Council - Regular Meeting

Welcome to the East Lansing City Council regular business meeting of July 21st, 2026. The meeting will come to order. Could we have the roll call please?

Council Member Whalen. Here. Council Member Meadows. Here. Council Member Singh. Here. Mayor Pro Tem Grigsby. Here. Mayor Altman.

Here. Is there a motion to approve the minutes from previous meetings?

Move to approve.

I'll move to approve the minutes of the special meeting from 16 June 2026, the regular council meeting of 16 June 2026, and the special council meeting from June 30th, 2026.

Okay, motion by Grigsby, second by Meadows. Sorry, I didn't hear it. That's okay. Any corrections to those minutes? Seeing none, the motion is on the minutes as presented. All those in favor say aye. Aye. Any opposed? Motion carries. Those minutes are approved. Is there a motion to approve the agenda? I will move to approve the agenda. Is there a second? Second. Motion by Altman, second by Whalen. Any discussion? Seeing none, all in favor say aye. Aye. Any opposed? Motion carries. The agenda is approved. Communications from the audience. All written communications received by council are posted online attached to the agenda packet. Communications from the audience. We have four public hearings tonight. I have tried to sort, uh, the slips into piles based on public hearings. So if you indicated a topic that was associated with one of the four public hearings tonight, I will call you at the time of the public hearing and then the other cards, uh, the other slips I have here, which I will call, uh, in the order that's in front of me. So, um, Philip Baron,

Wonderful, thank you.

My name's Philip Barron. I'm the managing principal at Barron Civic Partners located in Traverse City in Ann Arbor, Michigan. I'm here today to speak on behalf of the business agenda item 6.4, the proposed mixed-use residential project called the Howard. I'm serving as a technical advisor to the Howard development team on the parking analysis. For three decades, I've served as Director of Planning Operations Technology for the planning firm that conducted the 2023 City of East Lansing Parking Master Plan. That work is separate and distinct from what I'm here talking about tonight. Drawing from over 700 planning engagements nationwide and abroad, including university towns, I understand how important it is for residents, students, and visitors to have access to places where they can gather, connect, and be part of the local economy. I understand parking is a genuine priority for residents and downtown businesses. And the data in the Walker report for the Howard indicates the current system has the capacity to accommodate the Howard without displacing existing permit holders or restricting visitor parking downtown. The proposed development doesn't displace public parking. It does support parking division revenue. It distributes its permits across three of the most proximate garages, mitigates any system-wide and site operational strains. I'm optimistic that working hand-in-hand with the parking division, the Howard can move forward with a plan to participate in the shared parking environment. The confidence comes from a broad system review and my personal observations. The parking transit, sidewalk, bike infrastructure, rideshare, micromobility options all work together, and it's the transit-oriented environment that reduces the need for residential parking. The parking division backs that up with well-run off-street operations, routine monitoring and measuring to calibrate policy, well-maintained facilities, and a fiscal approach that aims to maximize public assets and be a good steward of public resources. That's the confidence and the foundation and the framework that makes the system equipped to support the Howard. I'm available for further questions regarding the agenda item. And thank you for the opportunity to speak. And thank you for all that you do for the city of East Lansing. Thank you. Al Bay.

My name's Al Bay. I live at 512 Albert in East Lansing. The City of East Lansing is currently considering a new proposal to build a 10-story apartment building in downtown East Lansing with zero on-site parking. Currently the property in question is the much-used Bailey parking lot that provides easy access to small businesses in the 500 block of Grand River Avenue. The new plan eliminates 83 downtown parking spaces and includes no on-site parking for residents or visitors in our downtown. The 530 Albert development as proposed without parking will damage not only the existing businesses in the 500 block and beyond, but will work against the continued fostering of a diverse, equitable, and inclusive downtown for residents, visitors, and shoppers to enjoy. Possibly two major developments are to be added to the district with the simultaneous major reduction in available parking. As a result, we're headed for a major parking crisis at the east end of our city. Currently, we have a half dozen vacant storefronts at the east end of our downtown. We're planning on adding a new restaurant with the Harbor Bay development and 22 floors of student apartments. I find it difficult to accept that our best plan of action is to reduce available parking in the district by 83 spaces. The Planning Commission will be holding a public hearing to discuss the City of East Lansing parking plan for this end of town. That's tomorrow night. I ask that you delay any decision on this until after that public hearing. The Wild Goose Inn has been a part of downtown East Lansing for nearly 24 years. Our continued success depends on the availability of convenient nearby parking and some type of loading zone at the front of our building for the safety of our guests. Thank you for your time and consideration.

Thank you. Paul and Leah Martin.

Hi, everyone. Thank you for your time and letting us speak. We are Paul and Leah Martin. I have managed the inn for 17 years and have seen East Lansing change and grow around our business. You all know Al, who just spoke, the current owner of the Wild Goose Inn. We are future owners, and we are very excited about continuing to run this small business that brings joy to many in East Lansing for years to come.

The Wild Goose Inn greatly appreciates the community, East Lansing staff, and the importance of having great process within all the committees. We appreciate the important jobs that all have had that may be resulting in a vote tonight on 530 Albert. We understand progress and the desires of the Metzgers and Fabians to sell their property and the desire of TDP to construct an apartment building. We were pleased to learn in tonight's agenda packet that the transportation committee stated to include temporary loading for our guests and for the city to work with us on parking at no point in time have we wanted to be hard to get along with. We just want to make sure we can continue to operate our business and serve our guests the way that we do. Should this motion get approved tonight? We strongly hope that it comes to fruition to ensure that we have the ability to service our guests for many years to come. Thank you for your continued consideration and support of us.

Thank you. Evan Williams.

Evan Williams, Harbor Bay 3412 Commercial Ave. Good evening council members. I wanted to follow up on June City Council meeting for the Howard and speak to something that matters as much to us as the technical approvals, being a good steward of this site. We have treated the 2025 comprehensive plan update as the principle framework for this project. The plan's housing goal calls for higher density housing concentrated near Michigan State University, downtown East Lansing, and major transit corridors with appropriate transitions between differing intensities of use and design standards that enhance the public realm. That is a fair description of what we are proposing here and it shapes our massing, ground floor activities and setbacks. The public health goal asks for walkable mixed use development that reduces car dependency and housing implementation activity four speaks directly to adding density downtown. The Howard advances both. Community feedback has genuinely shaped the building. Conversations with residents and downtown stakeholders led us to revise the streetscape treatment and rethink how the building meets the sidewalk. Look no further than the Grand River Colonnade design. We'd rather hear a concern early than defend a drawing nobody outside of our team had a chance to influence. Our pursuit of LEED Gold certification in mass timber construction reflects a long-term view of this site. The plan measures sustainability progress in part by the share of developments that are LEED certified and workshop participants ranked green buildings second among the sustainability priorities. We are building something we expect to be part of this community for decades and we intend to operate it that way. We appreciate the time and collaboration we have received from city staff. Thank you for your continued consideration and I'm happy to answer any questions that you have when this business agenda item comes up. Thank you.

Thank you. Tim Rosowski.

Tim Rosowski, 613 Grove Street. So just a couple comments. One is, and this is kind of an appeal just general, is that the agenda, you know, I guess gets published on the Friday before the weekend there. But I noticed when I pulled it up on the weekend that it's 1,667 pages long. So I'm wondering if there's any way that the agenda, even though I understand that it's kind of in flux that written comments and that come in, but if the core agenda could be published before that Friday, I think that would be really, really helpful. So I don't know. Now we have a new city manager. Maybe we can make that happen. The other one is that the written comments were really not viewable. There were some written comments that were in the In the particular items, but there was a general reference to that you could go someplace and see all the written comments But I couldn't find them so All right. The other thing is it's not clear I think it would be helpful if counsel would explain the difference between a business agenda item and a public hearing item So I understand that for the business agenda items. There really is no public comment for that particular item particular item so I think that might be a like an informational piece so that people understood that when there was a business item there would be no public hearing associated with it next item here is property notifications you know the 1576 affects literally hundreds of properties as proposed and I'm wondering if there could be a process in the future that affected properties that would be would be affected by a zoning change would be noticed. I noticed that for the properties in the northern tier, those properties were all listed. But you would literally have hundreds of properties that are affected by the ordinance 1576 as it's written. And I'm not sure people even knew that they were included in that. Let me see here, the next item is, I read, I did pull up and looked at the 1576 discussion and I looked at the staff report and I noticed on page two of the staff report that the only financial impact cited was some attorney's time. And I think that when we look at these two projects, I mean you have, probably over a couple of hundred million dollars worth of investment that generate property taxes, city income taxes, parking revenue. I have a hard time believing the only financial impact that the city could come up with would be some attorney's time. So I thought that was a little bit misleading. The other thing is the way our zoning ordinance, we have these different ordinances, the mass timber green code, we have the special use permit process, we have 1384, we have the zoning districts. I think it's time to really look at the zoning ordinance in its entirety. And if there's a diversity housing requirement, why not just put it in the particular district category? As an architect, there's no way that if there's some other community that I would ever recognize that what is a really significant item is kind of buried in some other area of the ordinance so I think it's time to kind of look at the zoning ordinance in its entirety and maybe clean up some of that to make it easier for somebody to find I'm not a big fan of 1384 you know I think it was a good idea when it it came out but it hasn't seemed to generate much but my biggest objection is that to To apply the diversity housing requirements to these major developments, it doesn't come free. You know, I think the view is that the developer is going to absorb these costs, but the reality is that any costs are going to be absorbed by the tenants through increased rent. So I think while part of its target is to make rents more affordable, I think for the people who maybe actually live there, the rents are going to go up. I think that was just a general comment. And then the last one is, I've been watching these projects for as long as they've been around here, and we comment on the parking and the lack of parking, but I think the parking study showed that in our peak times, we have 1,000 spaces left over. So I know there's been a decision made by the parking committee or parking office or whatever that there's only like 215 spaces available. I think it's time maybe to take a broader look at that and see are there really only 215 spaces available or why are we holding a thousand spaces in our pocket that are not used at our normal peak times and maybe they're used for a few football games but in our normal time they're not. Thank you.

Thank you. Karen Hone.

OK, thank you for the opportunity to speak. We have had a disproportionate number of minorities come into the community and commit crimes. This is a now famous quote by our current police chief, Jen Brown, made almost 11 months ago. So now it's been 11 months since these comments were made by police chief Jen Brown, and she is still being protected by city management and city council. Council members claim that there is nothing that they can do, but I find that hard to believe. 11 months and there has been no accountability, no policy change, no justice for Lonnie and Mason who were pepper sprayed in the face and falsely accused and arrested, no accountability or justice for Isaiah Kirby who was shot to death by the East Lansing Police Department, and no action taken by the city following the findings of racist policing made against Jen Brown and the East Lansing Police Department by the Human Rights Commission. Instead, in true Trumpian fashion, he rewrote our 70-year-old human rights ordinance to exempt the city from complaints of civil rights violations and stripped our commission of most of its power. Removing Jen Brown, the only way we have any hope of rebuilding trust between the community and the police department, the only chance for black and brown folks to feel safe, welcomed, and valued in our community is to have a fresh start, which requires the removal through termination or resignation of police chief Jen Brown. Removing Jen Brown will provide our community with the opportunity to not only hire a new city manager, but to hire a new police chief through a thoughtful and deliberate process that includes and welcomes input from community members, business owners, representatives from marginalized communities, leaders from social services agencies, and commissioners from the Human Rights Commission, LEPOC, and other commissions. We have before us the chance to do better. We have before us the chance to undo some of the harm that's been done and to have a fresh start. And I urge you all to take this opportunity and fire Jen Brown or ask for her resignation. It's 11 months too late. Thank you.

Thank you. Owen Ronk.

Mayor Altman, Mayor Pro Temp, Grigsby, City Council members, thanks for the opportunity to speak to you tonight. What an agenda you have before you. This is a real packed one. There's a number of topics I could talk about, but I'll try and keep things brief. First, I wanted to direct your attention to Jeff Mason's application on item 4.1 in your consent agenda. He's applying for the DDA and I can't support him loudly enough. That being said, I would direct your attention to the bottom of his application because there seems to be a mistake with the date that he signed it unless he's 100 years old. So just wanted to point that out for you. I'm going to skip around a little bit and try and keep my comments a little tighter. Item 4.6 on your consent agenda is a $66,000 and change contract with Spalding Dedecker. This is for a west downtown area plan. with costs split between the DDA, the parking fund, and the Parks and Rec Department. That plan includes a parking usage and needs assessment, as well as a west downtown preferred redevelopment plan, bringing together past planning efforts and current market conditions to define the evergreen properties development potential, as well as a Valley Court parking connectivity plan. This issue is of importance to me as I attend worship and serve as a volunteer leader at the People's Church, which is in that district. And I want to start by acknowledging Council Member Whalen for his persistent efforts over the number of meetings this spring and into the summer to encourage parking staff to consider the parking needs of the downtown west of Abbott. I just ask that as you go through that process that you include individuals from the People's Church in that effort so that we can participate in sharing our parking needs on Sunday mornings as those specifically conflict with the farmers markets parking needs in that same area. Jeff Mason, who will soon be added to the DDA, as well as Dave Lederberg, who's already on the DDA, are both members of the People's Church and know the officials there to get that type of information if that's of any use to you. I'd also direct your attention to consent agenda item 4.17. This is the final report from the Financial Health Review Committee. And as a resident and a taxpayer here at the City of East Lansing, I'd really ask City Council to commend the efforts of the volunteers who participated in that effort over the past six months. I'd ask city council and city staff to give considerable attention to their recommendations that they've provided you with. I'd like to point out two in particular. Recommendation three is an emphasis on the importance of properly reporting all fire protection expenses related to serving state of Michigan property, including the campus. And in particular, including the cost of firefighters' pensions in that calculation. This is critical as pension costs continue to increase along with life expectancy. And that the state and the university pay their fair share of the city protection of their fire, or pardon, of the fire protection of their property. I'd also direct your attention to recommendation 19, which is the possible sale of unused city assets, most notably excess property, which could be easily converted into owner-occupied middle-income housing. I can't echo that recommendation enough as it turns something that's right now a cost center for the city, requiring maintenance and upkeep, to something that can generate taxes as part of their tax base. This seems like a real win-win-win, especially when we consider that we want additional housing opportunities in the city. The city's GIS includes a particular layer called a property asset map that's accessible on the city's website. It points out at least 10 properties in bright pink, which represent vacant lands, including the property immediately adjacent to the Hanna Center, which could easily be converted into another residential lot. Lastly, I just wanted to point out that as it relates to item 5.4 and item 6.5, which is the 530 Albert Street development, that it really seems like we've been putting that developer through the ringer as I wouldn't be surprised if we've asked them to add those two stories of public parking initially, which then put them in a situation where they needed a special use permit And then between the Planning Commission and this body, as well as city staff, we probably continued to throw them mixed signals. And that's why they've now chosen to just go within 10 stories and not deal with that public parking, which is only creating other problems for lots next door. Thank you.

Thank you. Cody Dietrich.

Hello, Cody Dietrich with Tree and Development Partners on behalf of 6.5. Mayor, city council members, thank you for having me tonight. We appreciate all the help that you, the commissions and staff have put into our project at this point. We know that the parking has been a big topic and unfortunately we weren't able to get there in providing the two levels of public parking. NOT TO DWELL ON THE PAST ON THAT PIECE, WHAT WE WANT TO FOCUS ON IS OUR NEWER DEVELOPMENT IN FRONT OF YOU. AND THERE'S SOME REALLY GOOD POSITIVE THINGS COMING FROM THAT AS WELL, TOO. SO NOW WE'RE GOING WITH LEED GOLD. WE'RE ACTUALLY REDUCING IMPERVIOUS SURFACE IN THE DOWNTOWN SETTING, WHICH IS VERY UNHEARD OF. And we're able to provide more stormwater and reduce our carbon emissions by having not building the parking with the podium as well as taking some parking away. So a lot of good benefits there. Don't need to belabor it. We're available for questions during the time of our item. But we do have our financial investors watching tonight. And there is significant financial implications if there's any unnecessary delays. We've tried to work in to be all the objectable standards site standards in the zoning code So we feel like we've done that and we we asked for your approval tonight. Thank you.

Thank you Parker Fisher

Hello. My name is Parker Fisher. I serve as the chair of the East Lansing Housing Commission. For those of you who don't know, Housing Commission is charged with advising the city and council on matters pertaining to housing within the city, including neighborhood preservation, programs for housing production and conservation, review of rental housing licenses, and amendments to the housing code. First, if I may speak briefly to agenda item 5.3 regarding comments on proposed ordinance 1572, the ordinance to amend chapter 50 to allow the removal of property from a rental overlay district. This item was discussed at the May 7th housing commission meeting. Commissioners were generally not supportive of the draft ordinance as written, but did generally agree that the ordinance should be amended in some way to clarify this process. I will note that public comment at our meeting strongly supported codifying the two-thirds majority neighborhood signature requirements to amend an overlay. Your agenda item report also includes a redlined draft that I had proposed at that housing commission meeting that sought to add additional guardrails to the version drafted by the city attorney. However, this was staunchly rejected by my fellow commissioners and public commenters. So all that being said, I think this ordinance needs a little bit more work and Housing Commission stands ready to act as a forum for further public discussion and review. Next, I would like to speak to agenda items 6.4 and 6.5 regarding the Howard and the 530 Albert proposed developments. I strongly support both proposed developments and urge City Council to make a motion to approve the site plan requests. So I've already come before you regarding the issues of neighborhood preservation and housing affordability. I will spare you from reciting the economic studies that have proven these projects will address directly those issues. Tonight, I would like to speak to the benefits of transit-oriented housing development and what that looks like in practice for East Lansing. personally I have found it incredibly frustrating that the public debate has focused on the issue of car access and parking especially when the city operates with a surplus of over a thousand and sixty parking spaces during peak weekday conditions that's according to the Walker consultant study in the agenda packet So full disclosure, I am a regular transit rider of the CATA bus system. I have ridden the bus to my job in downtown Lansing from East Lansing every day for the past six years. I can confidently tell you these proposed developments are adequately served by the CATA bus route system. This includes bus routes one, the 20, the 24, the 26, the 48, and the 22 and 23 in brief walking distance. These routes provide access to grocery stores like Whole Foods, Trader Joe's, Kroger, and all three Meijer locations nearby in Okemos, Lake Lansing, and the downtown Lansing Meijer Market. Direct access to healthcare facilities like Sparrow Hospital and McLaren. And also access to regional transit through the East Lansing Amtrak station if you take the 20 And also Ann Arbor and the Detroit Metro Airport if you take the flyer that is also across the street And for some of those local rides all of this is accessible within a 15-minute bus ride or less and if you are an MSU student some of those bus routes are free and So while I sincerely appreciate the council's willingness to take parking and car access concerns seriously, I ask that you do not allow this issue to stall these developments entirely. I urge you to keep this in mind when making your decision tonight. And one more thing, we have a vacancy on the City Housing Commission, so if anyone is interested, do not hesitate to apply. Thank you.

Thank you. Pablo David.

Good evening, City Council. My name is Pablo David with Graduate Hotel. I just wanted to spend about a year of long process from our last discussion. And while that discussion proved to be really fruitful, there were two main concerns that City Council at that time had addressed to us. One was occupancy and standing room. We started with 268, our proposed occupancy then, and we've brought that down to 199 now with no standing room. And the other major concern was the valet operations and how that works on a day-to-day basis, but also during special events. And that will be before the planning commission tomorrow. Our plan, not only our operations, but the proposed loading zone. And ultimately, we hope that gets approved and we receive a positive recommendation tomorrow. And we respectfully ask for a positive vote today so we can continue to move forward with that expansion. And thank you for your time.

Appreciate it. Thank you. Lee Coat.

Good evening, council. Lee Cody, I'm the general manager of the Graduate East Lansing. Good to see you all again. Just reiterating on what Pablo had spoke to, the commitment that we have to the feedback and recommendations that have been given to us from the city council. Personal to me, a local, grew up in the area, proud Michigan State alumni. Working at the Graduate East Lansing and leading that team is a passion project of mine. And taking all of your feedback into consideration for everything that we have the ability to do within our control and our footprint is at the top of our list. As Pablo mentioned, hearing the recommendations for what total occupancy looked like, hearing the recommendations for what seat arrangement looked like, we addressed some questions regarding security and operational flow. And as mentioned in other comments today, the project that we have going before planning commission tomorrow to do everything we can within our control to improve our valet parking operation what our footprint allows is at the top of our priority list as well. I'm looking forward to that for both tonight's vote and what will be before the Planning Commission tomorrow. We ask for your support and approval and the ability to continue to offering service to our locals, our visitors, and showcasing everything that East Lansing and Michigan State University have to offer. Thank you.

Thank you. Michael Kruger.

All right. Mr. Mayor, council members, thank you for giving me the time to speak. As you're aware, my name is Michael Kruger, chair of the Downtown Development Authority, owner of the Peanut Barrel and Crunchy's here in East Lansing. I'm obviously concerned with the proposed project at 530 Albert behind the Peanut Barrel. To be clear, I am most certainly not against the idea of development and density in our downtown. However, I'm not in favor of this project because I don't believe it is responsible for the east end of town. Taking away parking for businesses is irresponsible, period. Expecting businesses to just figure it out is irresponsible. We've got enough empty storefronts in this town. Expecting the new tenants of this project to walk multiple blocks or have to bus to get to their automobile is irresponsible. People have cars. Our customers have cars. Our customers want to be able to park near our establishments, not have to walk multiple blocks in the snow, rain, or brutally hot sun. Students who live off campus have cars. Tenants who can afford to pay $1,900 a month for a single bedroom apartment, as proposed in this development, probably have a car. To assume otherwise is irresponsible. The parking ratio that the city requires stated in Chapter 50, 812, would actually require 354 spots for this development, not the 111 that the applicant is proposing. That is a huge difference between what we as a city require for good reason and what the applicant states that they need. Yes, city staff have claimed that the parking system can absorb this, and while it may look that way on paper, the reality is that those tenants have friends and family that will be visiting. Their visitors will most likely have cars and need to also park. Our parking department has stated clearly that they only feel comfortable allowing up to 220 permitted spaces for both of these two proposed developments. Not to mention our parking... Director's comments about the fact that he believes there actually should be parking available on-site for those who are physically disabled. I'm not sure what they're supposed to do. Are we going to require that they park in the Division Street Garage or MAC Garage and then traverse over a block and a half or two, because the elevators are on the west end of the Division Street Garage, to actually get back to their apartment or patronize any of our businesses? The parking department has stated that the parking system is only 65% full during peak times, which are lunch hours on various days during the week, that they have actually taken counts. The time and days that they claim is the busiest. This does not take into account when businesses actually make money. Yes, the system is full on game days, has a much higher capacity during weekends, events, et cetera, but these are the days that we actually make money for the rest of the year. And now the applicant wants to rip 80 spots from us. To disregard when businesses make their money to survive is irresponsible. The applicant has drawn comparisons to other developments in town and stated that the parking ratios that they have proposed are similar. While that may be clear on paper, the difference is that those developments all put parking back into their development. None of those developments ripped parking from the businesses. They actually put it back in. The parking studies don't even take into account the garages over on the west end because they are full. With these two proposed developments of 1,100 plus beds without parking, we will run into the same problem again if we do not be more responsible. The parking plan to be presented at Planning Commission tomorrow by the applicant does not meet the standard set in the development standards 50-93 that states specifically that to approve, the proposed use would not adversely affect surrounding properties. I agree that it will. I've heard multiple comments, including from city staff, that everything will be fine when this goes through. You will make it through because you are the peanut barrel. You have more residents behind you, which will obviously all come to the peanut barrel because you are right there. While I know they mean well, I doubt they've ever signed a paycheck. I doubt they've ever been responsible for the well-being of 40 plus employees, some of who have been at PB for over 20 years. I'm gravely concerned for my employees and my business. Many of us stated to this to Planning Commission last meeting, but they felt they had to approve anyway for some fear of a lawsuit. Almost every single one of them stated publicly that they liked the previous project proposed by the applicant better than this one because it included parking. So we're just going to have to suffer and possibly close because the city is worried about a lawsuit. In addition, about an hour ago, or about 5.45 this afternoon, I got an email from Jeff Fabian stating that they're actually going to terminate the ground lease with the city for our parking lot as of September 30th. That seems like kind of a crap thing to do to try to pressure the city into accepting this plan. Based on their history with the city, I can understand where they're coming from, but I would have expected better from these families. To prove this plan would be irresponsible to the businesses that have poured their heart and soul into this town to serve its residents. Thank you all.

Thank you. Jonathan Howard.

Good evening.

Hi, my name is Jonathan Howard, owner of Flat Black and Circular on the 500 block in East Lansing. I just wanted to back what the Inn and Peanut Barrel have put forward here. We were actually resigned and happy with the previous plan that included the two levels of parking. We were happy with that. That was a fine thing, and I hope that you can consider that in your plan tonight. And we have a kind of clientele that is carrying heavy stuff for a short term. We are a destination. We get people from all over the world visiting us, record collectors. And they want to come in for their 15 minute to one hour visit and go. They don't want to hunt around for a parking structure blocks away to haul heavy records back and forth. And we have a big concern with that during the building process of this also. And that is all I have to say. Everything else was covered by them. Thank you.

Thank you. Cheryl Burke.

Hello, I'm Cheryl Burke. I'm an associate conference minister in the Michigan Conference United Church of Christ, and I serve about 300 clergy and 140 churches across Michigan. I'm also an East Lansing resident. I have also served on the absent voter counting board for a number of years and understand that our elections are currently free and fair in East Lansing. Thank you. I am also sure that you're aware the challenges threaten this process. Election monitors are being sent to Michigan, baseless claims of voter fraud are being amplified, the postal service is threatening not to deliver mail-in ballots, and demands for voter records continue. As you know, in Michigan, cities and townships administer elections and this is where the interference may occur. Intimidation, harassment, baseless investigations, and frivolous lawsuits. We saw it when election workers were intimidated and harassed while counting votes in Detroit in 2020. I'm here to offer my support and the support of many faith leaders across East Lansing and our state for your work to keep our elections free and fair. Especially a thank you to City Clerk Emily Gordon and Chief Deputy Clerk Amy Gordon for their tireless work around elections. I'd also like you to remain accountable to protect our right to vote and have all legal votes counted. by abiding by the US Constitution and state election laws, refusing to comply with any unlawful executive orders or data requests that seek to restrict voting. Faithfully play your role to certify and seat the rightfully elected winners this November, regardless of party. I'd also ask you to pass a resolution opposing the proposed Michigan Save Act if that proposal goes through. That would make it more difficult for people to have access to voting. Just one personal example, my daughter Elizabeth, who's here, has her first birth certificate which says baby Simeon from Houston, Texas. Her second birth certificate says Elizabeth Burke. Her third birth certificate, because of a second parent adoption, says Elizabeth Kilmer Burke. Which of those birth certificates will she need in order to vote? in Michigan if this goes forward. Now she just voted, she's 18, last election, yay. I want her to be able to continue to vote. Thank you for your time.

Thank you. Abby Takaki.

Good evening. I am here again tonight because I remain deeply concerned about the leadership of East Lansing's police department and what it means for both our officers and our community. Police perform, police officers perform one of the most difficult jobs in public service and every day they face uncertainty, danger, and split-second decisions. So they deserve leadership that equips them to succeed because when that leadership fails, it is both officers and the community who pay the price, sometimes with their lives, as recent events under Chief Brown's leadership have demonstrated. We should all want a police department that is committed to preserving life whenever possible. The highest standard of policing is the ability to use every available tool to protect human life before resorting to taking it. Officers, like everyone else, want to be able to go home safely to their families at the end of every shift. And the people they encounter deserve the same commitment to preserving life whenever possible. Chief Brown's handling of Welcome Week 2025 caused significant harm to Lonnie Smith and Mason Woods, damaged the city's reputation, and eroded public confidence. The death of Isaiah Kirby has raised profound questions about training, supervision, de-escalation, and use of force. LEPOC worked to research best practices from police chiefs, judges, prosecutors, and defense attorneys from around the country and proposed improvements to our use of force policy two and a half years ago. Had those recommendations been implemented instead of ignored by Chief Brown, would I have to be here right now? We cannot accept a police department culture where the community is dismissed. The Police Oversight Commission, Human Rights Commission, Lansing NAACP have all called for Chief Brown's resignation, and these groups are partners in public safety, not opposition. We need a police force willing to engage directly with the people most affected by their policing decisions. And we are seeing in real time what happens when they are not. Public trust deteriorates, officers face greater stress, and that leads to more dangerous interactions with the public and loss of life. When multiple community institutions lose confidence in a police chief, that alone warrants a formal performance review. So it is fair to ask, has Chief Brown's performance ever been formally evaluated? Has the chief been placed on performance improvement plan with public, measurable, and time-bound expectations? If so, what were the results? And if not, why not? With Welcome Week 2026 approaching, this council has an opportunity to demand measurable progress. Will the department publicly present its operational plan? Will every officer assigned to Welcome Week receive documented training on de-escalation tactics? Is there a plan in place to ensure the chief will report out on these efforts in a way that isn't riddled with racial bias and opens the city to more costly legal battles? And does the city have any plans for rebuilding trust with our community stakeholders? These are reasonable expectations for a leader of a modern police department. You have an opportunity to give our city a genuine fresh start, to recruit a permanent city manager who treats city employees with professionalism and respect, and a chief of police who does better to serve the officers whose lives and livelihoods depend on their leadership and embraces the community-centered policing our residents expect and deserve. Thank you.

Thank you, Courtney Agrusa.

Good evening, everybody. My name is Courtney Kabara-Grusa. I'm an attorney with Foster Swift. Our office represents TDP. On behalf of our client, I first want to thank city council, city staff, everybody who's been involved in getting us to where we are today. It's been a long couple of months, but we recognize that being in the position that you're in, it can be really challenging, and we just want to make sure that we acknowledge all the work that you've put into this and say thank you. But to get us to this point, I really want to highlight what it's taken. Since submitting its original development in late 2025, TDP has met regularly with or spoken directly to members of the city council, city staff, members of the public, local business owners, and others in an effort to learn more about the needs of East Lansing. Armed with that knowledge, TDP has been determined to create a development that the community would be very proud of, one that actually enhances the downtown area, not take away from it. This meant preparing and proposing several iterations of its development plan, as we've kind of heard already today, ultimately choosing to build a 10-story mixed-use development as of right. Now, as has been noted by the city planner on several occasions throughout the agenda packet that you have, it is undisputed that this development not only aligns with the city's master plan, But it meets LEED Gold certification standards under Section 5806 of the ordinance, meaning it qualifies for the two additional stories that have been requested. And this is with or without approval of the geothermal system. I think that's important to note because I know it will be a topic of discussion today. This development also does not adversely affect the surrounding properties or public facilities as it adequately accommodates parking demands. within the parking system. The parking plan review scheduled for tomorrow, in our opinion, is simply a formality to comply with the city's ordinance, as city staff only learned of this requirement recently and informed TDP of the same on June 23rd. This is reflected on page 1470 of the agenda packet today. While TDP is happy to comply with the city's ordinances, it is really worth emphasizing here that TDP has addressed the city's parking concerns to the staff satisfaction throughout its application process. This is including in their project narratives and their parking study. So for these reasons, we are encouraging you all on the City Council to approve this development consistent with the recommendations of your staff, the Planning Commission, and the DDA. Thank you.

Thank you. Julie Pinkston.

Hi, good evening. My name is Julie Pinkston. I'm the president and CEO of Choose Lansing. We are charged with the marketing and promotion of the entire Greater Lansing metropolitan region, including East Lansing and all points in between. I'm here today to talk about the importance of tourism, which brings three quarters of a billion dollars into the community and showcase that importance of tourism and hospitality in our community. from our properties like the Wild Goose Inn and properties like the Graduate Hotel is what keeps this economy going and brings that impact to our community. I'm here today in support of the Graduate Hotel's application and proposal and work that they've done for the last year and we've been talking through that with them and the importance that they play in our tourism and hospitality community here. The proposed developments of the expanded rooftop and dining for the property are important to visitors. It's important to our visitor experience, and it's what guests have been asking for. So we are here just in support of that, and we have worked very closely with that property to ensure that we can be able to promote them to the best of our ability and know that the visitors are welcomed and will have a great visitor experience while they are here. So thank you for your time. Appreciate your consideration of all these issues before you tonight.

Thank you. Bob Metzger.

Thank you for letting me speak today. My name is Bob Metzger. I'm speaking for the Metzger and Fabian family on item 6.5. We own the parking lot parcel on Albert Street. For a little background on me, prior to my retirement in 2024, I worked at the Michigan Economic Development Corporation for 17 years. And we used to have a saying there that economic development is a team sport, which means that I think that there's a lot of collaboration, communication, engagement required as you're trying to make worthwhile, worthy projects and bring them to fruition. I want to share a brief timeline, just as a reminder. I'm going to keep it very brief, because my timeline list now is about four pages long. But prior to the year 2000, there were four rental houses on this. Our families, back when my uncle and father were still alive, in working with the city of East Lansing, converted those to parking. We usually had five-year leases. during that time. In 2000, of course, COVID happened. We worked with the city due to the reduced business activity from the pandemic, and we had a 14-month lease that included the city receiving six weeks of free rent, a reduced base rate, revenue sharing as well. And in the spirit of partnership, we wanted to make this work. In mid-2022, so almost exactly four years ago, and there was a... There was a whole different staff at the City of East Lansing. It was a different city council at that time. But we met with the city to discuss plans for the property and it was Tom Fernbach and George Lohanis that some of you may remember expressed their expectation that the parking lot be developed for housing or other highest and best use by either the Metzgers or Fabians or that we bring in a developer. They would not enter into another long-term parking lease with us. Since that time, we've been on year-to-year leases. We've brought three developers to bear. One project, the affordable housing project, was voted down by a prior city council when a city council member changed their vote at the meeting who had previously endorsed the project. was the uh the affordable housing uh project we had another developer that we brought in with lv development that after having some meetings with members of the city and city council uh decided to not move forward because they were getting some very mixed messages about uh you know whether they whether city council would vote yes on on that project We now have Cody Dietrich and Turing Development, which for all that we've gone through, I think we've got the best development project on the table. We've been working them with now for nearly 18 months. So this is about a four-year process for the Metzgers and Fabians right now. It may feel pretty fresh to some of you in this room, but at the request of the City of East Lansing, we have been walking this path in very good faith for a long time now. They brought two site plans, both of which have been approved by Downtown Development Authority and the Planning Commission. And I feel like they're getting a runaround from the city council. We've brought you projects with parking. We've brought you projects without parking. It seems like we can't do the right thing, and it's ridiculously frustrating at this point. You keep on putting up obstacles with no consideration for collaborative solutions. Instead, there's active interference in some cases with the scope and the character of the project. Economic development is supposed to be a team sport. good faith partners for a long time to, you know, I guess, you know, finally bring up the big issue in the room. We are exercising our 30-day termination clause for the parking on that site as of October 1st. So maybe that will make the decision easier. agonized over that decision, but we feel like we've been given no other course. Thank you very much.

Thank you. Charles Decker.

Thank you, Mayor Altman, Mayor Pro Tem Grigsby, and Council Members Singh, Meadows, and Whelan. Thank you for giving me the opportunity to speak. I'm the Hotel Industry Research Director for Unite here, the union that represents hotel workers in the US and Canada. I'm also here on behalf of our Michigan local president, Terrell George, who wishes that he could attend this evening. Just very briefly, a word about why I'm here. I'm the graduate's owner, private equity firm, AJ Capital Partners. owns dozens of hotels across the country and is an important player in the hotel industry. And our union has a research department which keeps track of important hotel owners and we look to hold them accountable when there are issues with their community partners. And I'm also a former city councilor myself. I served in New Haven, Connecticut from 2017 to 2022. And so I've never seen a case quite like this one. I'm not saying that the graduate is not a nice hotel. I am saying they have to play by the rules, same as everyone else. So I'm urging you to, at this time, to deny the special use permit application for the rooftop expansion project. I submitted our research department's report, which I think gives ample cause to deny at this time. You have copies. You have hard copies in front of you. It's in the records. I'm not going to go through it. I think it's going to be a late evening. But the upshot is that East Lansing City officials notified AJ Capital partners over two years ago that the hotel was in violation of the zoning ordinance due to the failure to screen the mechanical equipment on the roof and in violation of conditions of its initial site plan approval due to the consistent traffic obstructions caused by the hotel's valet situation. Now, I spoke with staff. I spoke with the applicant briefly, so it sounds like the mechanical screening is now done, which is clearly a step in the right direction, right? But it was over two years of city staff trying every which way to bring the hotel into compliance. The report you have in front of you is based on about 400 emails that we received via FOIA request from the city earlier this year. As I was saying, city staff tried to bring the hotel into compliance and the hotel delaying, saying that either the screening was too expensive or simply being unable to submit their applications in time or with all the required information, culminating in the initial part of this hearing last month, which I watched. So last month, this council observed that it doesn't make sense to evaluate the rooftop item in absence of the parking item, and I think that's exactly right. This has been going on for over two years. Tonight you should deny this item and send them back to the drawing board until they can get it right. Additionally, and this is the last thing I'll say, I urge you to ask the applicant whether tonight or whether if and when the parking item comes before you, I urge you to ask the applicant, the owner, AJ Capital, the following question. If and when you receive another special use permit from East Lansing, why should we believe that you'll adhere to it when you spent years declining to adhere to the previous one? What's going to be different this time? Thank you for your time.

Thank you. Kayla Gomez.

She's going to phone in because she had to take her to a doctor.

Kath Edsel.

She's right here.

Good evening again. One, two, three. That's how much time passed between the ELPD officer yelling stop police and pepper spraying Lonnie and Mason, two unarmed young black men in the face from a distance of six to eight inches. Seven seconds. Another young black man stood with his hands in the air, trying to comply with multiple orders before he was tased. Seven seconds was also the amount of time Isaiah, a black male MSU college student, apparently having a mental health crisis, was given from the time the first officer set his foot outside the car before he was met with deadly force. Within 22 seconds, he was dead. 15 seconds, the amount of time a black man was given to both leave McDonald's and produce identification before he was grabbed, tackled, and tased. 32 seconds were given to a black man surrounded by armed officers for a black man with a gun call made by a white woman, only there wasn't a gun, and the black man was never told why he was being stopped or asked about a gun, and despite his compliance, he was shot with a 40 millimeter less lethal. Then pushed to the ground, laid on by an officer more than twice his size, had his face pushed into the pavement, hard enough to cause a wound. In the time that has taken me to read this, every one of those men was injured or killed by ELPD. All of them. Together. This is not de-escalation. This is not preserving the sanctity of life, as our use of force policy proclaims as the primary goal, unless you only mean the sanctity of the officer's life. From day one, the current police chief has made it clear that is the only life she values. She has discussed the need for social workers to address the officer's mental health struggles. She got a therapy dog for the officers. She brought officers to ELIPOC so we could meet them, because if we just knew them, then their actions would all be acceptable. She proclaimed to use training suggested by ELIPOC to address subjects having mental health crisis, only she opted for the training that addressed the officers' mental health issues. Her inability to see the humanity in the people she is charged to serve, especially the black and brown people, is on display at every turn, from the force used against BIPOC individuals, with the past year being the highest ever, to her comments and press release regarding the pepper spraying, to her disgustingly edited narrative video of Isaiah's killing that attempted to dehumanize Isaiah and excuse the officers who were told to go less lethal and then shot him seven or eight more times. And of course, her disproportionate number of minorities come into our community and committing crimes comment that she repeated in public at least twice and defended in an open LEPOC meeting. I mention this because the previous city manager, after declaring it a racist statement, defended her in a private meeting as only repeating what a news reporter said. That is provable and a disgusting lie. The chief signed off on a complaint investigation that exonerated all officers and declared that de-escalation was used by defining de-escalation as the presence of marked police cars and officers in police uniforms. This is not de-escalation. The chief's unholstering of her pepper spray was described as de-escalation in a legal memo addressing a video in a different situation. The chief did not dispute this even though unholstering a weapon is not an act of de-escalation. First and foremost, de-escalation necessitates seeing the humanity in the people being policed. Next, it requires an understanding that de-escalation means that the officers de-escalate themselves so the entire situation can be calmed and everyone is much safer. De-escalation is time and distance, not guns, pepper spray, police cars, uniforms. These are basic concepts lost on the chief and her officers time and time again. The data supports this, anecdotes supports this. Time means more than a minute and a half it took for ELPD to harm or kill the six black men I mentioned above. A lot more. Distance means not pulling up on a subject and jumping out to put yourself in their way, giving the officer an excuse to use force. Isaiah should be alive. All the others should be unharmed and unarrested. This is how we use our police resources so that we can create the lie to tell White East Lansing residents we need more police. This council has already cost this community so much in wasted resources, bond proposals, legal fees, and unnecessary harms, and now you abrogated your responsibility to choose a city manager to the mayor who has chosen a friend of the chief to continue to protect the Chief's job because everything I said above is exactly how the Mayor, the City Manager, and by extension all of you want this city to run. Excessive use of force, especially against BIPOC individuals, apparently is supported by all of you. Isaiah's death, Lonnie and Mason's near-blinding, others I have named, but are irreversibly harmed to support the minorities commit crimes narrative. As I come to the end of my comments, let it sink in that ELPD could have harmed 20 more black people while I spoke.

Thank you. Cameron Jacobson.

Good evening, council members. Cameron Jacobson, Project Architect, DLR Group. Wanted to take a moment to follow up on June City Council meeting in regards to the Howard, item 6.4 this evening, and provide a quick update on the progress that we've made with city staff over the last month. I'm happy to report that we've made a lot of headway, cutting the number of approval conditions in half. The remaining approval conditions are standard requirements for projects of this size and location, along with a few additional requirements related to our commitment to pursuing LEED Gold certification in building with mass timber. Over the past month, our project team has also been meeting with city staff every Tuesday, most of those meetings in person, to work through comments from each department, keep communication open, and make sure that nothing falls through the cracks. These eight-plus-hour drives have been well worth the commitment because we know how important this project is to get right. We really appreciate the time, collaboration, support we've received from city staff. Throughout this process, it's been a true team effort, and we're excited to be at this point to take the next big step towards making this innovative project a reality. Thank you again for your continued support and consideration. I'm happy to answer any questions when this business agenda comes up later this evening. Thank you.

Thank you. Those are all the slips that I have that are not for hearings. Is there anybody else in the audience that would care to address council during this public comment period? Please.

Uh, good evening. My name is Diane Wing. I'm a resident of the Chesterfield Hills neighborhood. I'm here to speak about item six dot nine on your business agenda. Um, the property in question is in the Chesterfield Hills neighborhood, which is where I live. One four four Highland Avenue. Not here to, um, have, I have no problem with adding the apartments there. But, um, my concern is about what the accessory dwelling looks like today. It looks like a conglomeration, a mishmash of different styles. I think it's grown over the years. It would be the perfect time to require the applicant to also address the exterior of that building. I noticed that the applicant submitted interior plans, which makes sense since they're converting it to apartments. but we would love to have the exterior addressed as well to bring it into some sort of continuity so it actually looks like something other than an accessory dwelling that's been patched up over the years. My other comments in regards to this are in regards to the 1994 approval of the site approval of this building. Item three stipulates that a five foot high opaque wooden fence be installed along the eastern property line. While there is a fence along the eastern property line, it does not extend next to that accessory dwelling. If you're on the eastern side of the accessory dwelling, there's no fence. So I would submit to you that that aspect of the 1994 agreement be addressed and that offense be extended further so it is alongside the accessory dwelling. The other thing is item number four within that the site plan is that evergreen shrubs were to be planted along the west side of the parking area facing the street. If there were ever evergreens planted there, they're no longer there, they're gone. And I would ask that the council require the applicant to install evergreen shrubs as is listed in the 1994 statement. Thank you.

Thank you. Is there anyone else in the audience who would like to address council during this public comment period? Seeing none, do we have any callers? Oh, please. Please state your name.

Sorry, thank you. My name is Brandon Snyder. I'm the state director for the Michigan Work and Families Party. We're a community and labor coalition here in the state of Michigan, as well as with members here in Lansing. I'm speaking on behalf of the issue 6.02, which is the health access plan. I WANT TO JUST FIRST THANK YOU ALL FOR GIVING ME THE ABILITY TO SPEAK AT THIS MOMENT AND ENCOURAGE THE EAST LANCIN CITY COUNCIL TO PLACE THE HEALTHCARE ACTION PLAN ON THE NOVEMBER BALLOT. THE COST OF HEALTHCARE IS SKYROCKETING, IS A SKYROCKETING CRISIS. WE'RE ALL STRUGGLING RIGHT NOW TO AFFORD HEALTHCARE. AT THE SAME TIME, THE PRICE OF EVERYTHING AROUND US IS GOING UP, FROM GAS TO GROCERIES. I believe this is a way that will allow us the health care access plan that will allow us to have a voice to make health care more affordable for people in East Lansing. A health care action plan will allow families and people in our communities to tell Congress what actions they must take to make healthcare more affordable. If this proposal passes, we would be able to hold public hearings and be able to develop ways for regular people here in the community to afford healthcare, as well as hear from the experiences of others in our community about their experience with affordability. Some lawmakers in our area voted to take healthcare away from 400,000 Michiganders, and that's wrong. A HEALTHCARE ACTION PLAN WILL ADDRESS WHAT WE CAN DO AT THE LOCAL LEVEL TO CREATE SOLUTIONS AS WELL AS BUILD COMMUNITY AROUND THE ISSUES OF HEALTHCARE. AND THAT'S WHY I ENCOURAGE THIS EAST LANSING CITY COUNCIL TO AGAIN SUPPORT THE HEALTHCARE ACTION PLAN AND WE HOPE THAT WE CAN PUT THE HEALTHCARE ACTION PLAN ON THE NOVEMBER BALLOT. THANK YOU.

THANK YOU. IS THERE ANYONE ELSE WHO WOULD LIKE TO ADDRESS THE COUNCIL HERE IN THE AUDIENCE? ARE THERE ANY CALLERS?

There are two callers on the line. Caller with the last name Gomez, you are now free to address the council.

Thank you. I am actually calling in asking Annette Irwin directly to please review our HRC memo that was released regarding Chief Jennifer Brown's actions and history of policing on a bias is in detail please review it i'm asking for you to move us in the right direction and fire chief jen brown i have the report there for you to review um i will also email it with the link so you can review it that is all thank you thank you next caller caller with the phone number ending in 242 you are now free to address the council

Caller with your phone number ending in 242, you are now free to address the council.

Hello? Can you hear me?

Hello?

Hello, can you hear me?

Yes.

Hello, my name is Simon Terraza. I'm a longtime resident. I'm here to share the record of ELPD Chief Brown's first year as permanent chief. Last year, May 29th, Brown was sworn in as permanent chief. August 24th, DLPD officer Andrew Lyons physically attacked two young local black college students, Mr. Smith and Mr. Woods, pepper spraying them at point blank range within inches of their face. The following month, the city of East Lansing put out a press release with Chief Brown's direct involvement, calling the incident a fight falsely. Surveillance footage later proved that that was not true, and the release has been quietly deleted from the city's website. On October 3rd, A few weeks later, Brown writes an email to the city manager and the PR consultant stating, we need to start controlling the narrative. The same week, in a news interview, Brown says East Lansing has, quote, a disproportionate number of minorities coming to the community to commit crimes, quote. October 16th, last year, the city's own Independent Police Oversight Commission voted seven to one to call for Brown's designation. A few days later, on October 20th, the city's Human Rights Commission separately called for Brown to resign or be removed. On October 21st, the very next day, this council voted to hire outside council for an independent review of ELPD. That was nine months ago. No report has ever been made public. In December, Brown told the Oversight Commission ELPD will not investigate the two officers involved in the pepper spray incident. By the end of last year, use of force incidents had risen From 131 people hurt by East Lansing police officers in 2024 to 198 human beings assaulted by East Lansing police officers in 2025. That's a 51% increase, the worst year on record. Last year, we're talking about 198 people who were either living or visiting East Lansing were physically assaulted by our own sworn law enforcement officers. As you know, East Lansing is only about 12% black. Yet last year, 83% of the human beings the ELPD chose to assault or use force against were black and brown human beings. This year, March and April, the Human Rights Commission formally found in writing ELPD under Chief Brown's leadership violated the civil rights of Mr. Smith and Mr. Woods. The HRC ordered $50,000 each in restitution, which the city has still refused to pay. April 14th, NAACP renews its call for Brown to step down when the Lansing branch president, James McCurtis Jr. asked this body at a city council meeting. What is it going to take a George Floyd moment in East Lansing for you to replace the chief that is on April 14th, the very following day. ELPD officers fire over 20 rounds of ammunition in broad daylight to shoot and kill 21-year-old graduating MSU senior, Isaiah Kirby. The first time East Lansing police have ever killed someone, to my knowledge. Michigan State Police concluded their investigation, but the public's not allowed to review that. We await any general NEPO's review, as they have not reached a decision yet. And ELPD is still not fully staffed. Something this department hasn't achieved since 2019. A year before the ELPD was murdering Isaiah Kirby, Chief Brown was still interim chief, and she was stating to this body that we were going to finally be staffed up. Robert Bellman spent that year defending Brown. He's gone. Ms. Irwin, you are new. You did not create this record. But the fall semester starts in a few weeks. And a new class of Spartans, including thousands of young black students from all over the state and nation, will be walking the same streets where all this police violence happened over the past year under the leadership of Chief Rouse. The violence ELPD is preparing to commit with impunity against our community guests, these young incoming college students this fall, is going to happen on your watch. You do have the authority right now to move, Chief. We're watching the council, we're watching you, and we're definitely watching the LPD. Thank you.

Thank you. Are there any further callers?

Remaining on the line.

Okay. That concludes communication from the audience, which brings us to communications from the council. Council Member Whalen.

But I have a couple of things I do applaud the city even though I really like 80s night because that's my era That we had to cancel that because of the weather and that was I mean the smog and the firefighters and the fires in, Canada So I do applaud all the city staff of creating those events for the summer, those are entertaining and well attended. Also, I want to make a comment about the tragedies that have happened on Saginaw in the last several months involving a motorcyclist, a pedestrian, and two vehicles. They're just very tragic and very noteworthy. I think that we implore people to slow down, to be more aware of, especially motorcycles and pedestrians and bicyclists in the summertime, as people are much more out and about in the community. Also, in general, to make my own personal comment, the trunk lines of West Grand River and Saginaw just seems like the speed limit is awfully high there. So I know that's a long-term discussion. That's all I have tonight. Thank you. Council Member Meadows.

A couple of things. I'll start with that. You know, I was taking a look at Saginaw and some of the statutory authority-related damn debt, and I think we might have a little more authority along that stretch than we've exercised. So I will be requesting some advice from the city attorney with regard to that. I want to mention the financial health team because we've got that report on the agenda this evening. That was Tim Irvin, Roberta Jameson, Ann Holmes, Bob Klein, Dave Kruthoff, Dave Lancaster, and as chair, Jill Rohde. And they did an incredible job. I was honored to be the liaison to the financial health team. And I was involved with the last financial health team as well. These people really put their minds together to take a look at the future of this community. And they made some exceptionally great recommendations to us. So hats off if I wore a hat. And then I'll just note that some of you who vote absentee or by mail, however you want to look at it, will have gotten your ballots already. the Charter Revision Commission that made recommendations to the City Council. Three of those recommendations are on the ballot at this time. So you have to go to the second page and go all the way to the bottom to find those recommendations to improve the Charter of the City of East Lansing. So please when you do vote go all the way to the bottom because a lot of people Vote just on some of the things that are on the ballot and then skip the rest. Please don't skip anything, whether you're voting yes or no on those. And then sorry to hear that you're terminating the city's lease on the parking lot down at Bailey, but certainly understand it's your property. You have a right to do that. That was the agreement with the city to give us 30 days notice when you do that. And then, finally, because somebody brought it up, you know, I think that we should take a look at passing a resolution opposing the SAVE Act and preserving the right of our citizens to vote as they see fit in this community. So I'd ask that maybe we think about doing something like that and have it on a discussion agenda in the future. That's all I've got.

Thank you. Mayor Pro Tem.

Yes, thank you. Just wanted to say thank you to community members who have come in tonight and spoke at the podium and as well as called in and then tuning in to the meeting this evening. I just want to say thank you for everyone who reached out to myself and my family in regards to some personal things that went on. And I appreciate that support. And I want to just speak to I have not been as responsive as I Usually am and I'm getting back into the rotation of things and so I do have some pending meetings with some people And community members, so I'm looking forward to getting you back on the schedule and getting you in front of me so we can have that community conversation as well as I probably will not be able to do the uh community meeting that i plan on doing here in july until probably next month as i get caught up in that react made it with a lot of the work that is uh to be done and what we're going to be discussing tonight so i appreciate your patience in regards to that um and then also i want to just thank staff for holding it down for me and taking care of certain things for me why i was out doing the things that needed to be done And then I'll save the rest of my comments for the agenda items. Thank you. Thank you.

Council Member Singh.

Yes, I too, like Council Member Meadows, had Reverend Burke's comments on the SAVE Act, and that may be something we want to consider. But also, I think it's amazing to have faith leaders uniting on protecting our democracy and the sanctity of our voting structure. And huge shout out to Clerk Gordon and her team as they're mobilizing for the primary right now with a lot of work ahead of us. So just want to thank again those faith leaders as well as our clerk's team. Two, I want to give a brief shout out to Amy's Eggman who's coming off? She's actually termed out of the Board of Trustees over at the library. So Assuming our consent agenda gets adopted tonight. We will be Having a new member join that board and we'll be at full force so want to mention that and And then I also want to take a moment on some of the comments around ELPD as well as use of force and the ongoing community discussions that we've been having on that front for a number of months. I know I've been working with a set of folks in the community. I've referenced this from the dais here in prior meetings. That work continues with ELPD as well with our city attorney's office as well as our interim city manager. So I am hopeful that we will hear an update on use of force policy as well as what an annual training could be and could look like for ELPD that includes not only what we've had trainers present just this past May on de-escalation that covers the core communication skills that drive successful outcomes and crisis encounters but this as any professional development I used to work in workforce You have to continually to grow and strengthen skills over time and I look at this not just for ELPD but also across our city staff wanting to want the best and brightest that we're supporting them grow in their careers and skill sets. More to come on that. I was hopeful that this would be presented in our August 11th meeting, those updates, but it looks like it'll be on the discussion only meeting in September. So those are my updates tonight.

Thank you. So a couple of things from my part, a couple of shout outs. One is to Allison Riffle in the city manager's office, who is coordinating the tennis shoe harvest from our utility lines. You may have seen a spot on the news last week featuring the Board of Water and Light and the seven trash bags of tennis shoes that they cut down and donated, which is a nice outcome. The story behind the story there is that I got a call from a resident who wondered whether we could do anything about this. And I forwarded the call to the city manager's office and Allison got to work. The city doesn't touch utility lines for safety and liability issues. And one utility isn't going to touch another utility's lines. And there's often three or four or five sets of lines between poles. So this is a real project. It involves a lot of calls and relationship building. And I cite this as just one example of the problem solving that goes on behind the scenes every day in city hall. When a problem goes away, there's a person behind it. I also want to thank Cliff Walls and Carrie Sampson for the composting video. It got us started in our household. You might not want to watch it during dinner, but it's a great piece of comms. And I will say that in our household, it took us about 20 minutes to figure out our system. And we now have a container in the fridge that we fill up and drop off at city hall in the drop container there. And now we have less trash and it's cleaner and maybe not going to work for anyone, but I encourage people to give it a try. And lastly, I want to remind people that in September, we switch over to three minutes per speaker during public comment and public hearings. I know that people put a lot of work into preparing their comments that was on display again tonight. And I don't want anybody to get caught by surprise. And I will try to remember to give another heads up at our August meeting. So with that, we have our first official interim city managers report, Ms. Irwin.

Yes, sorry, thank you. I do have a few announcements that I'd like to share here this evening. And since we've had some discussions about voting and elections and work of the city clerk, I think I will start there. So just as a brief update to everyone, to date, we have about 39% absentee ballot return rate. Thank you for those. You may return your ballots in a drop box, take it to your early voting or your precinct on election day. Early voting does begin this Saturday from nine to five at the Hannah community center. For those of you who want to participate in that, they also, the city clerk does invite city council to cast their vote on opening day if they have not already voted. I can kind of follow along with some of that. I did write down briefly some of the things going on this week in the city. I often hear, what's happening? And what can we do? And what's going on in the city? So just to share just very slight things. So on the same kind of discussion as elections, at the library tomorrow, Wednesday. How the Michigan election process works, protecting democracy, will be hosted and put on by our city clerk in conjunction with the League of Women Voters, the Lansing area League of Women Voters. So if you do want to learn some more about our election process here in Michigan, specifically here in East Lansing, that is one good opportunity to do so. Then the next night, Thursday, you have a couple of choices or do both. You can participate in the evening. There will be a chalk walk downtown. It was supposed to be earlier. Rain intervened. You know, this whole weather thing, climate thing has been disrupting some of our things. But the staff has worked to bring that downtown Thursday. And then after that, you can go over to Valley Court and watch a movie. How to Train Your Dragon is coming up. So that brings you to Thursday, Friday night. Downtown, we will have music from 6 to 8, Anne Street Plaza. And then, of course, Saturday, you can go do your early voting. And Sunday, come on downtown, around the Marriott Plaza area there, there is a summer stretch. And that is Sunday in the morning about 10 AM, I believe. And I think tomorrow or Sunday's is yoga stretch. I know that sometimes there's pilates, sometimes yoga. So just briefly, and that's only part of what's happening in our community, is kind of something for every day. and quite a wide variety of things and that doesn't even count all the meetings that are happening uh... as behind the scenes uh... the other announcement i wanted to share is nicole evans is our court administrator fifty four b district court she has earned national recognition and she has been certified as a fellow of the institute for court management at the national center for state courts this is a highly regarded certification July 10th this just this past July 10th Miss Evans joined the 55th fellows class in Washington DC for graduation ceremony at the United States Supreme Court if you want to Learn more about that read a little more. It is on our city's website and I encourage you to do so the other thing I want to mention is it is summer and So it's orange cone season, I think we'll call it. And there is a lot of construction going on in the city. And I know it can be frustrating. I'm a creature of habit, and I have my way home from City Hall. it involves Harrison Road and I can't tell you how many times I've done my route and get there and go oh but it's good it's all good good progress the other thing I wanted to say is Grand River I know being closed is a highly inconvenience for many people but I really do encourage you to continue to shop and dine and along Grand River the businesses are all open and You know, it is summer and everyone wants ice cream in the summer. Keep in mind there's more than one, a few ice cream establishments along Grand River. So keep heading that way. There's signs for routing you around different ways to get to all the establishments downtown. I'll be quick. I do want to do an extra thank you to our city staff. Our employees last week was hot and it was also bad air. And we have many, many employees in our organization. that have to work outside. It is what they do, it's part of their job, and it's what they have to do to serve our community and visitors. So we did send a message out to everyone, all the supervisors were aware of this, and we did work with all of our employees to try to make sure that they were getting extra breaks, making sure everyone had water, trying to keep everyone's safety as a concern, and also sharing the message as a reminder that if they did see someone else in the city that appeared to maybe be having some problems due to the heat or the smoke, to seek assistance for them. So I want to do a shout out and a thank you to all of them and the extra effort that had to go to keep everyone safe. For those, I heard a mention of 80s night. For those who like that era of the 80s, and I can relate to that, I go to play my, when we do that, Ms. Pacman's my favorite, and we are working on rescheduling 80s night, so we'll inform you of that when the time comes. And I'll stop there, thank you.

Thank you. City Attorney's report.

I don't have anything to report today.

Okay, no report from the city attorney that brings us to item 3 which is a special presentation Concerning a new officer introduction chief Brown Good evening mayor

Mayor Pro Tem and City Council members, today I have the privilege of introducing three of our newest police officers. Each new hire represents an investment in our future, of our department, and our community. We don't simply hire to fill vacancies. We seek individuals who are committed to serving others, building trust, and carrying out our mission with professionalism, integrity, and compassion. Does this guy next to me look familiar? This is Officer Marquis Washington. He is the brother of Giovanni Washington who joined the East Lansing Police Department in August of 2025. Marquis was born and raised in Lansing. He started his career as a cadet here at the East Lansing Police Department in 2019. Since then, he's served one year with the Detroit Police Department and four years with the Lansing Police Department, wearing many hats. He started the East Lansing Police Department on April 7th. As a police officer, over the last five years, he's served as a community police officer, recruiter, mentor, explorer, advisor, PAL team member, and field training officer. Off duty, he enjoys basketball, woodworking, and spending time with his family. We also have Officer Chris Mosby tonight with us, who joined the East Lansing Police Department on April 7th of this year. Officer Chris Mosby grew up in Southfield and Livonia. He brings a remarkable combination of military and police experience. He served five years in the army that included deployments overseas. He currently flies UH 60 Blackhawks with the National Guard. He also spent four years with the Lansing Police Department as a community policing officer, PAL team member, and mentor. And when he's not working, he enjoys photography, video games, and weightlifting. He's pursuing a bachelor in business management with a focus on cybersecurity. Kendall Soules is also with us here tonight and she started the East Lansing Police Department in March of 2025 as a PACE officer. She went from being a PACE officer to a recruit and then started the Mid-Michigan Police Academy. She graduated from the academy in May of this year and started as a police officer on May 11th. Prior to the academy, Kendall graduated from Michigan State University with a bachelor's degree in criminal justice. In her spare time, she enjoys reading books and playing guitar. As these officers begin their careers with the East Lansing Police Department, they're joining a profession built on service, accountability, and trust. They have chosen a career dedicated to serving others and we are committed to providing them with the training, mentorship, and support that they need to succeed. I'm confident they will make a positive impact on our department and in the community that we are privileged to serve. Please join me in welcoming them to the East Lansing Police Department.

thank you chief brown and welcome to officers washington mosby and souls we are glad you are part of the team that brings us to the consent agenda miss irwin yes thank you 4.1 approve the following appointments or reappointments to boards or commissions

Mackenzie Rhodes to the East Lansing Public Library Board of Trustees for a partial term ending June 30th, 2031. Erica Mueller to the Housing Commission for a partial term ending December 31st, 2026. Brenton Richmond to the Downtown Management Board for a partial term ending December 31st, 2027. Robbie Jamison to the Seniors Commission for a partial term ending December 31st, 2028. Marie Wicks to the Seniors Commission for a partial term ending December 31st, 2028. Jacqueline Babcock to the Downtown Development Authority I am going to say, I know our agenda says partial term. These are full terms for the DDA members. They start their terms mid-year. So this will be a full term ending June 30th, 2030. Jill Rohde to the Downtown Development Authority for a full term ending June 30th, 2030. Jeff Mason to the Downtown Development Authority for a full term ending June 30th, 2030. 4.2, approve a resolution to approve the storm water maintenance agreement for the sheets development at 111 East Saginaw Street and authorize the interim city manager to sign. 4.3, approve a resolution to execute MDOT agreement 25-5626 for the installation, maintenance and operation of sidewalk and retaining wall along the south side of Saginaw Highway and authorize the interim city manager to sign. 4.4, approve a resolution recognizing Disability Pride Month and the 36th anniversary of the Americans with Disability Act. 4.5, approve a resolution to authorize an agreement between the city and Ingham County Drain Commission for an easement for the sanitary and storm sewer systems owned by the city within the Smedley Coolidge Drain Easements and authorize the interim city manager to sign. 4.6, approve a contract with Spalding DeDecker for $66,050 to develop the west downtown area plan and authorize the interim city manager to sign. 4.7, approve a contract with DC Buyers Company Detroit Incorporated for the parking facility repairs 2026 project in the amount of $2,985,121 and authorize the interim city manager to sign. Furthermore, approve a project contingency of 15% in the amount of $447,768 for a total authorized amount of $3,432,889. Approve a contract with Great Lakes Interiors and Design for $29,290,000 to remodel the Hanna Community Center theater, sound, and lighting control booth with a 10% project contingency of $2,900 and authorize the interim city manager to sign. Approve a contract with Michigan Paving for the local street Abbott Parkside and Cricket Lane project in the amount of $916,000 which includes a 15% contingency and authorized the interim city manager to sign. Further amend fiscal year 2027 local street fund budget by appropriating $420,000 of fund balance for this contract. 4.10, approve a street closure request to close Albert Avenue between Grove Street and MAC Avenue from 6 a.m. on Friday, August 14 until 12 p.m. on Sunday, August 15 for the Red Cedar Root Festival. Approve a street closure for the National Night Out Touch a Truck event on Library Lane on Thursday, August 6 from 5.30 p.m. to 8.30 p.m. Approve a parking agreement with a local development finance authority to offset costs related to parking for tenants of the Technology and Innovation Center, known as the TIC, and authorize the interim city manager to sign. Approve an amendment to the parking division fee schedule to revise the pay later notice fee from $30 to $40 to align it with the gated lot failure to pay citation established in section 44-544 of the East Lansing Code of Ordinances. 4.14, approve the sale of the 2018 Rosenbauer 100-foot aerial platform for $800,000 and purchase a new Pierce fire engine for $1,230,000 and authorize the interim city manager to sign. 4.15 approved scheduling a public hearing on August 11th, 2026 to consider appeal of street tree removal violation at 528 MAC Avenue known as a Kappa Delta Sigma sorority at that location. 4.16 received the arts commission's 2025 annual report. 4.17 receive the Financial Health Review Committee's final report. And that is the end of the consent agenda for this evening.

Thank you. Is there any council member who would like any items removed from the consent agenda to the business agenda? Seeing none, is there a motion to approve the business agenda as presented? The consent agenda. Sorry, did I say business agenda? I meant consent agenda. Moved by Whelan.

Yes, I just do have one question as a city manager for that. After, I'll do the motion. Yes.

So motion by Whalen. Second. Second by Grigsby. Is there any discussion of the consent agenda?

I'm sorry. Thank you for patience there. On 4.7, we were applying for some grants for that also. Did we have any progress on any of those grants? Some different federal grants and state grants.

For the parking garage?

Submatching funds, or we're looking for other monies for that. Do we know if we've gotten any of that?

I don't believe we have grant money for the parking garage work that we have cited here.

Okay. Mr. Meadows.

I have one comment on the agenda, and I should have brought this up in my own comments. You know, one of the items here is to close Albert Street for the Roots Festival, so I just want to remind everybody that on the 14th and 15th of August, we have music in the Downstown. The Roots Festival will begin. It's a two-night festival. event this year, but it's the precursor to a full weekend event that we're planning for the following year. So please attend and hopefully you'll have a great time down there.

Any further discussion? Council Member Singh.

Yes, on the parking. Sorry, I just lost what agenda item it was. The parking agreement for LDEFA to offset costs. It's for the TIC. I thought they were moving out at the end of the year. They're ending their lease for their building, so are we still supporting their parking downtown for another six months beyond the term of them being downtown?

I can look into that. Once they're gone, we wouldn't be supporting parking for somebody that isn't using it or there.

Okay. So it's probably only six months and not a year.

I can check, and I definitely will get back to you.

They may be moving in the downtown, but they're not leaving the downtown.

Is that news?

That's not news. That was decided some time ago.

Jeff Smith told, okay, anyway, okay.

Look at puzzlement all around. I guess we can resolve this easily enough at some point. The city manager can get back to us. Yes, definitely. Thank you. Okay. So we have a motion before us to approve the consent agenda as presented. All those in favor say aye. Aye. Any opposed? That motion carries. The consent agenda is approved. That brings us to the first of our four public hearings. This is a public hearing to receive comments on proposed ordinance 1564, an amendment to chapter 50 of the city code to rezone approximately 40 properties north of Lake Lansing Road, west of Chandler Road, and east of US 127 from their current DeWitt Township zoning to East Lansing zone districts. Mr. Bartley.

Thank you, Mayor. Landon Bartley, Principal Planner. So what we've pulled up on the screen is essentially a map of Northern Tier properties. You see Chandler at the right side of the map. Lake Lansing would be south to the bottom of the screen. So Ordinance 1564. would change the zoning of these properties, the ones that are shaded in on the map, about 35 properties in the area that were transferred by 425 agreement from DeWitt Township to East Lansing in 2001, but the zoning was not changed. So we're seeking to change the zoning of these properties to East Lansing Zone Districts. That change into East Lansing Zone District would essentially make these properties much more usable than they are right now. I can't, as planning and zoning administrator for the city, I can't administer a different municipality zoning ordinance, but I can administer East Lansing zoning ordinance, so I can't technically administer any zoning on these properties until the zoning has changed. We did have a public meeting on, excuse me, February 23rd at MSU FCU up on Coolidge Road. Invited all the property owners and had a very good meeting with many of them. The Planning Commission has also reviewed this and held a public hearing and has made a recommendation to adopt the ordinance with some amendments. So very briefly, I also want to bring up, there were some concerns that I heard from neighbors, particularly those in Hawks Nest, which is sort of to the right side of this map, right lower quadrant. Some concerns about the most recent public notice for the public hearing, for tonight's public hearing, Just sort of a wrinkle that I want to explain briefly. The notice was for the Ordinance 1564 as introduced. And since that time, the Planning Commission has made recommendations to change the ordinance. But their recommendations weren't reflected in the notice because we're sending notice for the ordinance as introduced. So the work that the Planning Commission has done since February and resulting in their recommendation to adopt That work and their recommendation is reflected in the staff report and in your sample motion if you choose to take action tonight. But it wasn't reflected in the notice just because of how public notices work. So I talked to a couple of neighbors in Hawks Nest to try to allay those concerns. And I just wanted to state that out here so that if there were other concerns when there's listening or watching, that that's why the notice for tonight's public hearing appeared the way it did. Very briefly, what we're showing on the screen is the staff's recommendation following the public meeting on February 23rd and the public hearing by the Planning Commission. I believe that was in April. The Planning Commission met several times about this, in fact, in delayed action. I believe they met and talked about this for three meetings before making a recommendation to Council. So the map does reflect the final recommendation made by Planning Commission. I want to just briefly go through what's proposed at the far upper left, excuse me, upper right. Those properties were previously due at Township Business. You can see that the northernmost property is shaped potentially to accommodate a future interchange with I-69. We're not aware of that interchange moving forward anytime soon. are proposing to have those properties be zoned R1, low density single family residential, which would be consistent with the residential zoning of the properties immediately to the south, which includes the Eagle Eye Golf Club. I also want to note just one thing. There is a small property included up in that group of properties at the northeast end here that says 3859 on it. You can't really see it on the screen, but it's this little property that Little rectangle that has writing that's very small. That's 3859 Stoll. That currently does have East Lansing zoning, so that's not included in this ordinance. That's included in a later ordinance, 1570, which will come to you in August. Excuse me, so the properties immediately surrounding that, though, are proposed to be changed to R1. Further south and southwest, I guess, closest to the highway there, that's the north side of State Road, immediately to the west of the DPW site. That was previously proposed or zoned by DeWitt Township as multifamily residential, and we're proposing to change that to RM22, which is medium density multifamily residential. Just to the east and to the south of State Street is a property that's shown as being proposed for B4, a restricted office business. That would match the existing zoning of the surrounding properties, which is to the south, east, and west. Well, I should say to the south and west across Coolidge. Just to the east is a small residential district. little cul-de-sac. Just east of that we see a couple properties to the east and then south that are marked with a hatch mark or the diagonal lines. Those are proposed to be our A residential agricultural I want to call out, so the big property that's on the south side of the state that was originally proposed for a different, I believe for an R district residential, the property owners currently farm it and asked it to be agricultural, so this reflects their request and also the recommendation of the Planning Commission. To the southeast of there you see other properties that are currently shown with the hatch mark. Those are properties that had at one point been recommended to be rezoned to RM14. low-density multifamily residential district. We had several property owners to the east in Hawks Nest neighborhood saying, please don't change the zoning to RM14. We'd prefer a much lower density or lower intensity residential zone district. At one point, we had suggested changing to R2. We still received some concerns from the neighbors, and so the Planning Commission ultimately recommended RA, residential agricultural district. My understanding is that the property owner may not be – that's the odd company. They may have interest in future development of those properties. I don't think they have anything – they don't have anything proposed right now or immediately in the future, but they may be requesting a rezoning down the road to facilitate development if and when that happens. south of there and west, I guess southeast and also southwest, on both sides of the street, that's Coleman Road. Those properties are all proposed, recommended by staff and by the Planning Commission to be RM14, low density multi-family residential. Brief note about why that is recommended. Currently we have several disparate land uses, or I guess a range of land uses across those properties, including a school, including one and two family houses. We also have requests to, or pending requests, requests that are going to be coming pending this zoning, zone change, for site plans that would require RM-14 zoning. 2,900 Coleman right in the middle between Coolidge and West on the south side had originally requested a rezoning of their property and that was the sort of catalyst to bring this sort of batch rezoning forward. And so they're seeking to have a low density multi-family residential use. So the RM14 zone district allows for single family houses and two family houses by right. So the existing houses that are proposed to be rezoning would remain conforming. We didn't want to create non-conformities in the code or with these properties. They've essentially been non-conforming for the last 25 years. So we wanted to change that. and make them conforming, and this would allow that while also allowing for limited future development, including low-density multifamily residential. And then finally, I wanted to mention a couple properties to the south of Coleman along West Road. The property owners had talked about, could those be residential as well? Could they be retail business? We would like to see a little more, I guess, planning effort about what should that corner look like? What should that area by West and Coleman look like? So we're not recommending a retail business district at this time. We are recommending B4 restricted office business, which is consistent with the zoning of the properties. to the east, south, and west of those properties. So based on this map, I'd be happy to answer any questions. I should mention one more thing. The change to the zoning is just that. We had some concerns from residents in early public hearings asking, will this change the municipality? Are we still in DeWitt Township and this would go to East Lansing? No, these are already in East Lansing. They just have DeWitt Township zoning. They would have East Lansing zoning now. No land use would be approved automatically as a result of the zoning, although certainly the approval path of different land uses would change. There would be an approval path, I should say, by changing to East Lansing's own district. Doesn't change the school district, just changes the zoning. I'd like to answer any questions, but also just mention, if the council is interested in moving and taking action tonight, I've included a sample motion to that effect that reflects the Planning Commission's recommendation. If you're not interested in moving forward tonight, with the whole request but might be open to other part of it the applicant at 2900 Coleman that I mentioned earlier who was sort of the catalyst for this battery zoning would be interested in seeing like I could see splitting for example those properties on the west side of Coolidge if that's kosher but that would you could move ahead with those just because that applicant at the bottom excuse me at the south side 2900 Coleman had is looking to bring an application. They're going to be requesting tax credit financing from the state, which has an October application deadline. So they would like to see action tonight if you're comfortable. If not, they'll certainly wait. So with all that said, can I answer any questions about this proposed ordinance?

Questions for staff. Mr. Whalen. Yes. For clarity, 2921 is a school, correct?

Yes. Okay.

And then all of that north of there, there's a business there and there's several other things before you get to all the MSU properties.

For MSU, FCU.

Yes. It's all north. So then how is all of that huge, what's the zoning of all that property north of the purple line there?

Generally, that's B4, restricted office business. Okay. And so that would be consistent with the property on the south side of state up to the north end there, just east of Coolidge. That's what the surrounding zoning is, B4. Okay. So that's different from the RM14 that's proposed closer to Coleman.

So the school would be a unique property in this low density residential section?

Yeah, the school would be within the same zoning, RM14, which is low density multifamily. It would be a conforming use in that zone district.

OK. Other questions? Mr. Meadows.

Mike. The property that was the catalyst for you to take a look at this, is that the property that was clear cut?

No. That was just next door, I believe, 2980. I believe that's the address. That was not 2900.

Okay. And with regard to a project that actually appears to be percolating, which would that one, why do the rest of this at this time? You already indicated we could carve that out, so I'm curious as to why we would make any changes otherwise.

If you're going to carve it out, I wouldn't suggest just carving out the single property. I would suggest carving out more properties if needed. The request I guess for the overall rezoning was because this applicant for 2900, they had come and said we'd like to rezone this to a different zone district. It would be difficult if it were just one because of the, I guess, because of the prevailing zoning in that area, which is all currently B4 or Dewitt Township, if they were just going to change that property, it would have to change to B4 to avoid spot zoning, which isn't legal. And B4 would not allow the kind of uses that they were hoping for. So we said, hey, look, these are all Dewitt Township zones right now. Best practice would be to change these to East Lansing. Let's bring this all together. And that's why this precipitated this request.

And historically, anyway, the RA zone, which is now indicated for the properties adjacent to the Hawk Nest neighborhood, I also received those phone calls. is our holding zone. In other words, awaiting a project and a proposal that would require a change for a more appropriate zoning. And that was originally proposed for RM-14, correct?

The properties, so the hatched ones that are currently proposed for agricultural, the ones in the north had been proposed for a lower density residential that property owners requested RA to the south. Yeah, those had been proposed for RM14. The neighbors requested RA.

But we can deal with that with an RA at the time that a proposal actually comes in. This is a holding area. Why wouldn't we just do that with the rest of this property? do an RA so that we await a project.

For the rest of the properties? Correct. Well, I guess for the properties that are proposed to be V4, I would look to change those properties to be consistent with the zone districts around them. We couldn't change them to RA by themselves. Same thing with the property just to the west of DPW. You wouldn't want to spot zone that as agricultural. I guess I wanted to avoid making non-conforming uses and the RM-14 wouldn't make any of the existing land uses non-conforming where even the RA would because there are existing two family houses and schools.

OK. That's my question. So just to follow up on that, is it correct to say that most of those proposed RM14 areas, that's the lowest density that makes all the properties conforming, all the structures conforming? Is that safe to say? That's correct. We heard a fair bit about the area just to the west of Hawk Ness concerning a wetland there. People are quite concerned about trying to preserve that. So a couple of questions about that. Does any particular zoning protect a wetland?

No, not the zone district itself. There are separate wetland protection. There's a separate chapter, in fact, about wetland protection. So that wetland protection ordinance applies regardless of the zone district.

And do we know if that area is a delineated wetland?

My understanding from our sustainability staff is no, it's not. There is some wetland-like property that's not considered a contributing wetland or, I guess, important.

Is it an option for us to designate that a wetland? Because we have some control locally.

I'm not honestly sure. I would defer to the DPW staff on that. You certainly could. It is the council's prerogative. I'm not sure. I'm not sure of the status, I guess, and in the review of it, staff didn't find that it was... You could do that, I believe.

Could I ask Mr. Walls, who happens to be here, to address that question?

It may be a question for the attorneys whether we could compel or perform that on private property, but it's on the wetland inventory mapper. The origins of that are through windshield surveys and soil surveys and things you can do from a desk or a driver's seat of a vehicle. To my knowledge, off the top of my head, and I wouldn't have been here for it, but I'm pretty sure that that has not been delineated by an actual wetland professional. It could have been back during the development of Hawks Nest. It just would have predated me and I don't see records of that. But my understanding from reaching out to our wetland consultant who has been ours for 28 years, she doesn't remember that particular small piece that's indicated as likely wetland to be actually have been delineated, at least by their team.

Could we do that? Could we delineate that property as a wetland?

Again, there may be a question for the attorneys, because that is private property. And there might be the trigger to have the consent for us to perform that. That's the normal course through permitting. So I can't speak to that confidently. But in general, yes, the applicant, or not the applicant, but the landowner there Many of them do their own delineations just so they know what they have so they don't come to city staff with a proposal that has surprises. We do confirmations to make sure that what they're presenting and what their consultants have proposed as the delineated boundaries are cross referenced by someone working in the interest of the city. But it's not uncommon for a private landowner to do that on their own accord for their own reasons. So it doesn't really answer your question, but theoretically anything can be done.

It's just a legal standpoint. Mr. Mendelson, did you?

The verification process is covered under the Chapter 49 of the Wetland Protection Ordinance, and it does account for wetland verification of city-owned property and private property, and that's all spelled out in the ordinance.

Okay. So it sounds like my next step needs to be to read the ordinance and then approach staff with questions.

Yeah, I'm not familiar. I do note that, um, In the very first, looking at section 49-7, sub 1, sub 8, it does talk about the city or property owners of wetlands may initiate a verification process. So it seems to delineate between public property being started by the city and private property being started by the property owner. Again, this is a very cursory review, so there might be some other parameters here, but it would require review of the ordinance and just following that process.

All right. Thank you. Any further questions for...

I'd like to follow up on that. Since you have it up, is there a minimum size? My memory is that we didn't regulate anything smaller than a quarter acre.

Quarter acre, yes. Anything between a quarter acre and two would require finding by the city council that that is essential to the preservation of the natural resources of the city. So there's another process there to determine if it's regulated. BUT A LOT OF THAT, I MEAN, THERE'S CRITERIA, I THINK LIKE SIX OR NINE DIFFERENT CRITERIA. I HAVE ONE MORE. I ALWAYS HAVE MORE, I'M SORRY. THE QUESTION YOU ASKED ABOUT A DIFFERENT ZONING, HAVING DIFFERENT LEVELS OF PROTECTION, THIS DID COME UP WITH THAT PARTICULAR PARCEL, BECAUSE THE EXEMPTION IN THE CODE, AND OUR CODE IS WRITTEN VERBATIM PER THE STATE, LIKE OUR CODE HAS TO MATCH THE STATE, AND THAT'S HOW WE'RE AUTHORIZED TO regulate wetlands of these sizes. There's an exemption for farming, and this is zoned farming. So I brought up to our consultant and asked like, what's the implications of this? They said at the state level since like 1986 or something, don't quote me on that, it has been interpreted at the state level that whenever that was in place, whenever those rules came down, it was farming that was existing before that moment, not farming that could start now and then say, oh, we're a farm, so we're not regulated. The difference with that is that's the state's interpretation. By default, we would probably typically follow that. But I don't think there's a legal requirement that we do. It is something that, for a lack of a better term, is like unsettled interpretation at the city, which is rarely or never come up. But that was just something that this particular parcel prompted because I had that same concern. Like if we switch it, If it went from resident, my thought was maybe residential would be more protective because farming is exempt. And, you know, upon further follow-up, you know, it wasn't quite as clear-cut as that. But just some added nuance to that question.

Further questions? Is there a motion? Oh, public hearing, right. Thank you, Team Sport. I will open the public hearing for this issue. I have one card from Diane Malkin.

I've only lived in East Lansing for six years, and I love it here, by the way. I came from a whole different state that I lived in for, well, a lot of years. I'm older than most people probably think, I hope, but anyway. I'm concerned over, I live at the villas at Stratford Place, which is, on the south side of Coleman and across the street is basically the apple tree as well as I believe there's a disabled home there also and we're talking about all the properties on the other side as well as I drive a lot down Coleman all the way to get to Granger, and we're talking about my Cole Academy. We're talking about the other side. And did anyone interview or ask? I wasn't here, you know, I didn't come February, April, whatever. But the people at Villas at Stratford Place, like Hawks Nest, those people decided they wanted R2s. Well, I would prefer R2s also at this point only because I want to be aware of any larger housing development. Those roads are used a lot. They would be used a lot more. Right now Chandler is closed going from all the way up Abbott where it turns into Chandler. Chandler is closed so there's tons of traffic coming up Abbott and turning left onto Coleman and going all the way to get north So I'm kind of concerned over the R-14 thing versus the R-2. But as I say, I live at Villas at Stratford Place. There's approximately maybe 40 standalones. I live in a standalone. And then there are about 30... which have four units each. So we have a lot of people coming out of our area too. So that's just my concern and whatever's decided is fine.

Thank you for your time. Is there anyone else who would like to address the council on this issue? Any callers?

There are no callers.

Okay, with that I will close the public hearing on this item. Is there a motion?

Mr. Whalen. There is a bit of a concern with the timeliness of this for a certain situation that I'm not familiar with. But I have no problem with going forward unless there's some concerns. So I'd like to make a motion, but I've got to find it unless someone else can find it before me.

Starts on page eight. Thank you. Staff report.

It's going to take a minute. Here we go. Nope, I'm stuck in the attachments. Thank you. I was hoping I needed a friend.

Calling a friend. I'll move to adapt Ordinance 1564, an amendment to Chapter 50 of the City Code to rezone approximately 40 properties north of Link Lansing Road, west of Chandler Road, and east of US 127 from their current Dewitt Township zoning to East Lansing Zone districts for the following reasons. One. Bear with me, everyone. One. The rezoning is consistent with the policies and uses proposed for the area in the city's comprehensive land use plan. Because the majority of the proposed rezonings are consistent with the designation of the area by the 2018 future land use map, and the area in which the proposed rezoning is not consistent with the map is for several properties and is responsive to community needs which have arisen since the map's adoption. Two, all of the uses allowed under the proposed rezoning would be compatible with other zones and uses in the surrounding area because the rezoning will facilitate conforming use these properties as well as general rights associated with property ownership through the use of the East Lansing zoning ordinance three public services and facilities would not be significantly adversely impacted by a development or use allowed under the requested rezoning because such services and facilities presently exist in the area and serve these properties. Four, the uses allowed under the proposed rezoning would be equally or better suited to the area than uses allowed under the current zoning of the land because significant non-conforming conditions burdening the subject properties will be removed and permit existing land uses to continue. be it further resolved that the following amendments shall also apply. One, 3070 State Road, uh... property number nineteen dash twenty dash fifty dash thirty five dash two hundred dash zero zero five and zero east coleman road property number nineteen dash twenty dash fifty dash thirty six dash two hundred dash zero two zero shall be rezoned at two r a residential agriculture agricultural Number two, 3303 East Coleman Road, property number 19-20-50-36-300-005. And 3203 East Coleman Road, property number 19-20-50-36-300-015. Property 3255 East Coleman Road, number 19-20-50-36-300-018. And 0 East Coleman Road, property number 19-20-50-36-300-019 shall be rezoned as RA Residential Agricultural. Number 3, unaddressed parcels at 0 Stoll Road, property number 19-20-50-24-400 property number 19-20-50-25-100-013 shall be rezoned as R1 low density single family residential.

Okay, motion by Singh. Second by Whalen. Any discussion of the motion? Mr. Meadows, do you have any comments?

I'll just indicate I'll be voting no. I'm not convinced that some of these changes are changes that are consistent with the surrounding. While I do agree with the rezoning to RA on the properties that were mentioned just recently, I still have questions with regard to the others.

Further comments? Okay. We have the motion before us. Let's have a roll call vote.

Council Member Meadows?

No.

Council Member Singh? Yes. Mayor Pro Tem Grigsby? Yes. Council Member Whalen? Yes. Mayor Altman?

Yes. That motion carries and that rezoning is authorized. Thank you, Mr. Bartley. That brings us to item 5.2. which is a public hearing to receive comments on proposed ordinance 1573 and amendment to chapter 50 of the city code to rezone 825 West Lake Lansing road from RM 22 medium density, multiple family residential to RM 14 low density, multiple family residential in order to bring an existing single family residence into conformity with the zoning ordinance. Mr. Bartley.

Thank you. Landon Bartley, principal planner. Yes, this ordinance would rezone a single property on the south side of West Lake Lansing Road, 825, which is just west of Harrison Road from RM 22, which is consistent with the zoning to the east. They would like to change it from that zone to RM 14, which is consistent with the zoning to the west. Low density multifamily residential so that they can bring their existing single family residents into conformity with the zoning ordinance. RM22 is one of our only zone districts that does not allow single family houses and this property was And the property adjacent to it, to the east, were both rezoned actually from RM14 to RM22 in October of 1982. But the applicant is seeking to refinance and needs to be conforming use to do so, and so is seeking to get this property rezoned. Planning Commission did hold a public hearing on May 27th, received no comments in opposition, and voted unanimously at that time to recommend adoption. If you're interested to move ahead tonight and the applicant requests that you do so, but it's not required, I have included a sample motion in the AAR.

Can I answer any questions? Questions for staff? Okay, this is a public hearing. I will open the public hearing. We seem to have one slip. Jonathan Tyler.

Good afternoon. My name is Jonathan Tyler. I'm the property owner at 825 West Lake Lansing. I just wanted to thank you for reviewing this rezoning request tonight and let you know that I was here if you have any questions for me. Thanks again.

Thank you. Is there anyone else who would like to address the council on this issue? Are there any callers?

There are no callers.

No callers, okay. Then I will close the public hearing. Is there a motion?

I'll make a motion.

I move that City Council, I'd like to go ahead with this tonight. I move that City Council adopt Ordinance 1573, an amendment to Chapter 50 of the City Code to rezone 825 West Lake Lansing Road from RM 22, medium density, multiple family residential, to RM 14, low density, multiple family residential. in order to bring an existing single family residence into conformity with the zoning ordinance for the following reasons. One, the rezoning is consistent with the policies and uses proposed for that area and the city's comprehensive land use plan because this is currently a residential parcel and is proposed to remain a residential parcel. Two, all of the uses allowed under the proposed rezoning would be compatible with other zones and uses of the surrounding area because the subject property would continue to have residential use and would no longer be non-conforming. Three, public services and facilities would not be significantly adversely impacted by a development or use allowed under the requested rezoning because the site is currently served by existing services and none would need to change as a result of this rezoning. Four, the uses allowed under the proposed rezoning would be equally or better suited to the area than uses allowed under the current zoning of the land because a current non-conforming use would be brought into conformity if rezoned.

Motion by Meadows. Second. Second by Whelan. Any discussion? All those in favor say aye. Aye. Any opposed? Motion carries and that rezoning is approved. That brings us to item 5.3, a public hearing to receive comments on proposed ordinance 1572, an ordinance to amend chapter 50 zoning division five residential rental restriction overlay districts of the code of the city of East Lansing to add a new section 50-778 removal of property from the rental restriction overlay districts. Mr. Bartley.

Thank you, Mayor. Landon Bartley, Principal Planner. So yes, Ordinance 1572 is intended to provide a process to modify or remove properties, I guess, from an existing residential rental restriction overlay district. Very briefly, I'd like to describe RROs and the establishment process for the benefit of the audience. There are three types of residential rental restriction overlay districts which can be established. by neighborhood action R01, R02, R03. Essentially, those are restrictive to disallow certain rental licenses, new rental licenses in those districts. So this would be an area in which new rental licenses can't be issued. R01 is the most restrictive, which wouldn't allow new rental licenses. R02 allows no new rental licenses except for class one licenses, which is an owner-occupant plus one roomer from people who owned the property prior to the establishment of the specific overlay. And then RO3 says no new rental licenses except for class one licenses. Again, owner occupant plus one roomer. In order to be established, properties must all be zoned R1, R2, or RM8. There must be at least 50 properties, or it's a discrete neighborhood unit, and at least two-thirds of owners must sign a petition in order to be brought to Planning Commission and Council for consideration. There are currently 22 of these overlay districts across the city, 15 R01, two R02s, and five R03s. The latest was added earlier this year near Coolidge and Saginaw. So the existing ordinance is somewhat unclear as far as the process to change an existing overlay district or remove properties from it, other than to change the type of overlay within a year after adoption. So this ordinance is intended to create a pathway to remove properties from an existing overlay district but with very restricted eligibility. Specifically, the eligibility for these properties would be the applicant's property must be located on one side of a city block where the other homes on the same side of the city block are not subject to the rental overlay district in question. Number two, the applicant's property must be owner occupied and not currently rented. And number three, no more than two owner-occupied unrented properties, including the applicant's property, may exist on the same side of the city block as the applicant's property. So those are quite restrictive. Our housing staff did an analysis and found that there were about 15 properties across the city that would be eligible. The Planning Commission and Housing Commission both reviewed this proposed ordinance, both recommended not adopting the ordinance as introduced, but in both meetings commissioners suggested that there could be some interest in perhaps considering some sort of process down the road to modify these overlay districts, but didn't recommend such action at this time. I think that gets us to where we are today. I'd love to answer any questions.

Questions for staff? Okay, seeing no questions, I'll open the public hearing on this item. I'll call the slips that I have in front of me. Sally Newton.

Thank you for giving me this opportunity. I am here urging you to oppose proposal 1572, allowing homeowners in established overlay districts to withdraw their properties. At a time when many neighborhoods are seeing a rebirth of young families, couples, individuals purchasing homes in our overlay areas, this proposal could cause catastrophic ripple effects. East Lansing neighborhoods which have successfully established overlays in order to preserve their character and integrity would be affected. Hundreds of people have signed these petitions for overlays. Our neighborhoods continue to feel the pressure from investors eager to buy our properties for their own personal gain. Many do not reside in our city and have no vested interest in our community, our schools, and our neighborhoods. Both the Housing and the Planning Commissions voted to oppose this issue and I urge you to do the same. Thank you.

Thank you. Giancarlo, last name starts with a G. From 353 Division. Ah, there. If you could state your last name for the record, please.

Oh, yeah. My full name is Giancarlo Gamera. All right. Good evening, Mayor, members of the Council. Once again, my name is Giancarlo Gamera, and I am the owner-occupant of 353 Division Street. So over the past several weeks, I have read nearly every letter submitted, both in support and of opposition, of Proposed Ordinance 1572. Going into this process, I expected to find two opposing sides. Instead, I found something different. I found that nearly everyone wants the same thing, though, admittedly, it may be a little hidden. We want neighborhoods where people know their neighbors. We want communities that are safe, stable, and well cared for. And above all, we want East Lansing to remain a place where families can thrive and where people are proud to call home. I do not stand here believing those who oppose this ordinance are my opponents in any way, but rather we are trying to accomplish the same goal. We simply disagree on how that goal should be achieved in a very small number of extraordinary circumstances. I also recognize that I am newer to East Lansing than many of the residents who have spoken tonight. I wasn't here when the overlay districts were created, but I have listened carefully to the people who were. Their concerns deserve to be acknowledged. The pressure from investors is real. The desire to preserve owner-occupied neighborhoods is real, and those concerns should not be dismissed. In fact, if my home were located in a neighborhood that still reflected the owner-occupied community that the overlay districts were created to preserve, I would not be standing before you tonight. I would support the preserving that neighborhood exactly as the ordinance intended. because I believe the overlay districts have succeeded in many parts of East Lansing, but my situation is different, and also those homes that share that same problem that I do. On my portion of Division Street, my neighbor Jeff and I are the only owner-occupied homes remaining. Every surrounding property is a rental with a constant flow of new tenants who have no stake in maintaining their properties or have any connection to them. So I respectfully ask one question. If the purpose of the overlay districts is to preserve owner-occupied communities, what should the city do when a handful of properties no longer exist within that kind of community? I believe that is the question before you tonight. Community is not created because of a line exists on a zoning map. Community is created by the people. It is built through relationships, shared responsibility, and neighbors who invest in one another and in the place they call home. A zoning boundary can help protect that kind of community where it exists, but it cannot recreate it where decades of change have already transformed the surrounding neighborhood. Proposed Ordinance 1572 does not seek to diminish or abolish the overlay districts, does not automatically convert homes into rentals, and above all, does not guarantee approval. It simply creates a carefully limited process through which a very small number of uniquely situated homeowners may ask this council to determine whether an overlay boundary is still accomplishing the purpose for which it was created. Some have argued that because creating an overlay district required the support of two-thirds of the neighborhood, removing of property should require the same process, and I understand that reasoning. But creating an overlay is a community-wide decision. Evaluating whether a single property still serves this purpose of that overlay is a fundamentally different question. In practice, the current process has proven nearly impossible. It requires a homeowner to persuade two-thirds of an entire district to revisit a single property, regardless of whether the unique circumstances surrounding that property have changed dramatically over the past 20 years. A process that exists in theory but cannot realistically be used in practice is not a meaningful process. A proposed ordinance 1572 does not remove community input. It simply allows this council to evaluate the exceptional cases of their individual merits. The existence of a process is not the same as a guarantee of an outcome. If, after more than 20 years, only approximately 10 to 15 properties citywide may even qualify under this narrow criteria, that is not evidence of a floodgate. It is evidence of how carefully limited this proposal truly is. I also believe that it is an important distinction to be made regarding individual homeowners and large investment corporations. Many of the concerns expressed tonight involve large investment companies acquiring numerous properties with little connection to the neighborhoods in which they operate. Those concerns are legitimate, but an individual homeowner seeking the opportunity, not the guarantee, to responsibly retain ownership of a single home is fundamentally different. A large investment company succeeds by maximizing returns across many properties. An individual homeowner succeeds by protecting the value, condition, and above all, the reputation of the home they own. Those situations should not automatically be viewed through the same lens.

You have 30 seconds remaining.

I have worked countless hours and poured my money, time, and effort to make my house not just a living space, but a home I can be proud of, just as many of you have done in this community. The measure of good public policy is not whether it never changes. It is whether it continues to accomplish the purpose for which it was created. I respectfully suggest that allowing the city to recognize the rare situations where an overlay no longer serves its intended purpose does not weaken the overlay districts, it strengthens them. Policies remain legitimate when they continue to reflect the realities which they were designed to address.

Thank you. Thank you. Jeffrey Hank.

Good evening, Council Jeffrey Hank. Wow, that's a fine young man, my neighbor there. That was quite a speech. I don't even know what to say. He pretty much said it. I've lived there for 22 years. He's my new neighbor. There's no tide changing towards family ownership where we are. We're surrounded by rental properties. There's a fraternity two houses away on the other street on MAC. You've got sororities, fraternities, the whole L center, co-ops down the street, six licensed rentals. There's no family neighborhood change coming back to the 300 block division. So what John Carlo just said about the purpose of the overlay ordinance is they're not being served where where we live in fact we're being adversely impacted because we can't change what we do with our property and we're in a sort of a one-off situation as Planning staff has said this may apply to about 15 properties in the city I've spoken here many times before I'm in support of this change. It's narrow. It's limited I also understand the concerns of people who live elsewhere and want to preserve the overlays and and I've said that all along I think that's what this ordinance does And that's what good policy does. It balances the interests of different people in the community and it tries as best as you can to protect the interests of everyone. And that's what this ordinance does. It protects the overlays and in a handful of circumstances where people are in adverse situations because of the overlay, it gives them just a simple opportunity to ask for a change. land use and life and everything doesn't stay stuck forever or it shouldn't change is you know sometimes it's a tough thing but sometimes it's needed and I'm still just kind of in awe at what John Carlos said because I've never heard him speak before he told me this is the first city council meeting he's ever been to and I said well you came to a meeting tonight to get a little education about what's going on in East Lansing and I know a lot of people don't who haven't been here don't understand the history of the overlays, but I do. So I appreciate the work that Mr. Meadows or anyone else that's worked on this ordinance has done as someone who has crafted the original overlay ordinance and put my house in there the first time around, you know, four years, 22 years ago, wherever it was now, understanding that times change and some things need to be fixed. Some people keep talking about the two-thirds thing, but that's not going to work. It's just not practically going to work to change this to go back and have everyone sign a petition on a single property, as people have said. And it misses the point that when an overlay is enacted and you get two-thirds of signers in an area, the city council can still determine whether to expand or reduce the area of an overlay. So it seems very reasonable to me that the city council would have that authority under some sort of defined circumstances as it does here to do that again. And that's really all we're asking for. I think there's been, you know, things have been, some emotions and things have gotten kicked up around this issue which are understandable, but the actual language of the ordinance before the council and the number of people it affects are very small, it's very tight language, it's very carefully crafted, and it's really designed to balance the interests of everybody in the community. So I encourage you to move forward with this tonight. I heard Bob Metzger say he's been waiting six years or four years or whatever it is. I've been waiting about 22 years, and I think it was about three years ago that I emailed the city council asking to do something about this. So we're all getting older and gray hairs and losing hair and want to move on with life because life doesn't stand still. And I think one of my neighbors, Patrick, who was on the Bailey Community Association, wrote in and he said part of his support for this if you read his email, was that along with the city's guidelines that you want to be responsive to people in the community. That's what this ordinance does. It responds to a handful of people that have a problem, and it protects the people that want to keep the overlays in place and protect what they have. So I think this is good work you've done here, and I encourage you to move forward. Thank you.

Thank you. Lynn Richardson.

Members of the City Council, my name is Lynn Richardson and I live at 1300 Blanchette Drive. I'm also the president of the Pinecrest Neighborhood Association. I've said nearly everything that I think needs to be considered with respect to this issue in the letter that I sent to City Council, which I understand to be in your agenda packet. I'd like to make only two additional points. First, each of you were elected by the city's residents to serve the interests of the East Lansing's 50,000 residents. The proposal before you was not drafted at the request of one of the East Lansing's residents nor its neighborhoods. It was drafted at the request of one individual who wants to rent his house and not sell it. I submit that you are not serving the interests of the city or its residents if you vote in favor of this proposal. Second, you, the City Council, referred this proposal to the Housing Commission and the Planning Commission, both of which unanimously recommended that you deny the proposed amendment. There is no reason to have commissions if you don't follow their recommendations. This is not a case in which either of the commissions had any disagreement. To a person, the Planning Commission, after a 20-minute discussion, voted to recommend that you deny this proposal. For those of you who didn't take the time to review the Planning Commission's discussion, I'd like to take just a couple minutes to summarize it for you. Commissioner Lauren Lapine got right to the point. She began her discussion by saying that the proposal was a solution in search of a problem. She noted the 2021 East Lansing Housing Study, which made it clear that the main type of housing needed was single-family homes, and she went on to say that the proposal before you tonight would make it more challenging for people to buy a home. She also observed that any alteration to the overlay districts would undermine community organizing. Commissioner Chuck Overby observed that there was no support in the neighborhoods for a provision to, quote, breach the rental overlays. But if the council was so inclined to have a mechanism to alter or amend overlay boundaries, it should be as difficult to get out as to get in. Vice President Wagner observed that owners of the property in the overlay districts were not left without recourse. They could sell their houses for full value. Commissioner Wagner thought that any change should require the consent of two-thirds of the owners in the overlay. Commissioner Ramirez-Roberts noted a glaring loophole in the proposal as it would allow persons to move into an overlay district, then petition to remove the property from the overlay district and get a rental license with just the votes of city council. Commissioner Ryan Putz believed it might be a good idea to codify a mechanism to not only remove but to add properties to an overlay district. But he too preferred a two-thirds majority to modify a border because anything less would be sidestepping a lot of work by those who petitioned for the overlay district, thus undermining the trust and social fabric of the neighborhoods. The proposed amendment would not encourage cooperation and trust among neighbors, which he found to be a strength of East Lansing. Lastly, Chair Joseph Sullivan was of the opinion that the process to opt out should be the same or more difficult as that to establish an overlay district, noting that the goal was to preserve and expand our single-family home neighborhoods. At the end, the Planning Commission decided to unanimously recommend that you deny the proposal. I ask that you do the same. Should you decide, as has been suggested, that you need to provide a mechanism to amend the overlay districts, you should codify the language that is already contained on the city's website. Thank you.

Thank you. Is there anyone else who would like to address the council?

Good evening members of the council. My name is Ted Bencom president of the white Hills neighborhood association and resident and nine four or five Pebble Brook lane. I last spoke before you at the March 17th meeting in opposition to this proposed ordinance that creates a new appeal process to exempt one's property from an existing rental restriction overlay district. After attending two housing commission and two planning commission meetings and listening to the overwhelming opposition to this ordinance and the discussions of the members of these commissions, I'm here to support the recommendation of the housing commission and planning commission to reject this ordinance as written. According to the city's principal planner the existing process to remove a property from the overlay district is to follow the same process That created it this proposed ordinance presumes that process is too difficult and seeks to create a shortcut out of the district as I stated on the March 17th meet at this March 17th meeting and reaffirmed tonight. This is bad public policy and perceived and any perceived or self-created hardship should not be rewarded with a truncated exit. Favoritism aside, quite honestly, if council wanted to do a property owner a solid, a more transparent approach would have been to carve these dozen or so properties out by address and be done. rather than create this convoluted and polarizing ordinance disguised as a due process appeal mechanism for a handful of property owners seeking a governmentally created advantage to, in essence, increase the value of their property under the guise of promoting affordable housing. Thank you.

Thank you. Is there anyone else who would like to address the council on this issue?

Hello, Diane Wing, 1024 Huntington Road in the Chesterfield Hills Historic District. I'm a past president of the Chesterfield Hills Neighborhood Association, also past member and past president of the City of East Lansing Historic District Commission. I was part of the group in Chesterfield Hills that created the rental overlay district within Chesterfield Hills, and as I've stated publicly before, THE RENTAL OVERLAY DISTRICT IS THE REASON CHESTERFIELD HILLS STILL EXISTS AS IT DOES TODAY. IT SAVED CHESTERFIELD HILLS. WE'RE A VERY SMALL NEIGHBORHOOD. WE'RE VERY CLOSE IN TO THE SOUTH END OF MSU. WE'RE VERY CLOSE TO BRODY HALL. WE ARE EXTREMELY ATTRACTIVE TO INVESTORS. we put the rental overlay in so as to lock in the number of rental homes that are in our neighborhood and not allow any more to be added. And I think that's really super important. People are speaking as though somehow the makeup of neighborhoods has changed since a rental overlay is established. Well, the rental overlay, just by virtue of its establishment, locks the neighborhood in. It grandfathers in the rental homes that were there. It doesn't allow new rental homes because by definition of the ordinance, the rental homes, rental licenses can only be allowed for rental homes that were already established at the time the rental overlay was established. So in the case of Chesterfield Hills, the same number of rental homes that we have in Chesterfield Hills today are the exact same number that we had when the rental overlay went into effect. We still have the same number of owner occupied homes plus one because there was a fire and somebody had to build a new home, but we're locked into what that is. If somebody takes a owner occupied home out of a rental overlay district, you are now opening up a new rental license that didn't exist before, potentially you're adding more problems actually most of these homes are rented by students i live very close to several of the rentals that are in the chesterfield hills neighborhood i don't want more rentals behind me which is what could happen the unintended consequences of this particular ordinance more rentals would be established that are closer to the owner occupied owner occupied properties I think the important thing on all of the discussions that have been had at the housing commission, at the planning commission, which we, I was very, very happy that they all understood the importance of saying no to this particular proposal. The important thing is this proposal is flawed the way it's written. It's confusing the way it's written. The question is whether if you take a rental, uh, if you take an owner occupied property out of the rental overlay, does that automatically change the boundary? There's confusion about that. I believe staff is confused about that. Those of us who've read it are confused. Does that change the boundary? Because if it changes the boundary of the rental overlay, you're shifting a boundary, then you're opening up potentially another set of homes that would potentially be open for removal from the rental overlay district. That's just one of the problems. request that I have of you I respectfully ask council tonight is to please do not act on this tonight please do not act on this ordinance tonight instead convene a panel of concerned residents property owners those of us who are against it those of us who are for it with staff to draft a plan to draft an ordinance that more adequately addresses all of the concerns of all of the property owners within rental overlay districts that's the only way i believe we're actually going to get to a place where council feels comfortable with with if in fact um i apologize it's so late If in fact you have somebody coming in front of you, there's a very discreet defined process by which the owner can come in front of you and that knowing that it's a process that can be applied against all rental overlay districts and not unintentionally harm those people who are left behind if one more house becomes a rental. Because remember, one more house becomes a rental, All of the single owner occupies have to live with one more house in that rental overlay district. We don't want more rentals in a rental overlay district. Apologize for being so inarticulate. Please do not act on this tonight. Please convene a panel to redraft this ordinance. Thank you.

Thank you. Is there anyone else who would like to address the council?

James Newton. I've listened to the arguments of the three people that spoke before me, and I have to agree with them completely. This ordinance is a mistake. It's against public policy. It only serves to try to produce profits for a couple of individuals. I have a great deal of respect for everybody on the city council. I know that you want to do what's best for the community, but this ordinance is not good for the community. The two people that spoke in favor of the ordinance both seemed to rely on the fact that they were trying to play the victim card, that somehow the neighborhood had changed all around them. I've been here 40 years. That block has not changed. That is a student area primarily and they bought their houses knowing what they were getting into and probably negotiated a better deal because they thought that the property was somehow affected by the student rentals. Now they want to turn around and profit from it. This is A money-oriented ordinance. It has very little to do with what will benefit the community. And that is what should be foremost in your minds. What's the best thing for the community? Not this ordinance. Thank you.

Thank you. Is there anyone else who would like to address the council on this issue?

Mayor Ullman, City Council. I just want to share quickly my differing viewpoint from the last few speakers. My heart really goes out to the folks on the 300 block of Division Street. Because as the gentleman who spoke before me just described, that is primarily a student housing area. And the fact that it was included in the overlay district at all was probably to give some sort of a buffer. That being said, I don't want to take away from the value of the overlay districts at large. They are incredibly valuable, but I do think that just in the same way that you guys redraw planning and boundary lines between different zoning districts, that there's a need and an opportunity to reconsider changing circumstances and to right wrongs. in the way that those overlay districts are are bordered and i'd ask that you seek the advice of council or planning staff as it relates to why in fact you are not able to draw a zoning district that precludes folks from being able to rent their homes i think it's an issue of ethics around personal property rights And so that's a consideration. Lastly, I'll just mention that we're having conversations about student housing. There's a discrimination component to that. Students deserve the ability to find housing without having to buy it. And we're talking about not permitting development of private property in the downtown core because of parking issues that are the result of our zoning prohibiting developers from putting onsite parking for their residents. At the same time that we've got parking staff saying we've got plenty of capacity and we shouldn't be developing new parking structures, but we also don't have enough capacity to meet our own thresholds with regards to how much a developer needs to seek from us because they don't have the ability to build their own parking for their residents. So it just seems to me like a lot of absurdity in that regard. If we don't want students to live on Division Street, then we should let them live on Albert Street. That's my two cents. Thanks.

Thank you. Is there anyone else who would like to address the council on this issue? Are there any callers? No callers. Okay, then with that, I will close the public hearing. Bring it back to council. Mr. Grigsby.

Quick, just to speak to the concern or issue when it comes to the exemption and it changing the boundary. I was wondering if you could speak to that reality of that mechanism being the fact, or if it's not the fact, or how does that work? Can you give me some clarification on that?

I think if I understand your question, this ordinance, if adopted, would create the process to allow applicants to seek approval to remove their property from a district. So via essentially the zoning, the rezoning process, which is you'd submit an application that would then be introduced. We'd then create an ordinance, have council introduce it, refer it to planning commission. Planning commission would then hold a public hearing, make a recommendation, send it back to council, council will schedule a public hearing, have a hearing, and then make a decision. So that's the typical rezoning process. My understanding was that this ordinance is intended to allow a property owner to go through that process to remove, specifically to remove their property from the zone district, from the overlay district.

Sorry, I asked a bad question. I'm sorry. I was asking, for example, this being approved, this amendment being approved, and you have these 15 homes that are potentially recognized as options to do that. My question is, changing one of those homes, does that create a boundary change where there's a domino effect for other property owners to be in a situation where that would keep moving?

That's hard to answer. My understanding is, based on the analysis that we did, I think that that possibility could take place. It's quite limited right now to 10 to 15 properties. Generally, I think the eligibility requirements would make that, I think, possible but very limited. I don't expect that there would be. I guess I don't. I wouldn't necessarily see a domino effect cascading from one property. I think that that is a possibility of maybe one property or two properties becoming eligible, but I think that would be the exception, not the rule.

I think the answer to the question is yes. If you remove a property from an overlay, then you redraw the map and it has a new boundary.

Yes, the answer to that question is definitely yes, it would redraw the boundary. I guess I was considering more the question about the cascading effect. But yes, it would create a change to the boundary of the existing overlay district.

Yes, and I take responsibility for the bad questioning. I was just trying to process what I'm hearing and the consequences of one thing happening in another. So I guess maybe I didn't ask the best way of the question. But yeah, so it would change the boundary.

yes pretty much and then that would make other homes available yes it would change the boundary potentially it would make other homes available to be eligible to change i i haven't done that analysis specifically

Further comments? Yeah, I've got a couple of comments. One, I'm not aware of anything in the original ordinance, not the ordinance we're considering right now, but the original overlay ordinance, which indicates in any way whatsoever that you can follow the same process to remove your property from the overlay zone and in fact in my initial conversations with city attorney at the time that we were talking about this ordinance being developed it was indicated to me that there was a problem with our existing ordinance because it doesn't provide for a way to remove something from the overlay area. But I think also in terms of the question that Chuck just asked, as I look at this, Because we titled this removal of property from rental restriction overlay districts, I think that is the crux of the issue that many people in the community are very concerned about because then it would change the border. But if you recharacterize this in some way so that it just removes the restriction on a particular property under certain conditions, circumstances because virtually all of our overlay districts also have rental properties in them then you've eliminated that issue because you're not changing the borders in any way whatsoever. I assume we're not voting on this tonight but I think during the time period between this public hearing and whatever we do with this ordinance, I think there are changes that need to be made to it to make it even more restrictive, but also to remove those concerns entirely because I don't think the intent was ever to change borders. It was only to change under very limited circumstances the restriction for a home that, frankly, in this circumstance anyway, as I look at the 300 block division, I think only because Jeff Hank actually signed the petition, that's why those properties are in that, because we would have excluded them. It doesn't make sense to have them in the overlay district there. I don't know about the other 15 properties that have been discovered. I don't know what those addresses are or where they are. But by further restricting this, I think we've probably eliminated them. a lot of that issue also. So during the time period between tonight and whenever we bring this up again, I think working with the city attorney, we can tighten this up substantially.

Mr. Whalen. Yes, and when I consider my votes, I consider what I think what the law says and what the constituency says, okay? And it doesn't always, all three don't always go together. While I very much appreciate the plight of someone that is right in the middle of a neighborhood that is more dense than they desire, my heart goes out to somebody that is having a problem with their property. But I do think that this is a bigger issue. I do think it does open up more doors, and I do think that next house behind them and then across the street, it becomes a bigger issue. I know I really value City Council adopting the overlays when they did because it did completely change East Lansing. and we would have really become a completely different town without those overlays, and I appreciate the council that adopted those. So my motion may not get a second, which means then it continues to have a discussion another month, but I'd like to make a motion to not adopt the ordinance 1572. I'll second that. I'll make the motion then. Oh, did you? I just, I need to read it out exactly. Okay, so go ahead and read it out. I move to not adopt ordinance 1572 to amend chapter 50 zoning district, I'm sorry, division five residential rental restriction overlay districts of the code of the city of East Lansing to add a new section 50-778 comma removal of the property from the rental restriction overlay districts.

I'll second that discussion. Council Member Singh.

I'm gonna vote against the motion as stated because I think there's opportunities to amend and or take a forward progress and what both the Planning Commission and the Housing Commission suggested is a broader discussion so I don't I feel like this ends the discussion when it sounds like we need to have a longer discussion and perhaps look at amendments on what's before us so

further discussion.

I just got a comment. We're in a situation where we want to I HEARD A LOT THAT A LOT OF COMMUNITY MEMBERS WANT TO PRESERVE THEIR NEIGHBORHOODS AND EACH NEIGHBORHOOD IN OUR COMMUNITY IS DIFFERENT. AND WE HAD THESE OVERLAYS IN THIS PROCESS THAT WAS PUT IN AND IT WAS A VERY BIG, DRAMATIC, DEMOCRATIC PROCESS IN RELATION TO THE OUTCOME OF WHERE WE'RE AT NOW. I just, you know, with the need for housing and the need to be able to adapt to growth, you know, it just really makes me go back to now, you know, some of the developments that we have in play here and how important it is if we want to preserve our neighborhoods in a way, these overlays do protect us in regards to some of that sanctity of keeping neighborhoods. I just think we need to have a balance within that and I think you know we're not going to have more housing for students in the neighborhoods that we need to have the alternatives such as downtown availability and some other different places that we have that we can do that and so for me I just I really feel for the the, the people who are in a situation where they, you know, are surrounded by these rentals. And I, again, I think I, you know, I would love to maybe see this amendment, this ordinance, I guess, uh, maybe be rewritten in a way that shows that restriction. So I could be a little bit more comfortable with that. But right now I just, I just can't see myself going against that process, um, as it stands right now.

So I just want to make two comments. One is that about the question of what it means to loosen the restriction on renting your property. If you're in an overlay, then you're restricted. If you're not in an overlay, then you're not restricted. There's no way to loosen that restriction without changing the boundary of the overlay. It just doesn't make any sense. So we can't have it both ways. We can't pretend that we're going to... LOOSEN THE RESTRICTIONS BUT NOT CHANGE THE BOUNDARIES OF THE OVERLAY. THAT JUST DOESN'T MAKE ANY SENSE. I ALSO WANT TO READ FROM A PROVISION OF THE CODE CONCERNING AMENDMENTS OF OVERLAYS. THERE IS A PROVISION. IT'S MORE LIMITED. than it perhaps needs to be, but this is section seven, sorry, 50-775, subsection four. It says, no earlier than one year after the adoption of an ordinance establishing an overlay district, a petition for a change of the type of overlay district may be submitted by following the procedures for establishing an initial overlay district. So there is an amendment procedure But in the ordinance, it's limited to the type of the procedure, R01 versus R02 versus R03, which is the level of restrictiveness. What's interesting is that on the FAQ page for overlays, there's a slightly different characterization. I'm going to read from that page. So it says here, one of the questions in the FAQ is, how is an overlay district reversed or amended? which promises that there's a mechanism for reversing or amending it, right? And then the text says, no sooner than one year after an overlay is approved, so that's pretty close to the ordinance, a neighborhood may petition to modify an approved overlay by obtaining signatures from one owner of at least two thirds of all parcels within the proposed boundary of the district. The process is the same process used to develop the original overlay district. So here the text says, that a neighborhood may petition to modify an approved overlay, implying that it could modify not just the type but also the boundaries. And so what's on our web page is not quite congruent with what's in our ordinance. And I think that it would actually be an interesting project to potentially expand, modify or expand subsection four in the ordinance that I read earlier. to simply add a version of, to simply add boundaries to type so that you modify type or boundary of an overlay using the same process that you used to establish the overlay originally. So I think that there are some potential directions to go, but I think that's a larger conversation. I think the ordinance that's in front of us tonight is has not been well received from a policy perspective, because it's not grounded in a policy perspective, it's grounded in a targeted effort to help one, perhaps two individuals. That may seem like a good thing to have a very narrowly targeted ordinance like this, but it actually has a lot of drawbacks. It has unintended consequences because you're focused on a single use case as opposed to the big picture. It can be perceived as favoritism, directed at one or perhaps two people. And it does open the door to more requests for additional private ordinances because the first person through the door then becomes the precedent for the next person through the door. And the second person can point to the first person and say, well, you gave that person their private ordinance. I would like to have mine too, please. And if and when that happens, I don't know how you say no to that equitably or politically or legally. So the targetedness is, you can characterize it as a feature. I think of it as a bug. And to make it even more restricted just makes it even more targeted and raises all those, continues to raise all those sorts of questions. I am comfortable saying no to this ordinance tonight. And then if there is interest in a larger discussion about amendments that would allow a sort of a more policy-based process that respects neighborhoods. THE NEIGHBORHOOD INVOLVEMENT THE WAY THE ENABLING ORDINANCE ENVISIONS NEIGHBORHOOD INVOLVEMENT TO CREATE AN OVERLAY THEN CERTAINLY WE CAN HAVE THAT BUT I THINK THAT THIS ORDINANCE CAN GO DOWN SO I'M GOING TO SUPPORT THE MOTION. ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION?

I'll just indicate that I would appeal very strongly anyway that we have something to work with here. And it even can accommodate your concerns. And so getting rid of it and starting over from scratch doesn't seem very efficient to me. This way, by not taking action this evening, And allowing us to work with the city attorney to address the issues that were raised by members of the community would be the most efficient way for us to proceed.

Mr. Grigsby. So would that be a process of withdrawing the motion?

No, we would turn down the motion because there's a motion on the table. And that then, since this is a public hearing, this will come up again at some future date as an ordinance after we've had a chance to discuss this with the city attorney and change some of the language.

Does that address your question? So we have a motion before us, which is to not adopt the ordinance.

Okay.

So just to be clear, yes, on this motion is to deny the ordinance. No is to not deny the ordinance. Okay. If everybody's completely clear on that. Any questions about what a yes or a no means on this particular motion? Okay. Let's have a roll call vote please.

Council Member Singh. No. Mayor Pro Tem Grigsby.

Yes.

Council Member Whalen. Yes. Council Member Meadows. No. Mayor Altman.

Yes. Ordinance 1572, the motion carries and ordinance 1572 is not adopted. That brings us to item 5.4, which is a public hearing to receive comments on proposed ordinance 1576, amendments to chapter 50 of the city code, the zoning ordinance to require special use approval for multiple family residential units in certain business districts. clarify requirements for retail sales of alcohol for off-site consumption, and add requirements for use of certain building incentives. Mr. Bartley.

Thank you, Mayor. Landon Bartley, principal planner. So this Ordinance 1576 is meant as something of a cleanup or corrections. to address some unintended consequences. I think the biggest one is an unintended consequence of Ordinance 1536, which was adopted in late 2024. That resulted essentially in a de facto removal of the diverse housing requirement downtown. or in the west half of downtown. And that happened because as a result of Ordinance 1536, upper story multifamily residential uses were changed from requiring special use approval in all business districts to requiring site plan approval. And the diverse housing requirement applies only to special uses. So that change resulting from 1536 essentially nullified the diverse housing requirement where it applies. So the ordinance as introduced would change upper story multifamily residential uses back to a special use. In all business districts, the Planning Commission agreed with a staff recommendation that this should be done only in the B3 district and not in all the other business districts. At the request of the city attorney, we added some language to clarify the requirements for alcohol sales for offsite consumption that would align us more with Michigan law. And then finally it adds some clarity about the procedures and requirements associated with a building height incentive that was also created with the adoption of Ordinance 1536. The incentive would provide additional floors in return for providing a a LEED Gold or LEED Platinum certified building. The ordinance before today, 1576, would have us ask for pre-certification documentation prior to land use approval. I guess essentially pre-certification saying that you could get certified under LEED system if you construct as intended. And then also would require documentation of certification when it's achieved after construction. Essentially, I just want to make sure that if an applicant is receiving the incentive based on providing a LEED building, that they follow through and do what they say they're going to do. So the Planning Commission went a little further and recommended a penalty for not being LEED certified if they say they would, and we suggested that the incentivized additional stories would not receive a permanent certificate of occupancy until LEED certification is achieved. I want to note that we did receive a protest petition just before the end of the day yesterday saying, urging non-action on this amendment or this ordinance. Part of the protest petition was saying that it, I think implying that it wasn't properly noticed and I just wanted to briefly cover that process for public notices. So the public notice process requires us to publish the notice in a widely distributed newspaper at least 15 days prior. And this was published for tonight's meeting in the Lansing City Pulse. published widely in the region on July 1st and also on their website. For a rezoning or for a development project that's proposed at a specific address, in that case we would also send a mailer to all owners and occupants. State law requires a 300-foot buffer around the property. We, as a practice, do 350 feet just to make sure we're catching everyone. But since there's no address associated with the text amendment, a mailer isn't sent anywhere, not just East Lansing. But in general practice, a mailer would not go out for a zoning ordinance text amendment when there's not an address associated with that amendment just because Otherwise, you'd have to send a mailer to every property in the city, essentially. Or in this case, every property that would be affected could be every property in a business district. And that's impractical. So that's generally not a practice used anywhere. But the notice did go to Lansing City Pulse. We confirmed that online. We confirmed that in our process. And we confirmed that with the Pulse last night. So I just wanted to mention that this is a public hearing by practice. Council doesn't generally act the same evening, but as you know, you may choose to do so. In light of the concerns reflected by the protest position and the amendments recommended by the Planning Commission, deferral of action on the ordinance tonight could be appropriate. We have prepared a sample motion to that effect in your packet. Can I answer any questions about this ordinance? Questions for staff?

Okay, this is a public hearing, so I will open the public hearing and call the one slip that I have, which is Carrie Freeman.

Carrie Freeman with Grua Freeman Tupper & Young. I'm tired, I'm exhausted tonight actually. I've spent the last week contacting every owner who is affected by this ordinance that I could find who is in town in the middle of July. And thankfully, anybody who I, almost everybody who I contacted jumped at the opportunity to sign it. It's not impractical. to send notice to 500 and I believe 16 parcels that are affected by this ordinance that not one of them, not one person that I talked to or that anybody who was trying to help me talk to knew about what this was attempting to do to the business district, the East Village, and the mass timber requirement. as you all know i have been in front of you for about a year talking about how the diverse housing requirement doesn't work it's not producing the results we need to make changes to it thankfully you guys have started looking at that but for some reason in this process 1576 comes out and suddenly is attempting to quote unquote close a loophole but What it's actually doing is being applied to all business districts, the mass timber ordinance and the East Village. I don't understand how that's a loophole. That's not something that ever applied to any of these people or any of their properties at any time. I completely disagree with the assessment that These owners weren't supposed to be provided notice for this type of rezoning. Our ordinances and state law requires it. I not only get up here and speak to you guys, I'm actually the city attorney for the city of Leslie. It's a common practice. If we're going to rezone and affect somebody's property in this way, potentially devalue what they have, they have a right to know about it. And if it's not letting even one person know that's in there, not one that I talked to knew about it, If it's not letting them know, if your process is not doing that, then you need to change it. And I've provided the state law and our ordinance which says this notice was required to go out to the parties. I'm also disappointed in the fact that The petition wasn't in the agenda. I was told by the deputy clerk when I filed it yesterday that it would be provided in the written communication. I don't know why it's not. Those people who signed it, the property owners, the 161 signatures that I received, 30% in a week of these people. They deserve to have their statement on the record and in the file. You can't take action on this tonight because we did file a protest petition and the protest petition requires that it be examined and certified by the clerk in advance of any final legislative action on this issue tonight. I have to say I was so compelled to take action on this because I had so many clients who were affected by this. So many property owners that I knew in town that were affected by this and I just knew none of them knew and that's not okay. We have to do better than that. Again, you can't take action on this tonight until this protest petition is certified by the clerk. I haven't received any notice that it has been. And furthermore, it should have been properly noticed at Planning Commission where there should have been a notice out to all 516 parcels. And it should have been properly noticed at the council level tonight where notice should have gone out. I'm here to answer any questions that any of you may have. I would like the petition to be put in the record after tonight. It should have been, considering that I sent it, filed it with the clerk yesterday, sent it to the city manager and also to both city attorneys yesterday via email. I made sure each and every one of you had a copy of it as well. You have a copy of all the signatures. I even had signatures coming in today. I had people contacting me today to sign this petition. They don't want it. They don't want 1576 adopted at all. They don't want the diverse housing requirement, which has been proven to not work and produce the opposite results applied to any other business district to the mass timber ordinance in our town. I hope you all see that you can't move forward with this tonight and that you take a look at this petition and really think about what the people are trying to say to you. Thank you for your comments.

Your time has expired.

Thank you, Mayor.

Is there anyone else who would like to address the council on this issue? Do we have any callers?

There are no callers.

Okay, so with that, I will close the public hearing. Procedurally, let me ask, there is a sample motion to defer here. I have two questions about this. One is, do we need to read the whole motion? Can we simply move to defer ordinance 1576 to a particular date? But the second question is, if we do nothing, tonight, then under our operating procedures, this will show up at our next business meeting agenda, correct? So we don't actually have to take any action tonight. Questions, comments, motions?

I'll just indicate I don't think we should take any action whatsoever. I would like to get information from the city attorney in between tonight and when this comes up with regard to the petition, specifically with regard to MCL 125.3103 and its applicability to the circumstances of this amendment to an existing, to existing zoning ordinances so that in the future if the attorney who just spoke is correct with regard to the way notices need to be provided under these circumstances, that we make sure that we comply with that in the future.

Okay. Further comments, further questions? Okay, in the absence, yeah, Mr. Whelan.

So again, I think this has been something we have discussed for so long now. It was also had some discussions in the previous council, the previous mayor. I will again reiterate that I think the intentions of the diverse housing requirement was noble, was valiant, to attempt to come across with a great outcome for our community and our city. I do agree with the fact that sometimes the costs just get absorbed, get passed on to the residents. So I've got some personal, I'm not speaking for anyone else, large concerns about 1576. And that will reflect my decisions in the future.

If I could just please comment on one more thing. Because we're in the process of actually, it was initiated by the Bollein family when they requested changes to the diversity provisions. Because those provisions are, I think, being drafted and moving forward at basically the same time. We had a huge confluence here with regard to, and I'm referring particularly to the payment in lieu proposal that was made. Because of changes in the proposals made by two developments here, we're here tonight with 1576 and two proposals for development in the downtown, mostly because those developments could have been handled much earlier, but they got changed on a regular basis. So that's why we're all here tonight at this point in time.

So I have a question for Mr. Bartley concerning the timeline for the Thien Lu updates, if you had an estimate that you could share with us for when we could expect to see that

We were scheduled to come back next meeting with updates in August.

Okay. With updates on the timeline? Or with a draft ordinance that we might be introducing?

I need to look that up. I'm sorry.

I'm sorry? Well, we did direct staff to draft a revision that would reflect or to draft revisions of the existing ordinance that had been introduced.

I believe we're bringing, we're intending to bring back changes to the next meeting.

Okay, so it's imminent, I guess. Yes. Okay, that's great. That helps. Thank you. Any further discussion or further comments? Okay. So we leave that item behind, and we will expect to see that on our next business meeting agenda.

Yes? Okay.

All right, we are going to take a five-minute recess, quick break, and then we will be back. Okay, thank you for your patience. We are back from halftime. Ready for the next four hours.

We are at this point on.

Item 6.1, which is introduction of Ordinance 1579, an ordinance to amend Chapter 7, Article 2, Section 7-82 of the Code of the City of East Lansing for the purpose of amending a citation from Section 7-82 to 7-82 . Director Hodges.

Council Elise Hodges, Director of Planning, Building, and Housing. The subject here really tells the whole story. So back in April, Council Member Meadows pointed out a minor error in our new rental regulations chapter, and it's really just correcting that small citation from the sub-seven or sub-eight to the sub-seven in that section. So that's the entire amendment.

Any questions for staff? So I have a motion, which is to introduce ordinance 1579 and place on the consent agenda at our August 11th meeting for consideration and approval. Motion by Altman, second by Meadows. Any concerns about putting it on consent on the 11th since all we're doing is fixing a typo? Okay, all in favor say aye. Aye. Any opposed? All right. Ordinance 1579 is introduced.

Thank you very much.

Item 6.2 is consideration of ballot language from a community led initiative for the November 3, 2026 general election. Clerk Gordon.

Good evening, council. So we have ballot language here attached. On June 30th, a petition was dropped off by the clerk's office by a group called Community Action Michigan. We have 45 days to canvass those petitions. However, we did it in 10 business days, not counting the holiday. We were able to confirm the amount of signatures. However, my office is reviewing potential compliance issues petition satisfying all requirements under state law. Therefore, at this time, we believe there is no need for counsel to consider the ballot language as we've been working with the attorneys to make sure that everything else is in compliance.

Questions for the clerk?

Mr. Meadows. I do have a question. Just in terms of deferring any consideration of this, what's the deadline that we have with regard to this?

So the deadline for any petitions to be dropped off and then beginning the canvas is July 28th.

But in terms of our action to approve ballot language, when would that be?

I believe that from reading the law, it said that it would need to come to the next regular council meeting. However, like I said, we are reviewing that because we do believe that there are some compliance issues with the actual petition itself.

Okay, so deferring this to August 11th would be the appropriate motion?

If we find that it needs to come back, yes. Otherwise, as the filing official, if we're not in compliance, then that is a decision that can be made in the clerk's office.

Then the question would be, if we defer it to the 11th and it turns out it doesn't comply with the law, Do we just drop it from the agenda or what do we do?

I think if we take no action tonight, then by default it will show up on the 11th unless there is no more, unless there is nothing to show up because the petitions are deficient. So I believe what we can do is simply take no action. Any further questions or comments for the clerk? Okay, that takes us on to, thank you. That brings us to item 6.3, consideration of a resolution of adoption for the 2026 Neighborhood Traffic Calming Action Plan. Director Lacoste, Mr. Clayton.

Hello, Council. Steven Clayton, DPW Engineering Administrator. With me is Ron Lacoste, Director of Public Works. We'll be brief in the interest of time. Before I use the action plan update, there was a lot of recent updates, but I think there was still some concern from residents. I think some of the main concerns or that it could have been a little bit more iterative, meaning that if it didn't meet the thresholds in the original plan, that it doesn't just end there, that there could be more back and forth with the residents, and then just more accessibility, not necessarily running to a ceiling, so to speak. So the action plan is attached from the consultant Fishbeck. This was a result of many commission meetings and stakeholder input, many months. And back and forth and stakeholder engagement. I won't go through all the steps unless you have questions about it. But some of the major changes include some of the threshold changes for petitioning. And then there's an iterative process in there. There's a chance if a If the ballot goes out and it doesn't pass the 50% that's needed, they can come back either with the staff and figure out another solution or go to the Transportation Commission so there's more options or avenues. And we think that it's also just more robust in general. And the criteria that's in there, it's informative. It helps inform the funding once it gets to that point. It's not necessarily a threshold level that qualifies based on speed and crash data. So with that, do you have any questions for us? Questions for staff? Mr. Whalen.

I just have a comment. So the Transportation Commission worked really, really hard on this, and I really appreciate the collaborative efforts from you, Mr. Clayton, and Mr. Lacoste, and the fact that you really are listening to the neighborhoods. I think it really streamlines that situation so i guess more of a comment than a question any other questions is there a motion um we just a motion to approve the resolution for adoption of the 2026 neighborhood traffic calming action plan motion by whalen second second by grigsby any discussion of the motion

All those in favor say aye. Aye. Any opposed? Motion carries. That plan is adopted. Thank you. Thank you for all your work on this. It's of concern to a lot of people. Bringing us to item 6.4, consideration of a request from Evan Williams on behalf of Harbor Bay Ventures for approval of a site plan for a 12-story mixed-use development consisting of one, two, and three-bedroom dwelling units and ground floor commercial space at 401, 421, and 427 East Grand River Avenue. The property is zoned B3 City Center Commercial Business District. Ms. Wright and Mr. Bartley.

Alicia Wrighton, Planning Department. The project is a 12 story 139 foot nine inch building using two incentives to go above the eight stories that are allowed by site plan approval for mass timber and lead gold certification. It is 316,683 square feet of building area, 296 units, 748 residents. Uh, there are two restaurants proposed on the first floor. using the bonus allotment for complete impervious coverage of the site. City Council deferred this from the June 16th meeting because there were a number of items that had been submitted that staff had not had the opportunity to review prior to that meeting. They did address some of those items. They're providing an on-site detention basin and confirmed that they'll meet the minimum requirement. They are offering that as they are less than the minimum acre that's required, but they have offered to do that and provided the correct size. They've received their LEED Gold pre-certification. The Planning Commission did recommend approval on May 27 with conditions. Transportation Commission recommended approval on July 13. And the DDA recommended approval on May 28. Since that June 16 meeting, the applicant has resolved a number of items which are listed in my staff report. However, it's important to note that they've addressed the turning radius for the fire apparatus, means of egress, The tree list, the private driveway has been vacated. They've consolidated the properties into one. They've met the 40-foot clearance for site lines. They provided all the travel widths. As mentioned, they've obtained their LEED Gold certification, provided for the full five feet of clear sidewalk space. And as I said, attended the transportation commission, part of their project also includes a cutout on Charles, which was approved by the recommended for approval by the transportation commission to allow for two loading and unloading metered spaces. They are not proposing any on-site parking, which it's not required. However, they are providing 375 bike spaces. They have also provided a parking plan which is scheduled for the public hearing at the Planning Commission tomorrow night in accordance with section 50-593 , which is also included in the packet. I can take any questions.

Questions for staff? Mr. Meadows.

Just a couple. Mostly because I'm not sure I really understand a couple of the conditions. So number six provides a qualifying feature in accordance with section 50-593. What is the qualifying feature?

So the ordinance has a broad definition of qualifying features. It can be public or private open space. It could be the dining, outdoor dining, which they've provided. They indicate currently they're providing outdoor dining, which satisfies that allotment. But if the dining goes away, then they would have to provide an alternative, which falls under that broad definition. They've indicated in their narrative that they would do so but the plans didn't quite line up with that So it's something to maintain that they get to use the entire parcel full coverage. No setbacks.

Okay, and then number 16 Not sure what we're getting there approval from MDOT is required But for what?

Use of the road, it's a standard condition that we see in all MDOT-related roads, that they have to obtain their approval prior to getting building permits.

Okay. Approval for construction, for use of the road?

For use of the road during construction. During construction. So they may need to, they do intend in their staging and construction plan to request MDOT to close one lane on Grand River in front of the building site for a period of time to be defined.

And that's what this means? Yes.

Okay. Further questions?

And I'm not sure whether staff or the applicant may be able to help. We've talked about this project a few different times along the way. Here we are. But I just want to clarify if, you know, to construct this, do we understand that they're going to be using any project labor agreements or working with union labor?

That would be a question for the applicant. Okay.

Would the applicant care to address that question?

Hi, Mark Bell, Harbor Bay. We do not have a PLA. We plan to use both union and non-union labor.

Do you have that mapped out yet or how you're going to approach that?

Well, subject to site plan approval, which then the subs get a little bit more hungry on bidding the work, but we're out to over 65 subs right now. We've met with both union and non-unions. I've personally gone to the union hall about six months ago and presented to them. We know them well from the Center City Project. Many of them are friends. So I think that they're yearning to see if the site plan is going to be approved to take the next steps.

And would you be open to adding that as a condition?

A PLA? No.

Further questions for the applicant or staff? I have a question.

This is a very, very small issue. If and when, and then this is a major corridor, people walking by and bicycling. So I understand it's going to be difficult to have some kind of covered walkway or something because of the way the trucks are coming in and out with the mass timber. So will that sidewalk be closed down and then redirected across the street? Or will it go back another block? Or how does the pedestrian... Sidewalk work.

Yeah. Evan Williams, Harbor Bay. That discussion is still being worked through with MDOT. MDOT is the specific authority that's leading those details. We had a meeting with them about three weeks ago at which point they indicated that they would like pedestrian traffic to cross Grand River going south at the Division Street and then have them cross back at Charles Street. and not have to worry about people walking along the construction site. So I would say, just generally speaking, in order for us to receive right-of-way permits from the city on any city roads or from MDOT for M43, we have to have that 100% clarified and agreed to.

So is that based on the construction? Because from what I understand, you're bringing in these huge beams and then you're lifting them and putting them in like, I think someone said like a Lego set or something.

Yeah, so it's actually, it would be with any type of construction in semi-truck traffic and then crane swings, as well as concrete pump trucks. because we'll be pouring concrete through level three. A truck will have to stage on Grand River. So it's in the interest of, in our experience in urban design and construction, it's in the interest of everyone's best safety to ensure that we divert traffic around the construction site.

The pedestrian traffic. Correct. I think you were about to say something.

They are required as any development to ensure pedestrian safety and they would be redirected to the next existing crosswalk in either direction to allow for that to happen. And the same would apply for Charles street for any occupation that they intend to use for closure of that road. They would have to ensure that that is provided. They do have a preliminary staging plan showing a potential redirect for the pedestrians.

So I guess we're saying that it's safer to make them across the street than walk under some kind of constructed tunnel.

What did you do with the landmark?

Good question. And Evan would probably be better than me to answer that. But I know I've taken a ton of time on mass timber. I'm an enthusiast. So hold on. I won't take long. But we are doing this right now at Ohio State. So we have high street, very... well-traveled vehicular traffic, we have half laying down, mass timber goes up faster, it's safer, so the picks are all pre-coordinated on a flatbed, the CLT floor panels in particular, so it's a quick process, it's very coordinated. Yeah.

Council Member Meadows, to answer your question. I do believe, as I recall, all of Albert Street was shut down. I know that wasn't necessarily your question, but on Grand River, I believe that it was shut down completely for a period of time. And then after there was enough safety factors in construction that progressed, there was a covered walkway that was introduced.

And is that your intention this time as well?

Yes, we just want to make sure that we're working within the bounds of MDOT's authority first, before we then bring all the information to DPW and the city engineer for their approval of the other right-of-way requirements. Okay, great. Thanks.

So I just appreciate the value of keeping pedestrians safe. whatever construction needs to happen.

So I have a question for staff concerning condition number six, which Mr. Meadows asked about. So this is the 100% lot coverage, 10% building.

It's 100% impervious coverage. They do have a cutout on the alley side to allow for the mechanical units to vent and meet the building code. So that had to be a 10 foot cut out, if you will, but the entire parcel is covered.

Right. And that's allowed because of particular features, qualifying features. And if those qualifying features go away, they have to supply another one. What's the enforcement mechanism that we have?

It would be a violation of the zoning ordinance or a violation of the approved site plan.

So we would ticket?

We would work towards compliance.

All right.

any further questions yeah we haven't had any information with regard to the parking so where are we at with regard to them the parking plan is proposed is on the schedule at Planning Commission tomorrow night for the public hearing as required by the ordinance the parking plan information is included in your packet Yes, but if we were to take action with regard to this project this evening, I don't want to pig in a poke. I want to know what our proposal is with regard to parking. So why don't we publicly state that? What was the determination of the number of parking spaces required to be leased within the city system?

May I ask a lease to come to the table?

You can do whatever you want.

So the July 2026 parking report will provide more details on what the current code states. So if we use 50-812 for the Howard, it would be 508 spaces required if you use that guideline.

That is the guideline we have to use, right?

Right. for 812 is that? Under 50-593 sub L, to determine the

The impact of the parking requires use of the ratios for parking found in 50-812 of the zoning ordinance. So that's where that comes into play. And then in subsection L3, it identifies the standards that would be applicable to the approval of the parking plan. And it lists four standards. Only one of those need to be found to approve it.

So what I could do is read from the findings and determinations document. Yeah, why don't we do that? Okay, so why don't I read that paragraph? So from the findings and determinations document, which is in our packet, which is what we would be voting on if we vote, I'll read. as follows. So the related parking standards found in section 50-593 sub L and subsection L3 require that the parking demand generated by the proposed development not adversely affect surrounding properties and public facilities and that at least one of the conditions listed in subsection L sub 3 sub A to L sub 3 sub D apply. This requirement is met if we decide to say it's met. For the following reasons, the proposed use will not adversely affect the surrounding properties and public facilities because the parking demand will be adequately accommodated within the municipal parking system due to the availability of spaces appropriate to serve the proposed use. According to the document titled East Lansing Municipal Parking Data July 2026, included as an attachment to the agenda item report for this meeting and incorporated herein by reference, the proposed use will require 508 residential parking spaces based on calculations using the parking ratios under Section 50-812 of the City Zoning Ordinance. The same document identifies three municipal parking garages that would be used by this development, which combined have approximately 819 permit spaces available as of July 2026. Based on data reviewed by the city in the fall of 2025, the number of available permit spaces during the academic year is expected to be lower at 440. These 440 spaces accommodate most of the 508 required spaces. The deficiency of 68 spaces is expected to be met through proximity to bus lines, proximity to campus, and the availability of bicycle parking.

So the question would be, shouldn't that be a condition of approval?

So this is identified as a justification for why particular review standards are met. I think it's a separate issue to decide if we want to condition a parking agreement, for example, to put in there. And I don't believe that there is one in here now, correct?

No, there isn't.

No. Mr. Whelan.

How many beds for this property?

748. That's people.

So three fourths of all people, approximately.

Well, that's the occupancy that they've listed. That's the total occupancy.

So I know that working with CATA, working with trying to decrease the amount of vehicles downtown, I thought that was the large consideration. That's why our body said no one can build parking. I would think that's a pretty high threshold of vehicle spaces. But I get an understanding.

And we will have an opportunity to consider modifying those thresholds in the future. But that's currently what's in the code. Additional questions? Mr. Mendelson.

The application of 50-812. That's just being used to determine whether it will result in an increased parking demand. That's how that calculation is used. And then the standards allow discretion from the council to determine whether the development or the proposal meets the parking demand. It has room for alternative measures and consideration of the municipal system.

Further questions? Is there a motion? You mean to add this requirement? Well, I think we would need a motion on the table concerning the development. And at that point, we could amend it to add conditions to the findings and determinations document.

Okay, then I'm willing to make a motion as soon as I find out what the proposed motions are looking like here.

They're right at the top of the... Yeah, I got it.

Okay. I'll make a motion to approve the site plan request and parking plan. I don't know, I've got to strike the parking plan because is this a number consistent with the parking plan, the 440?

The 440? So there's two different numbers to consider. So as of July 2026, the maximum available occupancy, or I'm sorry, spaces was 819. It's anticipated that the fall when the students return that that number would be 440.

Okay, got it. And the recommendation for the number of lease spaces is what?

the parking department has determined 220 for available for the departments for the developments as of right now with a little bit of flexibility there but that was where they felt comfortable in the fall when they were originally asked for a number and my understanding is putting the parking plan in the motion essentially means that you agree that the parking plan does accommodate for just for the lease spaces from the city bicycle bus pass or bus routes and all of that so that's what that

including that in the motion would indicate I have a question including the parking plan in the motion if the parking plan that they submitted contradicts the rationale that we have in our findings and determinations document if they're for example if their assumptions of the ratios are different from what we used in 812 and we're approving their parking plan that doesn't nullify the findings and determinations that we use that are included in the findings and determinations document. Mr. Mendelson, if my question makes sense.

Yeah, by approving the parking plan, you're approving based on the findings that are included in the AIR, you're finding that it meets one of those four standards identified in 50-593.

but we're not locking ourselves into the specific number of required lease spaces that are proposed by the developer?

If there's concern about the inclusion of that terminology, I mean, I think you can remove it and still just approve site plan because it specifically lists the standards for approval of the parking plan In the findings and determinations, so it would still cover it If you just if you excised and approve the parking plan language if there's concern over that you're still specifically calling out that the standards under the ordinance as they relate to parking are met and

All right, I'm going to start my motion over again.

I'm going to move to approve the site plan request from Evan Williams on behalf of Harbor Bay Ventures located at 401, 421, and 427 East Grand River. using the mass timber construction incentive and section 50-806 of the city's zoning ordinance to add two stories above the eight stories allowed under section 50-89593 of the city's zoning ordinance and LEED gold certification. for an additional two stories for a total 12 story mixed use development consisting of one, two and three bedroom dwelling units and ground floor commercial space. This decision is based on the findings and determinations to approve the site plan for 401 East Grand River Avenue and the conditions of approval Dated 7-21-26, which are attached to the AIR for this agenda item and incorporated into this motion by this reference.

Motion by Meadows, second by Singh. Discussion of the motion.

A question really for legal counsel, which is that Would this be the moment in time when we add conditions to the set of conditions that are in there?

Yes, there can be discussion of any potential conditions, and then you can determine which of those would be added to the motion.

So a motion to amend the findings and determinations document would be in order?

If it's to add conditions, yes.

Okay, I think we're looking at 224 spaces at this moment in time, and I'll move to add a condition 19 that provides that the applicant, the developer, will lease 224 spaces within the municipal parking system to accommodate parking for this project.

Motion by Meadows, second by Grigsby. Any discussion of that motion? Ms. Wrighton.

The original number was 220, just wanted to, I don't know if you intended to do 224, and that's fine, but 220 was the original.

Available for all development.

I'm using what happened with the landmark to add a few more spaces.

Oh, okay, got it.

Okay, so the motion is to add a condition requiring that the applicant lease 224 spaces in the municipal parking system. Moved by Meadows, seconded by Grigsby. Discussion? Mr. Whalen?

Yeah, I'm still just trying to get my head around some of the adjustments. So you're saying instead of just residents leasing these spaces, you're saying the property would, the property itself would lease the spaces and then the students would go through the property? So it wouldn't be individual leases for the spaces? It would be the property leasing the spaces?

May I? The parking department had requested, as we've done in other lease agreements, that the management company hold the leases, that they obtain them for the duration of the term of a tenant. That way we don't have 150 or 200 individual tenants going to get their own permits. So it's handled in a bulk situation by management, which is what was proposed as the most... Efficient for the parking department. This is a comment a similar process to other developments that we have Yeah Individuals could still potentially go obtain their own monthly permits from the city if they're available But the bulk is to be handled by the management company at the same cost as if someone went themselves or does the management company can they add a fee to it or I

They purchased them from us, I believe, at the same cost, what they do after that.

And they could charge the students whatever.

I do also just want to clarify the 220 in the report was for all developments currently being proposed. I just want to make that clear that that is the number that we feel comfortable with right now for any development in that area.

Mr. Mendelson.

Just want to clarify. So there is no parking agreement in place yet between the city and the developer. That still has to be worked out. So I just want to be clear in terms of any amount, what's been agreed to or not. That still has to be worked out.

And that will be approved by city council, correct? The agreement?

I believe the normal process for those types of agreements is that it goes to council.

I'd like to ask the applicant to address this issue.

Hello, Philip Barron. So what I'm hearing right now, and it's appropriate, applying the code. And just to think about it broadly, we're looking at a TOD development. And so when we look at the parking need, it's a little bit different than the traditional parking ratios that were historically designed around suburban development. And so when you hear, you know, of a lower ratio, it's hard to process. You know, we think about it in terms of, you know, if we were going to a store in Okemos, you know, out in kind of a suburban area, in a TOD development, It is by design intended to induce and support use of other modes of transportation. It's designed to mitigate the building of parking, overbuilding of parking, curb cuts, create a walkable community, high density. So part of this is advocacy planning in the sense of having no parking requirement in the B3 district. It's challenging. It's difficult. I work with a lot of cities that are going through parking code reforms. And right now, even getting it passed is a challenge. But then implementing is another challenge because there's fear. What's going to happen? And so we look strongly at the systems around the parking, the development and the parking system and how it can support. Is there a residential parking permit program to protect the neighborhoods in case there's overflow? Are there proactive marketing plans by the development team to market this as a TOD development? There are some developments in communities that ask the tenants to sign, you know, it's a pledge, it's a contract that they will not bring a car. That's very aggressive. There are marketing development programs where a project will specifically seek out and encourage the LEED certified sustainable development culture, community. Don't bring a car. Bring a bike. Use other modes of transportation. when we're looking at these lower ratios, and the analysis that was done, took into consideration the walk score, the environment so close to the labor market and the tenant pool at the university, the walkability of the community, thinking about the public transit system, which is robust, multiple routes, multiple connections, not only regionally, locally, but also getting to the DTW airport. So there are a lot of factors that create this environment for a lower parking ratio. But I totally understand, because I've gone through this before with cities, where you go back and you look at the basic parking record and it's required. But in a TOD environment, when we take a deep dive and we think about, you know, what are we trying to achieve? Are we trying to support a walkable community? Are we trying to support lower parking activity? Which, you know, searching for parking on street, it creates, you know, street congestion. Are we trying to create that environment? And so that's something just to consider. Are there any questions? I have a question.

I have a question. I'm sorry. I heard the sound. The landmark, which is also developed by the same developer, currently has a parking ratio of 0.38. And my arithmetic says that 224 out of 748 is 0.29. So we're actually already lower than a project that has all the same characteristics, or would seem to have all the same characteristics that you're describing. I'm not missing anything?

And so the analysis was looking at what is happening right now in the market for similar developments that are in communities that have no parking requirements. What are they building for the market? And so that's in part where that ratio came from.

But the ratio of 0.38 for the landmark is based on what you guys are contracting with the city right now. So you would have a choice to have fewer parking spaces, but you've got a ratio of 0.38.

The team can speak to that. Yes, it would be higher than what is analyzed and shown.

If I may, the reason why the overall ratio is lower is because it doesn't just contemplate only Landmark on Grand River, but I do understand your point. It also pulls in the Hub and the Abbott as well as other Ann Arbor projects and more regional-based projects. That would be the reason why it would pull down because Landmark on Grand River is actually one of the higher parking ratios in that list to obtain the average.

Any further questions or discussion? Okay, so the motion is to add a condition to the findings and determination. Could you restate your motion?

The condition was to add condition number 19 to require the applicant to contract with the city for 224 spaces within the parking system to accommodate parking for this particular project.

Okay, is that motion sufficiently clear? Okay. All right, if there's no further discussion, then the vote is on the amendment. The motion to amend by adding a condition. All those in favor say aye. Aye. Any opposed? That amendment is adopted and that condition is added. Now we are returned to the main motion, which is the approval. Is there any further discussion of the main motion?

I think I would just, you know, just following up on the dialogue with the applicant on, uh, union, you know, labor, uh, you know, part of my bringing that up is again, because of the length of conversations we've had over the period of time you've been pursuing this project. And then from my prior state capacity, I've heard all the time when you don't use highly trained licensed operators that sometimes you got to fix the job later or it causes accidents and that's what I want to build some assurances on and it's also I think a core value as well so just want to highlight that it's not on the condition list obviously but just want to drive that home so thank you.

Mr. Grigsby. Mr. Grigsby.

I just want to follow up on that and just indicate I intend to vote yes on this. It would make me much more comfortable if there was a PLA on this. But we are prohibited by state law from imposing that on you. So that's why it's not there. That's why we asked if you would voluntarily agree that you would have a PLA, whatever that may look like. Even if it was 50% union labor, it would probably be an improvement of some kind. And we have been contacted by labor leaders. And one wrote a really nice letter regarding this project just recently urging that you consider that. So that's why it was brought up.

Mr. Grigsby.

Well, Councilmember Meadows kind of stole my thing, but yeah, I've heard from the labor leaders, and I think, you know, I just highly would like to hope to see that come to fruition when it comes to the union laborers and the work that is available. I believe that that type of labor benefits East Lansing. in regards to tax revenue with that. These people live in East Lansing that I think would probably be working in this site here, and so I just would hope that you guys can find a way to make it. I know there's been some discussion about trying to get some numbers right, and I know you're in that mode, but I just hope that all works out.

Any further discussion?

Okay, so the motion is on, the vote is on the motion to approve as amended. All those in favor say aye. Aye. Any opposed? That motion carries. Good luck with the project. That brings us to item 6.5. Actually, I'm going to ask, before we do this, I'm going to ask for a motion to allow us to continue the meeting past midnight.

I'll make a motion to go past midnight tonight, to go into July 22nd. Moved by Whalen. Second.

Second by Singh. Any discussion? All those in favor say aye. Aye. Any opposed? That motion carries. That brings us to item 6.5. Consideration of a request from Cody Dietrich on behalf of TDP Acquisitions LLC for approval of a site plan for a 10-story mixed-use development consisting of one, two, and three-bedroom dwelling units and ground floor commercial space located at 530 Albert Avenue. The property is zoned B3, City Center Commercial Business District. Ms. Wrighton. And Mr. Walz.

Alicia Wright in planning department. This is a 10 story project, 114 feet, six inches tall. Uh, the building square feet is 218,639 square feet. This application was deferred from the June 16th meeting to this evening. It includes 205 units, 436 residents using lead gold certification to allow the additional two stories above eight. The first floor does provide a public coffee shop and tenant amenities. The building is set back 10 feet from the Western line. property line. There's a first floor courtyard with multiple plantings on site as well as the minimum street tree requirements. They have reduced their impervious coverage by 800 little over 800 square feet and are also providing an onsite stormwater detention base in which will reduce stormwater runoff. They have received their lead gold pre-certification. The planning commission recommended approval on June 24th. The DDA recommended approval on June 25th. Transportation recommended approval on July 13th, which includes the addition of eight temporary loading and unloading spaces on Albert. So there are two currently, so it'll be a total of 10 public spaces. They have provided a public park, I'm sorry, parking plan, which is scheduled for public hearing tomorrow at the planning commission in accordance with section 50 dash five nine three L three. The plan is also included in the staff packet. Uh, the number that would be required by eight 12 is 354 spaces. No on-site parking is provided and is not required. They are providing 218 bike spaces. The project does include a geothermal mechanical system and Cliff Walls is here to discuss that. But I can take questions.

Yeah, so I provided a memo to council last week or so, and then there's a couple other memos that came from some regional partners. I did prepare kind of like a brief, to me it's not too brief, verbal statement, so I stay on track if that's desirable, but it's however you guys want to handle this.

Brief. Brief. For the purposes of the public understanding what's going on here.

Okay, so the bottom line here is that this parcel sits in a wellhead protection area 1,300 feet from the largest raw water well in our portfolio and has chlorinated solvent contamination in its shallow groundwater. Boring geothermal wells 350 feet through that contamination and the confining layer beneath it and into the aquifer presents a risk to our drinking water supply. That risk carries land use implications for Council to weigh and that authority is defined in our Wellhead Protection Plan, the Comprehensive Plan, and supported by Chapter 50-3. None of the concerns in my memo or our partner's memo is about the project itself or about geothermal as a technology. They stem from the unique site conditions of this site, which is the presence of this chlorinated solvent dry cleaner contamination, the proximity to the municipal drinking water well, and the risk of creating a preferential pathway between that shallow contamination and the sagonographer. The same proposal on a clean site outside of a protection area would be of little concern to me. But this site sits in a 20-year time of travel wellhead protection area of the Saginaw Agrofer, a designation that exists specifically to compel heightened risk awareness during land use decision making. We are wholly reliant on this agrofer for drinking water with no backup supply. So contaminant reaching it here is estimated to reach the municipal well within 20 years or less, which is why that heightened scrutiny is important. And again, the concern is not the project, it's not geothermal, it's a deep bore of any purpose in this area. Drilling can push contamination down ahead of the bit. If the casing's not properly sealed or is damaged later, it creates a permanent shortcut to the aquifer. and a pathway that would otherwise take centuries or millennia to happen naturally would happen instantly. The applicant's proposed isolation casing is an appropriate method, but those are only as good as their installation and ongoing condition. Even a well-designed system is not a guarantee. Seals degrade, boreholes can collapse at install, and a compromised well could open up a pathway now and in the future. Risk is something that we accept every day, and I'm not telling council that geothermal here is or is not an acceptable or appropriate risk or land use, but I wanted to let you know that it is a risk in an area designated for heightened risk review, and whether and how to accept it belongs to you, and external agencies are not going to contemplate that for you at the level that I imagine you suspect. The geothermal was a late add to this project, found out about it like June 2nd, and then the environmental site assessment reached me a couple days before, or one day before I was out of the country for 12 days. And so in that compressed timeline, I wanted to get my thoughts and concerns on paper, in a memo, and alert our partners and make sure the Planning Commission kind of understood where I was coming from. In my absence they met and they were told that this was an HVAC decision and the county and the state permitting would address the groundwater concerns raised in my memo. I don't think that was said in bad faith by anyone, staff or applicant. It's just a confusing fragmented environment that we have here. But that assumption is incorrect. As the large water users group put it, the Lansing area large water users group put it, there are currently no state or tri-county region sanitary codes regulating geothermal drilling to ensure the integrity and safety of the public's drinking water supply. Each agency looks at something important, but narrow and technical, and they're all important, but they are a fragmented group that does not look a group of, differing angles at this that do not review the picture relative to our municipal drinking water footprint. Our wellhead protection framework is the, or the plan is the responsibility of council because the city is the only body position to weigh the land use implications within its own wellhead protection areas. Since the Commission met, the partner input from our framework, or the partner input called on by our framework has come in. Both the East Lansing Marine Wellhead Protection Team and the Regional Groundwater Management Board have written to you urging extreme caution and recommending safeguards should the boardings proceed. These entities are comprised of water treatment plant supervisors, USGS hydrologists, area engineers, environmental specialists, and the Board of Water and Light. Their letters in my full memo are in your packet, and I'm getting close to the end. These concerns are not arbitrary or staffs alone. They are specific to this location relative to our municipal well field based on regional precedent, best practice guidance, and expert partners. Other local geothermal projects with similar site conditions compelled similar scrutiny. Others without those site conditions didn't. It is worth noting that the wellhead protection framework in this region is also stronger than other places in the country and throughout the state and predates both federal and state source water protection programs. This region has been designated a groundwater guardian for over 27 consecutive years, and Michigan State was the first university in the country and the only university in the country to earn that designation. This remains one of the oldest and most recognized collaborative source water protection frameworks in the nation, and this is to say that the fact that these questions are being asked here and not in other communities is not a sign of undue concern, administrative overreach, or the technical unfamiliarity of one staff person. It is the intentional designed outcome of a 44-year-old framework built to fill regulatory gaps and compel the highest standard of protection for our shared drinking water. Again, I'm not asserting that a deep bore cannot be done here safely. I am not qualified to make that determination. There may be engineering and monitoring measures that address these risks, but it is a risk and I want Council to weigh those concerns to your satisfaction. Give real consideration to the safeguards our partners have recommended, and make your decision with the correct understanding that the role of wellhead protection in this context is yours. And final bit, I want to be really clear that none of this is my statement or the memo is an assertion that the applicant proposed this in anything but good faith, or that they're aware of the proximity to their wellhead or the regional precedent and context I've described. That's the point of the review process, to flag things like this. And unfortunately, this timeline was compressed just the way it hit us. but it's working as it should. And I applaud them for proposing the system in the first place and for their commitment to renewable energy and LEED certification. My role here is simply to communicate the downsides and considerations that unfortunately are present in this specific instance that call for heightened scrutiny of an otherwise valuable heating and cooling solution.

Thank you, sir. Well done. Questions for Mr. Walls? I will note that two of our regional partners are represented here. Joel Martinez, who's the director of the East Lansing Meridian Water and Sewer Authority, is here, as is Lauren Schnoblin, coordinator for the Groundwater Management Board, if people have further technical questions.

I would like to hear what Joel thinks. I mean, if possible, if it's appropriate. Please.

I pretty much stand with Cliff on that. I can't make a determination of whether or not this would ever cause an issue. When done correctly, a well does not allow for contamination to come from the surface down to the bottom. But you run a risk. Every time you poke a hole in the ground, you run a risk of contaminating our well field. Like Cliff mentioned, we only have one source of water in this area, and that's groundwater. If groundwater becomes contaminated, we have no more drinking water source. The Saginaw Valley Aquifer is used by all of the local water agencies, but particularly all of our wells. We serve East Lansing, Okemos, and Hazlet with all of the drinking water. Again, I can't completely say that it could go bad or would go bad, but there's the potential there, and that's just the risk we weigh with the wellhead protection plans.

Further questions? Mr. Weller. A question from Ms. Alicia. So if they choose not to do geothermal, do they lose the lead?

No, they won't lose their lead though. They have anticipated up to 69 points. So they would lose three points of what they hit, and you only need 60. So the way that they proposed their application for lead pre-certification incorporated the geothermal, but it isn't the only item that could get them to that because they have an additional up to 69 or 70 points that they've already planned for.

Thank you for that clarification.

Thank you. Would the applicant care to respond to some of these questions?

Yes, happy to. Mayor, Council, Cody Dietrich again with Tree and Development Partners. Yeah, so the geothermal, you may or may not remember, is actually in our first application on November 5th of 2025. We ended up dropping that after the planning commission because some of the other engineering delays, and we didn't have the time to install it at that point. In that instance, we were planning a conventional geothermal system where we'd drill about 60 borings down 600 feet or so, all about an inch and a half wide. So a little bit different system. When we came back this time, we looked at some different technology called the Darcy system. And so with that system, they'd actually drill just two 12-inch wells. It'd be municipal wells, similar to any of the water wells drilled by the water company themselves. So with that, you only have about five licensed drillers in the state of Michigan who can do that work. And so they'd partner with one of those to do it. And then we did know about the contamination and everything with that. The geothermal was included in our original submittal. I just don't know if it got routed right, so maybe Mr. Wallace didn't have it at that point. And we did have some follow-up meetings while Mr. Wallace was out, so he's not pertinent to some of that information. Mr. Clayton led those conversations while he was out. But Ingham County generally signed off on all the environmental in our approach. So what we'd actually do with these wells is we'd do a two-case approach. They'd basically go down 28 to 33 feet to be in the shale, and then they'd seal and grout that from around to have the initial casing put on. So all ground water would be stopped by that. And then inside of that well, they would then do another well inside all the way down to the aquifer. And it would then just go to the top of the aquifer and it would be a closed loop system that would have a heat pump at the top of that piece extracting heat in and then transferring into the pipe to go into the building. You know, we've had our regulatory team working with Ingham County. Ingham County is the regulatory body. They have a permitting part of this. And then EGLE would be assistance for oversight. We had talked at the meeting when Mr. Wall was out, you know, we'd include the city on all that piece as well. But we don't need the geothermal. We can move on from that. We can go either way. So if it's a concern, we can drop it or we can move through it. If we did choose to go through with it, we would then go through the permitting process. It would involve everyone along the way, but... we don't don't need it but it's included in the proposal that's before us yes we talked with our team today and we're we're willing to drop it so it doesn't affect our lead gold certification or anything like that we understand if some people have concerns so we're prepared to drop it if that is a concern okay thank you any further questions

um thanks i think we're all right so um further discussion okay um i have a motion then which i'm going to make this is going to take a while um I move to deny a site plan request from Cody Dietrich on behalf of TDP Acquisitions LLC for a 10-story mixed-use development located at 530 Albert using the LEED certification incentive in Section 50-806 of the City of East Lansing Zoning Ordinance to add two stories above the eight stories allowed under Section 50-593 of the Zoning Ordinance and consisting of one, two, and three bedroom dwelling units and ground floor commercial space. The motion to deny this application and request is based on the following findings and determinations as to the standards of review applicable to this site plan request under section 50-38 of the zoning ordinance with reference to and reliance on the applicant's application and plan submissions, analyses by city staff, the city's comprehensive plan review and recommendation by the city's planning commission and other materials and submissions provided to the city relative to the proposed development. Section 50-38 sub one sub A requires the size, height, design, and architectural treatment of buildings be reasonably compatible with surrounding properties, except if the site is in an area which is expected to redevelop in accordance with the provisions of the comprehensive plan, the size, height, design, and architectural treatment of buildings shall be consistent with the objectives in the comprehensive plan. This requirement is not met for the following reasons. The proposed use is not reasonably compatible with surrounding properties. There is a two-story bed and breakfast located at 512 Albert Avenue, which is directly adjacent and to the west of the proposed development at 530 Albert. The proposed development will be 10 stories tall, making it eight stories taller and significantly larger than the bed and breakfast. The height of the proposed development will tower above the bed and breakfast, which will impact the privacy of employees and guests because residents of 530 Albert Albert will be able to look down onto the bed and breakfast. The size and height of 530 Albert will also block the sun for part of the day. The height of 530 Albert is also incompatible with neighboring property to the north across Albert Avenue, which are single and multifamily residential structures that are two or three stories tall and zoned RM 32. Located on the other side of those properties are single and multi-family structures zoned R2. The proposed development will be seven to eight stories taller than the residential structures directly across the street making it incompatible in terms of height and size. Number two, section 50-38 sub 3 sub a requires the site to not overburden adjacent public streets nor cause significant hazards to public safety due to excessive traffic generation or inadequate traffic control. The related parking standards found in section 30-593 sub L and subsection L sub 3 require that the parking demand generated by the proposed development not adversely affect surrounding properties and public facilities and that at least one of the conditions listed in subsection L sub 3 sub A to L sub 3 sub D apply. These standards are not met for the following reasons. The proposed development will cause a hazard to public safety due to excessive traffic generation. The streets that will service the site to its east, north, and west being Bailey, Albert, and Division are all two-lane roads with limited capacity. Grand River to the south is a divided five-lane highway that is heavily trafficked. According to the applicant's traffic study dated June 3rd, 2026, and included as an attachment to the agenda item report for this meeting, 162 crashes occurred in the area of the proposed site between 2020 and 2024, including five crashes involving pedestrians. The study anticipates an increase of 179 new vehicular trips during the peak morning hours between 7.45 and 8.45 a.m. and 119 new trips during peak afternoon hours between 4 and 5 p.m. This increased traffic will lead to an increase in the number of crashes in the area representing a significant public safety hazard. The standards of review concerning parking are not met because the proposed use will generate a significant increase in parking demand. No on-site or private off-site street parking is proposed. The parking demand will not be adequately accommodated within the city's municipal parking system due to lack of availability of spaces to serve the proposed use, and the parking demand would not be adequately accommodated through validation policies, leasing arrangements, promotional programs, bus tokens, or other actions by the applicant. The traffic study submitted by the applicant assumes 83 on-site parking spaces, which are no longer being provided by the applicant. This will increase the proposed development's demand for municipal parking in the area. According to the document titled, quote, East Lansing Municipal Parking Data July 2026, unquote, included as an attachment to the agenda item report for this meeting, henceforth the staff parking report, The proposed use will require 354 residential parking spaces based on calculations using the parking ratios under section 50-812 of the city zoning ordinance. The staff parking report indicates that another development less than half a mile away at 401, 421 and 427 East Grand River Avenue, the Howard will require 508 residential spaces based on section 50-812. The total number of residential parking spaces required by both developments is 862. The staff parking report identifies three municipal parking garages that would be used by both developments, which combined have approximately 819 permit spaces available as of July 2026. Based on data reviewed by the city in the fall of 2025, the number of available permit spaces during the academic year is expected to be substantially lower at approximately 440 spaces. These 440 spaces are expected to be consumed by the Howard, which has received site plan approval and can reasonably be expected to be constructed, leaving insufficient capacity to accommodate the parking required by 530 Albert. Although there are additional spaces available in the municipal system, they do not provide a long-term parking solution for residents of the proposed development because local businesses depend on these spaces for transient parking for customers. Therefore, the proposed use fails to meet the standards of section 50-593 sub L and sub L sub three because it would adversely affect surrounding properties. Number three, section 50-38 sub five requires that the site be designed and developed to minimize any risk of pollution of the natural resources and to protect the public health, safety, and welfare. Subsection A requires that the project and related improvements be designed to protect land and water resources from pollution, including pollution of soils, groundwater, rivers, streams, lakes, ponds, open drains, and wetlands. This requirement is not met for the following reasons. The subject parcel is located within the Saginaw Aquifer's 20-year time of travel wellhead protection area, and the Saginaw Aquifer lies approximately 330 feet below this location. In addition, the site is only approximately 1,300 feet from the largest raw water intake well in the East Lansing Meridian Water and Sewer Authorities drinking water system. East Lansing relies on the Saginaw Aquifer as its sole source of drinking water. A phase two environmental site assessment has confirmed that the subject site is contaminated with a chlorinated solvent with three of five temporary monitoring wells showing concentrations that exceed residential drinking water cleanup criteria established by the Michigan Department of Environment, Great Lakes, and Energy. The proposed geothermal component of the application requires penetration into the ground, which runs the risk of creating a pathway for contaminated groundwater and material to enter the aquifer, which risks exposing the aquifer to this contaminated material. This in turn risks introducing this contaminated material into East Lansing's and the Capital Region's municipal water system. Based on these findings, the geothermal system proposed in the application does not adequately demonstrate that the contamination of the groundwater resource and wellhead protection area in the immediate proximity of the site will not occur. That is my motion. Motion by Altman, second by Meadows. Discussion? Okay.

And Council Member Singh, do you have? I think this is a really difficult one. I do think some of the concerns outlined in the motion the mayor just offered are concerning with the current site plan. So that's why I plan to support the amendment as offered, or the motion as offered.

Mr. Meadows?

Just a comment because I'm not sure people remember that when we approved the apartment development on the corner of Bailey and Grand River, I believe that we gave them tax increment financing to deal with the surface pollution that was in that area. at the same time. So pollution is a critical issue in this particular location. And obviously, based on the testimony we received tonight, there's significant danger to the only groundwater that we're gonna be able to utilize to provide water to our citizens. So this is a critical element.

I just have a couple of comments. Mr. Whalen, did you have? I'll speak last.

I'm trying to process here. Is there ever... Unique question. Is there ever a... I'd like to ask a question of the city attorney, but... But I'd rather do that in private, and I guess that's not appropriate. So I have a couple of comments.

I want to be clear about the record. This is not the first version of this project. There was a previous version of this project before us, and that had the two levels of parking. And I just want to make it very clear that we did not say no to that project. There was a claim that appeared in the media that suggested we had said no to that previous project. And in fact, we never did. Voted on it. We were scheduled to vote on it on April 21st and the developer asked that it be pulled from the agenda So just want to make that very clear. I appreciate the advocacy that we've heard which we've heard a lot of both pro and con this project and I think you know everybody's raising good points and Important arguments to consider so it is it is a tricky one and I appreciate many things about the project but in the end I think that I am concerned that we have locally owned independent businesses in our downtown that we would like to keep there and they have represented that they need parking to maintain their business and I'm certainly not going to second guess them. And I think one of the things I've learned in this process the past few months is that the parking ratios, these 0.2 ratios, are highly optimistic. And I've been persuaded by testimony from people who live on Duran just north of the hub that they have a very difficult time keeping people from parking illegally on their street. I think that tells me that the pressure, the parking pressure is a lot greater than these optimistic parking ratios suggest, and that could be something specific to East Lansing, I don't know. This is a private lot, as we all know, and apparently two-thirds of the Bailey parking lot is gonna stop being a parking lot soon. It's not clear what the solution is, but I don't think that it's this project I do want to also just make a point that I think probably needs to be made more often in general, which is that we can't tell people what to build. We can't say build this kind of housing or that kind of housing or this kind of business. We can't do that. What we have to do is write our zoning ordinance in a way that we're comfortable with and then wait for people to bring us projects and then we have to evaluate them based on standards of review. So I think it's easy to think that we have more power than we really do. All we can do is make decisions based on what people bring before us. Further discussion. All right, so the motion is to deny. All those in favor say aye. Aye. Any opposed?

Nay.

So that motion carries four votes to one, and the approval is denied. That brings us to Item 6.6, consideration of a request from Graduate East Lansing, Lee Cody, for the approval of a special use permit located at 133 Evergreen Ave. The applicant request is to add a private dining area and expand the rooftop deck with alcohol service. The property is zoned B3 City Center Commercial. Ms. Wrighton.

Alicia Wright and planning department city council deferred this, uh, from the June 16th meeting to tonight due to additional information that had been received prior to before staff could review it. The request is to increase the special use occupancy for the rock bar roof tech rooftop deck from 96 to 199. This is proposed by converting a portion of the roof into a rooftop deck. They've also included a private dining room that would accommodate 16 seats and four servers still maintaining the 199 total occupancy to accommodate the increase of occupancy. Uh, they are, and expanded toilet facilities are also proposed. They're providing in the plan application three potential floor plan scenarios for different events that could occur such as lounge, ceremony, and reception. The request also includes maintaining the existing hours of operation with the exception of Sunday to increase from 10 to 11, which was part of the recommendation from Planning Commission when they made their recommendation. The applicant to note has submitted a site plan application to modify the plaza, which is separate from this review, but for reference, to add five temporary loading metered public parking spaces and one van accessible space in the plaza that currently exists under site plan. There is one parallel parking space parallel to the entrance of the parcel, of the entrance of the hotel. Previously they received recommendations of approval from the Planning Commission as well as DDA.

Questions for staff? I have a question. Mr. Whelan. You have a question.

Has there been... I understand the parking is a separate issue. In the past, and I'm not sure maybe the police department can answer this, in the past there was an issue with some of the, and this could maybe be addressed by the owner or the manager, there was a problem with some of the valet parkers. It seems to me, I've kind of done my own little research, it seems like that has been a little bit alleviated I'm not sure if anyone else can speak to that, the police department can speak to that or you can speak to that.

So the applicant can discuss further their valet operations. I drive by there regularly and unfortunately they do still park where it says no parking along Evergreen Avenue. So this is intended to help offset that potential for happening. But the spaces that are being carved out are for the use of the public, not specifically for the graduate. So they will be metered temporary loading and unloading parking spaces.

Correct.

Would you like to ask the applicant to address that?

Yes, I'm trying to figure out perceptions. It seems like that was a, this is my perception, that was a much bigger issue a few years ago. I've talked with some of the, taking the initiative to talk to some of the valet. You have a separate company that does valet stuff, correct?

That's correct, yep. And so compared to a couple of years ago when some of those first conversations were coming up and really, you know, since I've joined the hotel as well, Significant changes have happened with the team that operates Valet. It is the same company, but intentionally we worked with them to say, hey, for everybody's benefit, including our guests and their experience, we need to have changes with who specifically is on site, managing that and assisting the way that those schedules are built out and reviewed. And a lot has to do with their understanding and expectation for our peak demand periods or if we have special events. As Alicia mentioned, as we've talked a lot in tonight's meeting, the need that exists with parking in East Lansing as a whole, a part of this proposal that we're bringing before the Planning Commission tomorrow is to do everything within our power to assist with that. In effect, creating additional public parking spaces within our own footprint. On top of that, I think it's fair to note that a major intention of the project does exist. We are an existing operation, an existing business within the community. With our current occupancy upstairs, we don't have the ability even to service all of our hotel guests who have already gone through the parking system. They've already figured out their own independent parking. or they've been processed within our valet. We have 194 guest rooms. At any given time, that could be 300 guests within the building. At our current occupancy, under 100, we have times that our own hotel guests who checked in a day before, two days before, are there for a special event. already in the building are not able to access our spaces. So that's a major portion of the reason for the expansion. And the other piece would be to accommodate the need that we've seen from our partners, our clients, the folks that spoke from the visitors bureau, the support received from the chamber to address the interest and the need to use some of that existing rock bar space to host some private events and say, yep, we can break this out and now do a small intimate dining reception in the private dining space. We can utilize a bit of the expanded rooftop space to accommodate a private event. And our research, which we had shared in relation to our own, you know, traffic study done quite a while back, showed that that local group of business that are attending those events traditionally, vast majority park independently outside of our valet system and utilize the existing parking within the city system as locals that know the area, know where they can do that.

So that could actually be part of your communication package when you do have an outside event or something that would say police park in a city structure, so it's not congestion downstairs.

Correct. So we already have existing, because a part of this conversation, as much as 1,000%, we have commitments to the city and public safety, and that is top of the list. A very close second is how we service our guests and our clients. And if we've got a group that has said, hey, when I'm trying to make it through the traditional valet system, my ability to attend that meeting that starts at 9 a.m. sharp gets impacted, we will now communicate and build that rapport with the client to say, hey, here's your best options for self-parking. Here's where they exist. And even provide recommendations that they utilize that for the most efficient in and out. And then again, a big portion of the business would be guests that are already in the building.

So also majority of your events are in the evening?

It would be spread, but yes, I would say a fair portion are.

If the evening, then the employees from the city would not be in the Grove Street Ramp then?

Correct.

In the evening, or the employees from the bank? Correct.

Correct.

would not be in the ramp at that time.

Yeah, I would say the highest demand for, of course, private dining, you know, six of the days throughout the week or five of the days throughout the week were not open up there until 4 p.m. So that would be the start of any, you know, events taking place up there. And then the demand for a reception, whether it's on the patio or in the private dining, would lean towards evening demand.

But you understand our concerns with congestion out front.

One thousand percent.

It's been a continual issue since the building was opened.

Completely understand. And so our commitment is to continue to work with that operator to build out the best possible ability they can to operate within our existing footprint. And on top of that, they're continuing to explore other options that they may have for potential leasing some private space that's available in the area. I know they've made some progress with some of those conversations. But a big part is just the way that they schedule and staff and operate our existing building.

Lieutenant? Captain, I'm sorry.

I just wanted to attest that what he is saying is true, that your perception is correct, that several years ago there was a significant issue with parking and enforcement in that area. There still can be issues with parking and enforcement in that area, but through partnership with working with them. and coming to a much better understanding that that has significantly dropped now again we would have that concern with an expansion up at the top level but again i think we have a much better working relationship and the hotel has a much better understanding of what the city has set for expectations for parking did you say a moment ago that you did have concerns you would have concerns about the expansion We would share your concerns that the questions that you ask. No, we don't have any necessarily concerns. But as you bring more people in, one could guess that you'd have more parking. Right, issues or more parking concerns. And I think that he has addressed that, especially if he has a much more robust communication plan than he did several years ago and is recommending clients that are coming in to visit the city and patronize the city that they would utilize those other independent parking solutions. So again, your perception of the issue that was a much larger issue several years ago and has since dissipated is a correct perception. I checked on that this evening with our parking supervisor. Mr. Grigsby.

Yeah, you kind of got me. So we made progress. Communication is good now. But with the expansion, we'll be kind of back to where we were, and we'll be working our way backwards to get where we are today.

No, I'm not going to guarantee that that's going to occur. But again, as you increase the use of a space or you increase the amount of people that can come there, you obviously are going to add vehicles or whatever. to come there, so that is a possibility, correct? But no, I can't guarantee that that's going to happen.

And we have some minor congestion right now, as it speaks, before the expansion, correct?

The congestion that we have now still exists, but not to the level that it was before, correct. Generally, it's during their check-in or check-out periods. It's that busy time, that transitional period where you have guests moving in and out. That would be that issue, and maybe you can attest a little bit more to that.

For clarification, they have one dedicated space that belongs to the graduate. That is the parallel space in front of the entrance. The proposed five spaces, which will help alleviate some of the loading and unloading, is intended for the public. So if somebody actually wants to go to Duncan, they can park there for their time. To Lee's point that they are working on their operations, which is a huge factor in determining whether or not they're going to be able to continue to use the valley in the manner in which it's intended, which is in and out. Not park it in front of a city's no parking sign and let it sit there, because it's not for parking. It's temporary loading and unloading. But it is a solution. It's a difficult situation. with a small solution that will help offset some, but it's not going to solve the overall problem until they've solved their operational challenges that they're working on.

And so from our perspective, what is the enforcement mechanism to, I guess, manage it until we get it to where we want? I mean, what are the options?

So it has to be reported to PACE, which is typically done through the non-emergent line to indicate that there's a violation, which would be the same if anybody's parked on Grand River or Charles Street just parked and it's a no parking zone. Someone would have to report it, and then PACE would have to get there and see it in order to address it. As far as whether or not they ticket it or offer move along is decided by that department.

But the time periods, it's like 11 a.m. checkout and 3 p.m. is like their biggest.

I don't know. Yesterday and today they were lined up pretty good this morning when I came to work.

So it fluctuates depending on what they've got going on. Like on the conferences or whatever. Listen, it's a crown jewel. People, I mean, from a business perspective, when I was at MEDC, that's where we put companies. And people want to be at the Graduate. They want not only the accommodations, they want to be close to campus, and they want to be able to go to that rooftop to view out. So I'm ready to make a motion whenever or unless there's more questions. You got more?

I'd like to speak to that also, if I could. I agree. I think it is an amazing benefit to our community. I do think that the increased bar capacity is a different argument than if they're adding more hotel rooms because of that in and out and all that. I do think it's a different customer to possibly either you're staying there or you're going for the evening. I know that when we've gone there we park and one of the city ramps, and then we walk over. So I do think it is an attractive thing for East Lansing. I think it's one of the many, many gems of downtown, and that's just my value, and I think it's a positive step. Mr. Meadows. Just a couple of questions.

Number two, the condition number two, right now it reads, the maximum occupancy of the restaurant shall not exceed 199 persons. Seating for no fewer than 178 diners shall be provided and distributed as follows. 16 in the private dining area and 78 on the interior rooftop restaurant. I add that up to 84 instead of 178. So what are we requiring there?

Well, those are for the seated individuals. So we didn't take into account staff that are standing for the diners.

But there's seating for no fewer than 178 diners, and then we parse it out to 84.

But then condition number three is the 90 are outside for seasonal. Maybe I'm not understanding.

I love it when we do math at midnight.

No, I know.

But 16 plus 78 plus 90 adds up to 184, which isn't 199 either.

So I'm asked wrong. I'm sorry. So it should say 184.

The rest are staff.

So the way three is worded, which is very typical of other bars and restaurants that we have who have outdoor seating, is that it doesn't reduce the 178. It means that somewhere in the interior, you've got... seating that you can't use as long as you have 90 people out on your patio. So it just seems like in two, we need to get to 178 somehow.

Well, no, I'm mathed wrong. It should be 184.

So the 178 should be 184?

Yes.

Would the applicant care to address this issue? specifically in what regard though so I mean this go ahead I'm sorry so the maximum here here's condition to the maximum occupancy the restaurant shall not exceed 199 persons seating for no fewer than 184 is the new number, diners shall be provided and distributed as follows. 16 in the private dining area, 78 on the interior rooftop restaurant. And then an additional 90 persons would be accommodated in the outdoor service area.

Yes, because the 184 addresses the delta that accounts for staff and security. So that 199 must be inclusive of patrons and staff. so we know what our staffing is going to be on the rooftop even with the expansion and our security personnel keeping everyone safe so that map to me does make sense okay and condition three makes reference to condition two at the end which is awkward

Oh yeah, okay, got it. So it could say N2, N90 on the outdoor service area.

So it sounds like we need to make one change which is 178 becomes 184 in condition two.

Okay, so we should do that in the motion. Do that in the motion.

Yeah. Further questions, further discussion. Did you have a second question, Mr. Meadows?

Not really. I have a comment, which is sort of similar to what, you know, I think this has been a net positive for our downtown. So I know we wanted a second hotel for a long period of time. Glad it's very successful. Yes, it can be kind of a pain, you know, when everybody's trying to get there and everybody's trying to leave. But, you know, one of the things that I think has come up and probably planning staff is more knowledgeable about this than maybe city council is, but really there are regular talks about expanding parking in the west side of the city and we critically need that to happen. And at that point in time, I guess my question would be, because we don't really require any parking with regard to the hotel other than to use the system, would we still be permitted to require, say, the hotel to contract for some available new parking that we would add to the downtown in the western part of the city? And that would be a legal question.

Doesn't have anything to do with the motion tonight, but I'm just... Can we require them to obtain additional parking if parking garage is built in the West End when parking is prohibited in the B3?

I'm sorry, what's the question? I'm sorry.

The question was specifically by passing this in its current form, does that prevent the city later when it adds parking in the western part of the city, which could accommodate a lot more of the issue, you know, deal with the issues that we currently have with parking related to the graduate, can we require them in some way to acquire some of that parking through a contract?

It doesn't exist today? It doesn't exist in parking?

Yeah. And I don't, I don't, I mean, that's a theoretical possibility at this point. So I don't know that you can condition the approval. I'm just asking. Oh yeah. I don't know. I don't, I don't think you could just because it's theoretical and there's no, there's no determined, there's no, this is an unknown.

Okay. So there's no answer to that at this point in time. Yeah. It'd be difficult. I would encourage you to think about it though.

Council member Singh, do you have a motion?

Sure, I didn't know if Meadows was gonna do it, though. No, I thought you were doing it. I saw him taking notes. Hold on, I gotta scroll back. Okay. I move to approve the special use permit request from Lee Cote, is it Cote or Cote? Cote. Cote, Cote. On behalf of Jemmy Lisi. LLC including site plan approval to expand the rooftop restaurant and outdoor seating area with alcohol service and add a private dining area with alcohol service with increased occupancy of 199 located at 133 Evergreen Avenue. this decision is based on the findings and determination to approve special use permit for 133 evergreen avenue and the conditions of approval dated july 21st 2026 which is attached to the air for this agenda item and incorporated into this motion by reference Now, do you want me to amend the AIR, or are we going to amend it separately?

I think you've got to, you know, if you continue with the motion, it says additionally pursuant to zoning ordinance, we have these conditions, and that's where you can just say into 184. Councilman...

Sorry, this is why I shouldn't do this. As part of this motion, the amendments to modify are listed with one change to number two. that the maximum occupancy of the restaurant shall not exceed 199 persons. Seating for no fewer than 184 diners shall be provided and distributed as follows. 16 in the private dining area, 78 on the interior rooftop restaurant. I don't know if that works.

Motion by Singh, second by Whalen. Is that motion sufficiently clear? Is that motion adequate as far as we know? Yes. Okay. Thanks. All right. Great.

Any further discussion of the motion?

All right. All those in favor say aye. Aye. Any opposed? Motion carries. That SUP is approved.

Sweet baby Jesus.

Okay, which brings us to item 6.7, consideration of the installation of safety sticks downtown and to authorize the signing of a contract with Municipal Parking Services, MPS, by the interim city manager, Captain O'Hario.

Good morning.

Good morning.

I do have a slideshow that goes along with this, and so we'll try to jump right into that. And hopefully I'll go through this rather smoothly. I think they're bringing up right now. So for slide number one, the East Lansing Police Department seeks to ensure a safer, cleaner, and less congested downtown district as it relates to parking in no parking and loading zones. As a part of this effort, we sought a solution, and we located one in seeking a partner, the Municipal Parking Services Incorporated, also known as MPS, and the installation of Solar Safety 6 downtown to assist in the reduction of parking violations. Next slide, please. That would be this one, slide two. Safety 6 are a device that identify and photograph parking violations to include clear identification of the vehicle and date and time stamp of the violations. Violations are first reviewed by MPS staff to ensure validity and then again will be reviewed by PACE supervisor or designee to ensure that a violation is an appropriate violation and a citation can be issued. Once PACE certifies that violation, that is when that violation would be then turned into a citation and then would be mailed to the registered owner of the vehicle by MPS. A copy of that ticket will then be uploaded into the 54B district court system for processing and payment. The citation will include an evidentiary photo taken by the safety stick. MPS collects a percentage of each paid citation through the court at 50%. A small fee for the mailing would equate out, would be added to the violations, and that fee would be $7, and that is a difference from what you originally got. Originally it was five. When we looked back at the contract, it's actually seven. Disputes over citation would be handled by our current practice and would involve a hearing with the court and the PACE supervisor or designee, whoever the PACE officer is that ends up issuing that citation. On to slide number three. Safety sticks are installed by NPS at no cost to the city and are also maintained by NPS should any repairs be needed. How they make their money is, again, that cut that they take out of that. So that would be 50% of the cost of the citation plus the $7 handling fee. The sticks are movable, they are solar powered, and will be placed in areas identified by PACE, DPW, and the parking division. Each site will have an adequate signage to ensure that the public is aware of the no parking zones. Additionally, an awareness campaign will be launched prior to the safety sticks becoming active and using departmental, and this campaign awareness will use departmental social media news releases and other information out to the public. Slide number four. The East Lansing Police Department did move into a pilot period for this safety stick back in April of 2026. We installed seven safety sticks throughout the downtown area. And during that one month period, the study identified over one thousand three hundred and forty violations occurring off of those seven uh... stacks again this is a pilot program just to use to collect data no citations were actually issued from this uh... program it should be noted that this pilot program which generated a hundred and excuse me, 1,340 violations did go through that first tier of human review. And those are violations that MPS said that these appear to be valid violations. They did not go through the process of a secondary review, which would then pace, which would then push them to an actual citation. Moving on to slide number six. This is just the pilot data that we got back and you can kind of see where you have this dashboard style information that we can pull data from. It tells you days of the week and when citations are issued and are high and low periods of times throughout the days of the week. The different colors on the right hand graph are the different, the seven different sticks that were put up capturing where the violations occurred. Moving on to the next slide. Um, and then beyond the days of the week, this breaks it down by times of day. Um, obviously in the early morning hours you see a dip, but then as things progress and as the sun comes up, we see a spike in activity. Um, and then that again is actual individual violations that are coming from specific devices, so on and so forth. That's the other slide on the right hand side there.

Next slide.

Again, we talked about the safety stick kind of review process. That review process is that that safety stick has a metric that is set in there and only captures violations once it actually identifies a potential violation. So as it's not an open running system, as people pass by or vehicles pass by, it's not taking pictures of everything. That vehicle has to be static. It has to be static for a set amount of time, and we can adjust that set amount of time for whatever violation that we want. Specifically, what we are looking for is putting these safety six in areas where it is already established a no parking zone. So we can move it into other areas if we wanted to, but that's not our intent. Our intent is to increase enforcement and change behavior in a positive way to increase safety around the city to identify those violators in the no parking zones. Again, this is an automated system that would capture those violations, but it goes through a double human, shall we say, review process where one MPS, the company looks at it and verifies that it's not just traffic maybe backed up, sitting in traffic can't move, it's not an emergency vehicle that's pulled over and addressing an issue, something like that. They would verify that as this looks appears to be a valid violation. They would move that violation on to the second reviewer, which would be one of our city employees that would then look at it and verify. And that would be the person that would stamp the ticket and say, yes, this violation has moved into a citation. And then that process would continue on the next slide. I think it might be one slide ahead, but the safety stick provides several benefits that include the visibility, but several benefits which include increasing the visibility at intersections and crosswalks, less obstructions for cyclists, and helping to preserve ADA access zones within areas that are congested or see those higher volumes of violations. They also allow for fair and consistent enforcement of city code, improving traffic flow, visibility, and keep emergency access areas unobstructed for first responders. Finally, they will help to deter repeat offenders, provide better coverage across the district, and improve safety for those who live, work, and visit our city. slide number 10 in conclusion MPS yes in conclusion again that's kind of what we're all looking at right here is hopefully coming up with a solution that we can help supplement the staff that we have in pace and mitigate some of these parking concerns that we have in specific areas throughout the city questions for the captain

Mr. Will? What is the cost of the citation? I know it may go up based on different issues. What right now would be the cost of the citation?

I believe the general cost for a no parking zone violation is $35. And then you would have, if it was approved by the safety, like you were issued by a safety stick, you would have that $7 mailing fee that they would put on that.

So right now it would be $42? Correct.

Okay.

So with the two intentions, I think... As a part of the Transportation Commission, we talk about these cars that are parked in the right-of-way, and in my past career, I was very frustrated trying to get down Grand River. I understand these issues. Is the desire to correct behavior, or is the desire to make money for the city?

No, the desire 100% is to correct behavior. Okay, so that's our intention. Absolutely. Okay. If Safety Stick didn't make any money, that would be perfect. because then it would show that we don't have parking violations and nobody's violating. Within that contract, because they are very movable, if we've identified positions or locations for the safety stick that we feel that there might be a traffic concern or a parking concern, we can put that safety stick in place. And then utilizing their own metric system, if that is not producing, then we can either just take that down or we can take that safety stick and move it to a different location.

So what if someone, I'm sorry to dominate, what if someone says I wasn't driving the car right then, it was my kid, is the registered owner still responsible or do we need to place responsibility for the actual driver of the vehicle?

No, it goes back to the registered owner just like any other parking ticket. We write the parking ticket to the car, and the car is generally unattended, so it goes back to that.

I understand that. I'm just saying if someone stays in the car, and they stop, and they sit there waiting for their friend to go get the DoorDash or the company, whatever they're using. do we need to determine who the driver is?

In that instance, no, because it would still be a parking violation. We're looking at no parking zones or no standing zones. So again, it would just be a violation on the car. I guess that would, and then again, if there was a dispute, it would follow the normal dispute route. I hear what you're saying.

I guess that's a question maybe for the city attorney. And if you, in court, I wasn't driving the car. And that's, then it's up to the judge to decide what to do then. Thank you for the clarification. Further questions?

Just a comment, if I can. First of all, very impressive presentation, especially on testing it out. Is there a plan that after we've had this in the ground for a year, that the police department will be making a similar presentation to us to show what has happened over the last year and how it's been utilized?

That's definitely something that definitely we can present on there. There wasn't anything written. Um, but again, that dashboard is accessible to us and those metrics will be accessible to us to share with the council at any time if they wish to see that. Correct. And then again, we're utilizing and we're working with multiple departments within the city. So it's not just the police department. We're working with the parking department and we're working with DPW to establish where these concerns are and where we're having these parking issues.

Could it be the four year, like three months?

I think we can probably ask for that. OK. Mr. Grigsby.

So 1,300 violations for one month, correct?

That's correct.

For seven different sticks.

Correct.

And that was in the month of April?

Yes.

Wow, OK.

So while the students were here.

Yeah, yeah. Ideally, how many sticks are we thinking once this thing is rolled out that will be throughout the city in regards to, I mean, because seven was the number there for the pie part. So ideally, what are you thinking total wise as far as. how many sticks would be out there in the community?

Again, we would work with our partner entities within the city partner departments to kind of identify and address these issues. The contract is actually a five year contract. And then within the contract, it stipulates that we can put up to 30. I don't anticipate putting that many out. That's quite a lot. And that would generate a lot of review of potential violations that we would have to look through. So again, we're, we're pulling somebody off the road to, to review these violations. But on the flip side, You know, there isn't travel. We don't have to pay a person. The person's not taking breaks. This is just a system that's working in place all the time.

And so I apologize if I missed this. So really, the sticks are only designed for loading zones, non-parking spaces to, one, make it safer, but then also to clear up congestion in those areas, correct? That's what the intention is? Correct. As far as changing behavior as well?

Yes, absolutely. That's what our intention is.

Did you talk to any competitors?

That part I don't know. I didn't put this together. I will say that our PACE supervisor put this together. He did a very diligent job of looking into this product. And I'm unaware of any other competitors that have this similar capability to do that. But again, so no, I did not talk to you and I'm unaware of any other competitors.

Quick Google search says there are. I'm sure there may be. But it may not be the full package. I was just curious, like from a price point contracting. So anyway, just to keep that in mind in the future.

Again, there is no cost to the city. The price point would be correct, the share of the citation that is paid. So this is zero cost to the city. Additionally, in the contract, they don't collect any fees until the fees are paid to the court. So if we have out-sitting tickets that don't get paid, they're not collecting on those citations that are issued. In the contract, it spells out that, again, they take that percentage of the tickets that are issued from that device once they are paid.

And that's 50% of potential $42 violations. Is that correct?

It would be 50% of the original violation cost. In this instance, 50% of $35. And then they do take the $7 fee. Gotcha. Correct.

So there could be a better cut is my point.

Will there be good signage? I wonder with the 1700, was there any sign saying you've been caught, we're watching you or something?

The signage, correct. We can increase the signage if we want to say this area is being monitored by solar sticks or automated parking. But the signage is already there for the no parking zones and no standing zones, correct.

I just think that I think part of the cost is people are going to get pissed. I'm sorry. People are going to get angry about this. And they shouldn't be doing that. I understand that. But I know personally, I got a ticket in Chicago And I'm positive I didn't see any kind of no parking sign. But I wouldn't go back to Chicago to fight that. So I just paid it. But I just think the signage is going to be a helpful thing to say you saw the sign. Even if on that camera you can almost see some of the signs. I don't know. I just think there is a bit of a cost, unintended consequence of people visiting our community and they weren't aware that this is happening. So I don't know if there's something we can lay out or signage or communication. Maybe this is for the city manager to communicate with our different city entities to make sure that people understand this is going out there?

Correct, and that's part of what I discussed earlier is part of the communication plan.

Right, I'm just more directing it to the city manager. I'm sorry. So as far as communication process, This is kind of a big step and I think it's it's a huge problem downtown of people stopping and staying where they shouldn't be in no parking zones. So but can we have some kind of rollout of with our communications department along with the police department along with other parties to make sure we really communicate this well.

Say that again. It will be very important for the city to make sure that we are communicating to the public that the system is in place and We're working with a communications department in conjunction with the police department in using all of our different modes of communication that we have available to us to share that information and to share the information about what people should do when they get one of these tickets and I will also I think it has to be important that they realize, especially for, I don't know the term, gig workers that are parking there repeatedly, because one of the things I had wondered and foreseen is, so I'm the DoorDash driver and I'm pushing it because I haven't gotten a ticket, so I'm parking in the same spot. they're gonna get this ticket, but then they're gonna keep parking there until they finally get the ticket. So that's one of the things that we'll have to be sure that we take a look at as we whirl up this process.

And that may be an issue for the court.

It may be.