Okay, everyone, it is six o'clock.

We've got a lot on this agenda, and there are a lot of folks here, so I want to make sure we stay on time.

Um we're gonna go ahead and start the community and economic development committee.

Um there are one, two, three, four items to be voted on, and then um two items for discussion.

Uh so I have a feeling a lot of folks are here for the first thing, which is Bill 52, uh, which is on data centers.

So before we get going and we get into the nitty-gritty, um, just want to make sure if this is your first time here, you kind of know how things flow.

Um we will ask questions, uh potentially of the administration, of each other, make comments, you'll hear a lot of back and forth between the both.

Uh you'll like some things, you'll not like some things, but just to make things flow easier, just try to stay chill, try to stay even if something just makes you just want to scream at the top of your lungs, scream internally.

Um because we gotta get through this, and there's a lot of various opinions on this on this issue.

There's a lot of passion, literally it's like an existential issue.

Um so like I get it, uh, but we've gotta do the whole one mic thing.

Um so especially when someone up here speaking or someone's at the mic speaking, that's the mic.

That's who's that's who speaking.

You can hate it, love it, whatever, but that's what it is.

Because when you get up there, you're gonna get that same level of respect.

Um j just um uh council person uh Napoli had explained a little bit about how we got here, just to reiterate.

Um we had a meeting um not too long ago, really a week ago, and I can tell you us having a meeting a week after to amend something, that this doesn't happen.

I uh this I don't know anyone who's been here longer, this doesn't happen.

This is the first time we've done something so quickly.

Um and I know again it's a very passion passionate issue.

Um I will say that sometimes in a governing role, there are no perfect positions, there are are no perfect decisions.

You um you have to make the most with what you got, and there's gonna be some disagreement, but doesn't mean we don't all want the same end goal.

And the same end goal is to have a strong ordinance that's gonna keep our community safe, that's going to regulate data centers as best as we legally can.

We may have different opinions on how we get there, and you may have different opinions, but the goal is to get there.

Um I also understand being real, the activist side, push us as far as you feel you need to push us, and we will go as far as we can go within the time frame that we're able to from a governing perspective, but it's great that you're here because we need people to push us.

We wouldn't be here if it wasn't for you all showing up to go even further.

So thank you.

Uh with that said, I will ask um if anyone on the council from the beginning has any burning questions, comments.

If not, then I'm gonna ask someone from the administration to kind of speak to the different changes.

Okay, anyone from the administration want to speak about the changes in this ordinance.

Sure.

So uh I'm not sure what order they're in, but uh one of the big changes that we heard in the public comment was the setback.

This one of the changes here is that there is a 500 foot setback now, which is moved from a 200 foot set setback.

We all have kind of agreed, and I think council agrees with us.

That's what we could responsibly put forward that we can defend you know as needed if there were to be a lawsuit.

So that's the first thing.

The second thing, uh the second change is the zoning.

Did we did we include both volume and IG?

Is that one of the changes?

Our position is that we are still including both of those sections in our recommendations.

Is that was that your understanding?

No.

Okay.

What's actually in the good good afternoon?

Sorry.

Um Jennifer Gomez Planning Director.

The version that's before you at the request of the council removes the IG zoning district as a special exception use.

As it's proposed, Bill 20 had both IG and IM as a special exception use as requested by council.

The IG district was removed.

So that's up for discussion and to debate.

Um if that's the appropriate zoning district to remain.

Um but either way with a 500 foot setback.

So it would be the IG eight acre minimum 500 foot setback.

Do you want to just do the rest of them?

You wrote it.

Sure.

Um okay.

It also adds um decommissioning standards, which was one of the the primary feedback, um, as well as additional noise uh uh noise suggestions, and this will, as um uh council president Napoli mentioned, we'll come back with an additional amendment to specifically regulate noise and some of the rumbling low frequency sounds, not just for data center uses, but for all uses in the city that have continuously operating noises or continuously operating sounds.

So that since that's a citywide, it's not um as extensive as a zoning process, so we can we can bring that up back um quicker.

So we're gonna with that uh aligns then with some of the additional work to be done.

So all of these represent what I think our council's priority one changes, which is permitted the district where it's permitted the distance from sensitive receptors, um, decommissioning requirements and additional sound standards.

It additionally adds further public hearing notice requirements prior to even submittal on the meetings.

I do think some of this will be mitigated by the special exception, or excuse me, some of the public notice um concerns will be mitigated from the procedures that are already put in place, um, which as it stands, the existing bill already requires a public meeting before the environmental advisory command.

A public meeting before the Allen Town Planning Commission, and then a public hearing, which has different legal requirements before the zoning hearing board.

Um this adds an additional layer to that to require more transparency from the developer in terms of sharing public information on a project website and also providing neighborhood meetings before it even reaches public hearing level at the city.

Thank you.

Anything else from the administration?

No.

Um, so I see you uh council.

I just wanted to acknowledge um first phase, uh, as it was said earlier.

This is just the first phase.

The reason why we're clumping these and phases is we have to hurry up and fix this, and we don't want too much time to go by.

And if we try to do too much all at once, it gets caught up in like the lead tape and LSRs, and it's gonna take forever.

Versus these things are a little bit more legally sound and they should be able to just kind of go through the process quickly, and then at least we have these safeguards.

It won't be perfect still, but it will be way better than what we have.

Mr.

Bender.

Thank you.

And I think um, I just wanted to comment on that.

I guess the these were, if if I'm remembering correctly, um, the main points that a lot of people have brought up in the past two, as well as um as President Napoli mentioned during the uh CED meeting, these are very similar points that we were looking at.

So I think to Council President Gerlach's comment, I think that's what we're trying to move forward.

Um of the things I just wanted to call out here, because I I know you you referenced it slightly, but um the the maintaining of project website uh for viewing uh for the general public, including project parameters, maps, elevations, all of this stuff.

This is all part of that uh engagement piece that we're trying to do.

And this is a this is a big thing, not just for this specific use case, but like how we're handling on similar use cases so that people aren't you know blindsided by things.

So like these are all important measures and in feedback that has come out of these meetings, and I think that's that's one of the things that's been been really helpful because it helps us define and refine our our code.

So I just wanted to add that in.

So thanks.

Anyone else on the day or uh Ms.

Affa on the phone?

Oh anyone else?

Uh Mr.

Bungle.

Thank you.

No, and I think this is is great, mainly, and I and I applaud the planning uh uh planning department and getting through and doing this so quickly.

I know again, I I can't reiterate how much we've all been listening.

And I know at times it it may seem like it's falling on deaf ears, but truly this was the plan.

We knew that if Bill 20 went through, we were immediately gonna go through and do this.

Um and that being said, I just again want to reiterate how great it is that it also gives us an opportunity to provide more safeguards, like with the noise ordinance stuff that we're gonna do.

That again applies to everyone in these zones in the city.

So I know some people said, well, it's not just day data centers, it's also warehouses.

Like my apartment is next to a warehouse that does this, this, and that, and you know, it gives us tools for that as well.

So it's really brought light to another other great ways we can improve the city.

Um, and again, you know, I think this is definitely a good start, and and I can't reiterate enough.

It's something that we feel very confident we can do, and it it falls within the parameters of our ability and our legal responsibility to do.

So thank you.

Thank you.

Anyone else?

Uh Dr.

Moda.

I'm glad that we were able to uh come up with uh different amendments, but um I also would like um people to understand that bill, you know, Bill 20 has nothing to do with the mails, um, you know, with the Mayos Avenue Um 2401.

So it is extremely important that since people are here that people will, you know, people should be should show up when it's time, you know, uh when when the planning commission has uh has the the meeting, the more people show up, I think that you know the more um it will be very beneficial um because I I know that everyone is worried about 20 2401.

Like I mentioned before, my neighbors.

I mean, um almost across the street from uh that uh you know data center.

So this is not a done deal.

I just want everyone to know this.

If you guys don't show up at the planning commission, you know to be honest, this this will be up to the community at this point, and it has nothing to do with council again.

I mean, I will be there too.

Okay, that's all I wanted.

That's all I want to say.

Because people are getting confused.

I mean, I I was reading uh uh, you know, all the comments, you know, in Facebook and in the media, there was a lot of you know, comments and people were confused between Bill 20 and and the emails avenue.

I mean, I live across the street, and I assure you, I had no idea that that was happening until a few weeks.

So it is important for people to know this.

Thank you.

Definitely yeah, I'm glad you made that distinction.

Um and then hopefully I think council has publicly urged the planning commission to meet at uh two times in the day and then one in the evening as well.

Yeah, that's what I would like to see.

Um evening meetings.

Yeah, so hopefully that happens.

Um anyone else?

Any other comments, questions?

Um, so the only thing because I did get some emails, so might as well address it so then maybe someone doesn't have to get up.

Um so in terms of why we don't go beyond 500 feet, why don't we go to a thousand?

Why we don't go to 1500?

Um, seems like we should, right?

So why don't we?

It seems like we should because we don't have the capacity.

If we were to put a thousand foot or a 1500 foot setback, we don't have enough property or enough real property in the city that would accommodate that.

So that's I think that that requirement comes out of suburban townships and rural townships where there's a lot more open space.

We're a city.

We really don't have that capacity.

And if we don't have it, you can't pretend to have it.

If you have to have parcels that are actually that actually fit what you say, otherwise, you know, you face challenges from people, and then they get to propose the uh the remedy, which is probably not what we would want.

So that's why we figured 500 was the best we could do.

Okay.

And then what was the other one?

Renewable requiring renewable um energy.

Why don't we do that?

You're not allowed to by state law.

Okay.

Um and then of a personal interest um require them requiring them to use the um that like recycled water, the brown water.

I looked, I don't see that as a requirement in like the the grid from Shapiro, but is that's not part of tonight, but potentially that we could look into that for the future to see if legally we're able to.

Yeah, I mean, unless someone unless somebody disagrees, I don't know why we couldn't, right?

I think uh likely what we're seeing some ordinances come through with a requirement.

It's called a loop system.

Um and that just ensures that you're not using a new continuous supply of water.

I think we still need to and ask our solicitor's office to evaluate whether we can adopt that specificity of standard.

I I will say we've now reviewed almost everyone in the Lehigh Valley's codes, as well as some others externally, and we're starting to see those types of requirements come into new codes.

Um, and I think it ultimately will come down to some of our solicitors' recommendations as to whether or not we can include that level of specificity.

But as written, we certainly encourage that, and we will review for that and other um items.

And what I've heard is that it's actually in the interest to do a system in the private sector's interest to do a system like that, so that way they're not having to keep paying for water.

But um, if that is a legal option, I think um we'll certainly want to pursue that in the future.

Okay.

Um thank you.

Um else, administration council uh Napoli, Mr.

Napoli.

Yeah, um minor question, but uh maybe from Ms.

Gomez.

When we talk about noise tests and water tests and all these, we talk about a pre-construction and then after construction.

Is there a way we can mandate it on an annual basis so that they you know they pass their tests when they open, but then two years later they change some things in the building and all of a sudden now it's not complying.

Can we hold them accountable on an annual basis?

So we have um we're we're preparing codes.

We actually already have a draft available that uh, or excuse me, it's not available, but we have format to amend the the sound or the noise ordinance.

And um what that would do, the amendments that we're proposing is to put in um we're we're adding continuous sound or continuous continuous noise sources uh to apply not just to data center uses but to any use that has a continuous noise that might create a hum or a rumble or else that might be disruptive, or you could feel it in the community.

Um so we're adding uh we're proposing to add those into the noise ordinance with specific measurements as to how you calculate that from both DBC and DBA, and um we've actually had to talk to sound consultants to to try to get this right.

But the way that we've drafted it is to create an independent verification system so that way if we get a noise complaint, it's not just up to the city to put up a sound monitor and say, Are you making too much noise?

We now can require or will with the adoption of a new ordinance be able to do their uh require them to do their own testing and verification by licensed third party independent professionals to go out and test both DBC and DBA levels to ensure compliance both with the city's codes and then um make updates so that will become a continuous ongoing requirement, separate and apart, and it or excuse me, in addition to the initial um sound study and the drafts that you have before you do a pre-construction sound study, a certificate of occupancy, that's when you actually go into the building, and then a post-construction at six months after.

Those will give us the points in time when we as a city go in, and then otherwise we'll do it as a complaint basis or as proposed.

Again, this isn't adopted yet, but as proposed in the the noise ordinance that's coming to require them to go in and do their own third-party independent verification and then make the corrections.

Um, I'll also add that as proposed, even existing without any of the amendments, sound is baked into the zoning ordinance, and as it's written, sound is or excuse me, um all data centers would only be approved if they go through a special exception review process, which hits three different review minimum three different review boards and is ultimately decided on by the zoning hearing board, and they have the authority to add any condition, and obviously with all of these codes, they'll be looking at the recommendations from the environmental committee, the planning commission, and they will form those conditions, and the zoning certificate can be revoked if they're not in compliance with those conditions.

So, as drafted without any changes, that language is in there.

Um, but what we're proposing to do is beef that up even more so that way it can be done at the CO stage, and then also have some very specific sound measurements for noise.

Oh, water and electric.

Oh, okay, thank you for clarifying.

I'm sorry.

I just bet like for all these, you know, we see I see that there's you know, we're um you know, reports required, you know, pre-construction and post-construction.

I'm just saying that as the years go on and they start changing things out, and all of a sudden what we thought there was in there changes in year three or four, this industry continues to evolve, it continues to change.

I just want to make sure that our legislation does its best to try and keep up with this these changes.

Yes, and I think that there's more.

I I think what we're talking about is is like annual reporting, and that's one of the comments that we've received a lot of.

Um, I think that we still need to explore that a little bit further because currently um the distribution and transmission is done through PPL, and also people have the ability to purchase their own independent um electricity.

And also water monitoring and all of that is done through LCA.

So I think we need to work with our utility partners to make sure that we can coordinate this and and legally allow it.

Okay, fair enough.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Yep, uh, Mr.

Binger.

Thanks.

And just to just read back or guess a hear back on what you were saying on that one.

So though I know a lot of these things are enhancements to the sound, many of these things, including the special exception and all of these checkpoints into the approved bill.

Correct.

The only thing that was added in terms of a new checkpoint with this current bill was at the certificate of occupancy stage.

So that means you're not even gonna get into the building until we've run it again and can be sure that you're in compliance.

Thank you.

I just want to make sure that was clear.

And then one other thing, real quick, and this was just on the public notice one.

Um I believe this is just for consideration.

I think Bethlehem does this, but I'm not 100% sure I didn't get a chance to read right before the meeting.

But I believe they they make it incumbent upon the applicant to actually figure out a circumference and get the mailing addresses.

Like that is on them to actually find and then put together interface with um is that something you think that we could potentially in the future, if not in this one, look at?

I think different cities handle that particular notification aspect a little bit differently.

Um for the planning commission items for new land development.

Um, one of the practices that we've adopted within the last year that's not legally required, but we do it because we want to be transparent.

Um, before any item for land development goes on the planning commission, we do a mailed notice within 300 feet after an assessment of our own GIS records.

Um, whether we can pass that on to the applicant, I think is is it worth exploring and discussing.

Um the primary concern that the transparency has occurred, um, we're working towards that.

Okay, thank you.

Yeah.

Anyone else on the dais or the administration?

Okay.

Uh so the next phase will be you all.

Um, the way it works is uh we do have some cards now.

Since this is a committee meeting, you don't necessarily have to fill out a card way to do that.

We didn't need to.

Uh so we're gonna start with those who have a card.

Um, just say your name and whatever portion of your address you feel comfortable sharing.

We got it written down.

For those who want to come up after the carded people, um just again say your name and whatever portion of your address you feel comfortable sharing because it's public.

Uh so Ms.

Ortega.

Kyle Rabski, good evening, everybody.

Good evening.

Uh my name is Kyle Rapsky.

I'm chair of Outtown's Environmental Advisory Council.

I'd like to begin by thanking City Council, City Administration, and City Staff for their work on Bill 52 and for their willingness to engage with the public throughout this process.

Over the past few weeks, the discussion surrounding data center regulations generated an extraordinary level of public interest and participation.

Residents took the time to attend meetings, submit comments, conduct research, share concerns, and engage thoughtfully in a concert conversation about the future of our community.

As this process unfolded, the environmental advisory council was lucky enough to have a Muellenberg College summer intern who's able to assist our council in the process of reviewing and analyzing the themes and ideas that emerged from the public discussion.

We worked with this research and following the adoption of Bill 20 last week.

We developed a supplemental letter identifying four priority areas to be addressed through additional amendments.

We reviewed this letter and took public feedback at our publicly advertised June monthly meeting and ultimately approved and submitted this letter, which is included for your review on the agenda here tonight.

While our council has not had the chance to do a deep dive on the wording of Bill 52 specifically, we are encouraged to see that many of the priorities reflected in our in our letter and themes identified throughout the public engagement process are being addressed.

At the same time, there are still opportunities for future refinement.

For example, while the city has strengthened some requirements, additional consideration may still be warranted regarding heat mitigation and clear performance thresholds for all required studies.

The AEC also continues to encourage discussion regarding water conservation strategies, renewable energy utilization, qualifications and independence of technical professionals preparing required studies and opportunities for greater public disclosure and linguistic accessibility of information related to proposed projects.

Again, and speaking on behalf of the EAC, we have not done a deep dive on the wording here, but none of these initial observations or improvements should diminish the significance of what has been accomplished with this year today.

In fact, they highlight the success of the process itself.

I mean, it's almost textbook.

We got massive amount of public engagement followed by special meetings.

So with that said, it's clear that the conversation is not finished.

Data center technology, industry practices, and municipal regulations will continue to evolve and future refinements may become appropriate as additional information becomes available.

We look forward to continuing to participate in this process and conversation.

As a reminder, a great example of a way to continue this conversation about environmental protection and impacts to our community is to contribute to our first ever City Valentine Climate Action Plan this Saturday, June 27th, 2 to 3:30 at the Fearless Fire Company on the South Side.

So on behalf of the environmental advisor council, I would like to thank the residents who participated in this discussion, the city staff who devoted significant time and expertise to reviewing these issues, and city council for continuing to engage in a thoughtful and transparent process.

Thank you for your time and consideration.

Thank you.

Hi, thank you, Alicia Ruth Roff.

I live somewhere on 9th Street.

Really appreciate that.

Just a couple of things.

I actually have a clarification question.

Are data centers zoned as a by-right use within the IM districts or as a special slash variance exceptions?

Special exceptions.

Special exception.

Okay.

Great.

I think that resolved that for me.

In terms of the setback with the 500 feet, I'm curious if it would be possible to set back further if it's sort of made like context specific, like maybe X feet from like an existing industrial warehouse, X feet from a residential dwelling, X feet from like a school, hospital, daycare, or park.

Maybe it could also be made based on like the size of the proposed data center.

That's just something I was thinking about.

And the uh sorry, I you should have seen me during my lunch break earlier with all of these spread out with a highlighter and pen.

Um in terms of I'm looking at the power supply section where data centers are encouraged to make good faith efforts.

Um I would just um ask for that to be defined because it it can be a little bit um nebulous um on what exactly good faith efforts um mean.

Uh yeah, okay.

I think that's actually all I have right now.

Um thank you very much.

May we respond?

Yeah, go ahead and read if you'd like to read the second on the ordinance that responds directly to it says the zoning hearing board is expressly authorized to require berms, landscaping, fencing, and additional setbacks as needed to protect the public health safety and to avoid conflicts with neighboring uses.

That language is in the existing Bill 20, and it remains unchanged in the new bill.

However, the setback of 500 feet from the sensitive receptors, which is what we're calling it as a general term for all residents, schools, churches, parks, all of the sensitive uses.

I'm just gonna use the word sensitive receptors.

It's not in our code, but that's generally um uh the word that's been used.

It changes it from 200 feet to 500 feet and also limits the zoning districts where this use would be permitted.

So between all of those elements, it really does a significant um uh change to um uh increased separation.

Okay, Mr.

Bender.

Yeah, just so don't read back something all the time here, but just for the two the things that were brought up, the concern with with respective special exception, and that is already in um and then your concern with related to the um uh reset.

Sorry, for the name is escaping me.

Sensitive, thank you, sensitive receptors, another word I learned recently.

Um, that is already in right now.

We're just going from two to five hundred.

So a lot of these stuff is is already in.

It's just we're changing a little bit more to make it more enhanced.

So I just want to call that out.

So thank you for calling that out.

And I will say again that even under the existing one, even under the existing proposal, it is not listed as a permitted use, it's listed as a special exception use.

It was never in any of our proposals as a permitted use.

Thank you.

And anyone else?

Travis Beller.

I'll come back.

Mary Collier.

Hi.

Hello.

My name is Mary.

I live in Easton, but I've lived in Leah Valley my whole life.

And yeah, just want to thank you for your speed on this on taking the time to hear everything we've said.

And you know, um, I know it hasn't been easy in these like last couple of meetings.

Um we all, yeah, just want the same thing as y'all said before to to really protect our our city.

Um yeah, I was really glad to see the IG district remove, like super yeah, grateful for that.

Um, and then yeah, really glad that it's social exception, not buy right.

But can you clarify what the section says then?

That's like, and no special exception or variance required, like in the public notice section.

What what would that mean then?

Do you have the page number?

Um page one, I think it is.

Like it's in the in the brackets in cases where only a zoning permit is required and no special exception is required.

Oh so oh, I'm sorry, if you'd like me to answer that question, I go.

Oh, thank you.

Sorry.

Um, yes, thank you for clarifying that.

Um the reason why that was put in there was we wanted a catch all because um we're very careful um because our codes cannot seem discriminatory, we're we're trying to carefully walk that line.

Um so the additional public notice requirements then were put in in a more broad way, so it doesn't just apply to data centers.

So we um defined it as high impact industry recycling use and data center use.

We we thought those were some of the more intense industrial uses where public would want more notification.

So um recycling uses actually don't require special exception, so we threw that line in there just so that way they can't get us on a technicality and say, oh, special exception isn't required, so now I don't need to do this, land development isn't required now, I don't need to do this.

So if they catch us in the instance where it might be allowed to proceed directly to permit, which in the case of recycling use, it could, um, we still have a way to come back and require the public notice.

Okay, great.

Thank you.

Is there a way to make it more explicit, like saying like conditional use rather than special exception?

Could that like beef it up even more?

Would you like me to sure?

So there's um both conditional uses and special exception uses are two um zoning procedural ways to address use.

Every city does it a little differently.

Um most cities have some version of that, most don't do both.

Some of our neighboring communities do a conditional use, that's decided by our city council.

For Allentown, we do special exception uses, which are decided by our zoning hearing board.

But um, so a different set of rules and regulations.

So if we wanted to change it to a conditional use, for example, we would need to set up the um the the code for that and create a new process within our zoning code that doesn't exist today.

So that's why special exception was selected because it is um still a hearing where um procedures are met, public notice as given, um, advanced notices given, um, and in addition to those public hearings, we added all of these additional layers of review.

So before you even get there, you have to hit the environmental advisory, you have to hit the planning commission, and now with this new change, you also need to do your own public meeting and also maintain your own public website.

Okay.

Thank you.

Um yeah, with the setback, obviously, I know we're we're worried about being exclusionary zoning and like being sued for that.

That is a very, very real concern.

And I know that we're a city, you know, it's gonna look a little bit different than it is in some of these rural suburban places.

And so possibly an idea, which I know we do separate a bit, but could we make it even more specific of like what if it was 750 feet from like an existing warehouse and then like a thousand feet from residential and then like 1500 from school hospital daycare?

Like, what if we what if we got even more specific and broke it down so that that could be a way we could maybe get around the exclusionary, but we're like are are specific about the setbacks from certain types of buildings?

Is that I think we would have to right now we've mapped it and we've said okay, if we go a thousand feet from everyone, what does that do?

It means the use is not allowed.

We we can't proceed at the thousand feet.

We know that.

Um to change it for different variations, we just need to map it and see the impacts that it would do.

But at a thousand feet, we start cutting out um almost everywhere, all property.

Would there be a future like meeting if we do the 500 today?

Are there future meetings where we could come back and look at it further and like increase setback based on potentially, yeah?

Yeah.

Okay.

A lot of the answers tonight will be potentially yes, because um essentially what has to happen, other than these four things that that well were on the screen the four things that we're talking about, like these are like the more foreshore things that are less legally challenging.

Other things are lawyers are gonna have to look at that, like in depth.

Um potentially yes.

Okay, but tonight could we increase the 75 foot setback from a public street and the 50 feet from any other lot line?

I think those two could be increased tonight, like 75 feet from a public street is pretty much just as a point of perspective.

I believe, and and today I don't have our zoning expert with me, so maybe Melissa can correct me.

Um, I believe our existing industrial setback is at 10 feet.

Um, I believe.

Um I correct there, okay, 10 feet.

Um, so it's already far in excess of what would already be allowed for any other industrial user.

So we just need to make sure and really do some site specific assessments to make sure that we're not creating unbuildable lots.

Okay.

I have a couple more.

Can I have did I have the full five minutes?

I have like a couple more suggestions for are you doing five minutes as a org?

Yeah.

Oh, okay.

Um, so like one more minute.

Yeah, since we interrupted, but then um, Mr.

Bender, you're next.

Yeah.

Um, can we increase the 25 foot landscape buffer to at least 100 feet and set a minimum height requirement of the trees to 15 feet?

That that's really common in most ordinances.

That's like what is common, and we don't have a height requirement in ours right now.

I can interject.

I don't know that we're at a position where we can take new amendments without actually going back, consulting, mapping, and getting more details.

I don't think we can do that like on the fly.

That opens us to making a mistake that we pass something that we can't uphold.

These are all from existing ordinances already.

Like this is comparing.

So, yeah, Mr.

Pungle.

Yeah, so I was gonna make two notes.

I I agree with with uh Mrs.

Kissler, just again, just not not that we can't necessarily do things, it's just that tonight, because again, we are trying to get this going and moving, it would be one of those things where today the goal is to see if there's something that truly we can redline right now and make a quick change.

Yeah, but some of the things that you're referring to have other implications to whether or not the same number of lots apply if if it the use becomes exclusionary, which is why they would have to do a deeper dig, and we can't just do that right now.

My other suggestion was gonna be I know we just ran through the clock again.

Why don't you just run through some of your suggestions instead of question answer question answer just so that way we can hear them all and then that way we can think that's a good idea because I while we can't do them tonight, uh there will be future meetings, there will be more amendments that come up.

So it's just the the fear, yeah.

The fear is that like if we don't do it tonight, these developers are just like because we didn't do the curative amendment, these developers are gonna put in their applications and they will not have to apply to these amendments.

So it's like I know we're already doing it fast, but like the developers know you know they're looking and they're watching, so I'm like, the sooner the better.

Um okay.

Can this this should be easy?

We took out the word license professional in the noise study portion.

Can we just add the words licensed professional back in there?

Um, and I'm really glad that we're updating our own noise ordinance too to be more specific for data centers.

That's great.

Um yeah, again, the renewable energy part needs needs work, like it still just says the good faith efforts, and um I have some examples like Lazern County's ordinance, theirs specifically says that if it's over 50 megawatts, that 10% has to uh go to renewable energy.

Um we if we could strengthen the water section and add a daily water consumption threshold and require um the city sign a water use agreement um so that like it can be you know if we have a drought or something, we can update that.

Um the ordinance right now doesn't require a traffic impact study.

I really think we should do that, and then require specific traffic mitigation measures.

Um the ordinance right now has nothing around external lighting.

So if we could just add something around light pollution, like there's an ordinance that has language that says all lighting shall comply with the current county lighting standards, what you know um and no light source shall be visible from adjacent residential properties, and like there's like language we can pull to protect from light pollution.

Um, and then also if we could have stricter regulations around our backup generators and their emissions, um because a lot of you know, if we're requiring them to bring their own power in these diesel generator backup, we should be requiring that they um you know submit to emissions testing and that they're following like the guidelines set by the state.

Um these are some ideas, but yeah, thank you.

Thank you so much.

And yeah, many of us were taking notes.

Thank you.

If we could if we could just briefly reply, Jen.

Um thank you for all of that feedback.

I I I want to emphasize again that there's a lot of other code requirements that are already existing for all developments, not just data centers that address some of the concerns.

So one of the concerns that was listed specifically was regarding landscaping and with the landscaping.

We don't go into that level of detail in the data center in terms of like this number of trees with this spacing at these heights with this visual separation because it already exists, it's called our buffer or type B buffer, I think is what it's called in our code.

So this ordinance cross-references an existing buffer requirement that already exists, and that gives the specificity as terms of the number of tree placement, how tall they have to be to be visually screened, but even the existing ordinance goes much further beyond that to say that now it has to be an additional um dimension, and then it also specifically allows zoning hearing boards to require above and beyond even what is listed.

So I just want you to know that that level of detail on the trees is in there, and please check out our our site design.

This is in the remaining what's the height requirements are in the ordinance.

So I'm sorry, that was trees.

The height requirements for the ordinance, or excuse me, for the data center is in the ordinance.

Yes, sorry, the trees, the trees.

The trees, yes.

That's in our site design section.

Um so if you look at the city's zoning code, which um I've got a billion documents open, I don't have open, but if you look at the the site design portion of the city's code, it gives the specifics in terms of the number of trees.

We have type A buffers, type B buffers, type B buffers, is our most significant buffer, and it's intended to add um visual separation screening.

So that's already in our code.

This cross-references it and then enhances it for external lighting and glare.

That's already in the city's codes.

Um, we have something called performance standards, and that's for all uses, so all uses need to meet certain light and glare levels.

Um traffic impact studies were also referenced.

If you look into it's called the subdivision and land development ordinance, saldo is what everybody around here calls it, the saldo, the subdivision land development, it's all linked on the city's website.

It has the city's traffic requirements in terms of when a traffic study is required and conducted as part of the land development review that's already in the city's code that will be incorporated into any land development review.

And for backup generators for I think um what's the kind of standard recommendation for a responsible user is tier four generators.

We don't have that in our code right now.

I don't know if zoning codes can get to that level of specificity in terms of the tier four is in all so I've been seeing it in some codes, and I feel like everybody's stretching um the codes a little bit further, but I've been seeing some cities start to put tier four generators in, and I think that's the type of detail we need to review with our solicitor's office to make sure that we don't accidentally add something.

We have extensive process built into our review of this, um, or our review of land development and special process that allows us to ask those really important questions, such as tier four generators, and it's on our radar, and we will be looking out for them.

Thank you, all and both.

Um just moving forward, thank you, Mr.

Pungo, for your suggestion.

I still remember you, Mr.

Vinder.

Um, so I've been up here that I'll always wanted is committee meetings to be more of a dialogue, but to your point, it does cut off the person's time.

So in the future, when you do come up, just say what you gotta say in three minutes, and then if there is a response, there's a response.

If there's not, then there's not, but you've said what you need to say, so I'm not gonna do that back and forth thing.

Thank you for this uh for the suggestion, Mr.

Bender.

Almost forgot all of the things I was gonna say.

So one thing I just wanted to call up because these are excellent points that you're bringing up.

Um I think it speaks to one of the one of the benefits we have is that our whole zoning code was just redone last year.

So a lot of these things that are our concerns of everyone were were already thought about baked in, and I know it's it's it gets confusing because it's it's layered.

A lot of stuff applies to another section, and it doesn't exist in this document specifically.

But um I think it it's it's good to see that most of the things that you had brought up here are already being addressed in in the code as we have it.

Um one of the things you did ask about was the um the lead um I'm sorry, the third party versus having a licensed professional.

That was actually changed to enhance it.

Um so the third the the process or the thought process being a third third party consultant provided both third party license professional.

Oh that's it's in there.

Yeah, um I I I don't I don't want to disrupt the process by responding to everything, but that section was greatly enhanced.

It was crossed out in that one section just so we could clump the requirements, but now they need to be third party.

Now they need to be independent, financially independent, now they need to have affidavits, now they need to meet certain board certification requirements.

So it was crossed out of there so we could create a new section in the zone that really enhances it.

Yeah.

And that to just for clarity on that one, that's because the the actual noise code is not unique to just this use case.

We're we're looking to, as part of the feedback, which has been helpful, um, we're looking to actually redo that whole noise section.

So this is again that layered thing where it references that section that's being defined in that uh to council persono's uh comment that'll be coming up in the next couple weeks.

Um so that's part of that one.

The only other thing that you had did you had mentioned about with the conditional approval, um that was the first thing.

Um it's a great question.

Um I know that several people had asked that.

There's different cities uh you know do different things on this process.

One of those there's risks involved in everything like that.

The process we have right now with a special exception, as it stands with with the bill that was passed, let's uh a body that's responsible for all zoning decisions that's that has to adhere to the law that that those things can be appealed immediately to the state um or to the county.

Like that is a good process because it it allows none of us who are running for random things to be you know influenced or have to change things based on what our opinion is.

It's it's an independent body that's really really focusing on it.

So that's why that was that was put in that.

It's what the city does with all of the other things right now, um, and most of the ones I think that were reviewed in the area, don't do that.

It it was worth reviewing, it was actually looked at and explored.

So just wanted to let you know that one.

And we don't have left the zoning board.

That's the only difference, like with the accountability of like you like we all left, like council where it's like we can't choose to zone them.

So just for a point of order, oh, I hate doing this, so we can't do the whole thing from the I'm so sorry.

Um this is awkward.

We can't, sorry.

Um, maybe if there's another member that can come up and express some of the things that you've got, but um and and I think I just one one my my final question or final comment on this whole process.

And just so I'm understanding this because it was raised questions about can we do unique things based on specific areas.

If I'm understanding this correctly, if we did that and say the school changes and it's now sold to be something else, this requires us to then reshape our zoning metric matrix or whatever constantly, which makes it it's it's it's fairly impossible in a city to do something like that.

If am I correct on that?

If I'm understanding it correctly.

I'm not sure I understand.

Oh yes, and I I think we'd start to open ourselves up to challenge if we get to the especially without a detailed analysis.

But we do again have the zoning hearing board who takes those special considerations under under their purview, and who can say this is a unique situation because of this, and can impose additional requirements because of that.

Okay.

And then lastly, I'm sorry, I'm lung within on this process.

Um, I did want to call out because I know everyone's looking for you, you know, some unique changes, and we kind of touched base on that one.

I I want to call out that just the simple change of trying to figure out footage resulted in the requirement of multiple permutations of these maps.

It took a lot, I mean, I didn't do it, but over there took a lot of effort.

So any nuanced change requires a lot to figure it out.

So some of this stuff, although we're you know, we're trying to be aggressive in this and move it fast.

You it you can't be reckless on it because we have to be very, very intentional about what we're doing because the ramifications of changing noise for the can impact someone who manufactures stuff.

It could impact uh a school, it could impact other things.

So that's part of this delicate, delicate process.

So that's it.

Sorry.

Uh Mr.

Napoli.

Uh just quickly to add the Mish Um Council person bender.

The zoning hearing board is an opportunity.

I mean, they there are decades and decades of experience of zoning.

So what when I know there might be some trepidation about you know who are these they have forgotten more about zoning than all of us put together.

And they understand that zoning code inside and out.

They understand our zoning regulations.

So I think it's a it's a good spot um for these proposals to end up because it's they're being treated fairly, they're being treated um with uh a lot of a lot of experience.

So I'm glad I'm glad we went that way.

Yeah.

Anyone else in the day is administration?

Okay.

Another car, no other card.

Okay, so then we're gonna be nice and orderly here.

If there's anyone that wants to uh make any public comments, any questions, keep in mind you're gonna have three minutes.

If you're representing an organization state that you're representing an organization, you'll get five minutes.

Um, but then that means you're like the rep for that organization.

So then you kind of speak for them.

That's why you get five minutes.

Uh so with that said, anyone have anything uh Spencer Snig uh 7th and Tillman.

So two things.

One is uh, you know the idea that we have to we can't have X amount of setback because uh that makes this uh an impossible scenario.

Uh the problem with that thinking is that uh we don't like we should be doing studies to find out there's just how bad this thing is, like is this the same sort of impact as an incinerator plant.

So if it was an incinerator plant, obviously we'd have a much wider uh area around it.

So if we know this thing is bad, then we do that accordingly.

Now the the the thing that I'm specifically talking about with as a problem is the wording on the um audio impact, which are finding that.

Oh, I had it.

Yes.

Um it said something like it uh uh you know has like that it's problematic if it's within audible range, but uh you should extend that to uh or medically or psychologically impactful uh because a lot of uh the the danger of of the sound is uh subharmonics.

That's that's uh low frequencies.

And also those those low frequencies travel a long distance.

I mean, um as I said in the last meeting, uh uh like rhinos can transmit for for miles and miles and miles of data centers that you know, depending upon the weather conditions, whether it's uh humid or not, it can go 50 feet or it can go two miles.

So uh you should figure out first how dangerous this is before you decide whether 50 feet is enough or whatever uh exact uh sound measurements you make.

Thank you.

I see someone else coming up uh Julie Vitaly, 728 West uh Green Street, Allentown PA, she or her pronouns.

Um I wanna thank everybody who's been involved to make sure this happens as quickly as possible.

Um I think a lot of the improvements are really helpful, and I'm glad to see them.

Um I also want to say that uh Mary had brought up some excellent points, and I hope that if we do look into things further, we take a lot of what she has to say into consideration.

She's done a lot of research on what's happening elsewhere.

There are cities who are ahead of us on this, and I think we should really learn from the best.

Um so please take that into consideration.

Um I'm not sure if this is strategic or what, but I did notice that when you talk about the setbacks, some of these things are listed in terms of zones, and some are listed kind of like a term.

Let me get back to that section.

Like uh child care use category.

And like I said, I don't know if that's strategic or if you can tell me that, but um it did make me think that you know, is there a reason we didn't use uh P2 to actually like point out what civic and institutional buildings and infrastructure were or P1, which I didn't see anywhere.

Like our parks just part of the 50 feet, I guess, line.

Sorry, bouncing between things.

The um are they considered the 50 feet of any other line lot?

Uh, because I do think that parks are probably one of the most um amazing parts of what's in Allentown here, and I do think it's weird that that was not necessarily uh reflected in this um special sensitive sensitive something.

Um there we go, thank you.

Sensitive receptors.

Um again, that might have been a strategy, uh, but it did make me wonder should we be more specific on what these mean rather than just use a term like child care agency.

I am most concerned, I think, about our children being exposed to whatever's coming out of the data centers, whether it's sound, uh smog, light pollution.

Um I do think we want to make sure that that has teeth.

Thank you.

You have anything.

If I can just address why those words were used as opposed to giving a long list, is because for a zoning code structure, you aim to be concise and also cross-reference existing terms in language.

So if you go to page, it's currently um if you Google zone allow to go to the zoning code, go to page 5-3, and those are our use tables, and um it'll say for the residential use group.

Like we didn't want to go through and say household living, congregate living, dormitory, fraternity, you know.

So we just say use group, that's a defined term.

Um, it the term use group is defined on page five, two.

The use groups then are listed um in our data table, and I'm happy to sit down with you or anyone else who actually wants to read our zoning code, and uh I can answer your site design question later in terms of the specific page number where it's covered.

Um, but for the um institutional, so for the civic institutional use group, we thought it would be repetitive to say um government use, hospital use, library use, parks and open space, school, transportation facilities.

So just in an effort to be concise, we cross-reference an existing term and a specific list of uses.

So I think it is far more reaching than is perhaps um it seemed might seem initially, but I'm happy to sit down with you or anybody else and go over the this the code structure and and why certain choices were made in terms of being concise.

Thank you.

I see someone in the back.

Yeah, my name is Kathy.

Um I grew up in South Side Island Town on South Mountain, um, daughter to a city employee.

Um I I'm not up on all the legality of the bill, but I hope that there is more attention paid to provisions for emergency disaster and what could happen if this place catches on fire, um, and what it could do to the neighborhood and the environment.

Um effects of uh ground pollution.

Um I can appreciate all the past experience with zoning law, but there isn't an abundance of experience with data center zoning.

Um the fact of the matter is whether you're on their end or on our end, this is about one thing, it's about money.

They don't know the long-term effects of data centers any more than we do, and they're very pushy about getting this ball rolling, rolling, rolling, rolling.

And I think we need to put on the brakes, and I think we need to study a little bit harder.

I think we need to consult a lot more with emergency services and the effects that that could have on city employees down the line.

Um we don't need to have something happened like what's going on in Los Angeles today.

There are eight days into fighting a warehouse fire.

It's still burning.

Think about the long-term effects that that's gonna have on their emergency services budget on the city as a whole.

Firefighters that pop up with cancer, terminal cancer, four, five, six, seven years down the road.

And the costs from that.

Um, I hope there's some kind of legal provision that ends up in there.

Uh if this is gonna be the push-push, this is the way it's gonna be.

Well, then in those cases when things like that happen, they are they are legally bound and liable for all the cost from the federal EPA right down to a city invoice, everything.

Our city shouldn't be responsible.

And I think there should be another proof provision in their mirroring um when there's changes made at the data center, that city fire department and Lehigh County emergency management officials should be allowed to go in, monitor those changes, and okay those changes.

And a provision should go in that if there is anything that crosses county emergency management or city fire department's desk that is not okay, that everything stops.

Um are vital in monitoring this.

If this is gonna be their push-push, it's got to be done quick.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you so much.

Um just I want to ask a question from a fire code perspective because I know there's there's concerns about the old one having and there's there's there's existing fire code in that one, there's a new one.

Could you could the step at all?

So, yes, um, I will talk about what's in the existing the Bill 20, and is still here.

There's a section on emergency management, and it specifically says that these plans need to be reviewed by the city fire department and the Lehigh County Office of Emergency Management, and there's a lot of other language as well in terms of that particular review.

I will also say data centers aside, the fire department is involved in every single review of any land development that goes into the city.

And in speaking to our fire department, regardless of anything that's in the zoning code, the zoning code doesn't typically get into construction.

Um there are city, there are fire code standards that our fire department seems to be very familiar with and is very sensitive to, and they're doing their own education, and that will happen regardless of any decision that's made about zoning use locations.

The city has a very strong relationship with Lehigh County emergency management.

I can say personally, my department talks with them almost every week on all sorts of issues.

They are 100% included in these plans, and their recommendations in land development process that come out of our fire department are taken very seriously.

You cannot proceed all the way through a land development plan without having fire sign off.

Thank you.

And I would if if it's all helpful just for context from an IT perspective, um, most of these eight uh or buildings facilities have integrated um and they've gone through several iterations throughout the years, um, capacities to to um stop fires very quickly.

It's it's it's an incredibly expensive process if um one of these centers would go on fire.

I don't know about the one that's in LA if that's a warehouse that's just a warehouse at some power.

But I will say for for generally in an IT perspective, most of them have uh various um, I don't say they're wonderful gases, but they have things that will basically remove the the energy for fires to be able to run.

So that's generally built into a lot of these.

But I I appreciate all these um the feedback.

Thanks.

Thank you.

Um please step forward and just say your name and a portion of your address that you're comfortable sharing.

Sure.

My name is Christopher Gelctoro.

I have lived on the east side of Allen Town for most of my life, and largely I want to discuss the concerns I have as a resident, and it largely comes down to the cost of these data centers.

Like everything I've heard, everything I've heard, not just from news, but people I know who live near a data center, is a question of the raising of costs, like um cost of electricity, cost of water.

Electricity in particular is something that's really been on my mind.

I feel like most people, people's minds nowadays, as you know, price of gas has been going up.

Every like in this economy, everyone's struggling more and more each day, and there's always that fear that's with a data center, and then all of a sudden our electric bill it doubles, it triples, quadruples, whatever it'd be.

Like that's some real anxiety.

Me and many others of not even just my age group, but I would say every age group in this town has, let alone those who might be renting as well.

That this might be another added expense that go that goes into their budget.

I would say that's all I have to say.

Thank you so much.

Um, yes, Mr.

Bender.

We can boot back and forth with committees, right?

This is a yeah, yeah.

Yes, yes, yes.

It normally does.

So just wanted to speak to that.

And I was I was gonna say this later on as we can get close to the end, but uh totally understand a lot of the concerns with power and a lot of the costs that are coming up.

One of the things which I I'm gonna probably say multiple times whenever we get to that is we have we have a very bounded responsibility up here on the back table lists all of your state reps, state senators, governor.

The real power in a lot of these changes is gonna be interfacing with those uh those spots.

We can't obviously control the the power, that's that's actually more than just the state.

Um, but uh in it I would definitely encourage you to reach out, um, and if you need that contact inputs in the back table, uh, because those are the people who are gonna really help drive and shape that.

Um so thanks.

Yeah, no, thank you for saying that.

I swear sometimes.

I I had notes.

You and Mr.

Pungo do that a lot.

I'll write notes and then you'll say the thing I was about to say.

Um, but yeah, grab that and then locally.

I know we have representatives from Lyap Valley stands up.

We have the environmental advisory commission.

Uh so like go up to the people.

If you see them with the shirts, go up to them and say, hey, I want to get involved.

Here's my email, here's my phone number, text me.

Like, don't just think you're gonna go home and Google, go up to them now.

Um, also uh Senate Bill 1359, it's a three-year moratorium uh proposal by Senator Katie Mooth.

Get involved with the food and water watch.

This is all things that we can't do here, but if this is your thing, if this is what you're passionate about, you yeah, you kind of need to go up to that next level because we're limited, like Mr.

Bender said.

But um, sorry to keep you, sir.

There you go.

Hello, my name is William Garcki.

Um, my address is 3124 or Pearl Avenue.

Uh good evening, council members and planning commission.

Um I just have a clarifying question for other party.

Um, and I apologize if this was stated in Bill 52.

Um, and I missed it because it's very likely.

Um could I have an explanation of the difference between IG and IM districts in layman terms?

That's definitely a miscoma's thing.

Um do you want us to wait for these?

That's it.

That's it.

Yeah, that's it.

Thank you.

Um I believe that's something.

Um if you want it's taking me a second, but I'll say that um a general industrial is really more of a kind of a standard general industrial.

You'll see things of uh light or moderate impact.

Um, and then uh IM is our um industrial manufacturing, it shows an emphasis of attract manufacturing to that location, and it's also the district where some of the heavier uses are allowed.

So the change that you're making today actually puts it within the IM district into the heavy industrial district only.

Got you.

So that's a general explanation.

If you need more, I'm sure afterwards you can have that with Ms.

Gomez.

Uh but yeah, so I am is heavy industrial, IG is light industrial.

And general general industrial.

Okay.

Um else?

Hi, um, I'm Travis Feller.

Uh I live at uh 29th and Turner Street in the West End.

Um thank you.

Um do want to recognize and and uh commend the council and and the admin administration um for fast tracking this effort.

Um I appreciate everything that's been drafted into Bill 52, and I do think uh there are improvements.

Um I have a couple lists here, so I'll try to be effective.

Um my first uh suggestion is regarding the additional public meeting.

I appreciate uh what uh director Gomez had had shared about the already required meetings.

Um, but uh I think it would be an improvement to move that public meeting from two weeks in advance of the first meeting or hearing uh to 30 days in advance.

Similarly, with respect to the website and posting the website, I think it would be an improvement to require the website to be posted 30 days in advance of that first meeting.

Um, and I think the website should include all reports and studies that need to be submitted to the city.

Currently, uh as I read it, it it seems restrictive in the content that has to be posted.

Um regarding the average requirement for uh acreage uh there the acreage requirement uh at the 50,000 square foot uh level and above.

Um I guess the question in my mind is what about 49,000 square feet and below?

And um technically uh that would fit in roughly two acres uh now with the current setback, maybe that takes to three or four, uh, but can't there be a limit or requirement set for something below 50,000?

Um several references uh to the phrase professional engineer um and looking at the other areas of the zoning code.

Uh there's other phrasing that's used, uh specifically registered professional engineer, which I think is meant to require the the professional engineer to be specifically licensed, not just an engineer that's a professional practicing.

Um I did uh send electronically a copy of comments on Bill 52 to council last night.

Um my references and from the zoning code are all uh captured in that.

Um there's a section from another area of the zone and code with respect to with respect to uh dynamic signs.

Um there's a section from another area of the zone of code with respect to with respect to uh dynamic signs, um, but I I think it's um uh important that we capture the fact that uh these data centers will be constantly evolving and changing.

And that section is uh 660 105A 6 that talks about future amendments and um the requirement that it just because uh they passed zoning code when they built the data center effectively doesn't mean that they would be entitled to to continue.

Uh they still have to adhere to future amendments effectively is the concept.

Um the environmental impact uh says it requires a professional uh qualified professional, but it covers a vast uh area of different expertise, and it doesn't state uh that the qualifications need to be demonstrated.

Similarly, um with respect to the professional engineer, assuming they're licensed, that would be addressed.

Thank you.

Thank you.

And one up.

Oh, Ms.

Did you have any comments on that?

Um I I will just speak to the the two weeks versus four weeks.

I think it's a good suggestion, and I'd hope that applicants do that.

Um the one thing that we need to be mindful of, if any regulation, um, currently the MPC doesn't really speak to these informal public notification meetings that we're we're folding in, but it the MPC, the municipal planning code, which governs how and where how we regulate zoning, it does speak to the number of days that projects need to be reviewed once they're submitted with the city.

So we're just uh in consultation with legal.

Um we don't want to go too far in advance of that because we might be cutting into those time frames and giving developers a reason to say that they've submitted it to us before they did, and then we have to fight it out in court.

So we're just being very mindful of those because we're exploring new territory here in terms of these types of requirements, and the the registered versus professional engineer, I'll have to look into the language, and I agree consistency is generally best.

But in any scenario, any plan submitted to the city that's an engineering plan would be built by a professional licensed engineer.

Thank you.

Go ahead.

Um hi, my name is Sarah Leiden.

I grew up around six and Gordon, um, currently live in Bethlehem, but I I grew up here.

Um, so I just came in a bit late, but I also wanted to bring some comments here that the data um data centers that are being developed are being marketed to you to be built by a bunch of head fund managers, people who would prop profit off of these being built, where this is still brand new territory, that we don't know if the return on investment is going to be worth it at the detriment of environmental factors, um, the increased cost of energy, um, the drain of resources, the not being able to have uh entry-level jobs because the AI is going to take all those away.

Um that we're we'd rather use AI instead of investing in the our future in our younger folk to uh we'll just go to AI.

So um I just wanted to bring to attention specifically that we are going in blind in a way.

This hasn't this is new for all of us, that we're just saying uh and listening and being made promises of all these things uh that are being laid out in front of you for people, other people's profit, but when it doesn't work out and AI doesn't take off the same way that um people say they are.

What is your next plan?

What is your plan on the data centers that are just gonna sit there?

Uh think of Olympic stadiums after they're used.

Do you guys have planned for that?

And then do you have also uh a statement for the public of when this doesn't work out um forcing this on them and uh act again to the detriment of the cost of living.

Do you have an answer for that?

And I just wanted to openly ask that because um we're at the front end of things now, but if we're doing our due diligence, this should be part of the process.

If it doesn't work out on this bet, what are we doing next?

So thank you.

Thank you.

Um, Miss Gomez.

If I could just respond, and I I doing this simply from the research that we've done.

The first data center that was built was a small data center.

It was at the University of Pennsylvania in Philadelphia, and it was built by the US Army in 1945.

The commercial data centers became popular in the 60s.

What is new is hyperscale data centers, which are in the 2000s.

Hyper scale data centers are the massive data centers.

We do not have land here in Allentown that could accommodate a hyperscale data center.

We don't have any piece of property big enough.

So there is substantial research about the effects of some of these data centers.

But what I really get concerned about is that I think folks are comparing hyperscale to what we may potentially face here.

And they're not the same.

So I just urge all of you when you're looking at data centers, we're not talking about the millions of square foot hyperscale data centers that are relatively new.

We don't have the space.

Communities that you may be comparing us to that have tons of farmland, they may have the space.

But I just want to reassure you that we don't have that size space here in the city to get one of those ever.

As a follow-up question, we're what we're doing here would be supporting AI data centers of that scale.

We can't support them here in our city, no.

In a way, we have a limited resource, a limited spot, but we're still supporting data set like for the use of AI, correct?

The data centers that we would be supporting could be for a variety of uses, but we can't eliminate them by law.

We have to allow that use here.

Okay, so that is the potential with our limited resources.

So I'm gonna pivot to the decommissioning language for reassurance.

So one of I'll just say, in terms of size requirements, one of the guides that we use is um the LVPC, the the Lehigh Valley Regional Plan, they did a Lehigh land use industrial study recently, and they provide examples of what a hypergale facility is in a co-location and a small scale.

And it's a it's a really great resource for anybody who wants to review and learn more about data centers in general.

Um for the question in terms of future uses, I think um some of the really great comments that were made through this process was regarding decommissioning and decommissioning um which we've defined as when you remove all of the the generators, the tanks, the battery systems, the electrical infrastructure, um all of the accessories like electrical substations, those types of infrastructure that are being added to support a data center, that those be removed and all hazardous materials be removed and any disturbed soils be addressed.

And we're actually um we're we're um stretching the boundaries a bit here, and in this version asking for a um uh a bond or a letter of credit bank note so that way there's some financial guarantee that the city then can keep active.

Um, these are some of the newer changes we're seeing in in newer codes that are going in.

I think versions of drafts didn't have this kind of language, but that way we have a tool to address um if they do abandon the use.

And I also think that as time goes on, this use is going to evolve and different changes are going to be needed.

Okay.

Um thank you.

Can I ask one more question?

Uh one last question, yeah.

Okay.

Um, for the your comment of we've been building since the 40s and the 70s, um, now everyone is building their own data center.

This is a new thing that not just here is we're being confronted with.

So if we're building all over the country, um, then other places are also getting built.

So at that scale, what is preventing this from becoming another beanie baby fiasco of uh beanie babies are worth less than they are now.

So if we're we're building AA data centers um where we clearly don't want them, um what's the return on investment for that?

We won't know that.

I wish we I wish we did know that.

I'm going to intervene because uh we're not gonna solve this.

This body is not gonna solve this problem of the fact not problem that we're not gonna solve on the administration or this and the fact that there are data centers and many folks don't want them.

Like we're not gonna solve that here.

We're just not um so um for the sake of time and for your own, you know, um your own breath um just gonna intervene.

Yeah, we're not.

I wish we had more power to solve it, but you are well within your right, obviously, to express how you feel.

I just we can't solve that issue.

So thank you guys for listening to me.

The concern was the return on investment.

I hear that.

Yeah, thank you.

Yeah.

And Council Person Garlack, do you mind if I just interject real quick?

Just a little bit kind of tying to that to her her some of her comments, but also some stuff I've seen at large, whether on social media, out in the communities.

I want to be clear that a particular partition position on this.

It's not like we're we're advocating for data centers or not advocating for data centers.

This is just a part of the process.

If somebody wants to move to Allentown, they don't have to get an approval to move to Allentown, you could just kind of do that.

And so we're just kind of setting the rules for the folks that want to do business in Allentown, want to live in Allentown.

So I just want to be very clear that you know, I whether people are saying like, you know, oh, we want like city council wants data centers or not, we're not, that's not the position by any means that we do or don't.

It's just that this is a process as a city.

We need to regulate how we approach these different applications, and it's it's our responsibility to serve you guys to do that.

So if anyone here feels today that this council or the city is is like pro-data center and anti-data center, that is not the case.

We don't take a position on that.

We're just here to make sure that we are doing our due diligence to make sure that our city is serving you to the best capacity.

Yeah, I'm glad that you said that.

Yeah, because also like if you gotta think about this in the state of Pennsylvania, there are thousands, I guess, of groups of people just like us, people who work in construction, people who own small businesses, people who um own a bunch of small businesses, people who do insurance, people who do IT, and people who do case management who are making these decisions all over the state.

So again, it's a it's a state issue that here we are as part-time, and most of these places the people are part-time, other than Philly and Pittsburgh.

You got part-time people making these decisions, and you have administration who this is new to them, just like it's new to some many of us, and they're trying to figure things out, um, which is why we need at the state level some help, some regulation, not a bunch of part-time people and folks who are just learning this to figure this out.

So, again, those names that you were directed to are in the back, your state reps, you got Katie Mooth, you got these national organizations, you've got local organizations, get in with them because those are the folks, those are the entities that can really do something at a bigger level than what we can do here.

And also, I would like to say that we're not getting money for this because you know, the last time people were, you know, US it was rough, you know, but um, we're not getting money.

We're here because we care because we love our city and we want to do what's best, you know, safeguard, you know, put safeguard because the city didn't have anything.

So we just have to keep that in mind.

Um Councilperson Pungo took most stole most of my thunder, but uh, she mentioned the word support.

I I would I would replace that with regulate.

Um, we're here trying to put regulation.

We're we are not taking a stand, whether we're supportive, unsupportive, whether we like it or not.

We're just here putting guardrails in and and can and safeguards to protect our community.

That's what we're doing.

We're gonna you're gonna hear this over and over tonight.

There will be more changes.

This this use will continue to evolve, and we will continue to try and keep out of thank you.

But this is the beginning.

The beginning, yeah.

Yes, um, Mr.

Bender.

And then just somewhat reiterating but encapsulating everything.

The the municipal code in Pennsylvania requires that all use cases be permitted all over the state.

So there isn't uh there isn't this any any way you can change that.

That that's at that's at the state level, but so when you're when you're looking at like the impact and that kind of stuff, this is not a decision we make.

It's it's that's what's dictated by us by the by the law.

So that's all I want to add.

Okay, um, feel free to come up and name and address.

Hi, I'm Lindy Wilde.

I live on South 10th Street.

I just wanted to offer for a comment um that I'm most concerned with environmental impact and utility impact.

Um, environmentally, I believe that we need explicit safeguards on water, industrial material waste management.

Um previously someone mentioned recycling gray water or requiring closed weather systems, which seem like excellent solutions.

Um, I'm also concerned with utility cost impact.

Um, I imagine that part of uh that load management is part of zoning and or at least adjacent.

Um so I'm curious, do we have an understanding of how this will affect our electrical grid and water supply?

So I'm curious do we have an understanding of how this will affect our electrical grid and water supply?

And can we push further to protect those systems from major disruption in this forum, or is that something we also have to push to the state level?

That's it.

Thank you.

Hello.

I'm Kristen Fricky.

I live on Chu Street in Allentown.

I just want to say thank you for the feedback that you have provided us.

I was at a meeting a little while ago, and we couldn't have any feedback or answering questions, and so I appreciate that very much.

The dialogue, the response you have all made is fantastic, and I appreciate it.

I do not understand all of the zoning regulations, as many people have said.

I am mostly concerned with the does child care, does that also include all of our educational services, private schools, charter schools, obviously Allentown school district.

I don't know.

I hope so.

Um and I very concerned.

I know people have said this, but our parks and the wildland conservancy.

I do not feel that 500 feet is sufficient for education, nature, or any sort of health care facility whatsoever.

As someone else commented, we do not fully understand how the inaudible sound is going to impact our most marginalized people, let alone.

I love the Allentown parks.

I love the parkway.

The APD is in the parkway, and if you've ever been there while they're doing shooting range practice, it's I'm sure 500 feet away from the streams, but still I believe has a negative impact.

Um so I would just like to consider if there is any further distance that could be made for those most marginalized areas that we are most concerned about.

Um also I greatly appreciate the Lehigh Valley stands up for getting the word out about this.

Um I am not a part of that organization, but if it's possible to have any like town hall meeting about this, because I really don't think that the public is as informed as they could possibly be.

I've only heard about this from social media, and I'm glad that I did.

Um, but I know there are tons of Allentown residents who have no idea what's going on with this whatsoever, and I appreciate that you are putting in that there will be a notification.

But is that notification going to come too late for certain groups and individuals?

Um, those are just my concerns, and I appreciate what you're doing.

Thank you.

Thank you, and definitely get in contact with the LBSU people.

Anyone else?

I asked for one more minute.

One more minute, sure.

Yeah.

Hi, Trux Faller again.

Um, uh West End.

Um one thing I had that I missed before.

Uh, I'm just gonna suggest that the city should reserve the right to require third party uh selected by the city to verify any and all reports and studies.

Um so for example, uh, I think it the bill calls out for the environmental impact to be prepared by a qualified professional, presumably selected by the applicant.

Um, but uh and there's also uh statement in there about the necessary med mitigations, uh, but it doesn't quite clearly state um when and where and how those uh would be deemed necessary.

Um but but that aside, uh, I think the city should be able to um any of the city officials should be able to require those studies to be verified by another third party um in the event that something is uh objected to or questioned.

Um and then I had one question, uh I think probably for Director Gomez, but um uh it was just regarding the 50-foot height requirement, and if that includes um the equipment on the roof, or if that is the the total height of anything for the data center, uh you know, equipment, um facade, or anything else that might be um mounted on the roof, and then um regarding the 50-foot height, uh, and I know it was suggested that we we don't have room in the city for hyper data center, hyperscale data centers, but uh it seems with the height of server racks being uh six to eight feet um in a 50-foot building, um, one could construct multiple floors.

So uh 50,000 foot square foot uh building could hold uh four times that amount conservatively and uh 200,000 square feet, such as 2401 mayus could similarly, assuming it's a 50 foot tall building, um, and we're retrofitted.

But um that's it.

So just the one question and uh suggestion.

Thanks.

Thank you.

Okay.

Uh I'll add that uh we we wrote in specifically to allow staff to um for us to require 30% so that way we can verify all of this.

We're um we have a really great engineering department, um, but we will need to rely on them and also um we'll bring in our own experts because some of this does start to get very time consuming.

So um we reserve the right specifically in here to bring in our own third party verification in addition to all of the additional studies that they're required to do, so that way we can do a thorough study.

And again, um this is all very layered in addition to our third-party verification.

We also have the environmental advisory committee who will be reviewing any application as well as the planning commission, and then ultimately the zoning hearing board who can impose um any conditions um or any appropriate conditions as part of that um case-by-case analysis.

And you you asked me about height.

Um with the equipment, I believe we typically this defaults to the regular zoning code.

Um, Melissa knows I do.

I think she's saying that height, the equipment isn't measured in that 50 foot measurement.

Um, so that's something maybe we can look at, but that's true for any this is just our general industrial um height limit, so that's maybe something we can look at and come back to.

Um, what I'm hearing is that the most attractive site, and I think this was part of the first environmental advisory committee is that data centers want to see like 70 feet.

So if anything, we're maybe on the low side for what's desired.

But I think um we'll certainly need to look into that, and I think the equipment is a is a really good comment.

I'll just kind of keep follow-up on that.

If you could do so maybe afterwards, so then we can just kind of keep things flowing.

But thank you.

Yeah.

Um, anyone else?

There is someone who can be here who reviewed the maps, and it looks like 800 feet could be would be our maximum without being exclusionary.

Is there a way to review the maps change?

So what I'll say is that um in the future, potentially we could look at, or more so the planning department had us uh would be able to look at maps and and and see what could be done.

That's not happening tonight.

Um, but yeah, I'm in the future.

A lot of this could be looked at.

Uh there should be town halls, there should be more public engagement.

Perhaps EAC can lead some of them working with L VSU, who knows.

But um, tonight, just to be honest, that's not happening.

It's just not not tonight because we would we would need, well, they would need to be able to look at those maps too, because the legal implications, it just um, yeah.

Um but tonight we do have these four amendments um on this ordinance.

Is there anything else from the council?

Anything else from the administration.

Okay, well, um, before we vote, thank you all for all the work and especially the administration, especially Miss Gomez and everyone that she's assembled.

Thank you for members of the public for pushing us uh to go further, keep pushing us.

Uh tonight will not make you happy fully, but it it should make you feel a little bit better.

Um and just know that as these commissions meet, the planning commission, Allentown Planning Commission, and Leah Valley Planning Commission, um, there may be other public facing opportunities to get in front of them.

Um but with that said, unless there's anything, yes, Mr.

Bender.

Thank you.

Um, and if I correct, we're just with this would be motion to move, right?

Yeah, so to the motion that is about to be made is just um to move this forward to a future regular council meeting in between those commissions will make their recommendations and okay.

Thanks for the clarification.

I just want to also just call out um I think tonight was helpful, I would say for me, and also I'm hoping for everyone else in here, um, because of a lot of the information that was out there, the lot of the confusion, a lot of this is a lot of context that most people don't live in.

I'm not a professional zoner, I'm not a professional planner.

This isn't my world.

Um, but I think it's it's really really important just to to hammer in like most of the stuff presented because I've been writing down everything, you know, a good majority of this is stuff that we already have baked in.

That's we're we're making a little bit fine-tunments here or fine-tune adjustments here, but a lot of this has already been baked in from what we did last week.

Um, the four amendments that we're doing are really the the culmination of what everyone has voiced, and I think that's that feedback is is crucial.

And to council person girlak's um comment, this is very fast.

This is this is this is great to see government working on this way.

It is also very resource intensive to try and do this.

So I think from setting expectation, the next lane one is is one that's gonna be requiring a lot more um uh review, a lot more of research, and a lot of so I would just want to set context in there to say is like that stuff's gonna come back.

Um planning is gonna be looking at that, and a lot of that's gonna come up, but but just don't expect in two weeks from now that we're gonna have another piece of legislation to be able to do that because those do take a lot longer, and that's why we chose the route we took.

Um outside of that, um yeah, I think that's all I had.

There was something else, but I can't remember.

But yes, thank you.

I just want to say thanks for for coming and talking because this is all crucial.

Thanks for all of the emails.

Some of them were a little bit more exciting than others, but but thank you for the emails.

And and I will say in response, and I'm sure most of us experienced this.

When we responded with the actual facts about was going on, the tone in the conversation changed immediately.

Because part of this is really just understanding we all play different roles in here.

Everyone, everyone's trying to, you know, protect community, protect the environment.

We're all trying to figure out what that looks like.

And it's just it's it's nuanced, it has a lot of different words and a lot of different concepts.

So I appreciate everyone taking the time to walk through this with us.

And and yeah, I just appreciate all the feedback.

So thank you.

And just one last thing, and I promise it'll be the last comment.

Just to council person bender's point, the the next iterations of these are probably gonna be a little bit more involved and require more reviews of the particulars of each one.

But that's where like the involvement that a lot of people have been asking for is key.

So whether that is a town hall that we can sit down and workshop some of these things, we can take our time for that.

So that way we make the strongest, most responsible decision we can make.

Um, and that's where like we know that these are very good decisions we can take now, and that will only help this provision, and then the rest of the stuff, we can take our time.

Like a lot of people came up and said, let's not rush through it, let's make something that's good.

Uh, and so I encourage you all to keep an ear out.

I know we'll want to be involved in different things that continue the conversation and just see where that goes.

So thank you.

Yeah, definitely.

Um, and so just I mean, I know how it is when there's development that's happening and you're distrustful of the government and the people that are making these decisions, been there, done that.

My perspective, I have not seen anything nefarious.

I haven't, and I well, I tell you if I did like it, we're all just genuinely trying to do what we think is the best, and they're trying to do what they think is the best.

Like I it's we're just trying.

Uh so with that said, um, is there a motion to move this forward?

Um, I'll make a motion forward um to the future meeting.

Is there a second?

Okay, all in favor.

Aye.

All right, so uh bill 42, uh 52.

We'll move forward to the next um well, a future council meeting.

All right, thank you.

Um, and just so you know, that wasn't the only thing.

We still have other bills.

Uh, feel free to leave or stay.

Um we're talking about the unsheltered, we're talking about violence.

But if you are going to depart, um now would be that time.

If not, stick around.

We're gonna move on to Bill 50.

Bill 50 amends the 2026 general fund budget to accommodate the upgrade of the opioid prevention manager and the health director and the Bureau of Health within the department of CED.

The opioid prevention manager, currently an S9 would be upgraded to a proposed pay grade of S11 to align with the similar levels of responsibility, autonomy, and workload as five other S11s in the Bureau.

The permanent wages of this position are fully grant funded.

The health director currently an S18 would be upgraded to a proposed pay grade of S21 to acknowledge the addition of three new program areas since the position was last graded in 2017, and the cabinet level responsibilities of this position while remaining in the supervisory pay scale.

This position is partially grant funded.

Okay, thank you.

I'm gonna give one second.

So if you're exiting, uh just exit and have your conversations out in the hallway.

If you're staying, stay.

Um, but if you're exiting and you want to have conversations, just so those of us with a bit of attention deficit can focus.

Okay.

All right, I guess we'll move on to the controversial portion of the meeting.

Uh this is uh this is the uh upgrade of the director of health uh who has uh over the over his time as as as director of the Bureau of Health.

We've added three new programs.

It's become a cabinet level position.

The the department has grown 30% in size, added seven new positions.

Uh I mean this this is this is aligning the position to what it needs to be.

Uh we did a study, we looked at other directors of health departments uh in comparable cities, and you know, this is what we've come up with, and we recommend the same opioid coordinator.

Uh that position is a hundred percent grant position grant funded.

The the health director also is partially grant funded, but the opioid position is 100% grant funded.

When this position first started, it was uh it was a uh part, it was a part-time contract person from the county.

Uh it has grown.

Uh this person is now leading coalitions and has added um has added extra responsibility, and we were working recommend these changes to bring these positions into line with what they ought to be.

This position would be brought into a line it would go to an S11, which is the same as the five other comparable managers with comparable workload in the department of uh health.

Okay, any questions from committee or non-committee?

Any questions from members of the public?

Is there a motion to move this forward?

I'll motion to move it forward.

I'll second.

All right, all right.

So this will move forward to I'll second it.

Just for this is for the committee.

That's why I'm gonna say name this.

Yeah, I'll give me help on that.

Okay, yep.

Um, so let's move forward to the next council meeting.

Um next is Bill 51.

Bill 51 amends the 2026 general fund budget to accommodate the downgrade and title change of the vacant grants compliance administrator to an assistant grants compliance administrator in the Bureau of CDBG administration within the CED department.

The grants compliance administrator currently an S11 would be downgraded to a proposed pay grade of S7 to align with the level of responsibility, autonomy, and workload that the office currently needs for this vacant position.

The permanent wages of this position are 60% HUD grant reimbursable and 40% general fund funded.

All right.

This is uh cost saving to the city, but it is also um critical for us.

Our grants department really needs some uh administrative support uh as the number of applications have increased.

So the staff uh and the manager Terry who's with us tonight are requesting the downgrading of the position to match the duties to other duties within the city.

Okay, thank you.

Any questions from committee?

Yep.

Just uh real quick, and this is I guess it's actually kind of for both, but I'll just make it for this one from the grant perspective.

I know that both of them are partially grant funded.

How I I may have missed it.

How long is that grant and is it is it generally reoccurring or for this position in the HUD grant?

We've had the HUD grants for decades.

Um it is fully grant funded.

Um the 40 percent general fund is really going to be we're going to actually increase the amount of its funding that's covered by the grant by decreasing the general fund if you follow me.

But I mean there's always possibility a grant like that could end, but so far our HUD funding has been in place for decades.

So between 50 and 51, it's kind of a net neutral.

Is that what I'm saying in that or almost?

I think that when we drop the position to the lower level, it will be like 90 percent grant funded, 10% general funded.

Okay, thank you.

Sure.

Okay, thank you.

Anyone else?

Anyone from the public?

I if you have a question, just come on up, say your name and uh your address.

And it's on bill 51.

Jennifer Swan, 1824 West Congress Street, Allentown, Pennsylvania, 18104.

I I missed the part as to why it was being downgraded.

That's all.

I I understand that is being downgraded, and you may or may not have the money, but I my question, I know I'm not supposed to, it's not supposed to be a bank report.

But my question is, is this a good thing to do if you're trying to hire somebody to do a critical job?

Do you want to downgrade it to get that person?

That's my only question.

I missed that.

Justification.

Thank you.

Thank you.

If you want to read you don't have to, but if you want to.

Basically, um within the city's structure, we have assistants within the departments who handle things like circulation of contracts, paying the the invoices, uh, gathering receipts, reaching out to partner agencies for compliance reports and assembling them for submission.

Those duties, when they're not grant funded, fall into the assistant level.

We currently have all project coordinators, all grant coordinators.

We have to grade them the same way.

So this is currently in position.

It's been a vacant position for a little while now.

And in looking at the needs of the department, this is the job description that best fits the needs of the department at this time.

Thank you.

Any questions from the day?

Any more from the public?

Is there a motion to move forward?

I'll second it.

Yes, alright.

All in favor?

Aye.

Aye.

So this move forward to the regular uh council meeting.

Uh the last on is uh Bill 33.

Bill 33 repeals chapter 135 abandoned rail property blight in its entirety and adopts chapter 611, vacant and at risk property.

Okay, thank you.

Um any comments from the administration.

Um this is uh a long time in coming.

This is the um way we believe is best to get a handle on how many properties are indeed vacant in the city, what their hierarchy of needs might be, to also put them on the radar screen for our inspectors to keep an eye on or to pay some closer attention to.

And we did incorporate some of the changes as per the request from our last meeting.

Okay, thank you.

Any questions from the day?

Any questions from members of the public?

Come on.

Good evening, uh Asher Chavon, uh government affairs director with the Greater Lehigh Valley Realtors.

Um I just want to make sure that the committee members got um I know there's been a lot of discussion tonight, so I'm gonna be extremely brief.

Uh, but just wanted to make sure you got uh the email where um you know there were two amendments set that we're hoping to see uh based on the discussion from the last meeting that seems consistent with with what was said.

Um so I certainly don't want to repeat myself if you didn't get that email.

If not, I'm happy to provide a copy now.

Um it focused on basically limiting the definition of unoccupied um parcels or vacant parcels, I should say.

Um, and then the other amendment was um to return the appeals process that back to the blighted property review committee.

Um so in the the newly revised version, and again, I want to thank the administration for all the changes and and counsel for all the the amendments that were made to the ordinance, um, but the appeals process is now within the department.

So you have the department making the call on vacancy, and then you have the appeals going back to the same department.

So they're kind of like jury the judge, jury, and executioner in this case.

Um so, you know, I guess requesting clarification on on why it went back to the department to do the appeals.

Um I know the time time frame has been tight because it just got uploaded and we tried to do as quicker of a review, and I commend the administration for hopping on a call yesterday to talk through some of these things.

Um, but those were the two questions I had.

So can I provide a copy or if you've got it, I don't need the I mean we got the email, but we want to give them to uh uh Miss Ortega in case someone needs the paper copy.

I I can also advise part of why that switch went back to the department.

The blighted property review committee has not only been difficult to staff in terms of getting volunteers willing to serve, it meets sporadically as need be.

So we wanted the appeals to be quick.

We wanted someone to say this property is vacant because this person has military service, and we wanted to be able to say, okay, then we're not assessing the fee.

We didn't want to have to wait to convene an outside group with the understanding that we feel very strongly that if somebody felt that that decision wasn't appropriate, they would take it to both the mayor and council.

Both the mayor and council could advocate on behalf of whoever they felt was wronged.

But we didn't want to make, we're not anticipating this being an adversarial appeal that if someone says the house is listed for sale and it's a reasonable length of time, great.

If someone tells us that they're in the hospital and they're going into a nursing home for rehab, great.

This isn't meant to be a punitive ordinance in any way.

So we wanted to make a quick decision, but certainly if you want it to go back to a board, um, I think the board has been meeting quarterly at this point, could probably try to schedule it more often, but again, we would need some help getting some more community volunteers to be interested in sitting on the review board.

But basically, we were hoping to give an immediate answer much quicker through the department.

Okay.

Any questions or anything from council on that?

Mr.

Bender.

Thank you.

Um, I guess the question would be if if there would is there a way to do the language, I would say like it would by default go to the department, and then if the applicant felt that they wanted to appeal, then it could go to whenever the next scheduled one is.

So uh it actually the appeal process, if they disagree with the department's decision, they can appeal it to the county court.

But certainly if we needed to amend it to appeal to the blighted property review, we could.

We're not we're not I I really think you know this it's a list that identifies the property, a contact person so that we can make sure our fire and police know that this property is vacant, and like it's not rocket science.

Yeah, okay.

So if so, if it goes to the blighted review board, um there's concern that it's within your department.

Is that am I did I hear that correct?

Or I'm sorry.

So he they wanted in the property.

So okay, got it.

Um so the blighted review board right now is understaffed.

That's a concern.

Blighted property review board has city staff and outside uh citizens that serve on the review board.

Okay, and we've had difficulty uh retaining citizens willing to serve on the review board.

Um, partially because we don't take a lot of issues to the blighted property review board.

So we wanted a quicker answer than trying to assemble a group.

Okay.

Yeah, sorry for the confusion.

I just want to make sure.

Okay, thank you.

Okay.

I mean, I definitely understand the concern of uh what was the the judge, the executioner, and all that being one and the same.

Um, and also I mean, if we don't have people, we don't have an alternative.

I mean, uh any aggrieved person can open council, and if you guys feel like we're not being fair in how we're implementing, we can certainly make changes then.

But you know, I think our goal was to make this as efficient and um fast as possible.

Okay, I feel like this might be a thing once it starts playing out that you know, depending on how it plays out, maybe amendments might need to be made.

Sure, and we we would certainly be open to that.

And I will make a commitment as well that if any of you have any names you can possibly submit, or we will work even harder to recruit for the blighted property review board.

And if we get a large number of appeals, we'd be more than happy to discuss an amendment that would change it.

Okay.

Uh Vicky, uh, this is Heidi.

If I could add something real quick.

Um, I just wanted to say that um this is not a punitive charge.

So an appeal would be for something that would be like a code violation.

This is fees that we're talking about, and under our current fee structure, the director of community and economic development is able to waive those fees.

So that's why we went the way in the the direction that we went.

Okay, thank you, Heidi.

Um, any other questions from the diocy administration or the public?

Okay, is there a motion to move this forward to uh full council?

Okay, so that's one of the things.

Oh, sure, yeah.

Just so I understand the in the cadence of this.

So I and I just got to review some of this.

This not too long ago, uh a couple hours ago.

Um, if something comes up, we're still we it's gonna go to council, so for some reason we wanted to discuss, we still have the opportunity.

I'm assuming so.

So right, exactly.

And I apologize, Heidi.

We didn't know you were there.

Yeah.

Uh no problem.

I agree with Mr.

Bender.

I mean, I think we've been sidetracked with this little thing called data centers, and it's been tough to keep up with some other things, but uh um, but if in the next week or so if we figure anything else out, we can make amendments night of.

Yeah, because I like the one suggestion that's um forget where I don't have it up, but uh to take it from May to Shao.

I don't know, maybe that's a conversation.

Um Mr.

Shabon is a fair a fair point about you know going back to the department.

I'll tell a story.

I'm I'm probably gonna shouldn't tell it.

When I served on the parking authority board, we've created an internal appeals process.

So they would they would actually evaluate the tickets for consumers.

There's about a 50% of those get reduced to warnings or dismissed.

So to while it's a fair concern, I do see that you know when a department is run well run, they will look at uh things and say, hey, you know, this this shouldn't have been done this way.

So it's a ballot concern, but at the same time, my experience in other places shows me that we can look at it fairly and objectively.

So just a thought on on the appeal process.

So that's a motion.

So I'll make a motion to forward this to uh full council.

I'll say all right.

All in favor, aye.

All right, so this will go to full council.

Um all right.

So our next um non-actionable item, but very, very important is the violence prevention plan presentation.

So we'll give some moments for adjustment.

Um can I make a motion to not schedule Brayley on data center nights?

Because this poor guy's patient person in our town government.

He's we waited five hours, six hours last week.

So we're gonna work on our scheduling, and um I just night.

Um but you know, welcome.

Uh we look forward to hearing what you've got as we know um no matter what uh place you live in the world, violence um is always no one wants to see someone lose their life or um witness other people losing their lives.

So it's great that you're here.

Um for some of us, this is the first time seeing you, meeting you.

Uh we knew someone existed, and it's great to meet the person that exists within this role.

So with that, I'll just give it to you.

Whatever you have planned, feel free to just uh present to us in the public.

Do you want me to add Lucing Braille?

Yeah, so uh my name is Brayley, uh violence prevention coordinator for the city.

Um I was here last week in a data center meeting, so I learned a lot.

Um glad to be back again, so thank you for having me.

Um I was hired, so to give a little bit of context, I was hired last year, February, um, as part of the Allentown Works Grant.

Um, I know the mayor was really prioritizing of violence prevention, not as a program, but sort of as a city infrastructure.

Um so I want to just preface by saying that that this position is not a program.

Um this position is really invested in does the city of Allentown have the infrastructure to respond to violence.

Um so in this past year, uh we've done some really great work um and engaging partners.

So I I want to be very clear that the work of violence prevention was already happening before I got here.

Um some of them you probably already know, those agencies are active in the community.

Um those are community members, those are the corner stores, the abuelos, the abuelas, the people like they are that is violence prevention.

Um and then coming in, how do we bring those people to the room, how do we bring those people to the table so that we can create solutions together?

So basically it's the city of Allen Sound saying, hey, for a long time we've just kind of like maybe taken a step back and just allow sort of partners to just do their thing.

We want to jump into this.

We want to support partners, we want to support the stakeholders and let them know like, hey, we see you, um, we support the work.

So over the last seven months, we build a very strong coalition.

I want to say maybe 20 plus members of different communities, APD, ASD, the DA's office, Lehigh County, um at the table, and we just we have been speaking about how do we address this complex issue of violence.

It is a complex issue.

It had it doesn't have one solution.

Um so we landed on our North Star goal, and I want to just read it so I don't mess it up.

I'm also um sent the draft plan to the council so you'll have a copy of it.

Um but our North Star goal is that as a city and with our partners, we believe we can prevent violence by addressing it before it occurs and ensuring the city has multiple community-oriented tools of prevention, including and beyond emergency services.

So even in conversations with chief at our chief of police chief ROCA, um, we understand that law enforcement is a tool, it's not the only tool in public safety.

It may work in some scenarios, but it is a tool, and the community is also a tool that can help us in ensuring Allen Sound um is a safer city.

So, like I said, we build partnerships with APD.

Um we are working through partnerships with the school district, partnerships with the DA's office.

Um have been learning over this past year is that um there's limited data sharing in terms of how people communicate.

Um agencies have been working independently, sort of doing their own thing.

Um and like I said last week, they there's a disconnect for our young people.

They feel really disconnected from City Hall, they feel disconnected from their government.

I don't there's nobody to blame.

I just think that is a great opportunity for us to step into that gap.

So what does success look like?

But all of our partners that were in that room have agreed to take part of this plan.

So this plan is not just the city just saying, hey, this is what we're doing.

This is our partners telling us, hey, we want to help the city do this.

We believe that to play in this in this ecosystem of finance prevention.

So we want to see safer neighborhoods, we want to see uh faster communication.

Um the biggest thing that I want to see is the city having that infrastructure of it it comes down to the system and how that responds.

It's the same for housing, the same for every other issue, um, systems, everything falls to the systems.

And you know, I don't want to blame the people for the actions.

Um, how can the city and partners be better to ensure that people feel like they have a different a different option?

So our goal is to put this plan out and it it it'll be a public document um and then begin our implementation of that plan.

I was really happy that last week the ordinance passed because that is one of the checkpoints of our plan, so I can go back tomorrow to this group and say, hey, we did something, something was done.

Um so as we put this out, we'll begin to get to work.

Um there are some things that we will need, um, which I'll let sort of Dave take over.

You're gonna I I wasn't gonna beg them for money yet.

Um I just wanted to um so you know, a year and a half ago, the administration came to the health bureau and said, Hey, we we want you to have a violence prevention person, we don't have to have a violence prevention program.

That is not the traditional function of public health.

So we had a lot of learning to do.

Um and leading up to hiring Brayley, we went around and engaged different partners, and what do you think this position should look like?

But another thing we found out is that all our partners a year and a half ago were incredibly siloed.

They were not communicating.

We had you know, there were there wasn't really network between partners and the different work they did.

If you did one type of violence prevention work, you did that type of work and you stayed in your lane.

So one amazing thing Brayle Dunn has done over the last year and a half, besides this impressive plan and the other engagement work he's done is bring all these partners in a room together, and now they are talking and functioning, and there was nothing like that before.

Um so in general, I just want to say that the city is incredibly lucky to have someone like Brayley doing this work, he's incredibly thoughtful, he's incredibly hardworking.

The health bureau is a better bureau for having him in it.

And um I'm very excited for this plan to get finalized so he can kind of um get to work.

Get to work and get to it.

Yeah, he's he's been working.

Not that he has been working, but I think the community partners are also insanely excited about this plan because this is built off them, and um it was led by them.

So they're kind of chomping at the bit to say, hey, let's get this going.

Yeah.

Um, thank you.

Thank you so much.

Yeah, and then please continue though.

If you have more I I think that's um the the sort of the essence of of everything.

I know the plan holds a lot of the information.

We've been diving a lot into our our data um when it comes to what we're seeing in the city.

I know you mentioned the recent um events across our city, and we're we're sort of actively working, like even when there's a shooting, like besides just police responding.

What does it look like after that?

What does it look like for that family?

How does how does the city show up to support that family?

So that that has been sort of a new protocol.

So we are literally establishing protocols of responses as these things are happening.

Um I'm um I'm grateful to be in this position.

It is a challenge because sort of building the the when we first started, we we sort of said, hey, do we collect information, collect information, and then start, or do we just like launch at 40% and we will figure this out, right?

Because our community is sort of waiting, hey, we need to do something.

So our our stakeholders said, hey, let's just let's just work, right?

Let's just do something and we'll make adjustments as we go.

We'll learn, we'll adjust quick, and then we'll we'll sort of begin to show up for our community.

So that that is that is what we're doing.

I know usually typically there's a bunch of research and a bunch of data, which is happening as we speak.

I just didn't want to that to deter us from you know getting out there talking to people and just implementing some of the strategies that we put in place.

I just wanted to, you know, put support to that.

I think what Brayley did want me to say though is that this is an incredibly ambitious plan and with ambition and with long-term goals comes the need for funding.

So that is something when you look at this plan, I believe attached to is attached to this plan the kind of short and long-term idea of what would be needed to fund some of these programs.

I can I can send that again.

Yeah, and send that over to the state.

So just to keep that in mind.

So this plan, you know, Braille is one man in the city, one person doing this work, coordinating this work, and we have partner agencies too, that you're all aware are really hardworking nonprofits in the city that all require grant funding and and things of that nature.

So uh just keep that in mind.

Definitely.

Thank you.

Um, yeah, I mean it was great to hear that there was some consultation with uh Mayor Scott from Baltimore.

He's doing incredible things with everything.

He's an incredible mayor doing incredible things.

So glad that you guys were consulting with with him.

Yeah, we'll his team.

I forgot to mention that.

So we we reached out to a couple of cities, Minnesota was one that we spoke to after their the they had to revamp almost the entire prevention.

Minnesota, Baltimore, Philly, we have a meeting coming up on Reading.

Um, so like we are actively seeking out information from other cities.

Baltimore is someone their director of public safety um is someone that we are constantly in communication with that is almost served as a feedback group.

Hey, this is where we had.

What do you think?

How does this work?

Um, so I'm excited that we've been able to sort of also build a network with other cities to almost inform us.

Hey, we haven't done this before.

How did you get to where you are?

Um and they've been super sort of open with sharing the information, their data, how they did it, their challenges and successes.

Um so I think Alan Towns on a pretty good spot.

Yeah.

Thanks for sharing.

Um I have a lot of questions, but uh anyone on the committee?

Are you sure?

Okay, so um so um it seems as though, just like Baltimore, uh, the goal is to take more of like obviously this public health approach since it's in the health department.

Um I'm wondering from more of the law enforcement and in Baltimore, they switched uh, I wouldn't say switch, but they are implementing more of a uh like a targeted policing type of approach where you know typically in there's only a couple of folks that are some challenges, and so the police are working with my understanding.

Um I didn't speak to the mayor, but my understanding is that the police, along with social services, um, along with say like employment services, like that wraparound approach, are targeting those five or six people in a neighborhood, they're saying, here's some hope, here's some opportunity.

If you still decide to act the fool, then we're gonna lock you up, but we're gonna give you a chance first.

How close are we maybe to doing something like that?

I think we're very close.

Um, I think um in conversations with the chief of police, there is there is a uh the intention is to be able to um I don't want to say target, but almost like these are the these are the what Baltimore did is that they identified those in the community that were sort of driving the crime, right?

And sort of created sort of a case management sort of team around that group.

The chief is on board with that.

The chief is supportive of like, hey, if we know that these are the people that are driving our data, what can we do to support them?

At this time, um, the majority of of those individuals are young people.

Um so the the str the strategy has to be a little different.

Um so we are currently actively working with partners to how do we case manage these youth, how do we case manage people that are sort of out there committing these acts.

Um but I I think we're we're very close with me.

I have everything written out, protocols, policy, when things are written, sort of like it becomes more serious.

Um so we're actively in discussion with the chief of police on how to make that work.

Okay, that's great to hear.

And I um I look forward to when that can actually get written out and become protocol.

Yeah, um, that that would be great.

Um, because I and then that brings uh the point up that investment in housing is public safety, investment and recreation is public safety.

So when you talk about budgets, I look forward to seeing what kind of budgetary items because to me, investing in decreasing the number of vacant properties is public safety.

Yeah, providing more programming and recreation is public safe.

So I so I wonder how broad the investment is.

Is it just to the department or is it to like multi-department?

But that what you're speaking to has always been part of the conversation in so far as what can the city actually do from violence prevention.

And is that making neighborhoods feel safer because we're improving homes, we're putting in new street lights, we're uh you know, we're fixing blighted properties.

You're you're absolutely correct.

That even if it's not stopping violence, the the perception of safety goes a long way.

And some of those infrastructure changes that the city can handle um goes to right what you're saying.

So I agree with what you're saying.

But that's not the budgetary stuff that Braille's crushing numbers on.

No, we we recognize it as a factor, but we are sort of focused on how can we like we're we're focused on violence, right?

Uh we we have a sociologist at our meeting, and she oftentimes pushes back and says, hey, like housing, food insecurities, like all these things influence violence.

So we sort of keep that as like a mind frame.

Um but we want to make sure we like what our interventions that directly impact those minor behaviors and those offenses and how we resolve that.

But I agree.

Yeah.

No, I'm just asking.

But thank you.

Thank you.

Um, and then anyone else on the committee, and then I'll go to non-committee.

Um, so yeah, and this I guess comes back to the funding question.

I know you had said um you're partnering with ASD.

Yeah, so you'd focused.

Um is the plan to partner from a funding perspective as well.

Um, what is what would that look like?

I think that I think that's a good conversation.

I think we we those conversations are ongoing.

Um I know ASD has has a lot of resources, uh, but I think we're sort of building that partnership with uh between this position and ASD.

Um sort of so we're working on uh some proposals to submit to them and sort of seeing how they go.

ASD is also like, hey, this is new for us, like this is a new thing that we sort of in.

So I think that's something that we can definitely look into in terms of like what would be their investment in this plan.

Okay, that might be something I know we're actually tomorrow night we're we're meeting with with ASD collectively as a council, so it might be an interesting topic to bring up.

Yeah, um the only thing I wanted to highlight on is just to say like I I I support your your drive to use SOPs at the beginning and lead with that because I I completely agree.

And it it also helps that as people shift in organizations, it's a very, very clear line for what what people are doing and how they're operating.

So I think that's a that's a great um approach you're taking.

Yeah, and that's it's true.

Yeah, so I yeah, I uh even in my coalition I always tell people like, hey, not that I'm going anywhere, but I always say, like, hey, like sometimes cities can be very reactive, and just let's just do the quick thing.

And I want to make sure that Island Town has things in place that I'll live, whether I'm here or anybody else's here, that this is sort of like this this is what the city does.

It's not just because Brady's here, the city has decided to do this a little different.

So yeah, SOPs and everything, proposals, everything will be documented.

Okay, thank you.

Yeah.

Okay, uh Mr.

Napoli, and then I'll go with Dr.

Moda.

All right, thank you.

Um and uh thanks again for all the information.

Um and I understand that um you are in data collecting mode, and I at some point when you start to have enough of a like a subset of data, uh we would love to continue hearing some of the um what you're finding, you know, some of the trends and some of the uh maybe forecasts that you're seeing.

So I know that's not available today, but it's something I would love to hear more of when the time is appropriate when you start to have enough data to tell a story.

Yeah, we we could look into that.

Actually, I do some sort of quarterly kind of discussion where you can sort of know what what what we're doing and also like what's going on and the data we're seeing, so I can we can definitely whenever it's appropriate, whether it's quarterly, annually, it's more for you know when you're ready to provide this data and yeah, help tell that story.

Uh I just think it's great.

Um, just out of curiosity on the the organizations you're working with, how often do you meet with all these folks?

Is it monthly or so we meet once a month?

Okay, um, but I I want to say I talk to them almost every week.

Um we've sort of established that ongoing relationship.

So besides just the one month meeting, um, I'm constantly in emails, calls popping up at the places where they were just showing up.

Um so we we've established sort of that routine formally once a month.

Okay.

I I I appreciate it go ahead.

Sorry.

I was just gonna speak to the data point.

Um, you know, there's data that the city has, like our crime data and stuff like that that um APD and and Braylee and our crime analysts have access to.

I think the trickier data piece that we're missing is a lot of our partners' data.

What how many interactions are we getting?

What type of population are they interacting with on a regular basis?

And that I feel like is the more interesting stuff, the populations that are being touched by the work that's already being done and how effective that is and how we can see that move and shift into um better prevention efforts.

Yeah.

I I mean listen thanks for I mean I think that's one of the things that we've all heard over and over here is how siloed some of these organizations are so I appreciate your um effort and and and some success already in in breaking down those walls and getting folks to work together.

So I think that's a crucial first step to uh to you know getting us where we want to be so um great job thank you so that was that was the same thing that I was about to say that I'm glad yeah that I'm glad that you work with other nonprofits because the reality is I have always say this that there has been a disconnect and we need we need to work together we need collaborators we need um unity you know and uh and I think that um in many cases you know um people have the mind of scarcity you know it's like if I share my data with you what will that you know what would that do to my nonprofit and uh it sometimes this level it's a level of distrust and it's not that I'm blaming anybody but it's just the fact that it is and uh but we have to keep in mind like you said before that they have been around and they have been doing the work.

So what you're doing is putting everything you know putting you know uniting uh the hopefully the the the nonprofits and and collaborating you know with them because um it is a very difficult thing to do.

Yeah it I agree it has been uh most of my energy has been spent on sort of that unification process and putting so the fact that we have them all in a room together and and and being able to just talk to each other um is is a big accomplishment um so I'm um the sort of my the biggest win has been putting all these people in the room sort of knowing the dynamics and the history and you know the num I come from the direct service myself um so I I I know a little bit of sort of the background knowledge a lot of the relationships um that I have now I had sort of in my previous role um they're passionate they're very passionate very passionate so I better those meetings get really heated up they you know yes oh yeah they do they do but they they mean well and I think that um this is the first time where they feel like um my job has just been to hold space for them um I always say like hey just uh um be honest say what you mean mean what you say um not taking things personal and like him I I hear it like I hear I hear what you have to do and everyone does something everyone has their own little flavor and in this whole piece um and I've sort of everyone is recognized for that but I I agree it's is but I'm glad that you're out there in the community because that's the key one thing is sitting in your office you know typing you know putting those data which I'm not saying that it's not important different monster when you go out there and you actually get to meet different community members you know and and and and different you know different people good and bad you know yeah we like I said I told anyone like hey we we're we're outside we we're talking to people we're walking the streets we're showing up at the parks um even though I am one person um uh we showed up at West Park um and literally it was an email hey who wants to join us at West Park to talk to youth and we had a maybe about 10 providers show up we didn't have we didn't have to like push they showed up they talked to youth um so that that has been the model like instead of just sitting in office having these coalition meetings I I also challenge them to say hey can you guys meet me here at this place can we talk to these people so we we're sort of reinventing the wheels sort of breaking some things that were in place and and you know I'm excited to see what the future holds so yeah I cannot wait to see what's what's gonna happen in a a few years from now but I know that it will be positive.

Yeah I we do have to invest in in prevention you know we don't know that about that thank you.

Anyone else from the dais Mr.

Pungle?

I just again just want to commend on on the work that's going on and I'm very you know eager to to see what you put together as far as the support that you need I'm sure all of us on this dice want to help as much as we can uh and to make sure that that happens and I know our community is really asking for it.

I know if you ask any mother in this community there's not a price she wouldn't pay for her their child you know so um I think you know we want to make sure we're making responsible decisions to protect our youth and I think this is a a great opportunity to start addressing some of the some of the some of the things that we could be doing better.

So thank you.

Mr.

I had to step out when you're talking about data stuff, but um I think the city at some point, I don't know if they still have a staff position.

There used to be an actual like data person, was there not?

Or is there we have a few data people that are in the in they're both in the police department and they're both very good.

And I think they work with Braille and other areas of the I don't know, are they involved?

Yeah, we we meet uh we have a routine meeting established where we review trends um in the city.

I I guess my question is like I know you're trying to aggregate a lot from a lot of different places.

Um I'm wondering if uh I didn't know if there was an in like a non-police staffed position that's that that focuses on that more from a community relation perspective from a data aggregation.

But I guess I'm assuming it's not, it's all it's only in PD pretty.

We have just the like S replace-based data.

Okay.

Those folks?

And then at least have everything else.

There are no other data.

Okay.

All right, sounds good.

Thank you.

Okay.

Um anyone else?

No.

Uh anyone from the public on this uh violence prevention.

Okay.

Uh well, again, thank you so much.

Uh this is just the introductory conversation.

I'm sure there will be other conversations.

I look forward to some systemic and structural change.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Um and so our final conversation is the encampment policy.

Um we have a draft of the encampment policy.

This is about a year in the making.

Um here we are.

So I'll give it to you.

Well, you know, I'll tell you, we uh we have I'm gonna get the edits from law.

They had substantial thoughts, they said.

So when I get when I get that um tomorrow, I'm gonna send you all a copy of our final, you know, what what what we think redlined.

I have to figure out a way to do that that makes it readable and intelligible to you all.

But you know, more than the more than more than the policy, I'll direct your attention to the email that I sent you all today.

Uh we have a we've we've moving parts on a couple issues.

I don't know if you want to address any of those.

I'd love to get your thoughts on.

Uh so maybe let's do if anyone does, I have some thoughts on the policy.

Don't know if law is gonna rule out everything I'm saying, but um um, but if how about we stick with the policy, and then if we want to go to that email that she sent.

Um if there's any overlap, I mean, I'm sure there's some intersecting.

So you know, law is one piece of the equation, and we are one piece, and the police are one piece of that equation, you are the other portion of that equation.

You know, we're gonna we'll we'll we'll meet and we'll discuss what you know what changes we propose and we'll see what the administration can live with, the people that have to live with it mostly police law, um the fire to some degree, public works to a degree.

You know, and we'll come over with a product that that everyone agrees on, or that everyone comes close to green owner that we can live with and that you can live with.

Okay.

Um so a couple I had on the policy as written right now.

Um I would like to know the rubric, if it was modeled after a city, or if it's like a combination of different cities, like how was that developed?

You sent that's a rubric that you sent me.

You had suggested you sent that to me.

So that's exact.

Yeah, if you look if you look back at our emails, that that was your suggestion.

And then um staying with that rubric.

Um it's clear who implements the rubric in terms of the score, but who does the scoring?

Like who goes out and gives encampments the scores?

And at what point do they proactively do that or do they wait until there's a situation to do that?

I think they wait until there's a situation to do that.

That was my that was my assumption when I submitted that.

I but we hadn't thought about who is the person.

I mean, it's just an obvious if if there was a police call, you know there was a police call.

If there was, if there's trash, you know, you know that.

But yeah, who go, I guess whoever goes to the camp, we could we could say that our I hate to keep giving Danielle all the work, but we could say we could say our uh unhoused services coordinator initially does the rubric and then you know, with the input of others, I I make the final decision and then you know we we transmit it to you.

So I definitely uh would encourage uh the administration to really because that was a point of conversation and debate with the ordinance as who is going to do this.

Um I would encourage, especially since it's a policy and it can be that detailed to really kind of figure out what that who that might look like.

I would encourage especially since it's a policy and it can be that detailed to really kind of figure out what that who that might look like so it's kind of some level of consistency maybe with some flexibility but some level of consistency so that people can uh develop the skill set to do so it's not like hey randomly you're gonna go do this today um but people kind of get used to scoring and they kind of get used to what to look for and what to not jump up out of the skin about and um it would be I yeah there should be kind of a group that does that.

I don't think one person okay uh I mean that's we have one person who works in the area of homelessness at the you know at the city so I maybe non-providers are I mean I'm it's your policy but yeah I just yeah it would be great to see who is doing the scoring because I mean you know we all have different perspectives I might go to an encampment and say oh there's some trash and someone else might go to an encampment and say whoa this needs to be shut down so it'd be great to have a different okay you know um and then the other one I do just want to throw out a cautionary is um I know in the previous uh a couple years ago whenever we had the unhoused coordinator it turned into more like a case management type of role we didn't want that so I do have some concern with that individual being the one to like go out because then that can turn into case management and that's not what she's supposed to be doing she or he whoever it is at the time.

And then there's somewhere I don't have the ordinance up but some somewhere it says uh minor items like that minor items uh could be like mitigated what's minor to you might not be minor to someone else so maybe spelling out that a little bit more clear clearly I know you mentioned like trash that's a minor item that can be mitigated but you know there could be other minor items um I would suggest in addition to saying Spanish and English also adding languages of the resident of that encampment you could have Arabic you have sign language I don't know but just languages of the residents that are in the encampment um my question is uh revacating um how will a person know that they're revacating is a permanent uh piece of signage in multiple language going to be posted that says you cannot if you are on shelter you cannot post a tent up or you will be immediately asked to move how will they know?

I mean I think at president it's we have no trespassing signs in though in those areas uh we could do you know we can we can host something else if if you think that's necessary uh I feel like the no trespassing signs have generally been uh if you know if we stick to the way that we enforce things maybe that's what we've done so far you can suggest you know you can suggest the no camping sign also if you like I mean it seems like there are people who maybe are um uh setting up where it says no trespassing anyways because they need a place to go so unless it says like something explicitly like hey look you can't set up a tent here and like say it like this place has already been vacated like so that people know like this is a targeted place.

If you set up here you will be removed not a vague hey no trespassing there's a lot of no trespassing signs in the city.

And then I think my last thing is um uh why are non-high risk uh encampments and high risk encampments both 30 days and there was the language underneath the non-high risk encampments some of it seemed contradictory because it's saying like um if occup if if occupied tents essentially fix the problem that they can stay but then right underneath that it says you know like the whole encampment's cleared out so maybe clearing that up a little bit like yeah is there an opportunity to not punish the whole class because of one or two people okay that's all I got thank you my question um sorry my question and I was just trying to understand it the on at the top when you were talking about the red line document and that kind of stuff.

So is your intent to not is it like what's my intent is to meet with you okay next to the chief of police and our attorneys and you know discuss these items point by point.

Okay.

I just wonder so we couldn't do something like just have like track changes through throughout what your concerns are I mean maybe it's it's hard to track some people's changes in administration and then other and then they were the rid they're changing what you are initially at a point I think we have to meet.

Uh you know, that that makes it clear that makes it intelligible who was what you know who provided what change.

But I mean you're you're into like multiple levels of changes that I think it's easier if we just all meet with a document, you know.

Okay.

And then I guess so it so the culmination whoever's at it is is basically then that would have a document that would come to this council and hopefully be in uh discussed in this format and then maybe move forward because that's how it makes any.

That's my hope.

I think that's I mean I personally um I have found that contradicting or going against the city solicitor never results and uh something actually like getting past.

So I would just like know what the city solicitor says that we can or can't do, and then go from there because I don't want to get into a thing where we I don't want to get into a back and forth um just whatever they say we can do or can't do, let's just have that and then let's just go with that.

Um because we're not going to change.

I have not found in six years I've been here where I've made a passionate stance and it's changed the law department, that doesn't happen.

I just haven't seen that.

Okay.

Uh look, I'm a little more optimistic than you, but however you want to proceed.

I you know, uh look I mean if you want to enter a meeting, but I I'm I I think I think if uh to Council Gurlick's comment, okay.

If we could get that hurdle cleared at the beginning, it saves us all time, I guess is that's where we'll I will have, you know, we'll do I will provide you a document that that shows together what the concerns from police and law were.

I think that's what you're looking for, right?

Uh I'll provide that to you that red lines out the changes that that you suggested and that that uh those people administration were move.

And I think that's the best way to move forward.

We can we can just meet up with that then.

We can, you know, I'll send it to you, and if there's discussion that needs to happen, we can address it at that point.

Okay.

I don't think they really need to be.

I'm I mean they're not the ones that make the decision so much.

I mean, maybe they're who we send uh at the end of the day, remove debris, but the people that make those decisions are more like I mean, more like it's more like city council and the mayor's office and the and and the department of law and the and the police in the moment sometimes fire.

They're really the decision makers.

We can include public works, but they don't really have a they don't really have a role in the decision.

Or they I don't know that they need to have a role in the decision.

Well, many things that were not very hard.

So it would be good if they would be included.

Unless they put a meeting button.

Oh well they they've been included in the but sure.

I I mean I sent the public works has the document they weighed in on the policy, you know, of course.

Uh I'm just talking about who is the biggest vested interest in in carrying out the things that are decided there.

But sure, they've been they've been involved.

Sure, sure.

Mm-hmm.

Mr.

Pongo?

Sure.

Thank you.

Um no, I think uh I think there's also some value to establishing those guidelines first.

Because to council person mode's point, like if we're saying like, okay, they're all 30 days, um, you know, can public work support that what what you know is there a need for okay, non-emergency need more time or something like that.

I think there's some input there.

Uh but my original point was gonna be just a quick little suggestion.

So nice and easy.

City, you know, lawyers, red, chief roca blue.

That way we know who's who who's who's opposed or into what I think it just makes it nice and easy to let people know.

Like, okay, hey, on this document, this is what these people said.

This document is what this person said they don't like or they don't want this person, and then again, I just think it clears the conversation to understand, okay.

All three of these versions say nobody likes this part, so maybe we change that or remove that and just aids the conversation.

If it's like, okay, one of three entities didn't like this one part, what can we do to improve it?

And I think just as a framework, you know.

I think the di the document this policy clearly clearly spells that out, I think.

I mean that what that's where we're gonna end up with is very clear chain of command.

I I I'll just throw a hypothetical that I wrote down here.

So I know there's uh at one point the administration expressed wanting to make sure it wasn't um, you know, the person who was uh in charge of the commission on homelessness that was responsible for so like just like let's say whoever is the one scoring, right?

If they score the rubric uh to a point where it it would be considered for an extreme risk criteria, um then at that point is is law enforcement, everyone else responding to that so effectively the person who's scoring it is essentially making the decision.

No, I mean I I think I I've intended to write the policy that I'm so that I made the decision and then immediately communicated it to you and together we decided how to move forward.

That that that was my intention.

It's not my intention for somebody, it's my intention for somebody to fill out that rubric and bring it to me and us for a decision.

I I don't think it's my intention to never have to clear a homeless encampment.

It's my it it it's my intention to deal with these things while they're small to deal with people where they are to get them the services they need.

I hope that we never have to reach this point, you know.

That's that's my hope when I when I when I address this policy.

Um anyone else?

Uh so time frame you said tonight or tomorrow or something for the the red line and blue line.

The well, tomorrow is when I'll hear from law.

Uh you know, when I'll get their document, which I'll look at and you know, I'll let you guys know what they you know what they what they what they wanna what they want to remove in Chief Roque already have his and then I'll get it to you right away as soon as you know now that there's no more zoning stuff.

Um all right, so we'll have another CD meeting.

I thought we were gonna have that tonight.

Um, but that's cool.

I know there's been a lot, but we I get that.

All the hands on deck and zoning.

Um so before members of the public, you said there were a couple of things that you wanted to say about that that email.

If you want to, we we you know, we can also talk privately.

I mean, we have the you know, we we had a situation where the Lehigh County authority attempted to clear the the the fountain or uh you know they attempted to let's say disturb the the fountain uh park encampment, the people back there that we've all decided that we're gonna, you know, we're not gonna move forward on.

Um so I went, you know, I went down there and I talked to one of the residents who was the person that interacted with the LCA.

Um they had contractors who didn't know that people were back there and they just attempted to go back and remove everything.

Uh I reached out to the LCA and I got a positive response.

Uh their executive director was at a conference in uh uh you know out of state, but we're gonna talk when she gets back, and they're gonna I'm confident that they're gonna abide by the agreement that we have made.

Uh but it was disturbing, it was a stressful to the residents down there, you know.

So we got through that, and then we've had, you know, we've had quite honestly, we've had disruptions with uh just a group of of a few people at 15th Street that were probably gonna have to move forward with stronger measures to ask them to leave.

They've had a couple police calls, they've had a couple problems with animals in the parking lot of the recycling center.

They continue to continue to enter the recycling center to remove items.

We we have video of you know, one of them starting a fire in a dumpster.

So we're we're gonna have to address those things.

Uh you know, and that'll be the first time that we together work on how do we how do we really encourage people to move without causing an evaluation, you know.

So we'll move forward together on that.

And I like your thoughts.

They don't have to be tonight and they don't have to be here, but I'd love to know how you all feel about that and what you think.

Okay.

Um questions on that.

Okay.

So I'll move to members of the public.

Uh any comments or questions in the back?

Sure.

Learn something about data centers tonight.

And I learned a lot, a lot of things that I don't know about.

Thank you.

I am Christina from the Commission on Homelessness.

Um, yeah, a couple of things that have come to mind since reading this new policy.

Um, I I thank you very much for having us the commission be part of the process for writing this policy as you have um CC uh during this past year to try to get this over the finish line.

Um and I appreciate that, and I really hope that you continue to um include the commission.

Um I don't know about this red line email.

I would love to have been able to see it and to be a part of it.

We don't have it yet.

Oh, whenever it comes, I would love to be able to see it.

Um and also be able to comment and to got provide guidance because that's what the commission is supposed to do, provide guidance for uh the individuals experiencing homelessness in our community.

Um I do like this is a very different version of the ordinance.

So I just wanted to point that out.

I would like to call it that.

How can we not cause harm to the people that are losing their homes, right?

We do need some guidance and some information on how to proceed with that when there are safety hazards and things of that nature, or people breaking the law, because you can't, nobody's above the law.

But this has turned more into just a I don't feel as it is the original purpose of providing less harm to the individuals living in the encampments.

My concern is that I still strongly believe that this should be codified for future administrations because we don't know who the next mayor is going to be and how are they going to interpret this and how are they going to move forward with this, or are they just going to crumple it up and ignore it?

And that leads me to my last, and maybe you can help me with this, because I am not a city employee.

And is this best practice of all policies in the city at the end that it says this administrative policy may be enhanced, amended, modified, or revoked at any time at the mayor's discretion.

So what that says to me as somebody who is just reading this, that anything that the mayor, the person, the man or the woman, whoever is in that role, can take this policy and change anything that they think that they um don't agree with, right?

Is that right?

Am I saying that correctly, right?

Um, because the last time I checked were uh democracy, you know, checks and balances.

Um one person, one entity, one office should not have the ultimate um decision making tool to uh destroy because that's what this is about.

It's about people's homes.

Yes, there are not enough solutions.

I do I I love that's in here that you said that you would provide in the beginning.

Um, everybody that is being removed from an encampment.

I think it says that you'll make a meaningful effort to help connect unsheltered people to services.

We don't have enough services, right?

That's the sad part.

That was your idea.

I know.

Because that is what encampment ordinances stand on.

Like that is um the North Star.

Is that what the gentleman that was just talking about?

The North Star of Encampment Ordinances is, is that we have enough, we provide a meaningful effort, right?

Whether or not that person takes it or not, that's up to them.

And but we have to have the resources to provide them with that choice, and we don't have enough resources, and that's what it comes down to too.

So this policy is it's it's it is what it is, but it's not going to be able to solve the longer term issues and the systemic issues and the complexities of homelessness that you all have now, you know, heard about too much for me over the past year.

Um that's I think those were my thoughts about it.

Um I'm very concerned about that last line.

I do think that that should be looked into and and possibly redacted.

We'll take it out.

Our intent was to codify this.

I mean, obviously you wouldn't leave that in.

The intent of this draft, and maybe we have different things, but the intent of this draft is to have the draft that you have is what everyone wanted.

That is the wish list of the administration and of all of the people who submitted uh comment.

So I don't know how you would put something like that in an ordinance.

You wouldn't.

Yeah.

It's hard.

And we talked about encampment resolution more than encampment ordinances.

We did.

Yeah, and it's something that the the commission is is hopefully gonna be taking on in the next couple of months, which I I ran out of time, so I'll tell you about that in the next couple of months, which is more of a it's basically a more proactive way to deal with encampments, period.

Agree.

Anyway, thank you.

Good conversation.

Anyone else on the encampment policy?

Okay.

Um, so uh to follow up on the whole codification, like there will be a codification.

If it comes from the administration, great.

If it doesn't, we have something that we can bring back up.

It's been tabled, it can be untabled.

So this is on the hopey the administration comes forth.

We've we've agreed, we said that that's the intent of, you know, we've taken a long time to do this policy, but we've also not done any harm in the meantime, you know, so I don't think it's the end of the world.

Uh, you know, and we've we've worked hard to come up with a good work product.

We're probably you know, so whatever whatever is the policy, we end up codifying it.

I mean, I feel like we've we've done our job at that point.

So, yeah, hopefully, I mean, let me see the shelter opens up.

So, hopefully, by the time the cold comes in, I mean, hopefully, well before that, we should have something to vote on from the administration.

I council person girl like I get that you always try to hold me to timelines if there are no other urgent matters that I can kind of, but we have to keep this one.

As soon as possible, very soon.

Okay.

Yeah, I mean it it's been a year, so yeah, that's why we're kind of I understand.

Yeah, but okay.

Um, anything?

No.

All right.

Uh well, if there's nothing else, then I will unless you have anything else, or Miss Kiss or someone else.

You ready to adjourn?

Yeah, yeah.

I was about to adjourn, yeah.

I just want to say um the whole data center conversation is super challenging.

And I just want to say great job running the meeting and balancing everything.

Um, it was well done, and everyone got a chance to contribute.

So nice job.

Thank you.

Thank you.

I'm glad folks came.

They all left, but they were here.

So, all right.

This uh meeting is adjourned.

Thank you.

We didn't learn.

We learned a lot.