Good afternoon.

Welcome to the business housing and zoning committee.

I will call to order this regular meeting for December 2nd, 2025.

My name is Aurene Chowdhury and I am the vice chair of this committee.

Before we begin the meeting, I want to remind everybody that these meetings are broadcast

live to enable greater public participation.

They include real-time captioning to increase the accessibility of our proceedings to the

community.

Therefore, all speakers need to be mindful of the rate of their speech so that our captioners

can fully transcribe all comments for the broadcast. We ask all speakers to moderate

their speed and clarity of their comments. Members, we will be using speaker management

for this meeting, so please make sure you are signed in. At this time, I will ask the

clerk to call the roll so we can verify a quorum.

Council Member Vita.

Present.

Cashman.

Present.

Jenkins is absent.

Chavez.

Present.

Vice Chair Chowdhury.

Present. Chair Osman is absent. There are four members present.

All right. Let the record reflect. We have a quorum. I will also note that Council Member Osman,

Chair Osman, is away for a part of this meeting because he is at a press conference

and he will be joining us shortly. Our agenda is in front of us and we will begin with the consent

item number 11 is approving six liquor licenses.

Item number 12 is approving eight liquor license renewals.

Item number 13 is approving one gambling license.

Item number 14 is approving a building permit extension for Silva on the river.

Item number 15 is authorizing agreements for the Great Streets Facade Grant Program.

Item number 16 is accepting a grant from the Federal Transit Administration for the Great Streets Facade Grant Program.

federal transit administration for the blue line extension item number 17 is authorizing agreements

for the 2025 emergency solutions grant item number 18 is authorizing two loans to the

martisur hospitality group on nicollet ave item number 19 is reauthorizing the stable

homes stable schools appropriation and contract item number 20 is approving a street vacation

for the location at 4301 Lake Street East.

Item number 21 is authorizing a settlement of a loan

to TLC Precision Technology.

Item number 22 is authorizing a grant agreement

with Cirtis Financial for rehabilitation at the Heritage Park.

Item number 23 is approving Bruce Brunner

to seat number 10 on the Minneapolis Advisory Committee on Housing.

Item number 24 is authorizing a temporary construction

item number 25 is approving an ordinance related to the minimum building height

requirements in the zoning code. Item number 26 is receiving and filing the

prolonged vacancy enforcement report. Item number 27 is authorizing a Great

Streets Gap loan to Newbie 314 property holdings. And lastly, item number 28 is

receiving and filing a report related to pet restrictions and rental

Item number 28 is receiving and filing a report related to pet restrictions and rental properties.

With that, do any of my colleagues have any discussion or questions?

I will recognize that Council Member Jenkins has also joined us.

And then I'll just quick speak to item number 19, which is reauthorizing the Stable Homes, Stable Schools Appropriation and Contract.

I am authoring this resolution.

This is taking a budget amendment from the 2025 budget that myself,

Council President Payne, Council Member Chavez authored to create a pilot program

for stable homes, stable schools for middle school children and children at early age 0 to 5.

unfortunately there is a fiscal cliff that the stable home stable schools

program is currently facing and this came to light earlier this summer it was

not something that was apparent to the city and our partners in stable home

stable schools last year in our budget and while we are regretful that we won't

be able to expand the program to include middle school aged children and early childhood children

and families to the program. We want to make sure that the program is able to function and still

support the thousands of families that are supported across Minneapolis public schools

for elementary school aged children and their families. And I just wanted to make that comment

because I felt that it was important to share that clarity and also important for us to make plans into the future across government

and in our communities to find ways to support expanding ways we can address homelessness.

We are seeing an increase in youth homelessness as reported by Minneapolis Public Schools.

and this is a moment in which local governments need to come together to

figure out how we're going to strategically address this and this is

one step forward to ensure that we don't fall into this greater fiscal cliff. The

other item that I will note is regarding item number 28 which is a report

related to pet restrictions and rental properties. We will not be taking up that

report today that will be hopefully coming up in the next term in January and with that I will

recognize council member Cashman. Thank you vice chair Chowdhury and I'm glad that you brought up

the stable home stable schools and in a little while we'll have a public hearing on a family

shelter application from Hennepin County and I just think it's important that we're you know

addressing this in collaboration with the county so I thank them for that and we'll be talking about

that shortly but I just wanted to take a second to thank the staff who worked so hard on the

ownership and opportunity fund loans and gap financing loans that we're hopefully approving

today. I think this is just a really incredible program that the city has to help get ownership

into the hands of BIPOC entrepreneurs in the city that can own their buildings and grow their

businesses along the commercial corridors of our city. So thank you so much for putting those

forward and I'm happy to be supporting them today. Thank you, Council Member Cashman. With that,

I will move all items for approval and file items number 26 and 28 on that all those in favor say aye aye

those opposed say nay the ayes have it and the motion carries now we will move on to our public

hearings our first item today is for a liquor license approval submitted by curioso coffee bar

at 3001 Hennepin Avenue.

I will have Beth Dominguez from Business Licensing

to speak more on this item.

Welcome up, Beth.

Thank you, Chair and committee members.

I am Inspector Beth Dominguez with Licenses

and Consumer Services.

I'm presenting an application for Curioso LLC,

doing business as Curioso Coffee Bar,

located at 3001 Hennepin Avenue South Suite 1170 to 1175 Minneapolis, Minnesota.

And that's in Ward 10.

The applicant is requesting an on-sale wine strong beer with limited entertainment license.

If approved, they intend to provide acoustic music, organized meetups,

instructional art gatherings, comedy shows, trivia, etc.

This is located on the first floor of the Seven Points Mall and occupies two suites.

It includes an area for seating and entertainment with a kitchen and bar for 35 patrons.

Interior hours of operation are 7 a.m. to 8 p.m. Monday through Friday.

and 8 a.m. to 8 p.m. Saturday and Sunday.

Public hearing notices were sent to residents and property owners

within 600 feet of the premises.

Notices were also sent to South Upton Neighborhood

and Business Association.

Council Member Chugtie, we have received two comments in support from the community

and no significant issues concerning the business have been found.

The Licenses and Consumer Services Division recommends approval of an on-sale wine with strong beer and limited entertainment license.

And this concludes my presentation. I will stand for comments or questions.

Thank you. I will look to the clerks to see if we have anyone signed up for public hearing.

It doesn't look like we have anyone signed up for Curioso, but I will ask as I open the public hearing

if anyone would like to speak to this item.

Yeah, Luke from Curioso is here.

Welcome up.

Please introduce yourself.

Hello, I'm Luke from Curioso,

and just here to, I guess, give you a little background.

We are primarily a coffee shop.

We're just hoping to expand into wine and beer,

Beer just to expand our funding model. We are planning to host events and we have hosted events previously

So really just hoping to expand the the funding model for that

Great, thank you

If you want to give the clerks your name and just sign in that's great. Thank you so much for coming up here

And then I will ask if anyone else would like to speak to this item before I close the public hearing.

Okay.

Seeing no one else wishing to speak, I will now close the public hearing, and then I will call on Council Member Cashman.

Thank you, Vice Chair Chowdhury.

I'd like to move this item for approval, and thank you so much for coming into the committee today,

but also for doing business in Uptown on the ground floor.

there that block in between lake and 31st along hennepin has a lot of new life and it's really

exciting to see a lot of new entrepreneurs coming and bringing new concepts to the table so i'll

move this for approval great that has been moved for approval on that on that motion all those in

favor say aye aye those opposed say nay the ayes have it and the motion carries best of luck next

Next we have a general entertainment and business plan amendment for Lumi Restaurant

and Bar on Nicollet Avenue.

I will have up Christina Stitcher from Business Licensing to speak more on this item.

Welcome Christina.

Thank you Vice Chair Chowdhury and committee members.

I'm Christina Steeester, Lead License Inspector with Licenses and Consumer Services.

I'm presenting an application from Lumi Restaurant and Bar owned by Tulsa LLC located at 9

921 Nicollet Mall in Ward 7. The applicant is requesting an upgrade in entertainment level

from limited to general entertainment. They would like the ability to offer a DJ and dancing in the

lowest level of the restaurant on weekend evenings. The hours of operation would be 6 a.m. to 2 a.m.

daily with also a sidewalk cafe that operates from 6 a.m. to 12 a.m. On November 12th of this year,

24 public hearing notices were sent to residents, I'm sorry, were sent to taxpayers within 450 feet

of the premises. Notices were also sent to the downtown council, the Minneapolis, I'm sorry,

downtown Minneapolis neighborhood association, council member Cashman's

office as well. No responses were received. There have been no 311 or

police calls for service as a direct result of the business's operations. An

updated business and safety plan were reviewed by my office which addresses

the new operations at that location. The licenses and consumer services division

recommends approval of an upgrade of entertainment license.

This concludes my presentation, and at this time, I can stand for any questions or comments

you may have.

Thank you for that. First, I will open up the public hearing for this item and see if there's

anyone that would like to speak. Doesn't look like we have anyone signed up with the clerks,

but we have someone here. Welcome, and please introduce yourself.

Hello. My name is and I am the owner of . So we are planning to extend our operating

hours from 10 p.m. to 2 a.m. We are located in Nicolet Mall, which we are trying to bring

more people to increase the people existing over there. And if there is any question,

I could be able to answer.

okay thank you well we'll call you up and see if there's any questions that

come forward but thank you for taking and testifying is there anyone else

that's wishing to speak on this item before we close the public hearing okay

seeing no one else I will close the public hearing and I will now go to

discussion and I will call on councilmember Vita thank you chair

Chowdhury, just a couple things. So I had folks reach out to me about when they received the notice

for this, and it was over the holidays, they wanted to speak with staff about the safety plan

and some other things. I did talk to Amy Lingo about the possibility of staff speaking with

these community members who have businesses in the area. It's not that they're not supportive.

They just wanted to have a conversation about the safety plan and some other things.

So I was going to propose moving this forward without recommendation and hoping that staff could confirm that they will schedule this meeting with these community members.

Please.

Sure.

I received one question from a community member, but I answered the questions, and it was regarding whether or not a safety plan had been reviewed and so forth.

We have no problem coordinating community meeting with everyone.

I was told that they didn't get the notice until a little bit later, possibly because of the holiday.

If you could forward maybe that person's information and we can contact them,

and I can contact the person that did contact me directly to try to arrange,

make sure that they're not missed in scheduling a meeting, that would be great.

Thank you so much for that.

And I spoke with Amy Lingo earlier, and we talked about putting a list of folks together.

So we make sure that we get everyone included on this.

We can do that for sure.

Thank you.

Great.

Next, I'll call on Council Member Jenkins.

Thank you, Chair Chowdhury.

I am in queue for Council Member Rainville.

Okay.

Welcome, Council Member Rainville.

Thank you. I'm just curious if staff could let us know, have the police signed off on the safety plan?

The lieutenant at the first precinct did review the safety plan, but in general did not sign off on the safety plan.

And part of the, well, the main reason was because this application first presented to him right before the summer began.

And so his concern was with the location of the restaurant, being on Nicollet Mall, and the majority of, like, the officers being concentrated to the downtown West First Avenue, Hennepin District, they wouldn't have the resources to cover this restaurant if things didn't go as planned.

And because of that, I continued to work with the owner over the summer.

We continued to update and revamp that safety plan and then decided to wait into the winter time to actually put it into play

so that they had a little bit of time to operate before the next summer happens

so that they can work out any bugs or kinks or anything like that that might arise.

So that was the only reason why it wasn't signed off on by the police department.

But the police department is aware that this would be going forward without their signature,

even though we do recommend approval on it.

Thank you. So your office recommends it, but the police do not?

The police will not sign off on it.

So whether or not that particular lieutenant wanted it to happen,

you know that might not be the case but our office does recommend approval on it

thank you you're welcome

chair Chaudhoy if I may use a bit more of my time

of course Councilman Jenkins go ahead I'm just curious from the owner what type

of dance club does he envision why don't we welcome him back up why don't you

come up, sir? Top 40.

Yeah, what kind of dance club are you thinking?

So, like, our restaurant, I don't know if you've ever been in the restaurant.

It's, like, the, it's just, like, a little bit like the high-end restaurant, and the purpose that we are going to keep it.

We do have, like, so many, like, I'm from Turkey, and we do have, like, the dancing culture that it comes from the,

but right now, like, we do have, like, the rooftop, we do have basement, and we do have, like, the actual restaurant space.

so we are not allowing to dance

they cannot dance but

in Turkey whenever they hear music

they can just stop dancing

but because our

license is eliminating for them

to stop dancing we need to

keep going tell the customer

can you please not sign because they are

putting us in trouble

so this is our

main purpose we came from

also

we do have

a lot of the

customers, like the

Muslim community,

that they are coming over there, they want to have

the wedding, for example.

But our license is not allowing

to them to dance over there.

So this is keeping the...

I mean,

we are doing business and we are

like the...

almost like the 50 people working

over there for our restaurant.

But limiting

the...

like getting more people over there is like just keeping us going down and using the space.

Not like the very...

Yeah.

So it's more cultural.

Correct.

The cultural and even though if it's going to be the nightclub, it's not going to be just regular nightclub.

It's going to be all dress code, like the high-end nightclub as well.

Thank you.

You're welcome.

Thank you.

Any other question?

I don't think I have any other I don't think there are any other questions I

have myself in queue and I think you answered a key component of that so I

don't have any questions for you I'll just say I think it's helpful to

understand kind of like the the purpose of the dancing and the later night

events it sounds like trying to be more of a cohesive event space and also like

you're having people already dance in your restaurant you have to tell them to

stop and I'm trying to create that type of space I will say I have patronized

your business many a time it is like a very lovely sideway cafe great

activation great food and I don't envision this becoming a rowdy nightclub

based off of the restaurant experience that I've had and I also will know like

I asked similar questions as you as Council member Rainville on the safety

plan and it's my understanding it's not like opposite of a recommendation what

is that a denial right it's just not adding a signature and I think it has to

do with the fact that like it's outside of this zone for late night areas that

usually go until 2 a.m. so it's geographical and it's under the

inspectors discretion to choose if they're going to sign off or not sign

off or lieutenant I suppose yeah lieutenant clue cope one thing just to

clue you in sir is moving this forward without recommendation is not a denial

this is just taking it to the next step our next final council meeting is

December 11th and so we just want to I support your motion councilmember Vita

just want to create an opportunity for you and the other businesses and neighbors you have in the

area to have a conversation with business licensing and address any concerns and then also just

ensure that your business is a success and the corridor that it's going to be in continues to

be a success thank you yes next i'll call on councilmember cashman thank you guys chair chowdhury

i just wanted to thank you uh sechkin for doing business on nicola mall and for bringing turkish

food to Minneapolis because we have very little of it. I wish we had more. So thank you so much

for that. And I'll support the motion to move forward without recommendation, but just want to

be clear that I do want to make sure that you can get approval before the new year because we don't

have council meetings until February of next year, end of January. And so this December 11th will be

the last one. So I just want to make sure that you can open and start this as soon as possible

while still considering all the safety needs of the area.

And just wanted to note that it's great to have late-night options on Nicollet Mall

because the Armory is a venue that's not too far away,

and there's not a lot of post-show places to go near the Armory,

and Nicollet Mall is attracting a lot of those customers that just next to you,

you know, Barrio and the local and other pubs.

So I think it's great to add another late-night option to this downtown corridor,

and I look forward to being able to visit the rooftop in the summer.

Council Member Vita.

Thank you, Chair.

I agree, Council Member Cashman.

I, too, want to get this done before the end of the year.

This is not in no way an opportunity to delay this any further.

This is just for us to allow for in conversation.

I also want this business up and operating and moving forward before the year is over.

Great.

Is there any other discussion from committee members?

All right.

Seeing no further discussion, we have Councilmember Vita's motion to recommend this without approval.

All those in favor of the motion say aye.

Aye.

Those opposed say nay.

Nay.

No nays.

The ayes have it, and then the motion carries.

Next is a public hearing on an interim use application submitted by Spencer Agnew at Hennepin County for an emergency shelter at 219 4th Street South.

I will have up Alex Kohlhaas from CPED planning to speak more to this item.

Welcome up, Mr. Kohlhaas.

Thank you, Vice Chair Chowdhury and committee members.

Before you today is an application for an interim use permit to allow an emergency shelter with up to 50 beds as an interim use for the property at 219 4th Street South.

The applicant is Hennepin County, which owns the property and which would operate the shelter in this case until no later than August 31st of 2026.

On the slide here is a photo of the building.

This proposal would involve the main level and basement only and there would be no use of the upper levels above the ground floor for the shelter.

Just showing the zoning map of the property.

This is downtown.

The subject, the parcel is highlighted in red.

This is right across the street from our current location here in the Public Service Center.

The building on that property does take up virtually the entire footprint of the parcel.

Here's some floor plans showing the main level on the front of the building is towards the right.

The main level would primarily consist of common areas, including for shelter guest admittance, showers, and other staff spaces.

Shelter guests would only be admitted to this location through referral by Hennepin County.

and in addition to providing services such as security and cleaning the county

would also have staff available periodically to provide referrals for

guests to other county services. This is the basement floor plan again

showing those 50 beds that are proposed for this emergency shelter. I will note

that for zoning purposes emergency shelter uses allow stays with the length

between 24 hours and six months. As the committee members are aware, all

interim use permit applications are subject to required legal findings as

articulated in the zoning code and that includes some findings specific for

interim use permits in addition to needing to satisfy the findings for

conditional use permits. The staff analysis for all the required findings

is articulated in the staff report. I'm happy to go through any of that in more

detail if anyone is interested but in the interest of time I'll just summarize with the staff

recommendation which is for approval upon finding that all of those required findings would be met

there was one written public comment which was received actually just this morning a letter of

approval from the downtown Minneapolis neighborhood association which should have been forwarded along

for your consideration and I believe Hennepin County has representatives here who can speak

to this application if the committee is interested.

This concludes my presentation but I'm happy to stand for questions.

Thank you, Mr. Kohlhaas.

I will now open up the public hearing for this item.

Would anyone like to speak to this?

We don't have anyone signed up.

All right.

Seeing no one wishing to speak, I will close this public hearing and I will now go to discussion

And I'll first call on Council Member Cashman.

Well, thank you, Vice Chair, and thank you, Mr. Kohlhaas, for the presentation

and for engaging with the DMNA, the Neighborhood Association.

They just had some questions about the different services that would be provided

and what type of folks in our community would be served by the shelter

and how long people can stay.

So thanks for helping get that information to them.

And I'm just very grateful to have this opportunity to serve more families

who are experiencing housing instability.

So I'm going to move this item for approval.

Thank you.

Is there anyone else wishing to speak?

I did have a couple questions for Hennepin County.

I feel like they're short questions, if they're available to answer them.

I'll start off just by saying I took a look through the staff report, and I am very supportive of this conditional use permit.

I think it would just be helpful to hear from Ms. Werder a little bit about kind of what the next steps are once this goes through approval.

This is a family shelter.

How many people anticipated to serve?

And then we can kind of just go from there.

Welcome.

Thank you so much.

So we have, it's a first stop for families.

So we have a shelter-all policy for families in Hennepin County, and the goal is for no child to sleep outside.

So the safe space is really an opportunity to make sure that all families can get in, be triaged, assessed, and then quickly be referred to a private room.

And then additional case management is given at that time.

So this is the location that we're using for right now.

We have the average household size, about 3.5 people.

We have about 10 families in the space on average at any given time, which is about 30 to 35 people.

Families are allowed to stay on site for 24-7, although many families go off-site work, school, life.

But we have staff on site at all times to make sure that if anybody wants to get connected to services or benefits or anything that we're available.

And then, of course, we always talk about housing.

So I'm happy to answer any questions.

But one thing I do want to highlight is that due to this program, we've had zero turnaways since it started.

It was at a different location starting Christmas in 2023.

And since then, we have been able to serve all families that have requested shelter.

And so this program is really important to ensure that that stat remains.

Thank you.

And then once this conditional use permit, if it is approved, what's the next step?

And then what's the timeline for this to come online?

Absolutely. So we are currently there, so we're operating right now, and our plan is to eventually move to a different site. So we're just making sure that we're good neighbors, good partners, and coming here and kind of going through all of the process, but it's a temporary site for right now. So the next steps will be to move to our long-term site eventually, but we never want to interrupt continuity of care or services in the meantime.

Thank you.

That's all the questions from me.

And seeing no further discussion and with the motion for approval before us, all those

in favor say aye.

Aye.

Those opposed say nay.

The ayes have it and the motion carries.

All right.

Next, we have our fourth public hearing item, approving modifications to the tax increment

financing plan for 59 TIF districts. I will welcome up Matthew Hendricks from

Finance and Property Services to speak more on this item. Welcome.

Thank You Vice Chair Chowdhury and committee members. Tax increment

financing often referred to as TIF is a funding tool that cities and counties

may use to support community development. TIF is enabled by state law and the

Minnesota legislature establishes TIF rules and key definitions. TIF law requires that most of the

revenue generated by a TIF district must be spent within the boundaries of the TIF district.

However, some of the revenue may be spent outside the boundaries for certain eligible purposes,

and this is referred to as pooling. In 2021, in the context of a global pandemic and a very

challenging landscape for community redevelopment, the Minnesota legislature passed special legislation

that granted additional flexibility to pool TIF funds. Pursuant to this legislation, the city council

authorized the transfer of just over $17 million from our TIF accounts to support development

through the Affordable Housing Trust Fund. These funds have been awarded to specific affordable

housing projects and will be fully expended by year-end 2025.

To clarify an open question about how this 2021 special legislation should interact with

other technical provisions of Minnesota TIF law, the Office of State Auditor has advised

that the city could update the budgets for TIF districts that made transfers under the

2021 law.

By adding the transfer amounts made by each TIF district to the budget for that district,

these modifications clarify that expenditures authorized by the 2021 special legislation

should be viewed as additions to the budgets of the participating TIF districts.

As a matter of efficiency, we are also updating TIF plan budgets to accommodate potential

future pooling for affordable housing for most active TIF districts.

The addition of budgetary capacity to pool for affordable housing does not mean that

any specific amount will be pooled.

However, having a designated budget line item allows pooling for affordable housing within

the limits of TIF law and based on actual revenues and obligations of each district.

In total, the two actions before you would result in updating 59 TIF district budgets

across two resolutions.

The first resolution covers districts that pooled funds per the 2021 special legislation

and the second resolution covers districts that were not involved in that process.

These resolutions do not appropriate funds to any programs or projects.

Any spending that might be enabled by pooling would be directed by future City Council actions.

That concludes my presentation and I'm happy to stand for any questions.

Thank you so much for the presentation.

With that, I will open up the public hearing.

Would anyone like to speak to this item?

Okay, seeing no one else, no one wishing to speak,

I will close this public hearing and then I will ask council members

if they have any questions.

Okay, we're not seeing any discussion.

And I will move this item for approval.

All those in favor of this motion say aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Those opposed, say nay.

The motion carries.

The item has been moved for approval.

Thank you.

Next, we will have a public hearing approving three Planning Commission appointments.

I'll have Kimberly Helene from CPED planning to briefly speak on this item.

Welcome.

Good afternoon, Vice Chair Chowdhury.

And council members, before you are three reappointments to the Planning Commission.

so Kelly Jones

Dave Shepard

and sorry

are currently serving on the commission

Dave Shepard actually filled a

mid term

appointment and

is coming back for another full term

and Tom Wagner and Kelly Jones

both just completed full terms and are

coming back for another term

due to the length of

today's agenda I offered to just

pass along their thanks

to all of you for being considered. And with that, I can take any questions. Great. Before that,

I will open up the public hearing to see if there's anyone that would like to speak,

call out to the audience. Okay. With that, I will close the public hearing and see if members have

any questions. I'll just very briefly state that these three members are very dedicated. They're

my peers on the Planning Commission and I'm really excited to see them come back

so I'll make the motion to move this for approval seeing no discussion on that

motion all those in favor say aye aye those opposed say nay the eyes have it

and the motion carries all right we're more than halfway through the public

hearings next we have a public hearing for a property assessment for clean

energy located at 222 9th Street South. I'll have up Becky Shaw from CPED to speak more on this item.

Welcome, Becky. Thank you. Good afternoon, Vice Chair Chowdhury and committee members. I'm Becky Shaw from

Business Development. You have before you a request to pass a resolution to adopt and levy an assessment

and adopt the assessment roll for PACE Energy financing at the 222 property located at 222 9th Street South.

You also have before you a request to authorize an amendment to the related joint powers agreement

with the St. Paul Port Authority for the PACE program.

The 222 property is a 41-story commercial building with over 720,000 square feet of rentable space

and four levels of below-ground parking.

The 222 building, through their real estate entity, has requested PACE financing for a

portion of a major retrofitting and energy efficiency improvement project.

The project includes $31.7 million in improvements such as HVAC modifications and replacements,

insulation, lighting, heat recovery, water use, efficiency improvements, automatic energy

control systems, and a new chiller system.

The St. Paul Port Authority administers the PACE program for multiple jurisdictions throughout

Minnesota including the City of Minneapolis.

St. Paul Port Authority has approved $12.5 million in financing for a portion of the

property improvements.

The loan will be repaid through a special assessment placed on the property by twice

annual payments over 30 years starting in January of 2027.

The City of Minneapolis will receive special assessment payments from Hennepin County,

then remit the payments back to St. Paul Port Authority as outlined in the joint powers

agreement between the city and the Port Authority.

In addition, prior to placing the special assessment, the city and St. Paul Port Authority

will execute an amendment to our current joint powers agreement to align with PACE, programmatic,

and eligibility language passed by the Minnesota State Legislature in 2023.

And I do have an individual here from the St. Paul Port Authority.

Thank you so much Ms. Shaw.

With that I will open up the public hearing and see if anyone would like to speak to this

item.

Great.

Seeing no one wishing to speak I will close this public hearing and ask members if they

have any questions or comments for discussion.

Okay.

I am not seeing anyone in discussion so I will move this to the public hearing.

So I will move this item for approval on that motion all those in favor say aye aye

Those opposed say nay the eyes have it and the motion carries

Next we have a public hearing for an amendment to this to the land cells side yard program properties resolution to add

Two properties. I will have Nareen see Avon from CPED housing up to speak more on this item. Welcome

Thank you. Good afternoon

Vice Chair Chowdhury and Council Members, my name is Naren Sihvong.

I am a supervisor with CPED Real Estate Services in the Housing Division.

So I'm here to provide information on the public hearing to consider the amendment to the Land Sill Side Yard Program Properties Resolution

to add two properties, two side yards, we consider, yeah, 1900 Penn Avenue North

and 2756 Queen Avenue North.

They're both in the Fifth Ward, Jordan and Willard Hay neighborhoods.

Some background information.

On January 23rd, 2016, the city council approved the resolution

authorizing the side yard program for sales of certain side yard properties

without identified buyers.

and these side yards are to be sold to the adjacent neighboring property owner.

This public hearing is to consider adding these two properties,

1900 Penn Avenue North and 2756 Queen Avenue North.

That completes my presentation and I can take any questions if there are any.

Thank you, Mr. Siavong.

I will first open up the public hearing and see if there's anybody that wishes to speak to this item.

Seeing no one wishing to speak, I will close this public hearing and see if there's any questions from council members.

Seeing none, thank you for your work on this and the presentation.

I will move this item for approval on that motion.

All those in favor say aye.

Aye.

Those opposed say nay.

The motion carries.

Thank you very much.

Thank you.

All right, public hearing item number eight.

For an ordinance related to requirements with the demolition and wrecking of structures within the building code,

I will have Steve Poore from CPED to come and speak to this item.

Welcome.

Thank you, Vice Chair Chaudry and Council Members.

Steve Poore, Development Services, CPED.

Today and before you, we're going to amend the wrecking permit ordinance.

We had some recent events this year that identified some gaps in maybe public noticing.

So the heart of this ordinance is really to kind of bring it in line with the construction management agreement ordinance.

that gives a broader notice when there's going to be a demolition of a property under the

CMA as we call it.

Single family homes that are going to be demolished send out a 350 foot mailing to the adjacent

properties to let them know what's coming.

Similarly here, we want to give better notice to residents.

We're trying to make a better effort to contact non-property owner residents in the areas

with a particular attention to looking at sites

that may have possible contamination on site

or it had some type of state environmental permit,

an air permit, a local permit,

or that had hazardous waste that had been identified

being stored on the site.

With that, we will partner with our colleagues

in the health department to identify possible sites

that would require extra review to ensure that there's,

to mitigate any environmental nuisance that may occur

from the demolition of the property.

One of the things we learned over the summer is that

we have to monitor high winds.

So we've got a clause in there that talks about

when the winds are exceeding 15 miles an hour

that demolition would need to stop.

And if there's additional mitigation that's required,

plans would be reviewed by the health department

that would be able to place conditions

on the wrecking permit before it's issued.

So that's what I have today,

and I'd be happy to stand for questions.

Before we go to questions,

I will open up the public hearing

to see if anyone would like to speak.

It doesn't look like we have anyone signed up.

Okay, seeing no one wishing to speak,

I will close the public hearing,

and I will call on Council Member Chavez

to speak to this ordinance.

Thank you, Chair Chaudhary,

and thank you for the presentation, Steve.

In 2025, there were some wrecking permits issued for Smith Foundry,

an industrial and commercial site where nearby residents were not aware

of a prior demolition work commencing.

This site had a particular history of environmental concerns

and the demolition process became a great concern for the surrounding communities.

Specifically, there were concerns with residents that the property

surrounding the demolition sites were not given prior notice to the work commencing and that no

information regarding environmental mitigation was available to share. In response to those concerns,

community members, neighborhood associations, folks, and Phillips came together with our city staff

and worked together on an internal work group to come up with recommendations where both our staff

and the community were able to come together to bring this ordinance forward. And I just wanted to

mention that because I think it's important to recognize that both our teams here at City

hall our city staff along with the community members were able to

collaborate on this ordinance to rectify an issue that we identified last year

the proposed amendments are aimed at broadening the notice of a wrecking

permit application being submitted from only noticing immediate adjacent property

owners to the property owners within 350 feet of the subject property the

amendments also enable staff to acquire an environmental mitigation plan when a

structure or the site the building is located on meets certain criteria for

hazardous materials or hazardous waste associated with the subject property.

I appreciate the change with the wind, which can cause more pollution into our neighborhoods,

particularly in Phillips, where the work for this ordinance began. So I just want to thank

our staff for working closely on this. And I also want to give a big shout out to the community who

pushed us all year long on making sure this happened. So I'll move approval of this ordinance.

Thank you, Councilmember Chavez.

And maybe we can amend your motion a little bit to move approval for item number eight

on the agenda to amend the ordinance and return, returning to author of considerations of changes

from chapter 599.

Correct.

Thank you.

Wonderful.

I'll next call on Councilmember Cashman.

Thank you, Vice Chair.

for your work on this, Mr. Porrin, Council Member Chavez. I just had a couple questions

about the amount of demolition permits that this will impact. Does this impact every permit

for a demolition or just a specific type of demolition? Vice Chair Chaudry, Council Member

Cashman. It potentially could affect every wrecking permit that's submitted. It just

depends on where they're at. So we'll work, as I mentioned, we'll try to work on existing

databases, known information about possible contamination. The health department will

review that to see if there's an added mitigation plan that needs to be put in place. If it's

a relatively new building with no history of any contamination, no contamination stored

on site, things like that, it would not require the plan. So that's going to be at a staff

level to make those determinations. We saw a few this year, so we think the change is very well

warranted, and I just want to comment on Council Member Chavez's comment that we did have very

productive and useful discussions with the neighborhood to understand their concerns

and how we can improve the ordinance. So the reason I ask, and I totally understand the Smith

Foundry case was pretty bad and impactful to the neighbors, but I want to make sure that this

doesn't really get in the way of buildings that really do need to come down in a neighborhood,

not wanting to go even get a permit because there's too many steps in that process.

So I want to make sure that it sounds like you're using your discretion and your expertise

to decide which buildings do need to go through these extra steps.

Vice Chair Chowdhury, Council Member Cashman, let me be clear, emergency demolitions due

to a fire or a car going through a building

would not go through this process.

Emergency demolitions are to protect the public safety.

Other structures that were to be fully demolished

require a wrecking permit.

And part of that is because there are things

that are required, there are utility disconnections,

fire suppression systems, water, gas.

So we don't get many people that try to demolish

building without getting a wrecking permit. But the goal of this amendment is to address

existing sites that are likely to or have been identified to have a certain level of

contamination that warms a mitigation plan. Okay. I'm going to support this today. I just

wanted to flag that it would have been great for the Community Environmental Advisory Commission

to be able to take a look at this,

and hopefully next year we can have another round of,

another review of this ordinance for sustainability purposes

because out of all of our zero-waste strategies,

the only one we haven't started is increasing building deconstruction salvage.

And so the SEAC, the Environmental Advisory Commission,

has great ideas about creating some type of notice

so that salvage companies can plan and attend demolitions

and salvage the materials.

And I don't want to hold up this ordinance

from addressing that issue,

but I'm hoping that next year there can be some engagement

about how to address the sustainability issues

involved with the materials that are coming down

as part of a demolition.

Thanks.

Vice Chair Chaudry, Council Member Cashman.

In the past several years,

we've actually looked into this a number of times.

There have been pilot programs that I've been involved with,

and at that time there was not a market that supported the activity.

We've had full deconstruction of homes by certain vendors.

So it's not a new idea.

We are trying to address what we perceive to be a more immediate concern

given that there are, as we've seen with some fires,

there's some older buildings that highly likely have contaminants.

But we are happy to continue that conversation.

We'll see if the market has changed to receive that type of deconstruction

that would make it a viable option.

So thank you.

Will try to try to try to try to try to try try try try try try try try try try try try try try try try try try try try try try try try try try try try try try try try try try try try try try try try try try try try try try try try try try try try try try try try try try try try try try try try try try try try try try try try try try try try try try try try try try try try try try try try try try try try try try try try try try try try try try try try try try try try try try try try try try try try try try try try try try try try try try try try try try try try try try try try try try try try try try try try try try try try try try try try try try try try try try try try try try try try try try try try try try try try try try try try try try try try try try try try try try try try try try try try try try try try try try try try try try try try try try try try try try try try

for structures that have contaminants, that's really, really important.

Does this change tackle any of the penalties that an entity may face

if they do not obtain a wrecking permit?

Vice Chair Chowdhury, we did not address penalties.

We have issued fines.

They escalate fines.

They're much like the AdSite program.

$200 fines, they double and accelerate.

I would say that even on a normal demolition where we don't identify pre-existing conditions, if people see asbestos, things shut down.

Contractors are currently required to look for these things in all cases.

But back to your original question, no, we did not address the fines, and it's something we could look at again.

Yeah.

Thank you.

That's, that's something I would be very interested in like working on that with

you specifically considering how we can like bring up to our current time, uh, what a good

penalty would be for someone to just wreck a building without a permit.

And then also like, what does it mean to have maybe even a higher penalty for a building

that has contamination and that occurs because right now, um, and you and I have

worked on a case like this with a low penalty there it all it can have an

unintended consequence of a contractor perhaps acting in bad faith going ahead

and pursuing the wrecking and not going through the steps and so for creating

more steps I think failing to obtain the the required licenses and permits should

have a higher penalty.

So I would love to work with you and CPED in determining how we can do that in the next

term.

Vice Chair Chowdhury, thank you.

I would just say that when we look at fines, fines are intended to be coercive, not punitive.

And to your point, I think some of those fines do not coerce better behavior.

Yes, precisely.

Okay.

Thank you so much.

Is there anyone else that would like to get into discussion?

I am not seeing anyone else in discussion and we have the motion from Councilmember Chavez before us

on the motion all those in favor say aye aye those opposed say nay the ayes have it and the motion carries

okay now we are on our final public hearing item however there is a quasi judicial hearing item after

this so don't get too excited we have a public hearing on an ordinance and

entitled tenant protections tenant opportunity to purchase which will be

related to the housing code I wish to make some remarks before opening up the

public hearing so thank you to all of our community members and stakeholders

for taking the time to attend our community's business housing and zoning

committee meeting to share public testimony on the proposed tenant

opportunity to purchase ordinance I want to share some remarks on behalf of the

authors of this ordinance councilmember Ellison and council vice president Chuck

tie who do not serve on this committee from them tenant opportunity to purchase

ordinance is not a radical departure as some have suggested. It is a practical proven policy tool

used around the country to curb displacement and create fair opportunities for renters who rarely

get a seat at the table when buildings change hands. Minneapolis renters, particularly low-income

households, black, native, and immigrant families face disproportionate housing instability and

exclusion from home ownership pathways. Tenant opportunity to purchase offers them a meaningful

chance to stay in their homes, build collective power, and in some cases, take steps towards

ownership that the market almost never makes available to them. It is fundamentally an

anti-displacement policy rooted in fairness, stability, and wealth building. While this policy

has been diligently crafted by our teams, stakeholder engagement, community

feedback, and staff buy-in as crucial ingredients in good policy good

policymaking. And this policy is in and in conclusion this policy is in need of

more time beyond this current council term to execute all of the parts that

necessary therefore the co-authors are not recommending a vote to occur by the

end of term and so for this reason others the co-authors have requested

council takes no action at this time meaning we're not going to take a vote

on this today it's going to stay in this committee and through the end of the

term and what does that mean in terms of the functions of this council it means

that this ordinance will be here to the end of the term the term will conclude

on December 11th and then in the next term any returning council members are

able to essentially bring it back through the beginning part of the

legislative process which is noticing and putting it forward through a

committee process with that we aren't receiving a staff presentation however if

members are interested in asking any questions of staff, they are welcome to do so.

I know this may also change some arrangements in terms of the public hearing process.

And so I will call your name and you can let me know if you're planning on speaking or

you don't have to come up to speak if that's a choice that you're making.

But we certainly welcome everyone to still share their comments and thoughts because

It is still valuable commentary feedback for us to carry into the end of this term and

then into future term.

With that, I will now open up the public hearing.

And the first person that I have here is Patience.

Welcome up, Patience.

And everyone will have two minutes to speak.

Good afternoon.

My name is Patience.

I've been a resident in Minneapolis for 27 years.

For 22 of those years I was a renter and five years ago I bought the rental property I'd

been living in from my landlord.

He approached me first.

I have a partner, same exact thing happened to him.

I have a friend that lives down the street, same exact thing happened to him.

I'm telling you this to illustrate that this ordinance is creating nothing new.

All of this already exists.

property owners are already free to sell to their tenants if they want to or

nonprofit what this ordinance does is it now forces rental property owners to

prioritize selling to those the government you guys say it's okay to

sell to you are infringing on the rights of citizens to freely sell their private

property you're putting yourself between private citizens and a free market and

And the last thing every citizen needs is more government overreach and intervention in our lives.

Instead of creating incentives for sellers to approach renters first or nonprofits, you choose force.

I don't believe that any qualified organizations you put together will not be a result of discrimination, palm greasing, and favoritism.

And I'm curious how that process of creating that list of qualified organizations will be created.

So had my landlord not spoken or had not offered me the property first, yes, that would have sucked.

And yes, I would have been very sad.

But it was none of my business who he sold to.

I believe that then and I believe that now.

And it's also none of your business.

And just FYI, I have no skin in this game.

The property I own is exempt from this ordinance, so it affects me neither way.

Thanks.

Thank you.

Next, I will call up Miles Artis.

Welcome.

Good afternoon, Vice Chair Chaudhary, fellow council members.

My name is Miles Artis.

I'm the director of government affairs for the Minneapolis area realtors.

MAR is a trade association with 8,000 members who represent homeowners, current and future homebuyers, sellers, tenants, and landlords.

We appreciate that you are trying to find pathways for homeownership for tenants,

and we are the gateway to homeownership and understand the paths, strategies, and obstacles intimately.

Today, tenants can already inquire about the sale of their building without the tenant protection ordinance.

The real obstacle to buying for most tenants is the difficulty qualifying for mortgages.

Most tenants, once they qualify to buy, choose to buy another more permanent home on the open market.

So what can we do together?

We need to expand our first-time and first-generation down payment assistance program,

expand financial literacy and home buyer education,

and as well as education and assistance programs on how to maintain and keep your home.

We all want to help tenants and all city residents find housing security.

Home ownership provides long-term housing security and affordability.

And today you will hear from realtors on the reasons why you should rethink and oppose this policy.

So let's continue to work together on city programs and advocate together for county, state, and federal programs to help our communities obtain home ownership.

Thank you.

Thank you so much.

Next, I'll call up John Stiles, speaker number three.

Thank you, Vice Chair Chowdhury and committee members.

My name is John Stiles.

I come to you from experience as being a renter in Minneapolis for many years, followed by

being a rental property owner for many years.

In addition to that, I am a realtor who focuses on selling rental properties in the city.

So my concern is simple.

This ordinance makes it extraordinarily difficult to sell a rental property in the city.

A normal sale can take 30 to 60 days.

There are, of course, some variables.

But under this ordinance, the stacked timeframes for tenants and qualified organizations can easily stretch that to eight months or more.

In that time, financing collapses, other buyers walk away, and 1031 exchanges die.

This will accelerate the exodus of good local rental housing providers from our city.

On top of that, this ordinance creates a new valuable right for tenants that did not exist previously.

The minimum $8,500 buyout proves that if a tenant can charge $8,500 to waive their rights, then that value had to come from somewhere.

It came from the existing property owner, and not by choice. It came by force from the city.

This is not fair. It will not be effective, and it will reduce, not expand affordable housing in the city.

So I respectfully urge you to not further consider this ordinance, but rather reconsider other opportunities that are already in place,

and I'd be happy to be a resource for those. Thank you very much.

Thank you very much.

Speaker number four is Ray Peterson.

Hi, my name is Ray Peterson.

I live in Ventura Village neighborhood.

First, I'd like to report that our neighborhood organization opposes the ordinance.

I also oppose the ordinance, and my comments are personal, not from the neighborhood organization.

I do think the ordinance needs a lot of work.

I don't think it can accomplish what it's pretending to do.

mainly because it needs a companion program if tenants and tenant associations are going to be able to use it

that provides access to down payments, access to financing, legal assistance,

training on how to be a property manager, and other technical assistance.

I also think that there's problems with deciding whose qualified organizations are.

We have a number of both profit and nonprofit, low-income housing providers who may qualify for being an organization such as this who are horrible landlords.

And you're not, by allowing these organizations to purchase a property, you're not doing the tenants any good.

So you really need to establish guidelines for who's going to be that and stick to them

and not let some of the ones who you currently allow and actually support to be part of that group.

I also have concerns because it exempts any units that are above Section 8 rental income,

And I think this will concentrate poverty and basically ghettos.

You'll have low-income areas where there won't be enough people to support services like grocery stores.

I think you need to look at where the units that are affected by this ordinance are located

and if there's any geographic and also racial discrimination.

And those are my main points.

I have seven total.

I've submitted them in writing, and they're basically things I think could improve the ordinance or need to be looked at.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Next is Speaker No. 5, Pat Paulson.

Welcome.

Thank you, Vice Chair Chowdhury and Council Members.

I'm Pat Paulson.

past president of the Minneapolis area realtors. Last month, I celebrated my 40th anniversary as

a realtor. That's 40 years of helping tenants become homeowners and helping sellers navigate

the process of selling. I've seen multiple market cycles, and I've watched our city transition from

a majority homeowners to majority renters. I saw investors buy up many single-family homes during

the market downturn 10 to 20 years ago, and I've seen many first-time and first-generation

buyers return to the market in recent years. I warned city staff about the First Look program

rolled out in 2009, which granted the first right to buy foreclosed homes to qualified

organizations, very similar to this proposal. I watched as these organizations used their

unfair advantage to buy hundreds of the best properties before other buyers had a chance.

I've seen a lot in 40 years, but there are some things that I have not seen very much

of. One is tenants buying the property they live in. They're either not ready at the time

or they're not interested. I've seen it maybe five times in 40 years. Another is property

sales causing displacement. Leases are not canceled with a sale. I appreciate that you're

trying to address real problems, but there are better strategies to increase homeownership,

preserve affordability, and reduce displacement. We want to work with you on these efforts.

I urge you not to pass this ordinance. It will cause considerable harm to sellers and buyers

with minimal benefits, and it will add administrative costs to the budget, putting upward pressure on property taxes.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Next is Speaker number six, Connor Carroll.

Vice Chair Chaudry and committee members, my name is Connor Carroll.

I live in Kingfield in the Eighth Ward.

I've been a renter in Minneapolis for ten years,

I'm really comfortable in my apartment now, and I would like to stay there for many more years to come.

And I worry that if my building is sold, then I might be displaced.

And it would mean a lot to be able to stay in my home and have an opportunity to purchase it.

I do like renting, and I live in a one-bedroom apartment, and I would someday like to buy a two-bedroom apartment or a condo.

And about once a year or so for the past decade, I'll go on Zillow and check and see if I can afford a two-bedroom condo in my neighborhood or nearby.

and every time I check it's like okay I can't afford anything is the mortgage

would be two to three times my current monthly rent so maybe someday but in the

meantime I'd be in a much better position to buy my current smaller

apartment which is in an older building and I'd be able to build equity over

time buy a bigger home if my needs change and I think a lot of renters in

Minneapolis are in a similar position and would benefit from this the status

quo is not a free market large corporations and institutional investors

which have benefited from preferential tax treatment and mortgage interest deductions

will always have an advantage over individual renters.

When it comes to buying a property.

A TOPA ordinance would level the playing field.

Finally, I just want to say that I really think TOPA would work well in Minneapolis.

In my nine-bedroom apartment building,

it's very simple to coordinate with my fellow tenants about any number of things,

and I'm confident that we could easily form a co-op and manage the building together.

And I think we would do a better job of it than many landlords.

Thank you for your time.

Of speaker number seven, Jennifer Spadini.

Good afternoon.

Madam Vice Chair Chowdhury, members of the committee, my name is Jennifer Spadini.

I'm a proud resident of the city of Minneapolis, Ward 7.

and I'm a property manager in the Twin Cities area focusing on apartment buildings, 10 units and less.

My first concern is the buyout provision.

The ordinance is a minimum of $8,500 or three months rent.

That's a high floor for a small property owner.

It's also not clear what happens when people share a unit.

This creates confusion leading to risk for both the resident and the property owner.

A simple voluntary agreement would be more appropriate here.

Second, the exemptions.

A five-plus unit is only exempt if it has had no units at or below 50% of area median income for the last five years.

That means if you have one resident that's long-term, lower-rent resident in a market-rate building, that would trigger full ordinance.

The messaging to the small owner is raise the rent or you will be penalized.

That's all for my comments.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Next we'll have up speaker number eight, Will O'Keefe.

Welcome.

Thank you, Vice Chair Chaudry and Council Members.

My name is Will O'Keefe, and I serve as the Ward 8 representative on the Housing Advisory Committee for the city.

While I strongly support the goals of promoting tenant stability and expanding homeownership opportunities,

I can't support this ordinance in its current form.

The Housing Advisory Committee did meet.

We had a long time to discuss.

We didn't have quorum, so there was no official vote taken.

But there was a lot of time that went into the analysis of this, even though there was very little information provided and there were no authors in attendance.

Beyond that, we have seen that existing programs are effective in the city.

We should be putting more resources into those proven programs rather than creating new untested ones.

The TOPA model is an interesting question that the authors have suggested as proven successful.

If you look at the DC Policy Center's report, that is not the case.

That has a longstanding tradition, a 40-year-old policy with very limited success.

We also have an interesting question on stakeholder engagement.

When COPA and TOPA came up previously, there was a lot of conversations with nonprofits,

the vast majority of which said they do not have the budget or the capacity to expand their scope

beyond what it is today.

Who wants this program?

Who's going to serve as a qualified organization?

There have been other people to speak

on the proposed inefficiency of the stack timelines.

I would also argue in listening to city staff

during the Housing Advisory Committee meeting.

It was also clear that there hasn't been a budget

or a fiscal note study done, nor an analysis

on the impact of the city staffing.

So thank you very much.

Thank you.

Next, I'll call up speaker number nine, Stacy N.

Welcome up.

Thank you.

Greetings, vice chair and members of the committee.

My name is Stacy Niemeyer.

I serve as a senior vice president of property management

at Bader Management.

We're a multi-generational family-owned real estate firm founded in 1964, managing multi-family housing around the Twin Cities.

Today we manage nearly 15,000 apartment units, and they run the gamut from tax credit properties to NOAA to luxury across apartments, townhomes, senior communities, and student housing.

Bader Management strongly supports the goal of promoting tenant stability and expanding home ownership opportunities in Minneapolis.

However, after careful review, we have significant concerns about the ordinance as currently proposed.

We do not believe it will achieve its intended outcomes.

While there's a number of things I find concerning with the ordinance,

I believe the long timelines central to the plan are particularly problematic both for property owners and for management staff.

The sale process will easily be delayed by 6 to 12 months, which will make it exceedingly difficult to line up financing,

complete 1031 exchanges that are within legally required time frames, or even respond to a volatile interest rate market.

These delays don't just affect the owners, they stall reinvestment in the properties,

they delay improvements for our residents, and discourage lenders from working in Minneapolis

housing.

Beyond that, the proposed durations would create a great deal of uncertainty for property

management staff and the residents that aren't involved in the purchase.

Worse, there's no reason to believe that this will lead to increasing rates of home ownership

and preserving and or expanding affordable housing.

We share the goal of tenant stability,

but without realistic timelines,

this ordinance risks reducing housing investment

rather than expanding their opportunities.

Thank you very much.

Thank you.

Next we'll have speaker number 10, Karen Nielsen.

Thank you. Thank you, Vice Chairman, committee members. My name is Karen Meika Nielsen.

I'm the incoming Vice Chair for the Government Affairs Committee with the Minneapolis Association

of Realtors. I want to start by saying we all share the same goals here. We want housing

stability, we want renters to feel secure, and we want to preserve affordability in our city.

Do you mind backing up from the microphone, please? Just a little bit. Thank you.

Absolutely. But the path of this ordinance

takes a heavy, excuse me, but the path this ordinance takes puts a heavy

and I would say unrealistic burden on property owners.

Under this proposal, a seller may have to wait through a very long

series of steps. 14 days,

30 days there, 60 days for negotiation, 90 days to close, and then the right of first

refusal. And after that, the process starts again for a qualified organization, which

we still don't have a clear criteria for. If you add up all of this, a sale could easily

be tied up for months. For many sellers, that's simply not possible. People sell because

they're going through foreclosure, they're dealing with a health issue, they're facing

a divorce or a breakup of an LLC. They need to move quickly and predictably. And as we

all know, real estate markets don't stand still. Conditions can change dramatically

while someone is forced to wait. We genuinely respect the intention behind TPO, but as written,

It shifts all the uncertainty and financial risk onto the sellers, many of whom are already

under stress.

So we are asking the committee to reconsider this version.

Let's slow down, bring more stakeholders to the table, and find a balanced approach that

helps tenants without creating massive hardship for property owners.

Thank you for listening.

Thank you.

Next, I'll call up speaker number 11, Jessica S.

Welcome.

Thank you, Vice Chair, Council Members.

My name is Jessica Cheminski, and I'm a policy attorney from the Housing Justice Center and a homeowner in Ward 9.

Housing Justice Center appreciates the city creating opportunities and pathways for renters to stabilize their homes and build community ownership.

The time to pass this policy was yesterday. Minneapolis renters have been pushing for this

for over seven years, and countless properties are being lost to corporate interests in the

meantime. TOPA policies have a proven track record of success. In D.C., an average of over 1,100

affordable units were preserved or created each year from 2006 to 2020. Naysayers of TOPA will

claim that the policy doesn't work but the numbers show otherwise. We support

the passage of this policy but urge the council to implement several improvements

that will make TOPA actually effective for the Minneapolis renters who need it

most. First we encourage the council to remove the complicated affordability

based exemptions currently included in the draft ordinance. All Minneapolis

renters deserve the opportunity to purchase. No other TOPA or COPA policy

in the country exempts buildings based on affordability levels and Minneapolis should

not set that precedent. This exemption creates confusion, narrows impact and undermines the

core goals of the policy. If the council is implementing affordability based exemptions,

then a rent registry would be essential in implementation. Second, we ask that the policy

language is clear and easy to understand for everyone. With straightforward rules and strong

enforcement mechanisms so renters and landlords alike know that their rights

and obligations know what their rights and obligations are leaving no room for

confusion or loopholes and finally topa policies are most impactful when paired

with robust supports for tenants we urge the council in the city to pair topo

with dedicated funding and resources for tenant organizing and legal assistance

grants and affordable financing to help with acquisitions and rehabilitation and

long-term technical support for sustainability. Thank you. Thank you so

much. Next I'll call up speaker number 12, Kathy Bennett. Thank you, Vice Chair

Chowdhury and members of the committee. My name is Kathy Bennett. I'm the

executive director of Twin Cities Housing Alliance. We are a coalition of over a

100 housing providers who are deeply committed to preserving and expanding housing affordability

in the city of Minneapolis. However, we believe the proposed TOPA ordinance will work against

the goals of maintaining quality housing and preventing displacement. The ordinance risks

slowing property sales, discouraging investment, and making it harder to maintain and improve

affordable homes. The ordinance also places heavy burdens on the nonprofit providers who lack the

resources to acquire properties at the scale envisioned. The real barriers for tenants are

financing and support, not the first right to purchase. Instead, we urge the city to strengthen

proven programs like the Voluntary 4D Initiative, invest in first-time buyer resources, and fully

leverage existing policies and programs. We thank the authors for not moving this ordinance forward

and would welcome the opportunity to meet with council members to discuss ways to increase

housing supply, ensure that the existing housing stock is quality, safe, and secure,

and also evaluate ways to strengthen opportunities for tenants to purchase. Thank you for your time.

Thank you. Next, I'll call up speaker number 13, Kyle S.

Welcome.

Thank you, Vice Chair and Council Members. My name is Kyle Sinochinski. I am the incoming chair of the Governmental Affairs Committee at the Minneapolis Association of Realtors.

and we oppose this ordinance. We feel that we have very similar goals to be

accomplished but we don't think that this ordinance is the way to accomplish

those things. This ordinance is going to cause a lot of harm to sellers as

well as buyers. The sellers with the extended timelines that this is going to

cause transactions. The survey of thousands of home sellers by the

the National Association of Realtors found that 15% of sellers had a very urgent need

to sell quickly and another 42% had a somewhat urgent need to sell within a few months. So

this having significant time delays would put sellers at risk as well as this harming

buyers. In reality, most buyers don't purchase their rental home, although those rentals

typically go to the open market, the landlord can offer that sale to the buyer or to the

renter. But because of oftentimes they don't buy their home and so this ordinance basically

goes into a qualified organization and in 2009 they passed the qualified organization,

first option to purchase and because of that they bought up all the best properties and

took inventory, much needed inventory off the market.

So it provides less inventory for buyers and it creates an unneeded burden on sellers to

sell.

So thank you.

Thank you.

Next I'll call up speaker number 14th, Cecil Smith.

Thank you.

Our Vice Chair and members of the Committee, my name is Cecil Smith.

I reside in Ward 1 and I am President and CEO of the Minnesota Multi Housing Association.

I appreciate the opportunity to testify today.

Today, MHA is strongly opposed to the ordinance because the net effect does not help renters

and does lasting damage to the Minneapolis housing market.

I want to highlight two serious problems with this ordinance as proposed.

The timelines mean that a standard transaction that can now be executed in 30 to 60 days

could be pushed out to almost a year.

This inability to close transactions in a timely fashion would severely limit the buyer

pool.

Furthermore, aggressive enforcement tools, including rescission of transactions, will deter buyers and even title insurers.

The result of these two factors is lower sales prices, a long-term erosion of quality housing, and a shift of property taxes onto homeowners.

I urge the committee to disavow TOPA.

It is a policy that does not work and would limit future housing opportunities in our city.

Thank you.

Thank you. Next I'll call up speaker number 15, Nils Snyder.

Welcome. Good afternoon. My name is Nils Snyder. I'm standing up as a small

business owner. I own and operate multi-family units in Minneapolis but I'm

also a real estate broker. This ordinance as written covers all units from a

single-family to multi-family buildings. It is crazy to think that this that

small buildings like a house or a duplex that already go through a typical sale

process would be burdened by a time-consuming process that is

fraught with errors and potential challenges. As an example I owned a

single-family home for over 12 years to the same family and every year I begged

them to buy it and they said no and I did not sell it until they left because

I did not want to displace them. As a real estate broker, this ordinance will

cause significant issues. It will push out timelines further and it will greatly

impact the sale process. I'd like to make sure you understand that the sale

process, when we market a property, we engage with the community and potential

buyers and reach out to all potential buyers we can identify. As a purchaser

is identified, there's multiple rounds of offers. The process goes into multiple rounds

of negotiating a sales agreement. After the purchase agreement is signed, the due diligence

process starts. Many times as due diligence takes place, more and more negotiations take

place based upon the process and this ordinance each and every time would make the negotiation

process go back to the start. I have seen the sale process even have a final

negotiation at the closing table, meaning that you'd have to again reopen the

entire process again. This ordinance also makes me question if the City of

Minneapolis really wants small owners to operate housing. The ordinance is full of

issues and requires owners to lawyer up to make sure they don't run a follow of

the law. While large owners and corporations have these resources, small owners like me

do not. I would think that you would prefer small owners who have a stake in our community

rather than large corporate owners.

Thank you. Next, I'll call up speaker number 16, Regan R. Welcome.

Thank you.

Good afternoon, everybody.

My name is Reg Enrique, and I'm here in my capacity as Homelines Managing Organizer, as well as a facilitator of Housing Justice League.

I'm here mainly to speak about the importance of a strong community-influenced TOPA for Minneapolis renter.

This is a city where over half the population is renting, and that number is only increasing every year.

Creating opportunities for people to own their own homes outside of traditional

pathways is integral to supporting a thriving Minneapolis that works for us

now and in the future. I have talked with hundreds of renters across the city and

as it stands many of them do not see a pathway that offers stability in their

housing or communities. They understand that the housing market in Minneapolis

is not meant for them as renters or future homeowners. On the other hand, there

are a number of people in this city who have deep pockets and an interest in not

having their business ventures and profit margins, known to us renters, as our homes, interrupted by

the inconvenience of the people that live there. The opposition has been saying that TOPA will put

undue burden on sellers, but the reality is that the speed of the market is leading to increased

corporate speculation in this city and community harm. We have a choice as a city. Build a system

to support local ownership or sacrifice renters in the name of market efficiency. We believe in

the right for renters to remain in their homes, not the right to profit as quickly as possible?

Are we going to continue putting short-term potential profits over people's ability to

set down roots and contribute not only financially, but to the development and prosperity of

Minneapolis for decades to come? Topo was necessary 10 years ago, and it will be necessary

10 years from now. This policy, as is, is a strong foundation for the future of Minneapolis that the

residents in this administration wants to support.

But every resident in Minneapolis deserves access to this opportunity.

It needs to be clear and legible to the public and have strong community engagement that

actually reflects what people are asking for.

And we've heard a lot that it does not reflect that right now.

And we are asking that every member here, council member here, bring that to Minneapolis

in the future.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Next I'll call on speaker number 17, Juan Luis R.

Good afternoon.

My name is Juan Luis Rivera-Rez.

I'm a coalition organizer with the Alliance for Metropolitan

Disability and also one of the 15 member organizations of the

House and Justice League.

I'm here to speak as a voice for the desire for a stronger

tenant opportunity to purchase.

We know that the desire and the dream of owning one's home is one that many renters, especially

BIPOC renters, have had for generations.

We recognize that we are the only ones that have the vested interest in truly assuring

that we can continue to live our lives in our homes and that those homes are safe and

dignified.

We also know that we have never benefited from the realities of trickle-down economics

and understand that our viability comes from our ability to come together to be organized

and demanding the realities that we want to see.

Minneapolis has been a city for generations

that has recognized whether it's in housing,

grocery stores, cafes, and many more,

that cooperatives and collective ownership

are vital for our communities to thrive.

And ensuring that we have the tools necessary

to preserve our longstanding stability

and combat displacement.

This idea that tenants have no way

to cooperatively own or purchase a building

is a false narrative that can easily be disbunked

with 10 minutes of research.

There are dozens of housing cooperatives in the city of Minneapolis alone that have existed successfully for decades.

They are located in almost every ward and are tailored to the needs of the folks that live there.

Thank you for your time.

Thank you so much.

Next I'll call up speaker number 18, Andrew Falstrom.

Welcome.

I won't read anything, so I'll try to make it more interesting.

Right now, your city Minneapolis is under federal occupation and siege and their target is Somali and Latino immigrants who are renters.

Council member Chavez was out on the streets late last night. This morning, we need to support our people.

I've helped renters buy their homes.

I've sat across from one of the lauded landlords in this city, Steve Friends,

a friend of Cecil, a friend of the Hornigs,

at his church downstairs when he said,

I will never sell to my tenants.

Doing so is evil and comes from the devil and it's socialism.

Those are his words.

He would not accept any sale to the people who paid him money year after year just because he had the privilege of buying more homes than he could use.

I've sat with my neighbor, Miss Linda, whose landlord tried to walk away from the sale of her home to her after she had lived there 18 years.

If you choose to prioritize and listen to the people who have the privilege, small business owners or not, to own more homes than they will need in their lifetimes or their family's lifetimes over the needs of the people in the city who own zero property and who are just begging at the chance to own their homes, the places that they live in, that they contribute to, that they are paying for, you are missing out on every single opportunity.

I am a property owner and manager here in Minneapolis.

I am here today to urge you to take the opportunity to advance equity and to support the people of this city that most need it.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Next I'll call on our last signed up speaker, Bernadette Homus.

Good afternoon.

owner and manager here in Minneapolis and I'm here today to urge you to take

to table this ordinance and idea not only through the end of the year but

permanently. I believe this ordinance will not accomplish what you want to

accomplish and what the speaker before me just indicated that he wanted to

accomplish which I think is a laudable goal. We do want wealth building, we want

equity and we want renter projections. However owning apartment buildings is a

a lot of work and it's fraught with risk. Often buildings, especially older buildings,

change hands when significant capital investment is needed. Saddling new buyers with capital

intensive buildings in cooperation with an unknown number of virtual strangers is a disastrous

model that will not set up owners for success. Frankly, if you can't afford a mortgage on

a condo or a co-op, which are existing vehicles here in the city, you're not going to qualify

for a mortgage on an apartment building, not to mention the funding required for additional

capital needs like roofs, boilers, and taxes. Renting is, and I know obviously I'm in favor

of renting, but renting is within, is the ultimate protection in that you pay a fixed

rent for a fixed period of time. I can tell you that owning older buildings is not, does

not guarantee that you're going to have a fixed payment for a fixed period of time.

A boiler that cost $30,000 years ago now cost upwards of $70,000.

It is not a leap to say that collectives will not have the financial wherewithal to care for these precious housing resources as a group.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Is there anyone else that has not signed up to speak that would like to speak?

I'll call one more time. Is there anyone else that would like to speak that has not gotten a chance to speak?

Okay. Seeing no one else willing to speak, I will now close the public hearing and go to discussion.

First, I will call on Council Member Vita.

Thank you, Chair. I'm not asking to discuss the issue.

I really just wanted to make a motion to return it to the author.

I don't understand what your motion is,

but I'd like to just try at least to return it to the author.

Thank you.

I will say there's not a motion.

I did not make a motion on the table.

The action that I want to take is no action and leaving it in committee.

Okay.

So it just would not go to full council.

And this is me being a good colleague and honoring the wishes of the authors.

And that's what I would like to do today in committee.

So I won't be supporting returning to author today.

But just wanted to give you a little further clarification on what the non-action is.

Okay.

Yeah.

I got it.

So I would like to make that motion, though.

Great.

I will next.

Second.

Second.

Second.

Okay.

thank you well now we have the motion before us to return back to author and

so that's what we'll be discussing discussing but we also have the public

hearing and everything beneath it so I'll go to councilmember Chavez I think

sure I just wanted to talk about the ordinance yep okay great so one I want

to thank community members for showing up today speaking about the tenant

Opportunity to Purchase Act. I will be supporting the recommendation by the chief authors of this ordinance, not because I don't want to take action on the Tenant Opportunity to Purchase Act. In fact, I think we needed to pass this policy years ago.

I can tell by the folks in this room that the real estate lobby and the landlord lobby have clearly showed up into this room.

And what I have noticed is that the real estate lobby and the landlord lobby likes to come to City Hall to advocate against rental protection policies,

whether it's pre-eviction policies, whether it's against being pro-raising your rent, coming in to being against rental protection policies in the city of Minneapolis.

So I'm not really surprised to hear folks in this room advocate against renter protections that are meant to keep people in their homes.

I think the reason that I am a big advocate of the Tenant Opportunity Purchase Act is for a variety of reasons.

One of the reasons being that it is meant to be an anti-displacement policy.

It is meant to keep people in their homes.

I think about Ms. Linda, who was almost forced to leave her home.

and you had Powderhorn Park neighbors come together, fundraise, and help keep Ms. Linda in her home.

Neighbors would not have to do that should we had a strong Tenant Opportunity to Purchase Act policy

in place by this city of Minneapolis.

And instead, what happened is neighbors had to fundraise thousands of dollars

to make sure that a resident of the Powderhorn Park neighborhood who had been there for years

did not get displaced and thrown out her own home.

I think about the number of immigrant neighbors that I have heard about them being kicked out of their own building, even in part of Horn Park and across Ward 9, and then having to have no place to go.

So for me, the tenant opportunity to purchase act should have passed years ago.

I'm sad that we're not taking action on that today, but I understand that we need to work with community to make this stronger, make it more effective.

but I didn't want my vote being misconstrued with agreeing with the landlord or real estate lobby.

It is to agree with the community that we can work on improving this ordinance,

not say that we're never going to touch this again because, in fact, we should have done this a long time ago.

So with that, I'll support keeping this in committee, but I wish we would have taken action.

Thank you.

Thank you, Council Member Chavez.

Next, I'll go to Council Member Jenkins.

Thank you, Madam Chair.

You know, I really wasn't going to speak because I think a lot of the concerns that I have have been spoken today, a lot of concerns that I have with this ordinance.

However, you know, I just do think it's unfair to categorize some of the testimony that we've heard today as the landlord, lobby, et cetera.

We heard from very small business owners or property owners who provide affordable housing for tenants.

in that this would significantly create problems for them

when they try to sell their single-family home, one- to four-unit buildings.

And we should listen to those folks.

Clearly the authors have heard these concerns and are willing to go back and try to work on this ordinance to make it more reasonable.

You know, I hear about Ms. Linda, who I know very well, known for decades.

Had this ordinance been in effect at the time, she would not have been able to purchase the house.

She didn't have the resources.

That's why the neighborhood community members had to come together and help to build those resources.

It would have been the same thing with TOPA.

Someone would have had to come forward and help her raise the money.

So the ordinance doesn't make a difference.

Whether or not I literally have my house up, my two-family home up for sale,

I asked both tenants, do they want to purchase it?

They said no.

So, you know, TOPA is not going to solve the affordability crisis.

More housing support for people to purchase homes is what we need to do,

and we need to build more affordable units.

That's how we solve this problem.

I put myself in queue, and I wanted to speak to this.

So I'll be supporting keeping this in committee, um, as the wishes of the

authors, I think that's a fine thing for us to do.

I also had wished that we were able to have a robust discussion and take some

action on this today.

I know that community members have been working on this ordinance, not just for

a long time in this term, but since 2018, 2019, I, I remember when, um,

Councilmember Fletcher, who I work for, was one of the authors for Tenant Opportunity to Purchase

and had brought in experts from Washington, D.C. to kind of speak to how the policy worked there.

And so this has been a long-time conversation.

And I think a truism about housing affordability and displacement is there's not just a singular solution

that is going to solve the problem, right?

We need a constellation of tools that give everyday people, working people, more collective power.

And I think I got a chance to celebrate the saving of Miss Linda's house.

And what we're trying to create, what I think in the city of Minneapolis needs,

is a way for everyday people to come together to build up those collective resources.

I think it's important to create spaces where it's not relied on an individual to stay home.

I think a home is a human right and your community should be a part of making sure that you have a home to stay in.

And that's what I believe is the spirit of tenant opportunity to purchase.

And I think we can go back and forth about different anecdotes of tenants that said that they would not be willing to purchase or would be willing to purchase.

but there are many that would, given the opportunity and given the tools and given the

collective resources. It's looking at creating a different model of how we keep people in our

community, and we create more wealth-building opportunities that stay here, that is neighbor

to neighbor and does not have a large bank right in between it, and I think there is a lot of work

still to be done and that was really clear through the decision by the authors and I'm

hopeful that we'll continue to have a robust conversation next year and more meetings and

really, really go through what's possible and create a foundation for what we can get

done because I would like to not have nothing done for the next four years.

I would like us to start building the blocks that we need necessary and really continue to think through what does it mean to not just look at housing as a commodity and a profit model, really something that belongs here in the community and is a right of all people.

And I'll also just say, like, the free market as a status quo is not one that is balanced towards everyday people and working people.

And I think there was someone that gave a testimony specifically to that point, right?

working people, renters, immigrants, people who do not have generational wealth,

or maybe have a collection of different experiences that have led them to being

lower income or struggling with death. They're up against large organizations and groups that

have access to capital, influence, relationships, lawyers, ways to navigate these really complex,

and I would say purposefully complex systems that cut them out from opportunities,

one, to get a chance to build their own wealth, but also just to stay in their own community.

And that is something that we're going to have to tackle in the city of Minneapolis more and more,

especially as we're seeing the cost of living continue to rise.

And we can't just rely on us building new apartment buildings as a mode of keeping the rents down

because that's only going to last for so long as we're seeing in other cities across the country.

And this is also decades and decades of conversations of people who have struggled

trying to figure out how they can have a chance to just be in a connected community to feel safe.

And that's the spirit of tenant opportunity to purchase.

And so I'm looking forward to the further conversations that we have.

I'm not going to be able to support this motion today.

I think I've made my point clear on why I'm deciding to do so.

So thank you to everyone that came and testified and reached out.

Really appreciate the conversation.

And next I'll go to Councilmember Vita.

Thank you, Chair.

I really just wanted to take the time to thank everyone who came today,

the advocates on both sides.

I was not going to be supporting TOPA. But I do appreciate the advocates who took time to talk to me about, and that's either, you know, meetings here or for months.

Folks have been reaching out on both sides of this. I do appreciate folks taking the time to advocate for it.

I think it's important that people on both sides get to speak and that they come here to get to speak.

Rather, you're a small business owner, a lobbyist, a large business owner, whomever you are.

I really do think you should be able to come here and speak on the matter on either side that you want to speak or say whatever you want to say about it.

I also think it's important to acknowledge that we have lobbyists here at the city of Minneapolis who go out and carry our legislative agenda and speak on our behalf.

And I hope that they're welcome into environments and they get to speak on behalf of our legislative agenda.

So, you know, I know there's been some disparaging comments made.

And I just want to be clear that I appreciate the comments that folks got up and took the time out of their day to come and speak for two minutes and hope that a buzzer doesn't go off before you get to make your comments.

Thank you all so much for sitting through this very long last meeting of this term and taking the time to speak.

And as you've heard, there's not going to be any action.

There's a motion, and I would love for us to begin the vote on that motion.

Is there anyone else that wants to get into discussion for the motion to return to author?

Okay.

I'm not seeing anyone else.

So on Council Member Vita's motion to return to author, I will have the clerk call the roll.

Council Member Vita.

Aye.

Cashman.

No.

Jenkins.

Aye.

Chavez.

No.

Vice Chair Chowdhury.

No.

There are two ayes and three nays.

All right.

That motion fails, and so we're back to just leaving it in committee,

which means we'll just move forward to the next item.

I did want to say thank you to everyone for sitting through this long portion of the meeting

and coming and taking time out of your day to come to City Hall and testify.

Stay warm out there.

It's really cold.

All right.

The next item is our last hearing item.

It's a quasi-judicial item.

It's a conditional use permit appeal, site plan review appeal,

and an administrative height increase appeal,

all submitted by Thomas DeVink.

I will have Lindsay Silas from CPED Planning up here

to speak more to this item.

Welcome, Lindsay.

Thank you.

Good afternoon, Vice Chair Chaudhry, members of the committee.

my name is Lindsay Silas with CPED Planning I'm here today to present an

appeal related to a four-story building proposed at 4109 and 4113 Sheridan

Avenue South there are two components to this appeal one piece being an appeal of

the City Planning Commission's decision and one piece being an appeal of an

administrative decision the site in question is a two parcels in the Linden

Hills neighborhood fronting on Sheridan Avenue South these are in the corridor

three built form overlay district which allows three stories by right and up to

four stories with the provision of a premium the rear of the lot as you can

see on the zoning map there is located in the Shoreland overlay district but is

on the very edge of the boundary so is approximately 1,000 feet away from

protected waters the applicant has proposed to demolish the existing duplex

and detached garage and construct a new four-story residential building with 13

dwelling units there are a couple of different pieces of this as I mentioned

so the City Planning Commission approved two applications related to this on at

its meeting on November 3rd that was a conditional use permit to increase the

height of the portion of the building that's located in the Shoreland overlay

district from two and a half to three stories and site plan review and then

there were two administrative applications that were part of that

project one was an administrative increase to the floor area ratio and one

One was an administrative increase to the height at the front of the building from three

to four stories.

As those were administrative applications, they were approved by staff, and the height

increase application was appealed as part of the current appeal.

And so the appeal encompasses those three applications.

The administrative FAR increase was not touched by the appeal.

So the site in question is shown in the aerial here.

And I'll just briefly go through the plans.

There are 26 parking spaces proposed in an underground garage to serve the 13 dwelling

units located in the four stories of the building.

And this is the first floor, second floor, third floor, and then fourth floor plan just

has the one unit on it.

And you can see on the plan, if you look closely, there's a diagonal line showing where the

the Shoreland overlay district cuts through the property.

And here's some elevations that I'll just go through quickly,

showing the setbacks and orientation of that fourth floor,

which is really limited to that front portion of the building.

And a rendering submitted by the applicant.

So the appeal was filed of the administrative height increase.

And this is a unique property because of the location of the Shoreland

overlay district cutting through the site.

So some of the findings for an administrative height increase and for the conditional use permit to increase the height in the shoreline overlay district are extremely similar.

And you will see that in the staff report.

But I will kind of just briefly touch on the fact that an administrative height increase is something that's allowed by the zoning code as long as a property is in a district that allows it and as long as a premium is provided.

And so the applicant has proposed to comply with the environmental sustainability climate resiliency premium subsection B

Which is the provision of not less than 50% of the building's energy usage as renewable energy either by on-site solar production or renewable energy credits

Those things are worked out later in the process

But that is what the applicant has proposed as part of the height increase and so staff approved that

Administrative height increase for that front portion of the building

The conditional use permit then is required for that rear portion of the building.

The maximum height in the Shoreland Overlay District is 2 1⁄2 stories or 35 feet.

The applicant has proposed a height increase from 2 1⁄2 to 3 stories, and then the overall height from 35 feet to 40 feet 6 inches.

and conditional uses are those that are allowed as long as the conditions are met and gives the

city that additional oversight. However, conditional uses must be allowed where they do

meet those standards and so denial of conditional use permits must be based on real documented harms

that cannot be mitigated through the use of conditions. And so just kind of paint the picture

here of a building that is three stories at the front and two and a half stories at the rear

would be permitted. So the conditional use permit is just to increase the height of the rear of the

building from that two and a half to three stories. And then the administrative height increase is to

increase the height at the front of the building from three to four stories. There's no conditional

use permit or variance required for that front portion increase. That is just administrative,

and they're able to do that because they are providing a premium.

Staff was able to make all of the findings for the conditional use permit. The building footprint,

the building orientation, the setbacks, all of that is complying with the zoning code.

And staff did not find that there would be any offsite impacts or undue harm of increasing the

height of that rear portion of the building by that half a story and five and a half feet.

And then to touch on some of those specific height-related findings, there is a provision

about impact on adjacent properties and solar energy systems.

And so some of the slides in this presentation will go into the shadow studies that were submitted by the applicant.

As I mentioned, this is corridor three here, so three-story buildings are permitted.

A three-story building would only require a five-foot side yard setback,

and the applicant has proposed a four-story building, but that it would have nine-foot side yard setbacks.

and they've done some modeling showing the proposed height increases compared to buildings that did not require height increases.

And their findings were that there would be no additional shadowing on the adjacent solar energy system on the building immediately to the north.

And that allowed staff to meet the findings for that height increase,

that the proposal does further comprehensive plan goals and is not causing those additional shadowing impacts.

So I don't know how well you can see these shadow studies on your screens there.

This is three modeled buildings with the proposed building here at the left of the screen and

then the two modeled buildings that would be allowed by right in the middle and to the

right.

And so the building that the applicant has proposed has additional height, but it also

has additional setbacks.

And as you can see in the models, those additional setbacks are mitigating that additional height

as far as shadowing impacts go on that neighboring solar energy system immediately to the north.

And there are shadow studies for various points in the year.

I'll just go through them quickly.

But you can see that there's almost no difference whatsoever between the different modeled buildings,

the two buildings that would be allowed by right and then the one building that is proposed

that has the administrative height increase

and the CUP for the additional height as well.

And then Site Planner View was also required

for the building.

There were only two requests for alternative compliance

as part of Site Planner View.

One was for building placement.

The building is proposed to be set back farther

than 15 feet from the front property line

in order to align it with other properties on the street

and then to give more relief for vehicular and ADA access,

staff recommends granting alternative compliance

for that request.

There was another alternative compliance request

for blank walls, and staff recommended compliance,

so to remove that blank wall.

Besides that, there was no additional request

for alternative compliance.

Staff recommends that the biz committee deny the appeal,

and that concludes my presentation.

I'm happy to stand for any questions.

Thank you so much, Ms. Silas.

We'll start by opening up the public hearing.

But before that, I'll just say I will be giving the appellant

and applicant each seven minutes to address the committee.

And after that, anybody else that wants to speak

will be given two minutes to address the committee.

And if you are planning on speaking,

and if you haven't signed up yet, please go to our clerks

and sign up over there.

So now we'll formally open this public hearing

and take comments and I will first welcome up the appellant.

Welcome.

Good afternoon, Vice Chair Chowdhury,

members of the City Council.

I'm Tom DeVink, I'm the attorney for the appellant,

the Linden Hills Community Coalition.

And the coalition would ask that the matter

be sent back to planning. My client's not against the project. We're against some aspects of the

project, and we'd like it to be in conformity with the existing code, but without the conditional

use permit. That's objectionable to the coalition, and we think the administrative height increase,

which adds an entire floor to the project right on Sheridan Avenue, is objectionable at this phase

of the project, we don't think it's been earned. This project proposes a 13-unit condominium with

26 underground parking spots. It asks too much. It asks too much, and it gives too little,

and it's earned too little under the code. Specifically, the applicant failed to meet

the criteria that you would need to get a conditional use permit, and specifically failed

to meet the special criteria, the additional criteria that apply when you're trying to get

a conditional use permit in the shoreland overlay district. It's a special protected area.

And when we look at conditional use permits, you know, these are when you're building something

that you don't have a right to build. You have to kind of make it fit better, right? That's the

north star. The overarching question is, does it fit? Because we're making it bigger than it should

be. So we look at the massing of it, the scaling of it, and here the impact on the use and

enjoyment of the neighboring properties. And I will sort of defer and rely upon some of the

neighbors to the project who are here this afternoon to talk about the impact. But suffice

it to say that the applicant did not satisfy that criteria. They sort of glossed over what the

increase in size would mean. A legal build here would be three stories on Sheridan and two and a

half on the back side of the project, which is in the shoreland overlay. And instead, we're dealing

with four stories on Sheridan and three stories on the back on the alley side of the building.

And in reaching that conclusion that these increases in the project size were appropriate,

planning, which narrowly approved this, by the way, the vote was only 4-3, and really at the

hearing it seemed that some members of the Planning Commission really wanted some more time on this,

specifically because of the increase in the Shoreland Overlay District, and the many residents

who spoke about the impact this would have. It's a corridor of single-family homes that's

experiencing transition. And specifically on conditional use permits, they talk about

is the increase in height appropriate in the context of the neighborhood and the transition

of the neighborhood. And here we're plopping a pretty large building around a bunch of other

buildings that are a lot smaller, single-family homes. And so it doesn't really fit, and it is

oversized. And so what we have is, well, it's just one half story on the back, and it's just one story

on the front, and that's administrative. Well, the one story on the front is a climate resiliency

premium. And what we're told is, well, the applicant says they're going to generate renewable

energy. I know my clients asked, is it going to be LEED certified? The developer said, no, it's not.

We don't have anything in the plans that I saw. I couldn't locate where this renewable energy

is coming from. We're told, well, that comes later. My client respectfully thinks it should

come now. It's not realistic to say, go ahead and build the four stories, and then we'll check and

see if there's compliance with the climate resiliency qualities that earn them the hype

premium. That should be part of the plans today, and the impacted neighbors should be able to see

that. If they're saying we're going to have renewable energy generate more than half of the

power should be part of the plans now so that the impacted neighbors nearby know why that premium is

happening and whether it's in fact earned. As the record stands right now, it doesn't show that that

premium has been earned, and that's one of the bases for the appeal this afternoon, members of the

council. As I talked about conditional use permits, yes, additional criteria need to be met, even more

additional criteria need to be met when you're in the shoreland overlay district.

And as Senior Planner Silas mentioned, specifically in the code is what's the impact of this project

on nearby solar installations? And one of the members of the coalition, they have solar panels.

They're right near this project. And their solar panels appear to be now rendered essentially

mostly useless. That's not really addressed in the planning document sufficiently. It's called out

in the code. But again, I think more time needs to be spent. I think numerous members of the

Planning Commission felt that way. So respectfully, the coalition would ask that the appeal be approved

and this project be sent back to planning for further consideration, specifically on the

administrative height increase on the front and then the conditional use permit for the half story

on the back side of the project.

In closing, I wanted to thank Senior Planner Silas

for her assistance in kind of helping me

work through the process.

Very helpful, and I do appreciate it.

If there are any questions from the council members,

I'm happy to address those.

Thank you so much.

Before we take up any questions,

I think we will hear from the applicant

and open up the public hearing.

Thank you, Vice Chair Chowdhury.

Thank you, City Council members.

Thank you.

Next, I will call up the applicant, and you have seven minutes as well.

Welcome.

Thank you.

Good afternoon, Vice Chair Chowdhury and Council Members.

Thank you for your time.

My name is Josh Siegel, founder of JLS Design Build, the applicant for the Sheridan Condos.

Today, the question before you is very specific.

Did the Planning Commission correctly apply the city ordinances when approved conditional use permit, height premium, and site plan?

This is not a new application.

It is a review of a decision already supported by the staff report.

After extensive public testimony and the Commission's adopted findings.

Our goal in the next few minutes is simple.

To reaffirm how the project meets the CUP and Shoreland overlay standards.

to clarify our environmental compliance for the height premium

and to show that the appeal does not identify any error in process, analysis, or required findings.

We respectfully ask the Council to deny the appeal and uphold the Commission's approvals.

I'll begin with the conditional use permit increase from 2.5 stories to 3 stories within the Shoreland Overlay.

The CUP standards require that the use not be detrimental to health, safety, or general welfare.

and not injure the use and enjoyment of other property.

Staff reviewed these standards in detail

and the commission adopted these findings and voted to approve the plan.

The appeal disagrees with that judgment,

but it does not identify a missing or unsupported finding.

We submitted several full shadow studies

comparing by right massing to the CUP height.

The incremental shadow difference is limited, seasonal,

and does not remove access to light and air for neighboring homes.

staff found that these effects were acceptable and consistent within the shoreland overlay approvals.

In fact, staff asked us numerous times to revise our display of the modeling

because the comparable studies were so similar it was difficult to depict any variations

from our proposed project to a by-right project.

Our civil engineer designed a stormwater system that meets city and watershed district requirements

with full on-site recycled management and no increase in runoff onto adjacent properties.

Staff reviewed and accepted the civil plans.

Nothing in the appeal challenges the engineering or provides evidence of drainage impacts.

Minneapolis 2040 specifically designates this corridor for additional residential intensity.

A project can be taller or denser than existing conditions and still be fully compliant.

That is exactly how the comprehensive plan is intended to function.

Next, Shoreland overlay height factors. The ordinance requires the Commission to

consider human scale on Sheridan, transitions to adjacent built form,

massing in bulk, and shadows and views. The building was intentionally designed

to perform well on all four. It steps down toward neighboring

properties, uses high quality residential materials, incorporates articulation and

balconies to maintain human scale, and places landscaping to further soften the

massing. The entirety of the proposed building front is stepped back more than the required 15

feet to accomplish each of the explicit considerations. The increased front yard

allows for landscaping which will not only support the human scale experience at the sidewalk

but also enabled inclusion of stormwater best management practices for a rain garden for

increased infiltration on site. The balconies at each building corner also soften the massing by

allowing air and light further into our lot. The partial fourth floor stepped back

even more from the building front and is kept entirely outside of the Shoreland

overlay, specifically for the objective of transitioning to existing adjacent

built form. The Commission explicitly evaluated these factors. The appeal

simply re-argues preference, not criteria. For these reasons the CUP and Shoreland

standards are met and properly supported by the record. Now to the height premium

which allows the project to go from three stories to four stories in the front portion of the building.

Our project has committed, on record, to 50% renewable energy procurement on-site generation.

Staff evaluated the commitment and recommended approval.

The Planning Commission adopted that recommendation.

The appeal repeatedly claims that because the project is not marketed as LEED

and does not promise rooftop solar on day one, we cannot qualify it.

But that is not what the ordinance requires.

The ordinance requires performance, not branding, and performance is verified during the building

permit and energy modeling stages.

Nevertheless, we expect to achieve nearly all renewable energy from our own rooftop

solar on day one.

Regarding the neighbor's solar array, we studied its location and modeled the incremental

shading from the approved height.

The results showed no impact that would preclude the height premium under the ordinance.

This analysis is in the record.

The appeal offers no contradictory technical evidence.

In short, we comply with the premium's environmental requirements.

The commission has had the evidence and the appeal does not show otherwise.

We want to speak briefly to engagement and our presence in the community.

We live and work in southwest Minneapolis and take our relationships with neighbors very seriously.

That is why we have always implemented an open-door policy.

Before and during the planning commission process, we met with several neighbors directly,

notified and hosted in our office, the Linden Hills neighborhood,

responded to resident questions and incorporated feedback into the design.

Examples include adjusting setbacks and stepbacks,

refining facade materials and articulation,

and enhancing landscaping and pedestrian level design.

We understand that residents felt frustrated by the timing of notices or staff reports.

We made every attempt to show up in good faith,

and we have, we will continue to do so through permitting, construction, and completion.

In closing, we care deeply about the city and we care deeply about adding more housing.

Sheridan Condos offers exactly what the Minneapolis 2040 envisioned here.

A variety of all housing types in all parts of the city, including the affluent neighborhoods,

who have the resources and the audacity to say, not in my backyard.

In this case, high quality owner occupied single level homes.

Housing for residents who want to age in place or downsize while staying in the neighborhood.

a walkable transit-supported building with strong sustainability performance,

and a scale consistent with other recent project approvals around Lake Harriet.

The Planning Commission has had the full record, applied the ordinance standards,

and reached a supportable, defensible decision.

We respectfully ask the Council to deny the appeal

and uphold the approvals for the conditional use permit, height premium, and site plan.

Thank you for your time.

Thank you so much.

Next we will go to those that have signed up for public comment.

If you did not sign up, you can sign up with our clerks right over there.

The first person that we have is speaker number one, Connor Carroll.

Vice Chair Chowdhury and council members, thank you.

My name is Connor Carroll.

I'm a volunteer with Neighbors for More Neighbors.

I live in the Kingfield neighborhood in the 8th Ward.

I've been a renter in Minneapolis for the past 10 years,

and I've lived in several neighborhoods that feel very similar to this part of Sheridan Avenue.

Those neighborhoods are Harrison, Hiawatha, Nokomis, and then now Kingfield for the past four years.

In each of these neighborhoods, parcels that had originally had one or two single-family homes or duplexes

were redeveloped into multifamily apartments or condos.

And each time I saw the same thing.

more activity on the street, more families playing at the local park, more customers at local businesses,

and just a more welcoming community in general.

These projects didn't take away from what made the neighborhood special.

They actually strengthened the neighborhood.

This building at 4109 and 4113 Sheridan is the kind of building I would like to see more of in my own neighborhood.

I like apartment living, but would someday like to buy a condo in a nice building like this one many, many years from now.

I care a lot about the city's future, and like many people, I worry when I see rising property taxes, budget gaps, and the increasing cost of maintaining essential city services.

Market rate multifamily buildings like this one are an important part of the solution, bringing in new property tax revenue, more sales taxes from new customers for small businesses, and park dedication fees.

That increased revenue means more funding for schools, transit, street safety, without pushing property taxes even higher in residence.

This project would create much-needed new homes in a neighborhood people love and in a form that aligns with how Minneapolis needs to grow sustainably, gradually, and supporting the city's fiscal stability.

Change is uncomfortable, and I recognize that, but in my experience living in Minneapolis the past decade, the city and its neighborhoods have become stronger when it grows and welcomes new neighbors.

For these reasons, I urge the committee to reject the appeal and uphold the Planning Commission's approval. Thank you very much.

Thank you so much. We'll go to speaker number two, Chris Meyer.

Welcome.

Good afternoon. I'm Chris Meyer and I'm on the Planning Commission, but I'm speaking today

just as an individual to ask you to support this project and deny the appeal against it.

Next week you are going to be approving your budget and you're going to have a lot of really difficult decisions for that

So I want to pick you to picture in your mind

What the most important thing to you is to add to that budget it might be public safety or cultural corridors or

stable home stable schools and

Then I want you to consider the revenue that comes from projects like this

One of the easiest ways the cities can generate new revenue is to allow more market rate housing to be here.

They bring in a lot of new property taxes.

They bring in new park dedication fees that have to be used within the Linden Hills neighborhood.

They bring in new construction jobs and maintenance jobs.

They bring in new customers that will go to the businesses here and support the local sales tax and commercial property taxes.

They add to our census numbers, which adds to our political clout and adds to the formula-based funding from the state and federal government.

So there's a lot of money that can be generated by these projects that can help with whatever budget priorities you may have.

This project is located on a Corridor 3 zoning.

The reason it is corridor three is because it's close to the new E-line bus rapid transit station.

And it's really important for us to allow more housing to be built nearby those.

I understand why a lot of neighbours don't support this because it's going to bring a lot of change to the neighbourhood.

but the reason we need needed this corridor three change it is because you know climate change is

going to require us to make a lot of adaptations in response and this is one of the ones we should

make so I ask you to support this project to nail the appeal this is good for climate action good

for the economy good for our city thank you thank you next we'll go to speaker number three Jeff S

Welcome.

Good afternoon.

I'm Jeff Steinle, and I live at 4106 Linden Hills Boulevard, along with my wife and our six kids.

I've lived in Minneapolis for 28 years, and we've lived in our current house since 2011.

So I am the person who this is in my backyard.

so this proposed development would adjoin the backyard of my property.

And there is no alley, so this would be, you know, so when I look out my backyard,

this would be a 40-foot wall rising about 7 feet off the back of my property.

So we're very supportive of increased density in multifamily housing in our neighborhood,

and in fact, even in our backyard.

But we strongly oppose this development as it's currently drafted

and would ask you to grant the appeal and send it back to planning.

The reason that we oppose the development is simply because it doesn't fit.

It doesn't fit the scale of our house or our neighborhood

or the character of our neighborhood,

and we don't think it fits the 20-40 plan either.

It blocks our sun.

It eliminates green space.

It creates traffic and safety issues on Sheridan.

and for my backyard, you know, we'll have a wall, you know,

seven feet from our back property line with no landscaping, no trees, and no screening.

So our request is really simple.

Please grant the appeal.

We think that the development should respect the limitations of the 2040 plan as drafted

without the conditional use permits and also respect the limitations of the shoreland overlay.

We think that the city council can really have it both ways.

It can respect the neighborhood and the character that we have in our homes and our neighborhood

and what makes our neighborhood really special while at the same time increasing diversity.

But this plan really sacrifices the traits of our neighborhood for a density that's really, really not needed.

So we think you can do both, and we'd ask you to grant the appeal.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Next we'll go to speaker number four.

Matt L.

It might be Matt.

It might not be Matt.

It's like M-A.

He had to leave, I believe.

Okay, he left.

Okay.

All right.

Take him off.

And then we'll go to speaker number five, Bob Yund.

Thank you for two minutes.

Members of the council,

I am a resident in Minneapolis for 78 years.

I have lived in my house four doors down from the proposed monstrosity for 55.

Listening to the gentleman from the Planning Commission understands or explains to me why they came close to passing this and allowing it to happen.

His interest is in money.

He's looking for tax benefit. He wants to spend somebody else's money. I understand that.

The zoning codes have nothing to do with construction materials. That's different.

Zoning codes deal with neighborhoods. Neighborhoods make up the city. The city is made up of people.

Not plots, not buildings, but people.

And the neighborhood here, first off, no, we weren't all notified as they said that they sent out this notification for a meeting.

A lot of people were missed, and that was for a distance of 350 feet.

I think if we went out 1,000 feet, we would have gotten a whole lot more people to a meeting,

and very few of them would have wanted this built on Sheridan Avenue.

They shoehorned this in because of Minneapolis 2040,

because of greater density on a transportation line.

Do you think people in a $1 million condominium are going to go down and catch the bus?

They have 26 underground parking facilities.

That's two per condo.

Are they not going to have children who are old enough to drive and own a car?

Thank you for your time.

Have a wonderful day.

Thank you, sir.

Next, I'll welcome up speaker number six, Sadie Struss.

Hello, my name is Citi Struss and I moved to my house on Sheridan Ave five years ago.

I lived two houses down from the proposed project.

Prior to living to Linden Hills, I have lived both in Brooklyn, New York and London, two

cities who balance historic neighborhoods with high density living.

I want to live in a neighborhood with multifamily and mixed-use buildings.

I believe in the importance of buildings with more housing, but I think it needs to be done

correctly and considerably.

And when I look at this proposal, I have two concerns, community safety and environmental

impact.

I have two young kids.

We walk and bike to get to Lake Harriet Lower School along Sheridan Ave.

And during this walk, I see firsthand everything that is asked of this street.

The proposed project has additional 13 units, which will need guest delivery and repair parking.

The 26 cars pulling out of the underground parking will have difficulty seeing the mini

walkers coming down the sidewalk, who use Sheridan Ave to connect with 42nd down to Lake

carry it. Cars will be busy. There is no crosswalk in this area of Sheridan and due to the staggered

intersection on 42nd, pedestrians are often crossing at unpredictable spots. The City of

Minneapolis also has a goal of pedestrian and biker safety with their Vision Zero plan and I urge the

city to not approve this proposal at this time until we are able to do a proper safety consult

of the intersection and the impact this new development will have on the safety and walkability

of this neighborhood. My second concern is with the environmental impact of the development.

To create this new development, two naturally occurring affordable housing units were removed

and the finished development will block the effective solar panels that have already been installed.

The development should be expected to match the sustainable building expectations

of city-funded Minneapolis multifamily units.

I'm asking the city to not approve the conditional use permits for height

until a new, more sustainable building plan is put forward.

The developers state the 2040 comprehensive plan, Goal 3 and Goal 9 for why their project request should be approved.

Goal 3 states affordable and accessible housing, but in this case, two NOAA buildings were removed and luxury units are being proposed that are very out of reach for most of the Minneapolis, which has a medium average income of $80,000.

Thank you so much for your time.

Next, we'll welcome Speaker Number 7, Steve Higgins, Whiteside.

Welcome.

Thank you.

Hello, my name is Steve Higgins-Whiteside and I live with my family at 4105 Sheridan

Avenue South adjacent and directly north of the proposed construction project.

I would like to thank each of you on the committee for hearing and considering our appeal.

We object to the proposed project based on harm to our property and the harmful precedents

it will set for the rest of the residents of Minneapolis.

First we object on the basis that the proposed four-story building will block our existing

solar panels.

This imposes a financial cost on us personally.

It also contradicts the explicit priorities of the 2040 Plan, the Minneapolis 2023 Climate

Equity Plan, as well as initiatives by Hennepin County and the State of Minnesota.

This detrimental effect is compounded by the fact that the height increased premium to

four stories is granted under the Environmental Sustainability Climate Resiliency Standard

despite the complete absence of any submitted plan to meet that standard.

Approval of this project will set the precedent that rooftop solar is a risky investment that

can be blocked without recourse.

In addition, granting environmental premiums without tangible evidence that the pledges

can be fulfilled undermines these programs and the city's future ability to enforce changes

needed to meet the 100% renewable energy goals set forth in the Climate Equity Plan.

Second, we object to this project based on the lack of adequate safeguards to maintain

the stability of our foundation while the land is excavated to accommodate 26 underground

parking stalls.

It seems unlikely that individuals paying upwards of $1 million for a condo with two

heated underground parking stalls will utilize the city's buses. Approving a development

with 26 parking stalls on a rapid transit bus line directly undermines the rationale

for encouraging greater density and transit corridors. More broadly, approving a project

that replaces two multi-family dwellings providing four units of naturally occurring affordable

housing with luxury condos directly contradicts the overall intention of the 2040 plan. These

actions increase the likelihood that future projects will replace affordable housing with

with higher end development resulting in gentrification that adversely affects more vulnerable residents.

Today we are presented with the opportunity to put the City's goals to increase affordable and sustainable Minneapolis first.

Thank you for your consideration.

Thank you. Next we'll go to speaker number 8, Krista Anders.

Welcome.

Thank you.

My name is Krista Anders and my partner and I live directly behind this proposed

development. We're asking you to reverse the Planning Commission's narrow 4 to 3

approval and send this application back for proper review. We support increased

revenue for Minneapolis and we support increased density on Sheridan Avenue as

a transit corridor but we're asking that it be done legally and safely. This

project currently fails basic legal and safety standards. First, critical

infrastructure protections are missing. No structural assessment has been

provided for adjacent retaining walls despite construction just feet from our

property line on an elevated alley. No drainage plan exists. The developer plans

to field adjust stormwater management for a massive impervious surface next to

our existing home. We already experienced water filtration. It defies sense that

this won't get worse when the two lots are entirely covered by a massive

building. Second, the city's own environmental goals are being undermined.

The developer hasn't proven they'll meet required energy standards but they got

the height premium anyway. There's no financing for the solar panels that Mr.

Siegel just said was in the plan. The city should not approve projects that are

just wish lists. Third, the city code protections were ignored. City code

requires height increases to demonstrate gradual transition and human scale

design. This project is a massive structure next to smaller homes with no transition.

Fourth, the approval process bypassed basic due diligence. The staff report on the not injurious

standards simply restated dimensions without analyzing impacts. Counter to what Mr. Siegel

said earlier, there was no detail. If Minneapolis approves projects that skip structural assessments,

ignore stormwater plans, undermine climate goals, and violate shoreland protections,

were setting a precedent that will harden neighborhoods across the city.

At the Planning Commission, 19 neighbors testified in opposition.

Three commissioners raised serious concerns about the inadequate analysis that happened.

Our ask is simple. Send this back.

Thank you so much.

That was our last speaker who had signed up.

Is there anyone else that would wish to speak before we close the public hearing?

Go on once, twice.

okay seeing no one else wishing to speak I will now close the hearing and then we

will go into discussion I did have a couple questions for staff available

thanks miss Silas

So I think that's a great question.

So I think that's a great question.

I think that's a great question.

I think that's a great question.

Thank you.

I wanted to just ask about the high premium in regards to

sustainability.

So it's my understanding based off the staff report that there

the 40% renewable requirement that's being fulfilled here?

And then should the applicant fail to fulfill that, what would occur?

Yeah, Vice Chair Chowdhury, members of the committee,

there is essentially a slate of options that applicants can choose from,

And this applicant has chosen to provide the environmental sustainability premium, which says that at least one of the following standards shall be met.

And the first is like LEED certification or some other sort of passive house or similar certifications.

And then the second option is for renewable energy generation.

And actually, there is a typo in the staff report.

The staff report says 40%.

The ordinance was changed since our template was updated.

It's actually 50% applicants aware of that.

So it will be at least 50% of energy will be from onsite solar or renewable energy credits.

There is a condition attached that all premiums need to exist for the duration of the life of the building.

And so if the applicant were to come back to us at the building permit stage, which is the stage where we would evaluate all of the plans to ensure that they're showing that they're going to comply with whatever premiums they've chosen, if they come back at that stage and say, this isn't working for us, we want to do something different, then they would need to submit a revised site plan with a revision to what premium they would be proposing.

So, you know, some of the more technical premiums, I mean, even the kind of lead certification, passive house standard, that part A of this premium, we don't evaluate that at this point.

We just have the applicants submit the administrative height increase application and indicate to us which one they are intending to pursue.

We attach the condition that says that they have to, you know, persist with any premiums for the life of the structure.

And then when they come in for preliminary development review and building permits is when we take a little bit closer eye to ensure that they are meeting the letter of those standards.

Yes.

Okay.

That feels clear.

So if they were not to persist with any of the slate of options before them, they would not get an administrative height premium.

Right.

Right. So we're just at the first part of a long process before development actually development and construction begins.

Yeah, Vice Chair Chadri, that would be correct.

They, you know, we have multiple levels of reviewing the project as it comes through just to make sure that they're checking all the boxes that they need to.

And if plans change, then they would have to resubmit for a revision to their site plan application.

Thank you.

And then my second question is in regards to the shadowing between, um, what is allowable

and what is, um, being proposed through the conditional use permit.

Um, in the staff report, it shares, it shares that comparing the two properties, there would

be very little change and meaningful shadowing.

Could you just speak to that a little bit more?

I know you showed us those renderings on the shadowing study, but if you wanted to touch on that.

Yeah, Vice Chair Chowdhury.

Overall, the shadow study showed very minimal impacts on the adjacent solar energy system.

And it's a little hard to tell.

It's pretty zoomed out.

But the shadowing of all of the modeled buildings ends at essentially the edge of the building.

So for almost all of the year round, any of the possible buildings that were modeled by the applicant's team do not shadow the solar energy system.

It's only really in the depth of winter where you see any shadowing at all.

And the differences between shadowing on those solar energy systems is extremely minor.

So I think I can show you here that it's a little hard to see because there's some texture shown on the plans that could be seen as shadowing.

But in fact, all of that south roof line of that north structure is unshadowed in all of these plans.

and it's really and these are showing March at March 21st at different times a day which would

be equivalent to September 21st at different times a day and then if you go to December you're seeing

some shadowing impacts there is a little bit of a difference between the modeled buildings but

being in the depth of winter there's going to be a lot more shadowing for any structure and

there those those shadows are going to persist throughout the day but the rest of the year

any shadowing whatsoever is very minimal between any of the modeled structures

thank you and that there's a version of this project that doesn't require going

before the Planning Commission coming before the council and my understanding

is the shadowing impact between that project in this one as you laid out is

pretty minimal so I believe that the Planning Commission in their discussion

applied our ordinances accurately and also I think our staff report had some

pretty strong findings and I think the requirements the special requirements

that were the additional required criteria for shoreland overlay was met

and frankly this felt like a very solid project that came before us all together

after seeing many projects so I will move to deny the appeal and adopt staff

findings second and then I know we have a number of folks in queue I will call on

on Council Member Palmisano.

Did Council Member Vita wanna speak before me?

I can just go, I think I saw her gesture to you.

Yeah, go ahead.

Thank you, for members of the audience,

I'm not part of this committee,

but this particular project is in my ward

and I wanted to say a few things.

Thank you for allowing me to speak here

and be part of your committee today.

Here are some things I've said before

to people who have reached out to me.

The upzoning of Sheridan Avenue occurred

with the Minneapolis 2040 plan.

That was back in December of 2018.

While many members of the public were focused

on the elimination of family zoning,

I was especially focused on this stripe zoning of corridors.

One of those reasons I was focused on that

was about how completely impractical it would be

to get affordability into these multi-unit buildings.

Another of my objections was about Sheridan Avenue specifically, as I don't see it as a corridor three type of zoning.

It doesn't feel that way as a residential street, but I was unsuccessful back then in being able to change that.

And I tried.

I live in Linden Hills myself, and while I haven't lived in the neighborhood quite as long as many of you, only 27 years,

I don't see Sheridan as a street like Xerxes or Upton or France where I live.

But the 2040 plan passed, and it is the law of the land.

Next term, we'll have an opportunity to shape the 2050 plan.

I don't get to make decisions that go outside of this.

That means property rights.

The zoning within this plan is now their legal right, and we have to work within them.

It also allows for increased housing density along this street, and concerns that I've

heard from neighbors through this process have been thoroughly researched. While some object to

the parking under the building, I think that people would probably object more if all of the

parking was out on the street. Another concern is its lack of affordability, and that's true.

And developments are not required to do inclusionary zoning unless or until it is

a significantly larger number of units, which wouldn't even fit here. I am taking everyone's

concerns here to heart, but I'm first and foremost

considering this appeal in a quasi-judicial capacity

with an obligation to apply our existing ordinances,

the ones that exist today.

Staff has made the necessary findings

to support approval of this project,

specifically the conditional use permit

to increase the height of the building

in the Shoreland Overlay District.

However, I would like to propose that we impose

a condition that the applicant shall work with staff

to provide enhanced landscaping consisting of trees,

shrubs or other plantings in the rear yard

and the south interior yard related to finding number two

for the conditional use permit.

That finding says the conditional use will not be injurious

to the use and enjoyment of other property in the vicinity

and will not impede the normal and orderly development

and improvement of surrounding property

for uses permitted in the district.

The rear side of the site is in the shoreland overlay district

and the project is only meeting the minimum requirement

for trees and shrubs.

I have heard the concerns from neighbors,

especially those whose properties immediately border

the back of this new development

about how this fits into the neighborhood

and impacts directly their properties.

I hope this can help just to mitigate some of those concerns

and increase the privacy in the green space of the property.

I am not on this committee, so I can't make that motion,

but I do have it before you and would ask Council Member Vita

if she'd be willing to make that motion.

Or we can add it to this motion.

To add it, whatever.

I'd like to add it to them.

Thank you.

I think we're all adding it.

I mean, I'm okay with that friendly amendment.

I'm looking over to the applicant.

Is that condition a viable condition for you?

Excellent.

And also my understanding is that staff has worked with you on this

and that is always great.

So we have the updated motion before us.

Council Member Vita, you're still in queue.

Would you like to speak?

Only to the motion.

Not speaking, just making the motion.

Okay, so the motion's made.

Yes.

Perfect.

Is there anyone else that would like to speak?

Great.

Okay, so seeing no further discussion on the motion to deny the appeal,

adopt staff findings and then take this additional condition brought forward

today in committee all those in favor say aye aye all those against a nay the

eyes have it and the motion carries all right thank you everyone we have one

more item left in our last business housing zoning meeting of the year this

is receiving a presentation on encampment closure reports during quarter

two and quarter three of this year and we will have our final presenter of the

year and welcome them up director of regulatory services Enrique Velasquez

welcome thank you so much chair oh I'm pressing buttons good afternoon chair

of ice here Chowdhury committee members it's an honor to be the very last

presenter of the year for the business housing and zoning committee I recognize

I'm the last thing separating you from other activities for the rest of the day

I'm here to present the in camera closure report for both quarters two and

quarter three and just as a recap based off of the encampment closure reporting

ordinance there's a number of different items that we are tasked with looking at

closures over the prior quarter interagency collaboration outreach and

engagement efforts housing outcomes health and safety community impacts and

then status of disposition for residential or unsheltered residences

personal belongings. So with respect to data collection, there's a number of

different items that are incorporated here. We're looking at outreach and

engagement. All these different items listed here by regulatory services,

Minneapolis Health Department, Public Works, 311 Service Center, MPD 911, and

Hennepin County also providing some additional support here. And these two

reports include an overview memo, a data dictionary, shelter availability for each

of the different quarters, encampment closure data if we have any. You'll see

in quarter two that there were no closures. 311 calls disaggregated by

encampment location as well as 911 calls for service disaggregated by encampment

location. And the decision to close an encampment is primarily driven by four

specific factors. Number one, public health. Number two, public and life safety.

Number three, community livability. And number four, any other external or

environmental factors such as presence of vulnerable populations or

close proximity to schools, bus stops, things of that nature that would create

allowing that encampment to exist to pose a risk, an immediate acute risk to those

individuals. So looking specifically at second quarter, there were no city

supported closures here. Now while I believe there were some closures that

happened with other agencies. The city was not a part of those different closures activities.

So what we're doing here is also highlighting that two different things. Number one, because of

the police chief special order with respect to how police officers show up and respond to

encampments, that's forced our homeless response team to shift how they engage. Their focus has

previously been primarily at encampments and with fewer encampments they've had to go out into a

variety of other spaces to identify individuals and do outreach in a number of different spaces

that are unfit for human habitation. Identifying people who are living in their vehicles,

living in doorways, living in a variety of other spaces, alleys and whatnot along the waterways

to be able to engage in those specific conversations, offer support, and offer shelter.

The second thing, since there were no closures, I wanted to take advantage of the opportunity

to highlight the level of engagement that our homeless response team has done during this period

rather than simply state there were no closures and turn the page and move on.

So over this period, from March 18th through June 30th, the Homeless Response Team visited 834 sites.

These are not necessarily unique sites.

Total unique locations is 225 of that.

Vehicle-only sites were a subset of that, 212.

So 58 of the 225 locations are specific to vehicles.

and 71 vehicles total across those 58 locations.

We gave supplies 212 times, so that's food, it's snacks, it's water, it's socks, it's underwear,

it's other basic needs that we provide as engagement mechanisms for individuals.

Housing outcomes over the course of the second quarter

HRT staff engaged 484 times. Those 484 engagements led to 93 housing referrals.

Regrettably, we aren't able to get data at how many of those individuals actually took up those housing referrals.

We just know that there were 93 referrals made and six shelter reservations made.

And we also completed six intake assessments.

The intake assessment is an important component of that entry point for the coordinated entry system.

And the homeless response team just started doing intake assessments just this year at about the midpoint of the year.

So we were able to complete six of these.

Hennepin County Office of Housing Stability, they were able to report that 174 people exited unsheltered homelessness and moved into shelter or stable housing.

What they're not able to tell us is how many of those people came from an encampment, much less any encampment.

That's not data that they collect in terms of where did you sleep the night before you entered shelter.

They just know that 174 people moved from an outdoor environment that's unsuitable for human habitation to indoor spaces.

Shifting to third quarter, so July 1st through September 30th, we had one city-supported

closure that happened in that time frame, and it was within Ward 9. We estimate that there

are about 60 unsheltered residents that were affected by this closure.

In terms of housing outcomes, the homeless response team offered shelter 279 times ahead

of the closure leading up to that specific event.

28 housing referrals were part of the outcomes from that, six shelter reservations made,

and 12 intake assessments completed as part of the Coordinated Entry System.

I'll also note that there are seven individuals that wanted to move into

shelter that were unable to because there was not enough space.

It's not listed here, but I wanted to name that.

While the team is doing everything possible to make sure that we are reaching

individuals and promoting that they move into shelter,

sometimes the reality is that there just is not enough shelter space available

at that moment that they're seeking it. Hennepin County did report that there are 141 individuals

that moved from unsheltered homelessness into shelter or into stable housing.

In terms of city resources that were allocated towards the encampment closure, we see in terms

a cost. The total cost is $16,382 for this one closure. Primarily this cost was

borne by Public Works Solid Waste and Recycling to do the clearing and cleanup

of the site. Second was Minneapolis Police Department for officers there.

And then third regulatory services for homeless response team members and

traffic control to secure the perimeter to make sure that the area was safe and

clear for the school right next door so the buses could get through and then

lastly Minneapolis Health Department in terms of total hours for this specific

closure 142 and three-quarters hours with majority again Public Works second

regulatory services for their staff, Minneapolis Police Department, and then

lastly Minneapolis Health. Some additional key takeaways. The top row

focuses on activities and engagement leading up to the closure and then the

bottom row is focused more on the day of closure and what were some of the

different outcomes there. So encampment duration it was there for 76 days from

when we were first alerted that the encampment was going to be set into place up until the date that it closed.

This was not a previous site of an encampment.

This was the first time the homeless response team visited 27 times.

Not noted here is that the Minneapolis Health Department also made multiple visits to the location

and were nearby to provide some additional health services.

On the day of the closure, while we estimated there were about 60 people at the location,

we were able to do outreach with 30 individuals and there were three that accepted shelter

on that day.

There were no arrests made during the closure and this was private property, not a multi-jurisdictional

effort whatsoever.

additional individual and community impacts as we look at 311 and 911 calls

for the period prior to the encampment formation to the period where the

encampment was in place to afterwards we see an 84% decrease from while the

encampment was in place to the after for 311 calls and 90% down for 911 calls

And with respect to personal effects and belongings, residents were not permitted to return to

the site on the date of closure to retrieve their personal belongings.

As we may recall, this was the site of a very tragic set of events with mass shooting and

multiple people injured and I believe loss of life that prompted the closure.

there were some circumstances that prevented the city from allowing people to return to

the site to collect their personal belongings.

Some of the learnings through the data reporting process.

We've been actively engaged with Hennepin County's Office of Housing Stability on refining

our data on both sides for the county as well as for the city with respect to how we identify

people who are unsheltered, number of encampments, just to make sure that we're utilizing common

language, common terminology, and counting in the same way. We're also looking at, and this is more

speaking more towards the side of Hennepin County, we've had many conversations about the journey for

our unsheltered residents. What does that look like from unsheltered all the way through the

continuity of care into stable, safe, secure housing. And the county has been

working to make some adjustments to their systems over the course of the past

two quarters. They've undergone some additional training and have implemented

some different changes that will at least provide some additional data

points from the moment that somebody enters shelter and carries that through

all the way until they reach stable supportive housing so that we can kind

project what that retention rate looks like and how successful we are

collectively as a system. So we expect that we'll be able to have some

additional information that we can share after first quarter this next year.

That's how long the county expects that it'll take to start seeing some of these

different changes work their way through the system as they incorporate them. And

And we've also established some protocols with the county to pre-reserve shelter spaces in advance of a planned closure.

Now, this is predicated on the fact that if there's going to be a closure, we need to be planned full in advance.

We need to provide advance notice to our partners and specifically to the county of multiple days in advance

so that they can start working through their process and reserve spaces for the number of individuals

that we identify at an encampment that are ready to move into shelter or move into housing.

In a situation like what we had here in third quarter with the suddenness of the closure,

There was no real opportunity to pre-reserve spaces with the county, though we did work with them around the clock, basically, and community members to help individuals that were ready to move into shelter to help find space and help them make that a reality.

Some additional learning opportunities.

We need to continue improving our notification process and the tracking of that notification for other staff, for our partners, so that they're aware of what's going on.

And so that we can start doing a better job of tracking when we're telling them versus when the closure actually happens.

So just that we're completely transparent on that.

And lastly, continuing to refine our unsheltered homelessness dashboard.

The dashboard we have had historically has focused solely on encampments, recognizing that unsheltered homelessness happens in a number of different ways in a number of different places.

We want to be able to demonstrate that and be very intentional and planful with where we are locating individuals, how we're supporting those individuals, and how each one of these different cases are different.

So we're making enhancements to the dashboard to be able to reflect that.

This completes my presentation and I will gladly stand for comments or questions.

Thank you so much for the presentation, Director.

Are there any questions from my colleagues?

You're going to get on cue.

Okay, Councilmember Chavez.

Thank you, Chair Chaudhary, and thank you, Director, for the presentation.

I think first of all I think it would be great if we can get this presentation up on limbs

that would be really helpful for the public to be able to review it but I will make a ask if we

could add that bullet point for that instance where seven individuals weren't didn't have access

to shelter because of shelter capacity so it would be great for us to get this on limbs but also

adding that update because I think it's important for the public to know that I think this is

something that a lot of community advocates folks that work in the

shelter system individuals that help people get into shelter whether it's

temporary permanent you name it have long been talking about about the lack of

shelter capacity in the city and in the county obviously that changes on a day

it changes when it's 11 when it's 5 p.m. and at midnight but I think that's

really important and I think this is the first time I'm hearing the

administration acknowledge that there is a lack of shelter capacity in this moment or at least on

some of the days and I think that's a good first step and I think the next step is then what can

we do as a city to address that gap in our shelter system so at least want to start with that and make

that comment I saw on the presentation I think there was a part that said the encampment residents

were not permitted to come back for their belongings I'm assuming that it's in relation

to the encampment in Longfellow.

That's correct.

Okay.

I guess I would ask why not?

Why were individuals not allowed to come back

to get their personal belongings?

Many other individuals there

witnessed a mass shooting

and that was their home.

And it's a very traumatic experience

when you witness people that you carry get shot

and to not allow them to come back to get their belongings is really hard to hear.

I think part of the reason we did this ordinance is to get that information

because if we hear that's happening, then what can we change?

So I guess my ask to the administration would be residents should always be permitted

to come back for their belongings.

That is their personal property.

That is their livelihood, right?

So I guess if you can answer me that question, but I also wanted to make that comment

because I think I saw that and it, like, hurt my stomach.

Thank you, Vice Chair Chowdhury, Council Member Chavez.

It hurt to even put it into my own presentation.

It hurt on that day.

I couldn't even imagine the gravity of the situation on the field

for those individuals and their loved ones and what was happening.

I did ask some of my colleagues to be here to help me answer that question.

Regrettably, I do not see them.

So if I can take that question and we can respond with a written memo.

Yeah, that would be great.

Thank you.

Yeah, so put that for administrative follow-up.

Thank you.

And then the other component I would like to ask, and if there needs to be a written memo,

because I know we're running out of time, it would be helpful, is so individuals were not offered storage the day of.

I guess when were they offered storage?

I would love to figure that out.

Was it the day before, the week leading up to?

Why don't we offer storage the day of,

which I think is probably one of the most important times

that storage should be required to be offered.

So I guess that would be my question.

Certainly.

Vice Chair Chowdhury, Council Member Chavez.

So we do not currently have a storage vendor.

We have gone out to RFP a couple of times for this

and did not receive any responses

beyond the downtown improvement district

that wanted to provide storage for more of the transient environment that's downtown,

not for community.

So when we have engaged in the past to provide storage,

utilizing this downtown improvement district storage option,

people who are at encampments have only taken up storage just once

over the, I believe, five years in which we have offered it just once.

and they have never returned to actually collect their belongings.

So we're still interested in providing storage options for individuals

because we believe that's important, and we're going to keep trying.

We're going to keep finding different ways to try and make that happen.

Yeah, and I guess the feedback I would give to you in that instance

is that location matters if we're having an eviction of an encampment

in south Minneapolis, and you're asking folks to pack their bags

and lock it up in a locker in downtown Minneapolis,

that makes it really hard.

So the locations do matter.

And as myself and some of my colleagues up here

have talked about, we're happy to help make sure

that we can help find locations

in locations like south Minneapolis.

So I would say that is a part of probably the issues

we're dealing with, storage, the locations,

and then not being offered the day of.

I noticed that storage is not often offered the date of an eviction.

And I would say that's also probably part of the issue as well.

So I want to at least name those.

I think that this ordinance in getting this report is meant for us to see the data and figure out,

okay, we clearly saw a set of individuals in one of these instances wanted to move indoors.

There was no shelter.

That is a big red flag.

that means that we as a city in partnership with the county and other

individuals need to figure out what are we doing to address that gap that is

impacting whether someone can have a place of sleep at night or not so and I

think staff coming back with this presentation and showing some of the

learnings of this report is a good thing so thank you thank you yeah thank you I

have some questions and committee members I won't take up too much time I

I will note, like, we do have extra time because Chair Osmond and I worked with our clerks team to move down the HPC meeting

because we knew that this was going to be a marathon until the end.

So we're not getting kicked out, but I'm not going to keep you until 530.

Okay?

I promise.

Yeah, I do too.

I just got to ask my couple questions, and then we're ready to go.

Thank you for the presentation.

I think I really appreciated sharing how more conversation is happening with the county and improving data tracking.

I think that's really, really important as it comes to addressing unsheltered homelessness

and talking about a population of people that do not have a lot of advocates, right?

We know who all the advocates are for our unsheltered community.

And oftentimes there are narratives that are put out that I think are really dangerous and lead to direct harm to people who are unsheltered and create a subclass of citizens within the city of Minneapolis.

And that's why this data is so important to talk about what individuals are experiencing.

And I think the word that you use was journey.

And I think that's a correct term.

And like the better we can get more information on how people are moving through their journey to having a secure place to live, a dignified place to live, reentering into community and feeling held in that way is really, really key.

And I think those are some things I'm really interested in working on with Hennepin County and our county commissioners over there to talk about how do we have better tools to inform the city of Minneapolis and also inform the county on what's happening.

I think like that piece about, okay, we made the housing referrals, but we don't know what were the outcomes of those housing referrals is important.

Also doing triage of like where does an individual come from when they do accept shelter?

I think it does matter if they're someone that's from an encampment or if they're accepting detox services.

Is there a correlation between day of closure or the type of outreach that they had?

Who helped them get to the place that they are?

I feel like that's really important information.

I had just a couple questions on the reports.

So for quarter two with no closures conducted, what does that mean in terms of existing encampments throughout the duration of quarter two on private and city property?

Because we may not have closed any encampments, but I mean, I'm willing to bet that there were encampments throughout the city of Minneapolis.

Could you just kind of share what that means for that quarter of like the state of encampments during that duration of time?

Certainly. Thank you for the question, Vice Chair.

So, yes, there were encampments, of course.

In certain instances, it was the residents of that encampment that chose to move indoors or they chose to go somewhere else, find a different location.

So, yes, encampments did, quote unquote, close or disappear.

but it wasn't necessarily due to city action.

There were individuals that moved into a variety of different spaces is what we observed

and what our colleagues in Public Works would observe when they would drive around as part of the Clean City team

and see that properties just left behind.

Not a tent, but just belongings just left there.

And were some encampments just like left to just be there without intervention throughout that time?

It just didn't feel appropriate to move forward on closure?

So where there were individuals with encampments, yes, there were encampments that were very much like that,

where we continue to do engagement, continue to do triage with individuals

and help them find a path forward into stable, indoor supportive housing.

Okay.

And then for quarter three, I'll concur with a lot of the feedback

that Councilmember Chavez stated.

I'll say, like, I was in the field the night of the shooting

and what I had witnessed was the people that were living on that parcel of land,

they all, like, were really, really scared,

and they were huddled up over by the auto zone is where I saw,

I counted, like, 35 to 40 individuals just trying to figure out, like,

what their next place is and what their next move is

and, like, physically just, like, frightened.

I mean, if you're in a mass shooting, I can't even imagine the experience, the level of trauma that you feel.

And then the next day, the next few days, what I experienced is a number of those affected individuals trying to figure out where their next step was.

and also staying over where Moon Palace Books was

and then the parking lot that is available by the former 3rd Precinct at 3000 Minnehaha.

And I spoke to a lot of the individuals that were there.

A lot of them told me that they had all of the cash that they had on their person in those tents.

They lost, like, identification.

They lost a few different of their belongings that they were relying on.

They were able to grab what they could grab.

And so I'll just share, like, as an account, like, there was a very direct experience of not getting an opportunity to collect their belongings that I heard from individuals that made it really, really tough for them to figure out what their next step was and was really disorienting.

And I think a piece of feedback that I've shared with emergency services and health, but I think this is a good forum to share again, is we all agree that encampments are not a dignified place to live and not a safe place to live.

And there has been several instances where traumatic events have occurred.

The city needs to treat individuals within encampments like they are people with trauma.

like they are people that deserve care after a huge trauma, after a mass shooting.

They deserve to be checked on.

They deserve to have warming blankets.

They deserved to have an opportunity to try to call their loved ones to get checked out by emergency services.

They deserve to have someone approach them that was qualified to be a trusting individual.

They deserved a chance for the medical mobile unit to come to them directly the day after.

Like a lot of that like human care that we oftentimes give victims of trauma was missing for these affected individuals,

which makes them a subclass, a lower class within our city.

And that is what is really heartbreaking for me to see is that we are so much in our systems participating and othering unsheltered individuals.

And that's what I saw following the shooting.

And I also would question why the encampment that formed Moon Palace Books and then on the parking lot of the 3rd Precinct was not also counted as an encampment in the 3rd Quarter Report.

and as one that the city closed because HRT and our police department came down

those days to tell people to move along and then also tried to offer them

transportation with Metro Transit buses but also have cooling so I guess that's

a question is can we include that as a second encampment and encampment closure

because we did participate in closing that and that did exist for a duration

of days and it had a huge impact in that area.

Yeah, thank you for that, Council Member, for your perspective of what happened in those

days as well as for the question.

Yeah, it's definitely a curious question.

I believe the city's view is that while individuals were at the Moon Palace Books parking lot and

then shifted over to the 3000 Mini Ha Ha space, that's, I think, considered more of part of the

emergency response not so much as an encampment I can certainly take that

back and we can I think yeah I think that would be worthwhile doing because we

used our police staff we use regulatory services and we also directed private

security to keep people off the property and we also put Jersey barriers up in

that area in the parking lot so I would I would deem that as a form of closure

and like if that's not a closure then I think we need to question what the

definition is here because that was city participation of closing an area where

there were about 30 to 40 individuals and we were actively spending staff time

both for HRT both for our police department and then also involving our

private security, and then metro transit, and then also,

I mean, I don't know if you would count me in the report,

but I was putting in my time that week.

Thank you.

Yeah, and if that is something you could include in the memo back,

that would be really appreciated.

Okay.

I don't see any other questions.

That's it for me.

Really appreciate you doing the final presentation of the year

and really being intentional about it.

Thank you so much, Director Velasquez.

And I will ask the clerks to receive and file that report one last time for 2025.

And thank you so much to all of our amazing staff that make this committee happen.

Thank you to Director Hanson.

Thank you to our city attorneys, to our clerks, and all members of the BIS Committee.

And, of course, the public who is always participating in our various public hearings.

If without objection, this meeting is adjourned.

You object.

Okay, go ahead.

I do object.

I just wanted to just acknowledge that this is my last biz committee meeting.

Yes.

And I just want to thank all the staff and my colleagues for really, you know, being very thoughtful and offering tremendous insights and support around so many issues that come before this committee.

And it's been an honor and a pleasure to work with you all.

So thank you for letting me object.

Yeah.

Best objection ever.

Yeah, thanks everyone.

Thank you so much.

It's been great.

I've learned so much on this committee.

All right, get home.

Adjourned.

Thank you.

Thank you.