City Council - Special Meeting

All right, welcome everyone. Today is Wednesday, July 8th, 2026. I'm calling this meeting to order. Giving notice to members of the city council and the general public that at this regular meeting, the city council may vote to go into executive session, which will not be open to the public, for discussion and consultation with the city's attorneys for legal advice on any item listed on the following agenda. Can we have roll call?

Mayor Daggett. Here. Vice Mayor Sweet. Here. Council Member Aslan. Good morning. Council Member Garcia. Here. Council Member House. Here. Council Member Matthews. Here. Council Member Spence.

Here. Vice Mayor, would you lead us in the Pledge of Allegiance?

Would be my honor. Please stand if you're able.

Councilmember Aslan, would you read our mission statement?

The mission of the City of Flagstaff is to protect and enhance the quality of life for all.

And Councilmember House, would you read our land acknowledgement?

be my honor, Mayor. The Flagstaff City Council humbly acknowledges the ancestral homelands of this area's indigenous nations and original stewards. These lands, still inhabited by native descendants, border mountains sacred to indigenous peoples. We honor them, their legacies, their traditions, and their continued contributions. We celebrate their past, present, and future generations who will forever know this place as home.

Thank you. All right. I am going to open the public meeting for the appeal of the certificate of economic hardship denial for 19 West Birch Avenue. And first we will have our staff presentation and we are going to have the timer on for these.

Good morning, Mayor, Vice Mayor, Council, Lauren Clementino, Heritage Preservation Officer. I'm going to give an overview of the certificate of economic hardship appeal item for the 19 West Birch Avenue property, some background. on the project and previous review decisions by the Heritage Preservation Commission that led us here to this decision before you today, and then go over the applicability and conditions of approval for a certificate of economic hardship. And so first, the appellant's request today is to grant an appeal of the Heritage Preservation Commission's denial of a certificate of economic hardship for the demolition of the existing building at 19 West Birch Avenue. And there are, as you'll see as we go through, there are additional items that the commission has reviewed. There are some related decisions, but the scope of the decision before you today is just the appeal of the decision regarding economic hardship. And just to orient us, the red square is the project location, 19 West Birch at the corner of Birch and Beaver downtown, which is also in our downtown historic overlay zone. And some project background. So specifically, we are just talking about demolition of the existing building, which is the subject of the economic hardship application. However, there is an associated development project here. that proposes to construct the Graduate Hotel and Parking Garage on this parcel as well as two adjacent parcels. along Birch Avenue. All three parcels are located within the downtown historic overlay zone, which is subject to the design handbook for downtown Flagstaff. So you'll see me talking about this a little bit with the certificate of economic, or sorry, certificate of appropriateness ahead, and design review of those, however, is outside the scope of the certificate of economic hardship application or appeal. And so now I'm going to run through a background of previous heritage preservation commission decisions. So a little over a year ago, May 21st, 2025, the commission reviewed a first submittal of a phase one cultural resource study. The existing building had never previously been studied, did not have a review determining whether or not it was significant for our local or national register. That was the purpose of the cultural resource study that is required by our code. The first submission was not accepted by the commission and I've got the language up here of their specific motion asking for the consultant who prepared the study to go back and conduct additional research and resubmit. It was resubmitted at the July meeting last year. So about a year ago, the commission at that point did approve the study with the following conditions. Some of them are relevant to what I'm gonna talk about later. So I put all of them up here, but one did include completion of a phase two culture resource study because at the July meeting, the study that was approved found that the building is a significant cultural resource, completion of a phase two was required as additional mitigation. And you can see the others here. Just to note, the first one has been completed, it was completed last July, and And so here is the more specifically why it was found to be significant. So it was determined to be significant under the Flagstaff Register of Historic Places Criterion B and National Register of Historic Places Criterion A for its associations with the areas of social history and government and under Flagstaff Criterions C for its architecture. And I know the applicant will go into more detail about this in their presentation. And as I mentioned, the phase two cultural resource study was an additional requirement. So that was presented at the May meeting this year. And the first submittal was not accepted by the commission and the applicant was required to make revisions, came back at the June meeting this year with a resubmittal that met those conditions and it was approved. And so at this point, the cultural resource study requirements in our heritage preservation code have been satisfied. And again, the studies and their findings are outside of the scope of the current application or appeal. And so also at the May meeting, the Heritage Preservation Commission reviewed a first submittal of a certificate of, sorry, certificate of appropriateness. And this is design review for the new hotel and parking garage, but it also covered demolition of the existing building. And so the commission voted to require a certificate of economic hardship for the demolition of the existing building, found that it did not meet the applicability and criteria for approval for appropriateness and required a different application. So that is how we set up to move here. Then the commission separately reviewed, did the design review per the design guidelines for the new hotel and parking garage, and also voted to request additional information regarding those designs, and a review of a second submittal has not yet taken place. However, the applicant did resubmit for a certificate of appropriateness at the June meeting but as economic hardship was denied they could not continue that item and it was not reviewed at the June meeting. It's currently on hold. So certificate of economic hardship. The way our code defines major impacts is laid out here, but it includes demolition. As I mentioned, this is a significant resource, and our code defines impacts as major if they alter or destroy any characteristics that make the resource significant, including when they may diminish the integrity of the resource, including And these are all the aspects of integrity. But demolition or physical destruction or damage to all are part of the resources defined as a major impact. And so this is really what the staff recommendation and the ultimate commission decision was to require a certificate of economic hardship. Because demolition was a major impact, it did not fall under appropriateness. And as such, the economic hardship application was required. And the first submittal of the application for economic hardship went to the commission for review at the June meeting last month. And the commission voted to deny the application. And that denial is, of course, the subject of our meeting today. And so now I'm going to pull up the applicability and then go into the criteria of approval. This is direct from our code of when economic hardship is applicable. This approval is appropriate if the proposed work, including demolition and appropriate mitigation measures, will deprive the property owner of reasonable use of or reasonable economic return on the property or will result in a substantial reduction of, sorry, in the economic value of the property or will result in a substantial economic burden on the property owner because the property owner cannot reasonably maintain the property in its current form. And as you'll note, these are all ors. They don't all have to be found And here are the six criteria of approval. So A, the cultural resources associated with the proposed work have been sufficiently identified and evaluated, and that was done through the phase one and two cultural resource studies, which I just went over. B, an economic hardship exists, a lack of reasonable use or return, a substantial reduction in the value, or a substantial burden. C, preservation is economically infeasible, D, the economic hardship is not a self-created hardship. E, alternate development has been fully explored. And F, alternate financing has been fully explored. And this is an and, so all six criteria do have to be found. Just quickly, our appeal process, the city council is the appeal body for Heritage Preservation Commission decisions. And so that is why you are hearing it today. And staff recommendation, staff provided a recommendation on the original certificate of economic hardship before HPC, which is in your packet. However, for the appeal, we do not have a specific recommended action other than for council to hear and decide the appeal. And here are council options for reviewing this item. So one of the council can grant the appeal and that would approve the certificate of economic hardship. And therefore the applicant appellant would be able to proceed with demolition of the existing building to the council can deny the appeal which would uphold the HPC decision and the denial would stand. If that is the case, then the applicant is in a one year temporary delay of demolition per our code. And so that language is up here. During the temporary delay period, the applicant would consult in good faith with HPC, preservation groups, other interested parties to see if they could sell at fair market value based on appraisals. And then D or sorry, D three, the council could also choose to remand the matter back to the heritage preservation for reconsideration or of additional information or to cure deficiency in the record.

And your next slide says questions.

This was it. Okay. Last slide.

All right. So we have a question from council member house.

Thank you very much for the presentation and information. I'll give you a second to catch your breath from that as I kind of formulate this question. In consideration of this, we've had a lot of terminology defined. And it kind of occurred to me that one thing that we haven't yet really defined is what's meant by cultural resource. So can you define what a cultural resource is?

Sure, and this didn't include that. I can pull up our code language if you would like to look at the definition of a cultural resource. I mean, it can cover a lot of different things. In this case, we're talking about a building. But essentially, for the purpose of a cultural resource study, They're determining it could also be an object. It could be an archeological site. So different things, but does it have historic significance and does it still have sufficient integrity to convey that historic significance? And the criteria for determining that is usually the national, state, or flagstaff criteria through the registers of historic places. And so that, when I was talking about it, you know, it meant criterion B and criterion D. Those are the established terminology. So it's usually, it's associated, you know, with historic persons that are significant, with significant historic events. And in the case of a building, it can be significant architect or architecture, work of a master, for archeological sites, generally not buildings. It could also be significant for information that it could yield in the future. So, and again, that usually comes into play with archeological sites and not buildings. Like if you were to do additional studies, you could find out more information about history or prehistory. Thank you very much.

Council Member Garcia.

Thank you, Mayor. Hi, Lauren. Thank you for the presentation. My question to staff is, could you please help me understand what staff had in mind when they recommended approval of this project? And I say that, Lauren, by asking you to expand on the details of each of the six criteria that that went into looking at this. And the main reason I ask this is because we've gotten a lot of emails from folks that are kind of saying, well, staff is the expert. If the commission or a council goes against them, then the commission of the council has got to be wrong.

Sure. So as I pulled them back up, here are the six criteria. And as I said, A, and I don't think this is, this wasn't disputed in the commission meeting. I think most people can agree that A was met. The studies were done and were approved by the commission. And that is what A is asking for. B, an economic hardship exists. This is very broad language here and up above in the applicability section. So it's very broad, so it is open two different interpretations in some way on what is a reasonable use or economic return or substantial reduction in economic value of the property. But in my professional opinion and what I laid out, they did meet this criteria. They showed that they went through all of the standard procedures that you would do when you bought a property. getting an appraisal, looking at the fair market value, and they paid fair market value for it. And now the evidence presented is showing, one, that there could be a substantial reduction in the value of the property. They presented evidence that if they were forced to keep the building, you know, on the property and resell it, it would go from $4 million to $2 million. So that, in my opinion, is a substantial reduction in the economic value of the property. They also showed all of the rental information for what it's making in revenue for the current property. versus what they could make if they do their new development. And they are substantially different, as you can imagine. This new hotel is going to generate a much greater economic return than keeping it as is. But keeping it as is in its current form, there are known structural issues, deferred maintenance. They provided this in the packet. They had a couple of professional studies done showing the work that is needed on the building to correct existing structural issues, as well as to make some general code updates, which would create a better rental product for the people in the building. And they also provided information showing how much it would cost to do those. And the applicant can answer more about this. But they showed, in my opinion, that the amount of money they would have to invest into the building to keep it in the current use would be so much that I believe it would take them 50 years to get back to that. So that essentially for 50 years they aren't getting a return on the building, on their investment. It would take that long to recoup the cost. So I feel that that is met. And for mostly the same reason, C, preservation is economically infeasible, I felt was met with the original application. D, economic hardship is not a self-created hardship. The intent here is the terminology in the industry is demolition by neglect is the main reason we would see this in the code. or cases that come before us. Someone has done something to their building or hasn't done anything with their building and now it is in such a deteriorated state that they're asking to demolish it because of something they've done. Or for example, they did a bunch of work without permits and they didn't get previous HPC approval or city building inspector approval to do it and now we're asking them to reverse it and that is a self-created hardship. So I don't think that there is one in this case. Those are just some examples of what I think would meet that, but I don't think that that is applicable here. And then E and F, they did show both of these, in my opinion, in the packet. They showed, again, they compared preservation of the existing building upgrading it, continuing it as a rental use. They talked about in the meeting last month as well, converting it to housing units. And so I think that they explored alternate development and then F, alternate financing. They did include that information in their application packet. And again, because the cost disparities are so great. It just wasn't enough to get there. But they looked at, I would say, in my opinion, the standard sorts of things that you would look at for historic preservation. The tax credits for rehabilitation, grant programs, other things that would help make the project pencil. But it still didn't get there.

Thank you. And one more follow-up to that, and it's just for my clarification, really. And thank you for going into details. You did mention your opinion a lot. And that brings me to the question. It seems like there's some of the criteria in front of us, A, E, and F first come to mind. There might be another one in there that are easy to define. You submitted X amount of paperwork that you were required to, you did the job, high five. The other ones are subjective. So I don't know how more I could dig out of the other things in there that could possibly be filtered in as inputs for B, C, or D. But would you agree that there are other inputs?

I would agree. These terms aren't defined in the code. And so therefore, they are somewhat open to interpretation. Our code nowhere defines what a reasonable use or return is. So my, you know, how I see that, how the applicant sees that may be different than how you see that. Or how the commission saw that. And that inevitably makes both the commission's decision very difficult as well as yours. Thank you, Lauren.

All right, any additional questions? I'll invite the applicant up to make their presentation. Thank you, Lauren. Okay.

Thank you, Mayor. Thank you, Vice Mayor and Council Members. My name is Tyler Mark. I'm speaking on behalf of the applicant. Start with a quick overview. Some of this has been touched on already by Lauren, but I wanted to start with the history. Our clients submitted a letter to you guys over the weekend that I think is very well thought out and explains what's happened. I want to go quickly through that. The phase one and phase two cultural studies, Lauren also did a good job of introducing those, but we've brought Caitlin Stewart as well from Cornerstone to give you a little bit more breadth and depth for the findings within those reports. I think they're very pertinent to the explanation of the economic hardship that we see on our side. where we'd like to go. I wanted to just quickly touch, and I'm not gonna dive into it deeply, about what this project is intending to be, how we're working with the community to further expand its use and make it more pedestrian friendly, and then also just show you some of the interior renderings. I think it gives color to the history that we're speaking to from the property and drawing it within the property. While it's not particularly relevant to an economic hardship, it is important to the understanding of what we're trying to do for the building. From there, we'll go into the five or six tenets of the economic hardship. It's the nuts and the bolts. It's the boring, right brain, factual information that I think is very important to go through. Very wordy, very long, very hard to explain, but I think I put together quite a few slides that show the numbers behind why this is a hardship. So how did we get here? My client, Mr. O'Connell, sent a letter over the weekend that really explained from start to finish what happened. And in his purvey, he's gone through a year of explanations and findings and in good faith, trying to get to a solution for everyone to understand really what this is all about. He also explained in that, and this ties to, this is not a self-imposed hardship, that he purchased the property with the understanding and the documentation that there was a concept plan that had been approved for this property to develop it into a hotel with an eight-story garage, and that is a fact. So when we go forward, you'll see that reversing that ability, it creates a hardship on the applicant. In the process of moving through the HPC's request, there was numerous iterations, updates, further clarifications that I feel like our clients spent a lot of time being thoughtful and meaningful in his responses, and we unfortunately didn't get the response that we had hoped for. So I put up here the phase one and phase two, the explanations. You guys probably don't need this from me. I wanted to bring up Caitlin Stewart, and we'll leave this up here as a backdrop. Caitlin is an expert in phase one, phase two studies. She's provided the studies for us and for the HPC, so I feel it's really pertinent for her to be able to speak to what her findings were.

Hi, my name is Caitlin Stewart. I'm the owner of Cornerstone Environmental Consulting. We are a local archaeology and historic preservation company that's been in flag for about 18 years. So I don't want to dive too into it because I know that the topic of discussion is the economic hardship and not cultural resources, but obviously these things are intertwined. So I want to give you a little background on what the building was, what the significance means, because it is a term and it is a professional term, but it also does not have the same meaning depending upon how it's applied. So the building that we're talking about is the old city hall built between 1950 and 1951 by contractors out of Phoenix and a architect out of Prescott and Phoenix. who won the bid because the previous city hall was far too small, the jail conditions were really bad, and basically they were pressured into, by multiple inspections, to build a new city hall. We found, when we were looking for significance, we found two potential topics of why this building could be significant. One would be architecture. Is it built by a master? Does it have a unique architectural components? which is generally what we look at. We evaluated that under the City of Flagstaff and the National Register. The National Register is obviously the industry standard, but a lot of local governments, and we also have the Arizona Register, which can take into account components that may not meet the national level, but are still considered significant to the smaller community. What we found was that, architecturally speaking, it was significant under City of Flagstaff. It was not significant under national or Arizona State Register of Historic Places, primarily because it has been, as Lauren kind of mentioned, has been altered too significantly. Integrity has a lot to do with it. You can't walk in that building anymore. and see that it was a jail, that it was a police department, that it was a fire department. It's just been altered too much. Not that there aren't some components there, but that is generally what we're looking at is can you tell when you look at this building the function that it had before when we're talking about integrity. And unfortunately, we can't with that building. There's too many interior modifications and the exterior modifications have also been enough to where it did not meet the National Register or your Sentinel Register. This study was the second time that it was brought to the State Historic Preservation Office for Determination of if it could be nationally registered or eligible for the National Register. The previous owner also took it. They said no. The State Historic Preservation agreed that it also was not this time. But it could be under the City of Blackstaff code. which has different protections defined by the city of Flagstaff as opposed to nationally. We did find that the building was nationally significant for events that were associated with the building. And that was primarily an American Indian movement demonstration that led to The police department taking into custody three individuals who became important in the movement later. They were held on $70,000 bail for nonviolent crime. When they eventually were released, they went all over the state. The ACLU got involved, investigated what was happening at this building, and it led to substantial changes for the city. That is why this building is nationally significant, not the architecture. The reason that that's important is because the mitigation that was provided to us is meant to address why it's significant. So we did, for the architecture, because it was only eligible at the city level, we were told to do architectural drawings. That meets that mitigation. It will be documented as it is as well as the historical documentation presented in the report. For the national significance, we were told to come up with some interpretive mitigation in conjunction with the Indigenous Commission. since that is the group whose history is tied to the building and its national significance. I know you guys were presented with the letter that they did. We've gone to maybe four meetings and a couple of powwows and we decided an interpretive trail discussing the history would make more sense because the building itself, its presence does not convey the history of why it's important the way that this trail would. And the Indigenous Commission also agreed. They did not want... They stated in favor of demolition. They won, and they've been supporting the interpretive trail, which will only happen if the current project moves forward. So that's a little background on... why the building is important, and I want to make sure that I give you enough time to talk, because I can talk plenty. But I'm happy to answer questions.

Thank you, Caitlin. Moving forward. Where we'd like to go. These are just some renderings of the building just so you understand what we're looking at. You'll notice here on the ground floor the extensive use of Malapai as per request of the HPC. I think that's important to understand how we're trying to collaborate with the team to create something more significant than just as simply a hotel. some renderings from Birch the Garage, which we are currently working with the Downtown Business Alliance to integrate some activity, some engagement, so to speak, the integrity of feeling and activation. We've been working with them recently to come up with some micro retail and some thoughts to enhance the downtown feel. I think that's important because we're trying to make something better out of this property than what it will be if we leave it here as it stands. The interior design, again, I'm gonna breeze through this, but this is actually very important to me as a resident. There are a lot of facets of Flagstaff history that are going to be placed inside the building as part of the interior design, including that of the historical references that we've documented. There's potentially going to be a flipbook and a monument inside designating the history of the facility and what it stood for and what happened. I think there's some, you know, expanses of Pluto and references to the lumberjacks and just, you know, the Zane Gray bookshelf. I mean, there's a lot of historical nodes that I think are really cool about this property that are important to preserving for Flagstaff.

Now let's move into the nuts and bolts.

This is the part where I think is gonna bore you guys stiff, but it's the most important part of this meeting and the intent of why we're standing here. As Lauren mentioned, criteria A was satisfied, so I don't think there's much to discuss. Criteria B, economic hardship exists. Lack of reasonable use of returns, substantial reduction in value. You'll see a little bit about revenue on this slide. There's a lot more information in the following slides as it pertains to reduction in value and economic hardship. So big picture, the property's roughly gonna cost $50 million to develop. It'll bring in about $9.5 million worth of revenue. annually. And when you compare that to the existing office building, which this is documented in your packet, the revenue, this is raw revenue, at $216,000. And then the proposed apartment conversion, which I'll show you some documentation on here further, at $368,000. You've got a hotel that's bringing in basically 44x an office building and 26x what an apartment building can be. So When you compare the three property types and the fact that the client bought this property with the understanding that it could be developed into a hotel, imposing this hardship of preserving this building and creating an office out of it, I think is a substantial reduction in his ability to economically recruit what he's invested. Preservation is economically infeasible. And I've broken this up into the office comparison versus an apartment conversion. I referenced this apartment conversion. It's probably new to some of you. but it was requested at part of the last HPC, hey, why didn't you guys compare it to apartments? Well, believe it or not, my firm has been involved in budgeting this to be converted into apartments in 2021. So I'll show you guys that pricing as we move forward. These are just stats. This is industry standard. These are the nuts and bolts of how you make a financial decision in the economic world. And I take ownership of not providing a, call it, laid out program for the HPC in the last meeting. I should have done this before. It makes it far more clear how substantial of an impact this building is if it's preserved as it stands. That's on me. The stats are clear. If you take this building, take its potential rent, and convert it into a rehabilitated cap rate, it's basically worth $1.9 million. It was purchased for $4 million. That's a $2 million loss out the gate, not counting the cost of the conversion. The restoration of the building. My firm put together a full estimate based off of two private inspections, what it takes to bring the building back up to code, because that will be required no matter who moves into that building, and what it takes to restore it to a feasible use. Some of you may have toured this building in the past. The building is in poor shape. Structural issues, mechanical issues, no fire sprinkler, you name it, it is not a building that somebody can inhabit safely at this point in time, not according to our codes. So the cost was roughly $4 million. Like I said, $4 million spent on a building that's worth 1.9, that's a $2 million loss. That calculation doesn't include all the soft costs, the carry costs, the land costs, you just name it. This exacerbates the economic hardship that is placed upon the applicant in the scenario where we preserve this building. This budget below, this is just the cover sheet of, this is what I was referring to in 2021. We budgeted converting this into 21 micro apartments. Micro apartment is roughly 500 square feet, so think about it like a hotel room. barely fits inside the building, has no amenity, has no lobby, and doesn't have the parking to actually physically make it happen. That's a whole nother issue. The cost that we've found, updated to current cost, including the upgrades that are needed to meet current codes, is about $6 million. $6 million plus $4 million is $10 million. Quick math. So what I ran here was a comparison of the rental incomes. High end rent, downtown Flagstaff for a 500 square foot apartment is roughly $3.25 a square foot, multiply it by the number of units, take away vacancy, which is normal, carry costs on operating, and the net resulting value based off a 7% cap rate is $3.6 million. So now let's compare, $3.6 million to the cost of the renovation. That in itself is a $2.4 million loss out the door. That doesn't count the cost of the land. Again, same soft cost that exacerbates this loss. Financing, construction, carry costs, architecture, engineering permit development fees, future capital replacements, let's replace the roof, inflation, leasing, tenant turnover, reserves for replacement. All of these compound this economic loss straight out the gate. Preservation is economically infeasible based off the apartment comparison. Now in the apartment worlds, you base your rent rates, the cost of the work plus the cost of the land. So that's that $10 million number that I was referencing. In order to capture a reasonable cap rate, you can see the math up here, we would have to rent these apartments for $4,422 a month for a 500 square foot apartment. That's about eight bucks and 50 cents a square foot, I believe. It's triple the highest rent for apartments in Flagstaff, Arizona, and has no amenity. The economic hardship is not a self-created hardship. I go back to at the time of purchase, the applicant did not know of the historical or cultural value. And in fact, on the first phase one study, it was found to be insignificant. It was not listed on the register, and he purchased it with the understanding that a concept plan had been approved to develop a hotel. So specifically because of that, he did not create this hardship. I would also agree with what Lauren mentioned earlier. So we've got two valid points as to why this was not self-created. Now we're going to talk about Alternative Development and Financing. We can read off each one of these slides. It was in the slideshow that was sent to you. Went through five or six different iterations of looking for different ways to capture outside money to help pay for this project. The Federal Historic Tax Credit. It's not listed on the National Historic Register, and it has previously been denied because of the significant renovations that have happened over time. In fact, Patrice Hortzman, I spoke to her a couple weeks ago, mentioned that she went for this and was rejected 15 years ago. So this has been attempted before. It had been mentioned that it had been proposed again. It has been shot down twice. Historic preservation tax credit. Is it on the National Historic Register or is it within the National Historic District? No. So this does not apply. Alternate development has been fully explored with the new market tax credits. This one we think we might qualify for. Again, these are all gambles. You don't know who's going to be approved and who's not going to be approved. The PACE funding, which allows for upgrades in equipment and energy efficiency, we also feel there's a potential grant here. SBA 504, the client would need to occupy this building, 51% of it. The client's office is in Tucson, has 10 employees, could not fill up 51% of this building, so it does not apply. Conventional bank loans, this one's Pretty common, 70 to 30%. That means the bank would finance 70%. The client would have to bring up the other 30%. The problem with this scenario is there's an appraisal gap. It's not worth what you would have to get in a loan. So you wouldn't be able to get this loan. Opportunity zone, there's some really good grants out there and capital gains deferrals, taxable gains deferrals. This doesn't unfortunately exist underneath the opportunity zone. The alternative development has been fully explored, criteria E. Again, I go back to what would make it work via an office conversion. These are the same numbers I put up earlier. It's the same $2 million subsidy that would be needed to cover the gap of just the reconstruction. Doesn't account for the cost of the land. And if you look at the bottom there, we would have to increase the rents from a normal rent of 18 to 20 bucks a square foot per year. to about $54 to $60 per square foot per year. There's no office of this type in Flagstaff, Arizona that charges rents that high. Same thing with apartments. I mentioned this earlier. In order to make this financially feasible, we'd have to charge $8.84 a square foot. That's impossible. I've got two slides here, but I'm running out of time. I gave you guys a full conclusion. It's basically a recap of everything that I just said, but I think it's important that you guys read through those slides. I wish I had another 20 minutes.

Thank you. We have some questions. Council Member Matthews.

Thank you, Mayor. Yes, this is a breathless presentation, right, between Laura and trying to get through the 20 minutes. Painful, I bet. I just wanted, I think it's important just to restate and just make sure it's clear. The historic significance of this building is more about what happened to our indigenous community and the movement that happened after that. And if I understood you right in reading the documentation, not so much the building because it's been altered so many times that you couldn't walk in and tell that it used to be a jail or a courthouse. Is that a correct statement?

That is 100% correct, and that is exactly what we're talking about. The significance is outside the walls, what happened around, and the fact that three of these people that were persecuted were put in this jail cell for, I believe she said two days perhaps. It was a temporary cell. Then they went to county jail. So really the building itself is not significant as it relates to that movement.

And I am the liaison to the Indigenous Commission, so I went through that, those meetings and stuff. It was very informative. And I also just wanted to put kind of an exclamation point also for those that aren't as familiar with appraisals and lending and stuff. When you talk about that the value isn't there, you had an appraised value as is highest and best use, $4 million. That's what you purchased it for. But if you were going to have to look at, preserving it as it stands now and just getting a loan to make the upgrades and stuff, the value isn't there to get an approval on a loan, correct? Because now you already have $4 million that you paid for it, and now if you went down that route as an office building, it would only appraise at $2 million, and so then you wouldn't qualify for it.

Well, the valuation of the building as it stands, if you were to refurbish it, it was $3.9 million. So there's another $3.9 million on top of the four. But the rental income from what would be provided after that restoration just doesn't meet. It basically comes up with a valuation of the building of about $1.9 million. So if you're a banker and you're looking at this property, you say, well, You're going to bring in this much money, but I need to loan you that much money to make it happen. And that gap, that appraisal gap, comes out of the client's pocket. That is the impetus. That is the point of this economic hardship. It would cost them another $2 million to even keep it in place.

Because a lender would look at the revenue, the income projected.

Correct. That is exactly right.

Thank you.

Vice Mayor. Thank you. I have a couple of questions and I'm sure I'll have more. Thank you for being here, Tyler. I'm wondering, can you summarize for me what investments have been made already into this project and what delaying this, if you get denied, what a year will mean for the future of the project?

Sure. I appreciate that question, Vice Mayor. We have been working with Jim, the applicant, for over a year. Jim's team has put together a full package of engineering drawings, all the architectural type things that are needed. We've obviously invested in the phase one, phase two, and we all know time is money. So if we're going to shelve this property for a year, let's just say, and then the demolition can occur, we basically have a property that's sitting there with no income. and another property that's sitting there that's barren. They tie together. So we really can't do anything for a year, roughly, just in the delay. And I could let Jim speak to the actual cost. I couldn't tell you exactly how much he spent. But to get to the level of drawings that we have seen and the amount of meetings that we have held over the past year, it's got to be a substantial number, half a million dollars, maybe more. I couldn't tell you. But it's not a small amount, not to mention the cost of land that he's purchased.

Thank you. Council Member Aslan.

Thank you. I'm wondering if you can walk me through the final decision to put the hotel in the spot where the historically significant building exists and to put the parking garage in the other spot. So just looking for a convincing argument that swapping the footprints can't work with the exception of losing a few parking spaces?

I wouldn't say that's not possible. It's just not what was conveyed at the beginning. Again, the way that the original concept plan was approved showed the hotel where it's at. That was our starting point. Nothing's impossible in the construction world. It only costs time and money. The real question is, is what is the best orientation for for this property as it relates to a hotel function, as well as the amenity experience that is encountered on the top floor. The top floor is meant to look right at the peaks. It's an homage almost to Lowell because there's this whole Pluto theme up there, as well as being able to see the peaks right off the fifth floor observation deck. So that is what drove the original decision a year and a half ago to situate things the way they were. Other than that, that's just history.

You don't think it's possible given the context of the overall controversy around this that that could be swapped?

I think we're looking at this from an economic hardship today. What I would say is that's not out of the realm of possibilities tomorrow depending on how this decision goes.

So yeah, I get where you're going with that, and it leads me to another series of questions. I'll leave it kind of open-ended for you. I'd like to understand the applicant's larger financial picture, whether or not there's a parent company, just the overall financial wherewithal, other affiliated entities standing behind the application, just general financial status of such a parent organization or their assets.

Does that apply to the economic hardship question? I'm a little confused.

Well, I believe it does. I think an overall context of a parent company's financial status helps to understand whether or not there's a hardship.

A loss is a loss. Let's put it that way. If you had three companies and one company was losing $3 million on a property, that still affects that company. This company is representing that property. Affiliated entities.

I don't believe are relevant to this conversation I I'm not quite sure I can answer this because I it's not what I thought we were here talking about Well, I understand what you're saying from the you know from the perspective that the definition of a loss is a loss but when there is a larger overarching financial picture and Encompassing what's going on here? I do think that context

I want to make sure I understand the question. You're saying it's justifiable for one entity to lose $4 million because the other entity has $500 million? I'm confused with the question.

I'm not saying that at all. I'm asking you an open-ended question to discuss the overall financial health of anyone backing this project.

The project will have a loan, and it is financially feasible to develop. Does that answer the question? Sure. Okay. Thank you.

Council member, Kevin, did you want to make a comment about the last question?

Yeah, sure. I'll jump in. And thank you for answering it. I will just point out that this question of economic hardship is in relation to this property and this development. That's how the code is worded. So you can ask the question, but I would agree with the respondent or the appellant here that I don't think it is applicable to the determination of whether the six criteria are met.

Council Member Garcia.

Thank you, Madam Mayor. And hello, Tyler. Hello. Thank you for showing up today and sticking through the process. It's my pleasure. We appreciate your expertise. trying to figure out where my questions are. Okay. So, I mean, this isn't one of the six criteria, but you mentioned it. So I think it's fair game. Um, the inside of the building, you mentioned that there will be a history wall of some sort, um, inside the building.

Oh, the hotel.

Yeah. Inside the hotel. Forgive me inside the hotel. And, um, My question is, and I wonder, I don't usually go to hotels in the city that I live in, very rarely, almost never, maybe never, except for that one time where I had to, something happened at the house. But I don't know how many people that live here in Flagstaff are going to enjoy this amenity. So how would you frame this as a community asset?

I believe Caitlin touched on this, but part of our mitigation efforts is creating an indigenous historical trail throughout Flagstaff, including this property, the depot, various other buildings. That effort was in conjunction with feedback that we received from the ICF. I think it's very important to note that you know, creating this trail document in the history, it's going to be like a QR code type scenario where you're walking through town and it's a self-guided tour. I think it's, from what I understand, if this building remains and this project doesn't move forward, that trail will not exist. So it is creating a cultural asset to downtown Flagstaff that I think you or myself could go walk around and do a self-guided tour that I think is very important.

Thank you. My next question is, were the appraisals done by an independent third-party source, not funded by the applicant? The original building appraisal?

The original, if there's a new one, any of them. Yes, that's correct. The appraisal was done by, I believe, the previous landowner that he bought it from.

Do we have any, do you have that appraisal in the packet there? I mean, I know it's in there. Are you able to pull that up for me? So I can kind of see what you're talking about. And I have read the packet just so everyone knows. This is for the public edification.

So this, whoops. This was created in, 2023, October 31st. Do you want to go through particular pages?

I was just looking at what, first of all, who financed this appraisal and what the appraisal came in at. and when the appraisal was done as opposed to when the purchase was done. Were there already talks about purchasing this and the person did an appraisal at that point? Did they do an appraisal prior to that when they put the property on the market? Fair enough. I'll defer that one to my client.

Jim, do you remember those dates? They were asking about it. when this original appraisal was done, who paid for it, and if that impacted any negotiations.

The appraisal was done on the date there that it states for when I purchased the building, Mike Mangini had sent me the appraisal, the building owner.

Sir, could you, yes, thank you.

Sorry. Thank you, thank you. When I purchased the building, From Mike Mangini, the previous owner, I asked him for any information he had on the building. This was one of the documents that he sent me was the appraisal. So Mike Mangini had the appraisal done. I had nothing to do with it.

And I'm not saying this to put you on the spot. I'm trying to figure this out. So you took the person you're buying it from word that this appraisal was the right appraisal, and then you paid them whatever they wanted.

Well obviously the appraiser appraised it and that's what the appraiser felt the value was worth. I was under the understanding that this was an approved hotel project so after I read the appraisal it said the highest and best use of the building was to have it demolished and have a different project there. When I talked to Mr. Mangini, did I try to negotiate? Yes. I didn't succeed in getting the price down. No. Sometimes it works. Sometimes it doesn't. The value of anything is what the purchasers think it's worth and the seller is going to pay for it.

Yeah, I totally understand that. I'm just struggling to believe, not to believe, but just to understand the And I wish we had more evidence. So that's what the question is going to be. How any property anywhere in Flagstaff went down by that much in the past two years. So there was no other indication from any other realtor or real estate company of what that value of that property was worth then?

Well, I think what... The point that's being missed here is if I got an appraisal on the land, would the land be worth $4 million? I'm not exactly sure. I'd have to get it appraised. But what the value is going down on is that I paid $4 million for the land. We put $4 million into an office building, $6 million into an apartment building, that then when you get income from it, it's based on a cap rate. So that cap rate determines the value. So that's how it's gone down $2 million. I mean, if I held onto it for 58 years, it probably would be back to the original value. But the land hasn't gone down at $2 million. The total project has gone down $2 million because the money put into the project doesn't support the value of what was put in there on a commercial building.

Commissioner or Council Member Garcia, I think I could add to that. As a developer, when you're buying land, no matter what's on it, land or a building, you're looking at it, what is my cost basis to begin the development? And if he based his purchase off of the understanding via the concept plan that a hotel was a viable option, opportunity to be created on this property. He looks at it like, okay, I gotta pay $4 million. That's my starting point to be able to develop my hotel. And again, I go back to what we said at the beginning. The understanding was there was an approved concept plan that designated this could be used as a hotel. And $4 million as a starting point for a hotel developer is part of his equation to see if the hotel is viable. I think that answers your question. The reality is you don't win all these negotiations, and Mr. Mongini is a tough negotiator.

Yeah, so okay. Basically, the crux of the question was just you have no other independent study that you guys did by a different appraiser to be part of that negotiation or paperwork to show us that the thing actually did depreciate. We just have...

Well, let's back up to the idea of depreciation. It's not necessarily depreciation, it's the fact that if he's encumbered with having to redevelop this building, essentially that's what you'll have to do to restore it back to an office, that's where the loss comes in. So if he's able to develop this and move forward, it's not a loss. If he's forced to preserve this building and turn it back into an office, that's where he loses the valuation because The rents aren't high enough to support the cost of the land and the redevelopment. That's where the loss happens. So it is an economic hardship being placed on the developer by the stipulation that the building remains. That's what I'm saying.

Okay. So in the terms that I understand, what I'm hearing is he paid extra or he paid whatever he had to pay to demolish the building.

He paid what he had to pay to meet what his intent was based off the concept plan that was approved at the time, which is a hotel development.

Which includes demolishing the building.

Correct.

Cool.

Thank you. Sorry it was long-winded. It's kind of sticky sometimes.

Well, no, this is a tough conversation. We're going to have a lot of this dialogue, I feel, not just from me. So this will be fairly brief, but this is for Caitlin. Hi, Caitlin. Thank you for providing the information that you did. And you guys have seemed to do a heck of a lot of work on this. I've watched all the different meetings and everything and read all the reports. And I appreciate you going to the detail and actually teaching me a little bit of history. So how did... Okay, so let me just ask a question I have in front of me. Did you investigate any other significant findings? And so that's where I... don't maybe the word significant means something that what I believe, because when I think of significance, I think of the annexation of Sunnyside and Siler homes that took place in that building. Can you help me out with this?

Well, first, uh, planning and zoning was in a different building for most of it it's use. And so there were absolutely important things that happened as part of the city of Flagstaff. It wasn't, but those departments, not all of the city departments were in that building. because even when they tried to make it bigger, still wasn't big enough. So yes, we absolutely looked at many events. And so in our phase one report, we looked at post-World War. We looked at potential legal cases, which is how this came up. We talked to the previous police commissioner. Part of the hurdle with that is that they mentioned structural problems with the buildings. The building always had it. And in the 80s, it flooded and most of the city's records were lost. So that really diminished, to some extent, maybe smaller events that could be associated because we didn't have any documentation. However, being able to use special collections and newspapers, things like that, we can still piece together. But yes, we're expected to at least entertain the idea of any... any type of event that could occur in there. Are there important people who stayed there, who worked there? Again, we're talking nationally, and that is the problem with the term significant and important. It doesn't mean that significant things, important things don't happen in a building. It is just a term that... certain criteria have to meet. Unfortunately, it is always a hurdle with people because I am not saying the building isn't important to the local government. I am saying it does not meet national significance.

Okay, so the annexation of half of Flagstaff would not be significant then?

I think I answered that when I said that.

I appreciate that understanding, and you did answer that question perfectly. And I didn't realize, so you're teaching me a lot here too, I didn't realize that they had planning and zoning in different buildings and stuff, but I do realize that it was a city hall and they probably did make the final decisions there. Okay, the next question is, do we need national or statewide significance or will Flagstaff significance suffice?

I THINK THAT'S AN OPINION AND I CAN'T REALLY ANSWER THAT. PROFESSIONALLY, NO. WELL, ACTUALLY, LET ME REPHRASE THAT. PROFESSIONALLY, YES. THE CITY OF FLAGSTAFF HAS A CODE. THEY HAVE CRITERIA AND THEY CAN DECIDE THROUGH THAT CODE WHAT TO DO WITH A LOCALLY SIGNIFICANT BUILDING.

Caitlin, do you mind if I add to that? And the building was found significant under both the National Register and the local Flagstaff Register. So it is a significant cultural resource. That's the whole reason we're here. If it had not been determined to be a significant cultural resource, they would not have had to do this certificate of economic hardship. They already would have been able to demolish it because there would have been no major impact to a significant cultural resource. So it was found to be significant both locally and nationally, just to clarify.

Well, I will say, because I was trying to discuss this with some of my employees earlier, it might be an important thing to keep in mind. So our job when we're discussing historic preservation, at least from a professional standpoint, I'm not talking about anything else, is to take into the idea of why it is significant and what level of preservation means will display that significance. So being locally significant for architecture, it would be up to the city to decide, is it worth the city coming up with the money to preserve it for just the local architecture, despite the fact that it is significantly altered? And then when we look at why it's nationally eligible, does the building still standing there? Does that convey the history that we're trying to preserve? And the answer is no.

I appreciate that. Call me biased, but being from Flagstaff, I always feel like Flagstaff significance is important.

Oh, I mean, I don't disagree, but I just have to give you the professional.

It's very professional. SO THIS QUESTION IS PROBABLY MORE FOR A CITY MANAGER, AND THIS IS MY LAST QUESTION, MAYOR. THANK YOU FOR ALLOWING ME THE GRACE TO TAKE MY TIME WITH THIS VERY IMPORTANT DISCUSSION. SO DO WE HAVE LIKE AN ESTIMATED TAX REVENUE THAT WILL BE BROUGHT TO THE CITY BASED UPON THE ESTIMATED NUMBERS FOR THIS PARTICULAR DEVELOPMENT?

Tyler, do you want to explain those numbers that you included in the application packet for revenue?

Just from a construction perspective.

Just for the edification of the public.

From a construction perspective, our costs on the hotel and the garage is called $40 million. We pay a state and local tax of 6.1%, so $2.4 million. A portion of that goes back to the city. And then from an ongoing revenue standpoint, $9.5 million worth of revenue times BBB. There's your math. And then there's the ancillary benefits, the people walking around, being in town, 143 guests times two people per room. That's call it 200 people per day mingling and buying drinks at rendezvous.

Yeah, I appreciate that. Did you have the number? You said do the math.

I don't know how to get back to our original because our budget is in here.

And council member, my understanding is that this is all in the packet.

So he's going to pull it up. I read the packet thoroughly. I think it's important to be discussed though. My actual, if it's not important for a public discussion that I'm amenable to leaving it where it's at.

So this is our last budget.

So if you see here, and this is now 6.1%, but if you look at the total cost of the garage, 2.26, it's now 6.1%, this 5.97 has gone up. So roughly $2.4 million would be coming to the state and local coffers. And then again, the ongoing revenue is really where the big impact is long term. When you're talking about a building that's gonna be around for 50 years, that's a significant impact.

Thank you for those particulars. I think it's hugely impactful to know the actual estimated numbers.

Oh, right, right. I mean, until we finalize the total cost, it's tracking for about this number right now. Yep.

Thank you, Mayor. Council Member Matthews.

Thank you, Mayor. And this is kind of weird and awkward for me, and so I'm probably out of line here, but I'm just concerned. We were instructed... to look at the five findings, six findings and so was the commission. And I'm concerned and I just needed to say it out loud that if we start questioning the position of the building and why you faced it this way instead of that way or who did the appraisal and why did you pay for that appraisal, I think that's way out of our scope and not only is that, it takes a lot of time and I know that we want to understand and learn But being a commercial lender, if we're going to go down that route, we're talking the next year to bring everybody up to speed. So I just needed to say it out loud that some of these things, they are in the packet. The community can look at these things if they're curious. But I would just like to ask my colleagues to try to stay on the subject matter and not go down rabbit holes that We're not we're not prepared to get educated on today because it is very complicated. It took me years So I don't think we can just figure it out today.

Thank you All right, I don't see any additional questions from Council so I'm going to take public comments and as always I remind people that I We don't allow clapping or booing or any expression of support or opposition to anything someone says. We want everyone to feel comfortable to speak their minds in this room, and we want to hear from everyone uninterrupted. So, Moara Lomanvea,

Hello, thank you for having me here today. My name is Moana LaMontanvaya. I am a commissioner and co-chair for the City of Flagstaff Indigenous Commission. And I am here to just provide a statement on behalf of the commission, the work that we've been doing. We have been having meetings with Lauren and different individuals from Cornerstone and have been kind of, conversing back and forth and providing discussion, ideas about the best way to go about this project and how this indigenous history that's interwoven with the building, how to convey that and maintain the integrity of that. And so the building at 19, I have a letter here that I'm going to read. The building at 19 West Burge Avenue holds a significant historic importance in relation to the indigenous human rights movement. In 1972, protesters from the American Indian movement were arrested during the Flagstaff All Indian Pow Wow event. These arrests prompted an investigation by the American Civil Liberties Union, or the ACLU. The ACLU's investigation found evidence of discriminatory practices by the Flagstaff Police Department, the Flagstaff Municipal Court, and the city jail, including excessive bail, discriminatory arrests, police brutality, and other forms of unequal treatment toward Indigenous peoples. The Indigenous Commission has played a meaningful role in shaping the historic preservation measure planned for this site, including heritage preservation staff and Cornerstone Environmental Consulting have participated in three Indigenous Commission meetings to solicit feedback and direction on the development of historic preservation mitigation for 19 West Birch. Commissioners emphasized the importance of ensuring that the future hotel shares not only the history but also highlights the contributions of Indigenous people within the Flagstaff community. Commissioners shared the importance of creating an opportunity for community members to contribute their stories, histories, and cultural perspectives to this project. The commission stated a preference for using new Maupai stone in a hotel over using stone from the existing building. Commissioners requested that the land be blessed through a prayer ceremony before the new building is constructed. Oh, apologies. The IC stated that preserving the history was more important than saving the building. And the commission stated a preference for demolition of the existing building to release negativity over preservation of the building. The IC stated that preserving the history was more important than saving the building. The commission voted in support of an interpretive walking trail or self-guided tour to educate the community on the historical significance of the site. And commissioners expressed their interest in continuing to collaborate as this project moves forward. Thank you.

Thank you so much Pamela Jensen

I am Taurine House, born for Dark Street Woods people. My maternal are Midi goats and my paternal are Mexican people clan. I'm originally from Chuba City, but I'm pretty much raised here in Flagstaff and happy to be here. I'm just going to go ahead and read off just some information that I gathered here today. I serve as the board chair for Indigenous Circle of Flagstaff, and we're a nonprofit organization here in Flagstaff. Greetings to Mayor Daggett, city council, and city leadership. Thank you for providing me the space at this time to speak. The Indigenous Circle of Flagstaff is aware of the graduate hotel project and the potential plan of the new construction and the interpretive walking trail. ICF had an extensive discussion on the need to preserve the site's indigenous civil and human rights history and the findings of the ACLU investigations. While we understand that the Heritage Preservation Commission favors retaining the building and existing structure, ICF feels that not enough consideration is being provided for the healing of the land and the trauma felt by indigenous relatives who were inside and processed through that building. This can begin by This can begin with healing ceremony and with the new structure and new material. We would like the HPC and the graduate project to respect the indigenous peoples. Sorry. Let me rephrase that. This can begin with a healing ceremony and the new structure and new materials. We would like the HPC and the graduate project to respect the indigenous people and not ignore the painful history, but they interpret it with honesty and by listening to the indigenous relatives. The goal is not to diminish the stories of the occupants, but to acknowledge that the building's history also includes people whose experiences were historically ignored and who suffered there. Preserving history means preserving the truth of what happened there. If we restore the walls by erasing the experience of the people who are marginalized within them, we're preserving architecture, not history. The lives of real people will again be minimalized and erased. This community is better than that. The Indigenous Commission and the City of Flagstaff expressed an unanimous consensus that support the construction of the new building while preserving and interpreting the human and civil rights history as related to the downtown building, which housed the old city hall, the police station, the city court, and the fire station.

Thank you. Council Member Garcia, does your question have to do with asking Pam to clarify something that she said?

I don't think it's so much about clarification. I was really following where she was tracking with her statement. I just didn't know if she was finished, so the question would be if she was finished, and if not, if she could.

No, that is not allowed. It is just to clarify something that she has said.

Dang, I'll remember that for the next one. Thank you. Okay.

Thank you, Pam.

Thank you.

Kelly Toulouse.

Hi, good afternoon. I've never really come to one of these before. My husband and I own the building across the street from where this building would be built, or 111 North Beaver Street. And we have Sutcliffe Floral. And we bought the building in 2012. And I will just say that that lot south of us when we first bought it had a blue tarp building, you know, just blowing all over it for a long time. And now the residence and Marriott has been built there and we support a vibrant, healthy downtown. I'm from Flagstaff, very proud Flagstaff member. I went to Christensen, East Flag Junior High. I love how the consideration of all indigenous, I believe a blessing for before that project would be constructed would be amazing. But I do, I think, you know, we're in building, we know how expensive things are. And for that project to be delayed a year is a lot of money for someone you know, trying to build. So anyway, those are just our comments.

Anything?

And if I may add, we really appreciate the time. We're not very versed in being able to do this with you guys, but we appreciate your patience. I am a general contractor in Flag for close to 30 years, and I was involved in some of the remodels on this building with the previous owner. I have some experience with the building. It has outlived its useful life. and we'd love to see something else go in there that could be brought up to speed, be more efficient.

Bring the tourism in. Our vibrant downtown is amazing.

So we're in support of doing something, taking the building down and doing something productive with that space.

Thank you. Mark Lamberson.

Mark Lamberson, Mayor, thank you, Vice Mayor, Council people. I've been in Flagstaff since 1980. Briefly, I would like the Council to support the certificate of approval and grant the appeal immediately with no delays. Anecdotally, I say there's something challenging and wrong with the process that the applicant this far in the process is with all the due diligence that has been presented, is now being thrown a loophole. While I think historic preservation has an element in our community, it should be somewhere else in the lineup of approvals. This doesn't work, and we can't keep scaring away projects that want to do good things for our community. Does everyone realize the building we're in? When it was built in 1983, what was here before? I know because I had a business here in downtown. It was a big, there was a car shop here. Thank you, Councilman Garcia. There was Emerson School, a historic old school that had many of our Flagstaff premier historical families go there. This is all part of vitality in downtown and we need to move forward. Again, something's wrong with the process. Again, support the certificate of approval, grant the appeal, no delays, thank you.

Thank you. Michelle Linton.

Good morning, I'm Mayor Daggett and council. My name is Michelle Linton. I'm a lifelong Flagstaff resident, a commercial real estate broker, and I live downtown. For the last 10 years, nearly half the west side of the 100 block of Aspen and Birch has sat vacant, with first empty buildings, and now it's a vacant lot. The property before you today, 19 West Birch Avenue, is part of that block. I ride my bike through downtown almost every day, and I pass it, and I think, we can do better. I'm excited about this project and what it can bring to our downtown. I look forward to the day when I can walk or ride my bike there, have dinner on the rooftop restaurant, and enjoy the view of the San Francisco peaks. That's the kind of vibrant, walkable downtown I want in Flagstaff. I respect historic preservation. It's part of what makes Flagstaff unique. But preservation should never become paralysis. The Heritage Preservation Commission voted to deny the Certificate of Economic Hardship and now that decision is before you. This developer followed the city's process, met the applicable requirements, and determined through its due diligence that restoring this building was not economically viable. Yet it still faces years of uncertainty. Investors are watching how that ends. When significant uncertainty arises after substantial investments have been made, it affects the confidence in doing business in Flagstaff. Our own city studies call for more housing density, but that only happens if developers trust the process. As a commercial real estate broker, I can tell you investors are watching. Your decision today extends beyond one property. It sends a message about whether Flagstaff welcomes thoughtful investment. I respectfully ask you to grant the appeal and allow this project to move forward. Let's preserve the character of downtown, not a decade of vacancy. Thank you.

Thank you. Michael Mangini.

Mayor, Council, staff, I'm Mike Mongini. I live in a 100-year-old house at 302 North Purdy Street. I've been there for 40 years. I've been inside that building as a student paying traffic fines back when. I've heard it from the other commission that everybody paid traffic fines. Point is, when we bought the property back about 25 years ago, The city approached me to buy it the reason I had approached them before several years before to buy it and put it for auction and whatever because it sat vacant for four to five years and you'll remember that being vacant the building being vacant city went through it and then they approached me and says they had some land that they needed for flood control projects and And they said, how about if you just take that building in lieu of us paying you for the land? And I said, well, let me go look at it. So I went to look at it. It didn't look that bad. It was decay. It smelled. Then they turn around and say, just heads up. They're not trying to pull a Mickey on me. They're saying, we've had three feasibility studies on this building over the last five years. All three feasibility studies concluded it's cost prohibitive to renovate. So heads up, Mike, don't walk into this and fall down. So I appreciate the city saying it. I didn't ask them for the records. I may have, and they may end up in some archives somewhere. But the point is, it was then feasible. I then went to the state historic preservation officer and said, hey, I'd like to see about historic that building. So I'm doing the homework trying to figure out, is it historic? Is it has any meaning? Candidly, they told me it had no meaning. no significance, period, and destroyed. Not about the fact that it's not the same as it was when it was built in the 50s, but it just doesn't have that. I said, okay, well, try to push a string, I'm done with it. So we came back, did renovations on their both interior and exterior. That moves on. Then there's only been, like I say, two owners up to me. And then we sell it to this guy. You see up there's appraisal. Somebody asked the appraisal. I had no recall of that. It was in a box, so I sent it to the buyer. This is what I have. Then I looked at it, and I remember we ended up selling it to a corporate enterprise out of Iowa. And what happened is he calls me up, says, hey, do you mind if I get involved? I need to kind of restructure the deal a little bit, a little more time. And I says, where are you from? Tucson. So I checked him out. That's a family business out of Tucson. I've been born and raised in Arizona, plan to go anywhere else. Point is, yes. So he took it from whoever was doing that appraisal as a bank. He bought it. He's from Arizona. He's not from Iowa, New York, or Chicago. So I saw that they turned it down. It says it's cost prohibitive. City did three studies on it. Cost prohibitive to renovate. We renovate it because me and my partners were a little older. We can adapt to an older building because we're old. Okay, so that's what we did. And that's it. Any questions?

Thank you so much. Robin Prima. Prima.

Good morning, Mayor and the Council. My name is Robin Prima. I own a business here and lived in Flagstaff since 1992. And I'm a founder and board member of the Northern Arizona Lodging and Restaurant Association, and I speak on behalf of them and me. I want to be transparent. My son and daughter-in-law have an interest in part of the property involved in this development. I have no direct interest myself. I also had a role in proposing the arrangement where the city would use one floor of the parking structure. I'm speaking today to support of the appeal. I'm asking you to grant the certificate of economic hardship and allow the project to move forward. The developer, Jim O'Connor, has been working on this for nearly three years. His plans include building the parking structure downtown, has been talked about needing for years. Jimmy's the one who's finally doing it. He's already committed roughly $8 million before a shovel has even gone in the ground, and he's at your doorstep. The full project is projected at about $50 million. The property site, The property sits right next to two parcels that are already cleared and empty on Leroux Street. A one-year delay doesn't preserve anything. It's costly, and it jeopardizes the project. Graduate Brand Hotel in downtown Flagstaff brings visitors and conference businesses. Our downtown restaurants, shops, and businesses desperately need a hotel like this. The parking garage partially solves a problem we've talked about solving for years. But here's what really matters. This project sends a signal to our present and future developers. If we deny this appeal and and add another year of delay, what message does that send? That Flagstaff is closed for business, we've lost projects before because of regulations and delays. We can't afford to lose this one. I'm asking the council to grant this appeal and approve the certificate of economic hardship. Thank you.

Thank you. Alicia Hayes.

Hello. Hello, mayor, vice mayor, and council members. Thank you for your time. My name is Alicia Hayes. I serve on the Historic Preservation Commission, but I am speaking only for myself today. I would like to talk about why, a little bit of why we are here in this circumstance. Flagstaff, their tax revenue comes an awful lot from downtown, and downtown businesses are mostly a draw because of the historic district. So I spoke yesterday at the council meeting, the Flagstaff plan and vision plan that was completed and adopted by the council in January 2024 talks about 50% of the tax income coming from basically off the back of the historic district. One of the reasons that we are here and why when people look at a property quickly to see that it doesn't appear to be historic is that Flagstaff is basing a lot of decisions on the 1979 and 1982 inventories. This is pretty much unheard of. We are about the furthest behind of any municipality in Arizona. And the SHPO in Arizona, the State Historic Preservation Office, prefers not to see inventories older than 20 years. Just think about it. This building was built in 1957, and when it was inventoried, it wasn't historic. And so that was the answer. It's not eligible. Now we have properties that are now eligible. And we are relying on just looking at our National Register. Well, it wasn't listed. So I would like council to take into account the fact that we need to provide funding and either support staff, hire staff, or put out a contract to update the inventories in Flagstaff's historic downtown before we consider allowing new development downtown. We need to put the cart before the, we can't put the cart before the horse. We need to know our baseline inventory of what is our historic properties. That also can help you identify right away, what are the ones that are significant that we want to keep? So that way we know where potentials there is for growth. Municipalities have done this in the state and all over the country. They do this through programs. They do that from state assistance. Pima County did this, Tucson did this. They looked at where the areas are for potential growth. So I would like the council to consider funding historic preservation for the benefit of all and the growth and development and health of our economic community downtown. I also would like to argue for a review of the process. When there is a building that's coming in that's looking at doing basically development from Beaver to LaRue, that's a pretty big, large chunk of land that is visible from our historic districts. We need to see that early in the process. Thank you.

Thank you. Duffy Westheimer.

Thank you, Mayor, Vice Mayor, and Council Members for this opportunity to speak. I'm Duffy Westheimer, Chair of the Heritage Preservation Commission, speaking for myself because the Commission was not allowed to speak or to make a statement. We followed the process as provided to us by staff, and we followed the Commission's legal purpose as stated in the zoning code. I respectfully request that you not reverse the Commission's decision because, first, the applicant's appraisal identified that the property was in historic overlay zone but did not consider the impact of being in the zone on the applicant's ability to redevelop the property as envisioned. The zoning code is a public document which was available to inform the purchase decision. The applicant made an economic decision that the property was worth $4 million and that the project would be approved. This resulted in what I would call a self-created hardship. So I would say criteria D was not met. Second, the applicant provided a document titled Graduate Hilton Flagstaff Building Reuse Rehabilitation outlining a total cost of $3,913,114. According to the appraisal, the existing building was structurally sound, the layout was functional, and 100% leased. The applicant did not establish that all the listed costs are necessary for continued use of the building. The applicant's economic hardship argument is based on the estimated revenue the proposed hotel and parking structure would produce, not the value of having a unique rentable building in a vibrant historic overlay zone. I saw nothing in the code that a certificate of economic hardship is available to remedy a private business decision. I would say criteria B is not met. Third, the building exterior is hardly modified from when it was built to be our municipal building 75 years ago. The historic integrity associated with its significance exists. The building does not need costly preservation work to continue to provide the reasonable use and return, so criteria C is not met. Fourth, the code clearly states the overlay's purpose is, quote, to promote the preservation and unique character of all structures within the zone, end quote. It does not say some structures or that the code is to be used to carve out an exception for a case like the one before you. The code creates a level playing field for all properties in the historic overlay zone. I urge you to uphold the Commission's unanimous decision because it is consistent with the code. If you reverse the decision, you will set a precedent that will create chaos and confusion for evaluating future applications for certificate of economic hardship. Thank you.

Thank you. John VanLandingham.

Good afternoon, Mayor Daggett and members of council. I'm John VanLandingham. I've owned and operated the Old Town shops at the corner of Birch and LaRue streets for 30 years, and I live in a historic home on North LaRue Street. Let me say this first, a project of this magnitude in the heart of our downtown deserves real conversation and real consideration and even real scrutiny. Everyone in this process from the commission to the applicant, to the staff, to the neighbors and to everybody commenting here today is advocating from a place of care for the fabric of Flagstaff. I don't doubt anyone's motivation and I respect everyone's opinion. You have my letter, it covers the evidence question and I wanna spend a little bit of time on what a denial here would buy and what it would cost. On paper, the denial would buy a one year delay. The owner markets the property and if no buyer appears, demolition proceeds anyway. It doesn't save the building, it just puts that block into a limbo for one year. And that limbo has a cost, and downtown pays for it. A fenced, empty building, a dead sidewalk on three streets, no tenants, no lights, just dirt and weeds, while every neighboring business, including my own, absorbs the dead frontage space. Anyone who has operated in this situation with Chainlink around them or lived near it knows that that's not a good situation. But I want to talk also about the real risk here, or a bigger one, and that is that development deals exist like this in a moment of time. They depend on interest rates, they depend on lenders, they depend on equity partners, construction bids, and the owner's motivation to proceed. Every one of those things has an expiration date. So if this project freezes for a year, you aren't just pausing it, you're rolling the dice on what comes next. Rates move, lenders walk away, partners redeploy, costs only ever go up. The delay potentially kills the project, but it does not kill the demolition. Demolition right would survive that year and worst case the building comes down and nothing has been lined up to replace it. The cleared fence lot still on three downtown frontages for an unknown number of years. So one year on paper is the minimum, but nobody knows the maximum that this could stay vacant. So my appeal to you in closing is grant this appeal, carry the negotiated preservation commitments forward into a certificate of appropriateness review, where I and others intend to weigh in on how this project meets the sidewalk on all three street frontages, which is extremely important, but it's a conversation for another day. And one last thing after today, as others have mentioned, this process is flawed. We have to move through it as it stands today, but a project of this scale should never arrive at council as an 11th hour appeal. That's a sign that some of these conversations have happened too late, not that anyone acted in bad faith. But more collaboration early will be contentiousness at the end, and that will benefit the owners, it'll benefit the commission, it'll benefit council, and it'll benefit the community. And that's definitely worth fixing before we find ourselves here again. Thank you.

Thank you. Ace Overman.

Hello Mayor and Council Members, my name is Ace and I serve as the Vice Chair of the City's Heritage Preservation Commission. I am speaking today as an individual, not on behalf of the Commission. The Commission's unanimous decision to deny the Certificate of Economic Hardship was not an easy one, but I believe it was the correct decision. we approached a matter of great care. The commission spent approximately an hour in executive session, followed by an hour and a half of public discussion and deliberation, hearing from the developer, members of the public, and fellow commissioners. After reviewing the evidence, the Heritage Preservation Commission unanimously determined that the applicant did not satisfy all six required criteria to qualify for a certificate of economic hardship for the demolition of the structure at 19 West Birch Avenue. Based on my own review, I concluded that the applicant failed to meet three of those criteria. I did not find that economic hardship exists because the property as an office complex can generate a reasonable annual net operating income of approximately $136,000. No evidence was presented that the property's value has declined over time. and reasonable alternative development options have not yet been fully explored. I also conclude that the claimed hardship that it is self-created and I also conclude that the hardship is self-created and therefore does not satisfy the established criteria. I want to be clear, I am not opposed to this development. I appreciate developers mitigation measures and cooperation with the Heritage Preservation Commission and Indigenous Commission. I recognize the economic opportunities it could bring to downtown Flagstaff. However, that is not the question before the council today, or was it the question presented to the HPC? The question is whether the applicant has demonstrated economic hardship under the standards established by the city's code. If we begin setting inside these standards, whenever a development proposal promises greater economic returns, we should ask ourselves, how many historic buildings can be demolished before we no longer have a historic downtown? Historic preservation strengthens our local economy, supports tourism and small businesses, promotes environmental sustainability through adaptive reviews and preserves the sense of place that has resonance and visitors' value. Flagstaff will continue to grow, and growth is important, but growth and preservation are not opposing goals. By upholding the city's preservation standards, we protect the history, character, and architecture that make downtown Flagstaff unique while ensuring future generations inherit a city that remembers where it came from So I ask you to respect the HPC's unanimous decision and deny this appeal today for a certificate of economic hardship. Thank you.

Thank you. Regina Salas.

Hello, Mayor, Vice Mayor, and Councilmember. I'm Regina Salas, former council member and current tourism commission chair. I speak today on behalf of the Northern Arizona Lodging Tourism and Restaurant Association, NALTRA. We stand in support of Capri Flagstaff appeal and urge this council to exercise its leadership authority and reverse the Heritage Preservation Commission's denial of a certificate of economic hardship. While NALTRA fully respects the Commission's dedication to preserving Flagstaff's rich history, true leadership requires balancing our reverence for our past with a clear, actionable vision for our economic future. A rigid one-year demolition delay on this specific parcel does not preserve history. It merely mandates urban stagnation on an underutilized downtown lot. We urge a reversal based on three critical considerations. Documented economic infeasibility. True historic preservation requires economic vitality to sustain it. Comprehensive and structural financial assessments have proven that adoptive reuse of this existing structure is entirely cost prohibitive. Forcing the retention of a structurally deficient, non-functional building provides zero return on investment. Effectively denying this certificate penalizes private enterprise for attempting to revitalize our downtown core. It creates an insurmountable financial burden and constitutes a functional taking of the property's utility, directly contradicting the business-friendly environment Flagstaff claims to offer. Second, this project is a catalyst for downtown revitalization. The proposed hotel and parking garage represents a multi-million dollar private investment in the heart of Flagstaff. This project perfectly aligns with the city's own goals for infill development urban density, and economic diversification. Capri Flagstaff will generate substantial recurring occupancy tax and sales tax revenues for the city's general fund, create sustainable year-round hospital management jobs, and provide much-needed parking infrastructure to alleviate downtown congestion. THIRD, THIS IS ABOUT BALANCED SENSITIVE PROGRESS. CHOOSING DEVELOPMENT OVER A DEMOLITION DELAY DOES NOT DISCARD IDENTITY. THANK YOU.

THANK YOU. ALL RIGHT. AT THIS TIME, WE WILL ALLOW FIVE MINUTES FOR THE APPLICANT TO RESPOND.

Respond to questions, or I'm a little confused here.

Respond to any of the comments, clarify information that was presented by any of the speakers, or just to wrap up any final. And please speak into the microphone.

I'm touched by all the people that I don't even know here. It's got me choked up to report this project. As I said, one mistake, I was born in Montana, raised in Montana, but lived in Tucson for 23 years, so I consider myself Arizona. Moved to Phoenix two years ago. We are a family business. My grandfather started it 108 years ago. I understand history. If our business didn't change, we'd be dead. I wouldn't be the third generation owner, so change is not so bad. One comment, there is a coffee bar and a restaurant and a rooftop bar, so locals will be in the hotel to use it. It's another amenity downtown. The original design why the hotel was on the other side is the parking garage First off, when I got the project, eight-story parking garage didn't work downtown. Gene's Warehouse came for sale. I purchased that so we could make the garage four stories. Instead of eight stories, it didn't seem to work. The parking garage originally went all the way to Aspen Grove building the new chocolate shop. The city asked for an alleyway through there, so I've redesigned that garage three different times because when the neighbor didn't allow us to use, there was an easement there, ingress, egress, didn't want to be on there.

I redesigned it to make it smaller, and then the city wanted to have the alley through there a trade, so I redesigned it again. That's why the garage is on that side.

It's going to be a great asset for Flagstaff. It's going to bring more tourists. Parking will be there. I'm sure you're all aware of the city is going to lease the first floor for parking. That's 50 additional spaces that the city will have. You were asking what kind of number, if I remember rightly, it's about $34 million in property taxes and sales tax over a 10 year period that that project will bring to the city of Flagstaff. So I'm sorry we're all at this position. Sorry, good for anyone. Obviously the process needs redesigned. But this project started without that process, so we need to continue with the old process. And I think everyone's learned that it needs a new process. The building itself, in my opinion, yes, there was a historic event with the indigenous community there, but that wasn't the building itself, is it? We're putting malapai on that hotel to reproduce the malapai that's on the building. So we've met as the staff and the preservation officer. Every time we've gone to council, they've approved what we've done because we've followed every code. Regardless of what other people say, we've followed every code. So I just want to say I hope you take all that into consideration. Thank you.

I'd like to add, I love this guy. That passion is real. He's not here to dodge anything. He's not here to hide. He could have left a long time ago. I will add one clarification. Although the property itself was $4 million, the associated properties that he has purchased is another $4 million. So he's invested $8 million in land alone. That's a commitment to us. That's a commitment to our future. He's vested. but that doesn't mean he can't leave. And I agree with a lot of the downtown businesses talking about boarded up properties and underutilized spaces. I think this is an opportunity for us as a community to stand up for what's right. The history has been documented. The history is going to be preserved. The indigenous trail is going to be created. I think that's important. What I don't think is important is what exists there today.

Thank you. Staff, do you have any responses you'd like to make or clarifications?

Not at this time unless you have specific questions.

All right. Council, do you have additional questions? Council Member Garcia.

Thank you, Madam Mayor. I'm trying to figure out where my question is. I have it in this book somewhere. Just give me one second, please.

Does anyone else have a question in the meantime? Council Member Spence.

Thank you, Mayor. And I do have a question that stems from our criteria E, as in elephant. The alternative development has been fully explored My question is, the developer has given us a good outline of other development alternatives, but I did not hear the alternative of possibly keeping the existing two-story Malapai structure as a component of the hotel facade. Clearly, there would have to be strengthening of the foundation and renovation of the building, but has the developer considered using the existing structure as the entrance to the hotel?

I can answer that question. Space-wise, the shape of the building is not the shape of the new building. So physically leaving it in place would not be possible. Structurally, it's not feasible without significant, if we wanna talk about economic hardship, that would be a significant undertaking to support a five-story structure on a, call it one-story structure that's 75 years old. I'm not a structural engineer, but I could tell you that most structural engineers would shy away from that without significant impact. What I would say is there has been consideration and this really hasn't been proposed yet. This is in the back of my mind of cutting a section of a window out and displaying it as part of the front or the lobby or something as a compromise. The reality is that building as it stands holds itself up, couldn't support five stories.

I wasn't proposing that there be three additional stories on top of the two-story structure, but rather keeping the two-story structure as an entry point to the five-story building. And clearly I'm not an architect, but I would propose that if this were possible, it would make the most unique Hilton Hotel in our country, maybe the world, where an existing building was preserved as a facade or an entry point to a modern five-story hotel. So I bring it up as I consider criteria E about has all alternative or have there been alternative development proposals that have been evaluated. So I'm still trying to sort this out in my mind. Thank you.

Oh, thank you.

Council Member Garcia?

Yeah, thank you, Madam Mayor, for giving me that grace. So I guess this question is more, well, shoot, since you're there. Right here for you. It was for staff.

Can we get the criteria page put up? Yes, please.

So when we, okay, staff, we'll go with your question. The HPC and staff recommendations were contrarian with each other. And it would seem that there should be detailed documentation of that evidence. If you look at the minutes, there's really no detailed conversation pieces. I was just wondering, like, is that normal? Or is that just how it works? You just don't document exactly what people said about stuff? And if so, why?

Are you asking about the HPC minutes? Yes. And if there were more detail? That is normal for the level of detail provided in the minutes. Of course, the entire meeting was recorded and is publicly accessible and was provided to council as part of the record. So that does have the full detail of everything that was said. And which is why, in general, the minutes are less detailed because we have the full transcript and meeting on record.

Right on. Thank you for that. I really appreciate it. Now if I could just ask one more question for the developer. Sure. And we go back to the criteria of E alternative development has been fully explored. Can you expand a little bit on with the time given between the last meeting and this, why there wasn't an updated version on the housing component that was explored from a different development at a different time and a different thing that we're just kind of repurposing from five years ago. Like how is that not updated and then brought to us now? Is that just not an obligation?

Could I just add real quick that the applicant or the appellant was not allowed to provide any new information that was not presented to HPC. So Tyler, because HPC asked about the housing at the last meeting and he gave the verbal answer about his past work that has been provided, but they were not allowed to add any new evidence to the record. So they would not have been able to go out and explore other things and add it here today. And that's in our appeal code requirements.

I understand that. Thank you. Actually, I just learned that, so I'm understanding it now. Let me be clear. So that document was put into the packet at the very, very beginning before any meeting started? Anything like that?

The original... housing the housing component with the only reason why I stuck that in my presentation was in response to a question posed during the the last meeting at HPC and it was a reference point the question I believe was asked why haven't you explored anything else like housing that in the meeting I literally go oh I did just didn't think about it because I Let's think about this from a broad perspective. You could take any building and turn it into anything you want. You want to make a taco shop out of it, we can make a taco shop out of it. But when you look at highest and best use and revenue producing assets, hotel, office, and housing are the top three that actually bring in real revenue.

Yeah, that makes sense to me. I believe that there's a lot of moving parts to this. I don't know how exactly fair it is to include this, but I mean, when I look at our priorities as a city, housing is right up there. Yeah, I agree. Extremely important. I agree. So hotels for me would definitely be a number two. Fair enough. Or maybe a number three, hospital, something or other could go in there between one and two. Anyways, so it just gets to the point of alternative development has been in the word fully explored is the question. And the reason I bring this up is because we have a job ethically as a council to look at these criteria and if one of them doesn't fit, we can't pass it for whatever reason it is. And I understand that there is issues with the process and I want this process to change in a way that we don't have to go through this again. And that everything is brought forth to developers in the first place. But that's just not the case today. So when the word fully explored comes into criteria E, it makes me ponder significantly. Thank you. Appreciate that.

Council Member House.

Thank you, Mayor. I think this is going to be kind of a two part question. So I'll ask you first and then maybe ask Lauren to speak to it. We've heard a couple of times reference to the criteria regarding self-created hardship and I'm wondering if you can just speak to what your and the applicant's understanding of that language was and then I'll just ask Lauren if you can explain how that's defined within our code or if it's defined within our code what that means.

I would answer that question with a question to Lauren, because I feel like the way it's worded is rather nebulous, in my opinion. Did the applicant create a hardship on himself by applying to build a hotel on a property that he was unaware had historical significance of any sort, or... Yeah, I struggled with it. And the reality is when you look back at the history of where things evolved and how things evolved to get to where we're at today, again, I go back to he purchased the property based off an appraisal with a concept plan. If I'm a developer, I go, okay, the city's looked at this. The city says, conceptually, this works. I'm a hotel developer, a third-generation hotel developer, who's a smart man, and when I look at the facts that highest and best use, concept plan approved, no historical references or historical designation, that checks all the boxes for me as a developer. I can't see how else he created that, the hardship of having to preserve it, I should say.

Thank you very much.

Councilmember House, I'm gonna jump in here and ask Lauren this question, but When I read the code, I'm just gonna say, when I usually read the code, I focus on when I see something capitalized, I think of it as a definition, and it triggers me to look at the definition. Self-created hardship isn't capitalized, so I didn't think of it as being defined in our code. It's actually defined in our code, and I can read it for you. Self-created hardships include the purchase of property for more than the market value, failure to diligently solicit and retain tenants, failure to professionally manage the property, failure to provide normal improvements, willful or negligent acts by the owner, or failure to perform normal maintenance and repairs. So that's how it's actually defined. Should have caught that earlier.

Well, I could dovetail on that, which I think is important. If you look at the timeframes of the events, Capri Inc. had received a phase one study, said no historical significance. At that time he had a window of time he needed to make notifications to his tenants, and this is in the letter that he wrote you. At that time he made the notifications to the tenants, because again, concept plan approved, phase one approved, or phase one results indicated no significant historical reference as a developer. I move forward and I go, okay, I've gone and checked the boxes here. I got to notify my tenants because I have a six-month window. That's what happened. And so when the tenant spun off is where, you know, if you read what he just said, he didn't create that. He was following the process that he thought was correct.

Thank you very much. I appreciate that. And I'll have more comments about some of the language things later, but that was my question for now. So thank you both very much.

All right, no additional questions? I will close the public hearing and now is the time for deliberation and actions. So, who, did you want to go ahead with?

Sure. So first I wanted to just say thank you to everyone that came out and spoke to us today. I think this is a very hard conversation that we're having and a lot of it is, it's challenging because it feels like there are competing community needs that we're addressing and really challenging conversations that we're trying to have in the course of all of this. The question that's really before us today is evaluating the six criteria that have been provided for the appeal and for the overall certificate of economic hardship. In short, I believe the criteria have been met. That is not me disregarding the Heritage Preservation Commission's insights or recommendations. It's simply a difference of opinion in my assessment of whether those measures have been met. I very much appreciate the Commission's dedication to preserving Flagstaff history and culture. At the same time, I think it's important to remember that preserving history does not always mean preserving every historic structure. Sometimes preserving history means ensuring that we remember, teach, and acknowledge the full truth of what occurred, including the chapters that are difficult. I also recognize Mr. Mark's a statement about taking ownership for perhaps not fully laying out the full landscape or painting the full picture for the heritage preservation commission. That said, in looking at the information that was provided to the commission, the slightly broader picture that's been presented to us today and considering the scope of the questions before us, I believe each of those criteria has been met. I also agree for a need to review this process. I think it's helpful for us to fully examine and dig into the full scope of language and terminology we're being asked to consider here. I think there's a lot of challenges that came up because of different interpretations of what some of the language and terminology was. And I think that should include but not exclusively represent our understandings of economic hardship, self-created hardship, and even as I asked earlier, language like cultural resource and historical significance. I also think we need to approach this conversation about historical preservation and protecting Flagstaff's future very carefully, recognizing that our past, our present, and our future live together, not separately, and recognizing that the opportunity to heal our past while supporting our collective future exists in this situation. We should be careful not to equate preserving a building with preserving history itself. Across a country, communities have wrestled with difficult questions about places and monuments that hold historical significance, but also represent painful chapters of our shared past. Those conversations remind us that preserving history and preserving every historic structure are not necessarily the same thing. Our obligation is to remember our history truthfully, not selectively. And I appreciate the attention that the applicant has paid to both historical acknowledgement and thoughtfully approaching this process in consideration of both economic development and contributing to Flagstaff's history and future, and the opportunity for healing that was presented from members of the Indigenous Commission and Indigenous Circle of Flagstaff. That said, in summary, I'll repeat that from my review of the information provided to the Heritage Preservation Commission, the criteria under which the certificate of economic hardship must be considered, and my understanding of those criteria and standards they set. I believe the criteria has been met and I support approving the appeal. I do look forward to the rest of council's conversation on this, but that's just where I stand at this point. Thank you.

Council Member Aslan.

Thank you Madam Mayor, thank you Council Member, and thank you everybody for being here with us this morning and for enduring this whole process throughout. My comments are gonna be based off of notes that I've taken this morning on the fly. Hopefully they're coherent enough for me to be able to follow as I'm going through my thoughts here. I'll jump right into the findings so that my analysis is perfectly clear. I FIND MYSELF SIGNIFICANTLY SYMPATHETIC WITH THE COMMISSION'S OVERALL CONCLUSIONS. NOT ALL OF THE CRITERIA WERE UNDER QUESTION BY THE COMMISSION, AND I DON'T QUESTION THEM ALL EITHER. BUT I WILL JUMP RIGHT OVER TO D AND E, IF I MAY. D, THE ECONOMIC HARDSHIP IS NOT A SELF-CREATED HARDSHIP. THE COMMISSION CONCLUDED THAT THE HARDSHIP WAS SELF-CREATED BECAUSE THE OWNER PURCHASED THE PROPERTY KNOWING IT WAS LOCATED WITHIN A HISTORIC OVERLAY DISTRICT. very sympathetic to this perspective. This is no reflection on the owner, who I'm certain has always acted in good faith throughout this process, but very generally speaking, I believe a reasonable applicant looking to invest in that property would have ample opportunity to uncover the possibility that we'd end up in this situation here today. In point of fact, that's exactly what ended up occurring, and I can't believe this outcome can be portrayed as having come from out of left field. This was construed as a loophole during public comment. And I don't believe our commissions and their defined role as part of the system or decision tree is merely a loophole. None of their analysis can reasonably be construed as unexpected. And let's talk about E, alternative development has been fully explored. Substantial evidence was presented demonstrating that alternative development options had been evaluated. I'm not totally convinced that this is true, partially, and this is only an example, because when I asked about putting the hotel portion where the parking structure is slated to go, the answer was full of possibilities that admittedly haven't been explored yet. So with that out of the way, what I'd like to do is fill out my position with a bit of context myself. I have no inherent problem with the hotel, even a taller one in that location. I understand the economic benefit that a thriving hotel would create there. I'm an H Honors member myself and I've stayed at several graduates and I always enjoy the boutique experience. I'm sure I would get a lot of great use out of a rooftop bar there. And to this moment, I hope that someday that opportunity can still be available. I also have no problem with the family business from Tucson developing here and making good money for the effort. Conversely, I don't have any personal emotion or attachment to the existing structure. And to be totally honest, I'm not particularly enamored with the building and wouldn't miss it myself. If there's a way to get to yes on building the hotel and preserving what's been deemed historically significant, I would love to get behind that effort. Someone said Flagstaff is closed for business. I don't really follow the logic of that thinking. I'd rather turn it around. When we show the world we care about dwindling historic spaces, we create opportunities for redevelopment that assume preservation from the get go. The cumulative aggregate result of that is an authentic, vibrant, historic draw for a whole region. For me, I approach this from a very cautious framework. Like forests, parks, or even dark skies, we can't so easily get back certain assets once we've done away with them. This building could be demolished and I want to make sure it has had every opportunity to prove its worth before it all becomes moot through disappearance. We have an obligation to let this question breathe. The community is clearly engaged and invested in how this goes, and I'm grateful the Commission has created the space for this community debate and dialogue to happen. I do agree that our code needs to be revisited and fine-tuned to better avoid situations like this with other properties. I hope this serves as a cautionary tale and there's work going to be going on under the scenes to better define what it means to preserve a historic building. But I do stand by the process. And I have faith the process to this moment will serve the greatest public good. I want to talk about healing ceremonies, honest interpretations, and honoring the concerns of our indigenous brothers and sisters. That's all very important to me. Whatever we do moving forward, I insist the indigenous opinions and ideas be fully respected and incorporated into the solution. And just to be perfectly clear here, HPC's decision, in part, has allowed for these indigenous perspectives to surface in a relevant fashion. That's not a loophole. That's the point. I hope this development proceeds appropriately and what that looks like is not only for me to define, obviously. But we have commissions in part to ensure that development conversations include an array of voices and perspectives. And I think the process is working here. And I look forward... to an amenable solution for all sides. But in terms of the findings, I think I made it clear at the very beginning that I did not find criteria D and E to be sufficient.

Council Member Matthews.

Thank you, Mayor. I too wanted express my appreciation to the Heritage Preservation Commission. I know you guys put a lot of time and effort into it. And for staff and the developer, welcome to Flagstaff, right? Try to warn people when they come here that we are unique in this wonderful special way, but sometimes our processes are a little challenging. And I'm just going to admit that and say that out loud. I apologize to HPC, you guys just really spent a lot of time and focus on the interpretation of a lot of this criteria. I listened to the meetings. As I've listened to some of the conversations here, and I don't know how to remedy it, but there's a lot of, that came through just either misunderstanding or some bias on some things that is just human nature. We shouldn't be here talking about this now after a concept plan has been approved in a year or so down the road. I had this conversation a year ago. Michelle will remember with a developer after two and a half years and $3 million and then they were going to find out if they were going to get zoning. So I think this is another opportunity for us to take a hard look at some of our processes that make it very non-user friendly and it's not to anybody's fault. It's how it is written but it is definitely broken and the good that's coming out of this is that we now are experiencing it and we need to fix it for future. The heritage, the historic preservation is part of our character in Flagstaff and that I think everybody values. I'm, as I mentioned before, the liaison to the Indigenous Commission. And when we were presented with this concept and asked the opinions of our Indigenous community, there were tears shed to have to relive the painful memory of how our Indigenous neighbors were treated and just the injustices that were done. I don't know, I think I could be wrong or maybe it was my imagination, but throwing a match to it was a good option at some point. And so I think that that cannot be, I know it's not part of the findings, but we can't lose sight of the fact that we're trying to make a point and preserve something that's been remodeled so many times, it's lost its historic significance as a building. preserving the history and what the conclusion was to have a history walk and to have pictures and documentation of the bell set for a jaywalking of $50. And the indigenous people that were experiencing that didn't have phones back then to call community members to come bail them out. I mean, it's horrific to hear those stories. They can't be forgotten. But I think to honor our indigenous community, if I wasn't even looking at the findings, I would say tear it down and let's put some, let's bless it, cleanse it, and put something new on there. So, you know, that is just my bias opinion. But when I look at, and let's go to D, economic hardship, not self-created, You know, I didn't see any evidence that the owner just let the weeds grow and kick people out, not realizing that we'd be here a year later, you know, so he wasn't generating an income and stuff. That was not created. And the alternative development, I know Councilmember Garcia's mentioned about, we need more information about housing. Well, the figures may be changed, but they're still relevant today. They may look different, but it's still not the highest and best use for this property. That was clearly stated, and it was great that we had that kind of background information that wasn't part of this owner's process, but it was just convenient that somebody did try to go that route and found that it wasn't economically feasible. Being a commercial lender, all of my life, I just can't imagine the financial consequence of going through this process that we've put you through. And maybe better, this conversation should have been had earlier so you could get out while the getting was good, right? I look at the findings and I know they're subjective to our opinions. We've tried to analyze why you would get an appraisal and who you got it from and why did they Why did they come up with that figure and stuff? We can't go down those routes. The facts are what we can look at, what was presented to us, and I find that every criteria was met, all six findings, and I will be voting to support the appeal.

Vice Mayor. Thank you, and thank you everyone for being here today. A lot of you probably know this about me, but I have had a small business in downtown for 25 years. I have walked by this building probably for 25 years at least. And I've looked at this through two lenses. One lens is that I am a community member who cherishes our historic downtown. To be honest, my business, part of the reason why I've been successful is because people love our downtown. They love the feel, they love the vibe, they love that it's local. I've also been walking by the building as a business owner who I rely on foot traffic. I rely on people being able to stay downtown, work downtown, play downtown. And I think there's a balance. I think there is a balance that we can have here. I knew the outside of this building because, like I said, I have walked by it, but I didn't know the inside until I took a tour on Monday. And when I took the tour, I went into it with an open mind, an open heart. Can this be rehabbed? Can we turn it into apartments? Can we turn it into office space? What will it take for this to happen? And it didn't take me very long to realize you'd have to see the inside. It has been modified quite a few times. It would need so much work that now I can see in the presentation and in the packet the information that Tyler provided that it wouldn't pencil out. And sometimes that is just how it is. It won't pencil out. So before I say my final vote, I do want to just give some thoughts that are not in any order. Tyler, I appreciate that you mentioned you could have done a better job presenting to HPC. I, too, did watch all of the videos. And man, do I wish they would have had some of this information on the 17th. I appreciate that you brought it here today and that you were so thorough. Thank you. I appreciate the Indigenous Commission weighing in and I would like to make sure that if we do move forward, if and when, that this, the land is blessed through a prayer ceremony and that we have either the interpretive walking tour or a self-guided tour or both. And I do, holy mackerel do I agree with the public commenters on the process. We are at the 11th hour and here we are in this room debating on something that will be a big decision in the end. And I do believe that we really need to look at this process. And I do believe that we should be looking at another process with this with the downtown business alliance how do you tighten up the design handbook for the downtown how to include these historical Landmarks in that downtown vision We have a lot of future developments that can happen in our downtown and I want to make sure that that the thought and process that the Downtown Business Alliance has, and thousands of people put in their thought on that, for the Downtown Vision and Action Plan, that we are truly, we have an outline for what we have in our vision. We don't have that right now. The Vision and Action Plan needs to be tightened up. The Downtown Vision Plan, which I have mentioned, specifically identifies this block that we are talking about as prime redevelopment and is stated as a catalyst site for a parking structure and mixed-use development because of its location. It is next to the courthouse, theatricals, and several surrounding businesses. The Downtown Vision Plan uses terms like historic and adaptable, and I believe that we can do both. I believe that we can preserve what is truly significant while allowing the city to evolve thoughtfully. And I believe we can do that today. So I want to thank the Heritage Preservation Commission and to all of those who emailed, weighed in, took the time for this important discussion. I believe that the six findings have been met and will ultimately be voting to support the appeal. Thank you. Council Member Spence.

Thank you, Mayor. I, like my fellow council members, have given a lot of thought to this question before us today, and I want to start by thanking the Heritage Preservation Commission for their deliberation over the many months and the multiple times this has been before them. However, I have listened carefully to what's been presented today and I too believe that all six criteria have been met I am satisfied that this overall project is to the benefit of our community and that historic preservation is more than what buildings are preserved but how our history is portrayed and I believe the mitigations that have been proposed satisfy the overall impact of historic preservation. So I am going to vote in favor of approving the appeal. Thank you.

Wonderful. Council Member Garcia.

Thank you so much, Madam Mayor. I wanted to begin by mentioning that I didn't have anything written down in front of me before I came today because I wanted to make sure to give this meeting the appropriate attention and it holds a lot of gravity to the situation. So I figured I better not make up my mind before I get there. So I didn't. So my comments are not going to be as well articulated, as eloquent, or as perfectly placed as others. But I want to mention that I respect everything that those others have said up to this point. Those that are for it, those that are against it, pretty much would have stole all the thunder if I sat down last night and did nothing but right, because they did a really good job and far better than I could have ever done. I also want to talk to my council members in general and say that this was a tough go at it. When this is all said and done, we will get back to business as usual, but this was at times a contentious debate to understand what our role was since it was so specifically nuanced and new. TO THE PROCESS. IT'S THE FIRST TIME IT'S EVER BEEN DONE. SO THANK YOU FOR WALKING, TRUDGING ALONG WITH ME AND, YOU KNOW, SOMETIMES BICKERING BACK AND FORTH. YOU KNOW, FORMER COUNCILMEMBER REGINA SALAS MENTIONED BALANCE AND I THINK IT IS IMPORTANT AND I COULDN'T AGREE MORE WHEN WE TALK ABOUT THE BALANCE. So I'm going to... You'll see where I end up with this, but it's going to take just a moment for me, for people to understand. I myself have... always been a working class individual and therefore I've always had to rent homes and kind of live paycheck to paycheck my whole life. Not because I didn't show up for work or anything. It's just the jobs that you get here in Flagstaff and how you have to live. So we also heard in today's meeting and throughout the throughout the emails that we received, things of the nature of Flagstaff is closed for business if we don't decide on this thing. If we're not growing, we're dying. And downtown will die if we wait one year for this project. And I think there's context that has to be added. What part of dying are we considering in the timeline? Is this death to tourism? Because from somebody who grew up here and who has lived the life that I mentioned, we haven't had amenities for our locals in downtown area for a long, long time. And I'm not complaining about the people who had to do commerce and had to pivot to make the stores that they have downtown. I am not against... the bars that are downtown, the candy shops, the coffee shops, the multiple restaurants that are within one block of the same kind of food, because that's what's structured for tourism. And I'm not against it, man. If I could afford to go downtown, you'll see me downtown a lot, because there's a lot downtown to do that's not expensive, like Heritage Square, Wheeler Park, and Art Walk. But when it comes to buying fine art, I can't do it. I have to save to go to a restaurant. You'll catch me at a bar from time to time, and I'd pay for that, trust me. But I don't go downtown to, I mean, I just can't. And I'm not the only one who can't come downtown for the things that they used to be able to. But the world has changed, and I'm not blaming downtown for that. Now we can only go to Walmart because they took away the mercantiles that we have downtown, the hardware stores, all those things. That's fine. But the point is, when we're talking about this balance, what is the death of downtown? For a local like myself, that death was suffered a long time ago. And because I did some research, and within a one-mile area, and I'm not... I'm not saying anything about the candy stores, but in a one-mile area, there's only one other place that I could find that has three candy stores, with one being developed currently, and that's Disneyland. How much candy do we need? And I'm not saying anything besides negative towards these businesses. They are there for a reason, because the economy requires that, and tourists want that. So... death to the local using downtown happened a while back. And I don't wanna see death to tourism happen on top of that, which this is what it is, where we're at now. Now instead of building houses, which would have been a nice local amenity for locals, now we're gonna build a hotel. And we're gonna build a parking garage, which mostly will be used by the hotel. and then we'll get 50 units of parking for the city folks, I guess, or for the people who may or may not be able to afford to go downtown and use the services that are there now for the tourists. And I just wanted that distinction to be made, because while I'm not the I'm not the outlier in this. I think it's important historically for us to use those type of contexts when considering these issues. So all that goes to say that I support the intent of the project, the hotel, the economic boom, the potential for jobs. sitting here as a council member, if I didn't look at the six criteria in front of me and make sure that each one was being fulfilled completely, then I would be doing a disservice to my seat. And ethically, I can't do anything besides that. I too walked through the building that exists now. and that is up for debate. And with my not so limited view on construction, the work that I've done in there, I could see that it would be almost impossible to bring that up to standard, especially in a sustainable way. The hotel, the density, the height is kind of in lockstep with the vision that we're moving forward to as far as sustainability is concerned. So that's good. I mean, it's right there with some of our goals. But the main goal is housing here. And I personally do not think that that was fully explored yet. Now, we heard a comment tonight that there's a chain link fence around the property that has already been leveled, and there's just a vacant lot there. Now, that's not my fault. I didn't tear that building down. I didn't buy it. It's not the community's responsibility that that's there. It's not the council's. That happened for other reasons. And I feel after listening to the developer's journey through all this, I kind of feel bad because he may not have known that he couldn't go through for the whole project. So he started one phase and now that's where we're stuck. I would hope that, well, I mean, the vote's gonna go to where he can demolish the building and everything like that. But what I would hope, if the vote didn't go that way, was that he could start building there and wait until this other project and level that building and then do what he needs to do there because I don't want to stop progress. But I have to stay true to the ethics that are presented before us here on the dais. And bringing somebody else's worksheet about housing five years ago, two years prior to this development, is not fully exploring alternative developments in my opinion. That being said, I will use a term that one of my colleagues uses often. And that is I want to reserve the right to be part of this process moving forward. Other things that we've heard tonight from one of the public commenters, Pamela Jensen, if it was based on the findings of the Indigenous Commission, point blank, I would say take the building down immediately. I would show up with a jackhammer. That's how important I think that their influence and their significance is, but that's not one of these six criteria. So understand that I have a lot to offer this project moving forward just because I don't agree. Well, just because I'm forced to ethically use these six criteria and I do not agree with E. So please understand that I wanna be part of this process. NOW, FOR THE TARGETING, FOR ME BEING INQUISITIVE BY COUNCILMEMBER MATTHEWS, THAT HAS BEEN STATED, BECAUSE I TOOK A HARD LOOK AT THE DETAILS, IN HER OPINION, IT'S NOT THE JOB OF COUNCILMEMBERS, I DISAGREE WITH THAT. AND THAT'S THE BEAUTY OF THIS COUNCIL, IS WE CAN DISAGREE WITH EACH OTHER. We can have the vote and when we move on to the next thing, we're still not mad at each other. We're still moving on in the same direction. And someday I'll probably hold her and everyone else's feet to the fire here on those type of things too, because that's what good quality discussions at a council level require. It seems to me that this vote will be moving forward just by the evidence that we have now. And I will have to live with that. And I am thrilled that we have a partner that will be moving in that has really followed the process, dug himself in, and is learning more about our community. Because at the brutal moment of truth, in the final, we want a community partner that cares. And Mr. Marks, it sounds like you care quite a bit. So... With that, I will definitely be voting. I'm not sure if it's no or yes, but I'll be, can you help me out with that?

It's gonna depend on the motion, what your vote will be. I think what you're saying is you do not support the appeal. Is that what you're concluding?

No, because of finding number E not being fully explored in the context of housing. Thank you.

All right, thank you, everyone. some really, um, some really incisive comments made by my fellow council members, and you've given me a lot to think about. The public has given me a lot to think about. Staff, thank you for all of your work on this. I watched the commission meeting, and the entire thing, their deliberations about this particular economic hardship. I read and understood every document that was attached to our agenda and is part of the public record. And I just want to clarify both the commission and the council received the same information. So access to this information has been available to all including to the public. And I think it's important to remember that historical and cultural preservation has many faces and many voices and we've heard that today and I'm grateful for that. This community owes a debt of gratitude to Duffy for all of the work that she has tirelessly done in the past and currently to keep part of Flagstaff's history and culture alive. And I do not find any of the findings difficult to arrive at. Having read and listened carefully and approached this with an open mind, I believe that each of these criteria have been met. and I feel confident that the process has been followed. I feel grateful that through this process, we've been able to uncover ways that we can change it to make it more predictable, to make it more, meaningful and to just further clarify, survey what we need to survey to help to capture the history and the culture of Flagstaff. I do agree with Councilmember House that our culture and our history is defined by many people and by many voices and I think that that is an interesting and good thing that's come out of this conversation is that We cannot think too narrowly about what our history and what our culture is. And I appreciate every person who plays a part in perpetuating the history and the culture of this place and of this community. So I will be supporting the certificate of economic hardship, and I am looking for a motion.

Mayor. Excuse me, Mayor. Before we move on, because I think Councilmember Matthews was going to make a motion, but there were some comments that were missed earlier. Myself and Vice Mayor had Cs in the chat. I think they got lost in the conversation about exhaust and gas.

There is not a gas leak in the building, but we were discussing it. I apologize. I do not see that, but Council Member House.

Thank you, Mayor, and apologies for taking us back. I wanted to not let it go by some of the comments that were made earlier and just offer some gentle correction in terms of, um, statements on, on how the rest of council approach this conversation. Um, council member Garcia, I don't think that you meant to imply this necessarily, but, um, from what you said about how you prepared for this meeting and the comments that others made that from your perception were maybe pre-written. Um, I just wanted to caution us against speaking for other people's approaches to, um, these conversations and the work that we all put into. I know this has been a long conversation for all of us. Um, and we've all done different, uh, or had different approaches to preparing for this meeting. Um, my comments for sure were not written in advance of this meeting. I WAS TAKING NOTES AS WELL THROUGHOUT THE MEETING BUT JUST BECAUSE WE ARTICULATE DIFFERENTLY DOES NOT MEAN THAT WE WERE NOT PAYING THE SAME LEVEL OF ATTENTION TO THIS CONVERSATION. SO I JUST WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT WE'RE MORE CAUTIOUS MAYBE WHEN WE'RE MAKING THOSE SORTS OF STATEMENTS PARTICULARLY IN A CONVERSATION THAT'S BEEN SO publicly informed and important to our community. I don't want misrepresentation or misunderstanding to exist within the community about that sort of focus and attention that went into this. Thank you.

Vice Mayor. Thank you. I put a C in the chat for the same reason. Council Member Garcia, I know for me, I have taken a very deep dive into this. I did not come with anything written. I even brought a second laptop so that I could type notes as we were going because I do value what every individual has to say. And I know I may come to the table because I am a business owner downtown with some thoughts, but I didn't know how I was going to go today. So I just want to make sure, thank you, Council Member House, for bringing that up. That's why I also put a C in there. One of the things I value about this council is that I believe the seven of us come to the table with open minds and open thoughts for our meetings. And I find working with all of you, it's one of the things I love, is that I don't know how we're all going to go. And we do our research. And I want to thank all of you for doing that today.

Thank you.

IT WORKS.

CHECK, CHECK. ALL RIGHT, WE GOT IT. IT WAS NEVER MY INTENT TO TARGET ANYBODY ON COUNCIL BY SAYING THAT. And I was obviously wrong about the pre-written statements. And I didn't mean for it to end this way about us and what our back and forth is. But I appreciate you taking the time to help correct me and help me learn as well from I DON'T ALWAYS SAY THE RIGHT THING AND SOMETIMES WHEN I'M SAYING IT, I'M TELLING MYSELF IN MY HEAD THAT I SHOULDN'T BE SAYING IT. I'M NOT A PERFECT PERSON. AND I FEEL GREAT SUPPORT FROM THE COUNCIL THAT WHEN THESE TIMES COME UP AND I MAY SAY THE WRONG THING, THAT YOU'RE THERE TO LIFT ME BACK UP AND PUT ME BACK ON TRACK AND HELP ME UNDERSTAND BECAUSE THIS IS A GROWING PROCESS FOR ALL OF US AND I THINK THAT I VALUE THAT THE MOST OUT OF THIS COUNCIL. So it certainly wasn't targeting you, council member, or you, vice mayor. Although I felt a little targeted myself. So it was good that we had this discussion. Let's go.

Thank you.

Hello, hello.

Can you hear me? Yeah. Mayor, I'd like to move to grant the appeal based on the findings that the six criteria for approval of certain, of a certification of economic hardship has been established by the appellant, thereby approving the certificate of economic hardship for 19 West Birch Avenue.

I'll second. Any discussion? All those in favor? Aye. Opposed?

Nay.

All right. That carries, and we are adjourned.