Just one quick comment. I'm definitely looking forward to the uh the trail by Southdale Library. It's really nice to see that area get developed. And so want to thank staff for their involvement with that. So thank you.

I had questions that I had presented to staff. Um, I had concerns at the last paragraph of the of the executive summary. Um when I read that it was unclear to me um whether this was going to um take away the automatic automatic qualifications process.

The HA and the city council said they did not want that to happen automatically. So, we are changing the language in the policy such that a declaration may be filed. And um under the compliance section of the policy, you'll see in red new language that states um that projects will not automatically be approved with a trust fund award.

The customer uh ordering and pickup areas must be facing a sidewalk, not a street with a sidewalk. it. This is something that the city attorney and I had discussed because it just didn't read right the first time and I said, 'Wait a minute. We want the the window of the food truck facing the sidewalk.'

I just want to say I'm excited that we're doing this and thanks to staff earlier for asking for some feedback. Um, it's good to see that integrated. Um, several years ago there was a business on Linddale in 76 that was hosting a a food truck in their parking area. Um, and I was going to like compliment that that it was so exciting to see and then it turns out that was illegal.

As it's drafted, it still allows the city to determine that impacts from the subject site uh or or that we are required to install these improvements if the city determines that impacts from the subject site necessitate the connection. That is extraordinarily ambiguous and vague. There are no standards... So unfortunately we we uh still object to this.

This condition together with some of the other conditions are impossible to comply with. It is not possible to meet a whole building threat factor of 45 or an equivalent without modifying the windows uh the glazing on your building or simply reducing glazing to the building... I'm not willing to etch glass. That would be a change to the building code. And I'm not willing to do some units get film on them and some do not because that sets me up for a dynamic of violating fair housing.

I think a lot of these problems really get solved if one thing had been followed and that's the housing variety. and I'm kind of stuck on the housing variety... it seems clear to me that the intent of this condition was that there would be a variety of structures there, not two identical very large buildings.

Well, the only thing I would mention is I agree with Council Member Burke that um variety in housing is needed. It really isn't. It really is needed in Richfield, but we're really um kind of landlocked here. We don't have a whole lot of property available to us that gives that affords us uh the amount of housing we need and sometimes to make a decision on putting smaller units or you know something like that and that's all well and good but we also need to look at the the number of housing issues that we need the number of affordable housing that we need.

As I read the changes you made to the plan, you just disqualified my project from qualifying for your trust fund and for tiff. So I'm not sure why I would apply if you've disqualified me. I mean your statement, your policy no longer allows projects over 80 units. I'm over 80 units.

This um these proposed amendments to the charter were triggered um last year when the League of Minnesota Cities did kind of an overall review of city charters in Minnesota and a number of cities received the same message that they were missing the requirement to include the birth year in various election petitions.

I also want to thank all the charter commission members and all the staff that worked on this because I do think it's going to be much cleaner and easier for everybody to understand.