooting and what I had witnessed was the people that were living on that parcel of land. They all like were really really scared and they were huddled up over by the auto zone is where I saw I counted like 35 to 40 individuals just trying to figure out like what their next place is and what their next move is. and like physically just like frightened. I mean, if you're in a mass shooting, like you I can't even imagine the experience, the level of trauma that you feel. And then um the next day, what I the next few days what I experienced is uh a number of those affected individuals trying to figure out where their next step was. and um also uh staying um over where Moon Palace Books was and then the parking lot that is available uh by the former third precinct at 3000 Minihaha. Um and I spoke to a lot of the individuals that were there. A lot of them told me that like they had they had all of the cash that they had on their person in in in those tents. they lost like identification. They lost a few different of their belongings that they were relying on. They were able to grab what they could grab. And so I'll just share like as an account like there was a very direct experience of not getting an opportunity to collect their belongings that I heard from individuals that made it really really tough for them to figure out what their next step was um and was really disorienting. And I think a piece of feedback that I've shared um with emergency services and health, but I think is this is a good forum to share again is we we all agree that encampments are not a dignified place to live and not a safe place to live. And there has been several instances where traumatic events have occurred. The city needs to treat individuals within encampments like they are people with with trauma, like they are people that deserve care after a huge trauma, after a mass shooting. They deserve to be checked on. They deserve to have warming blankets. They deserved to have an opportunity to try to call their loved ones to get checked out um by emergency services. is they deserve to have someone approach them um that was qualified to be a trusting individual. They deserved a chance um for the medical mobile unit to come to them directly the day after. Like a lot of that like human care that we often times give uh victims of trauma was missing for these affected individuals, which makes them a a subclass, a lower class within our city. And that is what is really heartbreaking for me to see is that we are so much in our systems participating and othering um unsheltered individuals. And that's what I saw um following the shooting. And I also I also uh would question why the encampment that formed Moon Palace Books. And then on the uh parking lot of the third precinct was not also counted as an encampment um in the sec in the third quarter report and as one that the city closed because HRT and our police department came down those days to tell people to move along and then also tried to offer them transportation with metrorransit buses but also have cooling. So, I guess that's a question is can we include that as a second encampment and encampment closure because we did participate in closing that and that did exist for a duration of days and it had a huge impact um in that area. >> Yeah, thank you for that council member um for your perspective of what happened in those days as well as for the the question. Yeah, it's definitely a curious question. I believe the city's view is that while individuals were at the Moon Palace Books parking lot and then shifted over to the 3000 mini haha space, that's I think considered more of part of the emergency response. Uh not so much as an encampment, but I can certainly take that back and we can review. I think yeah, I think that would be worthwhile doing because we used our police staff, we used regulatory services and we also directed uh private security to keep people off the property and we also put jersey barriers up in that area in the parking lot. So, I would I would deem that as a form of closure. And like if that's not a closure, then I I think we need to question what the definition is here because that was city participation of closing uh an area where there were about 30 to 40 individuals and we were actively spending staff time um both for HRT, both for uh our police department and then also involving our private security and then metroransit and then also I I mean, I don't know if you would count me in the report, but I was putting in my time um that week. >> Thank you. >> Yeah. And if that is something you could include in the memo back, that would be really appreciated. >> Okay. I don't see any other questions. That's it for me. Really appreciate you doing the final presentation of the year. Um and really being intentional about it. Thank you so much, Director Velasquez. And I will ask the clerks to receive and file that report one last time for 2025. And thank you so much to all of our amazing staff um that make this committee happen. Thank you to Director Hansen. Thank you to our city attorneys, to our clerks, and all members of the biz committee and of course the public who is always participating in our various public hearings. Um if without objection, this meeting is adjourned. You object. >> I do. >> Okay. Go ahead. >> I do object. Um I just wanted to just um acknowledge that this is my last biz. It is >> committee meeting. >> Yes. And I just want to thank all the staff um and and my colleagues for um really um you know being very thoughtful and offering um tremendous insights and support around so many issues that come before this committee and it's been a an honor and a pleasure to work with you all. Oh, >> thank you for letting me object. >> YEAH. Best objection ever. Um, yeah. Thanks everyone. Thank you so much. It's been great. I've learned so much on this committee. All right, get home. Ajourned.