Council - Regular Meeting

Good evening. I'm going to call this Richfield City Council meeting to order. It is September 8th at 7 p.m. If you're able, please rise and join us for the Pledge of Allegiance.

I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands, one nation, under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.

Thank you. Next, we'll move on to approval of the agenda.

I move approval of the agenda. Second.

It's been moved and seconded. Is there any discussion? All in favor, please say aye. Aye. All opposed? And we have approved the agenda. Next, we'll move on to approval of the minutes of the August 14th, 2026 City Council Special Meeting, the minutes of the August 25th, 2026 City Council Work Session, and the minutes of the August 25th, 2026 City Council Regular Meeting. Mayor?

Excuse me, Mayor. There's one more set of minutes. There was the August 14th, 2026.

Yeah, that's included. Okay, thank you.

I move the approval of the three sets of minutes.

Second. It's been moved and seconded. Is there any discussion? All in favor of approving all three sets of minutes, please say aye. Aye. All opposed? And we've approved all three sets of minutes. Next, we'll move on to the open forum. Participants can share their comments in person by voicemail or email and may also request to participate virtually. For more information on submitting comments, refer to the council agenda and minutes page on richfieldmn.gov slash city council. When you come up to the podium, the microphone's on if there's a little green light that's lit up. And please state your name and city of residence. Then you will have three minutes to address the council. I will hold up a yellow card when 30 seconds remain, and I'll hold up a red card when your time is expired. Please stick to the timeline so that others may have a chance to speak. Council will be listening to speakers, but not engaging in debate at this time. I NEGLECTED TO MENTION LAST MEETING TO PLEASE REFRAIN FROM LOUD RESPONSES LIKE CLAPPING OR BOOING IN RESPONSE TO COMMENTS. I ALSO WANT TO POINT OUT THAT THERE WILL NOT BE ANY PUBLIC HEARING LATER IN THE AGENDA, SO IF YOU WANT TO COMMENT ON ANY AGENDA ITEM, PLEASE DO IT NOW DURING THE OPEN FORUM. IF YOU ASK QUESTIONS, THE CITY MANAGER WILL PROVIDE ANSWERS EITHER VIA EMAIL OR AT THE NEXT COUNCIL MEETING. THANK YOU FOR TAKING THE TIME TO SHARE YOUR COMMENTS AND FEEDBACK WITH THE COUNCIL. All right, I have three comment cards. Is there anyone else who wishes to speak besides those three? Then I don't think we'll need to extend past the half hour time limit. So at this point, I want to call up Birgit Johnson.

Birgit Jansen, Richfield. Betz Park was once a place used as a dump. You can still see the curb work and the concrete jutting out of the ground, stemming from taking out the homes, streets, and curb work where the highway now is. According to some renderings from the city of Richfield made with data requests, Betz Park was to be more like Centennial Lake in Edina. The drawings show fountains, a floating bandshell and a structured look. It appears funding was lacking and so Wetzpark developed into the wildlife oasis and refuge in the middle of Ridgefield. It is now. When Wetzpark was first developed into a park, there were few species of wildlife. Over time, Wetzpark was opened 38 years ago. I witnessed how more and more critters made Wetzpark their home or rest stop. Nature took charge again. Wetzpark is on the bird migration flight path. With the resident birds, we have 214 bird species documented. In fact, VetSpark is a birding hotspot, according to eBird, a scientific worldwide website tracking and documenting birds. If you stop by the MOU, Minnesota Ornithologists Union, booth at the Minnesota State Fair, Minnesota DNR building, you may have seen the sign with the five birding hotspots in the metro area. One is Wetz Park. We have American river otters moving around between Wetz Park, Taft Park, and Milner's Pond. Whitetail deer move through. There's always a surprise with every visit. In the past, the nature at Wetz Park got little consideration. It was considered a building site despite the poor conditions for constructions. due to the fact that the soil is unstable and much of it is wetland, but the people of Ridgefield and especially the neighbors to the park. always stood up for Wetzpark. This sense of responsibility for the land and the wildlife is needed also by any new neighbors and our leaders. It would be a shame to lose this gem. It is extraordinary to have two birding hotspots, Wood Lake and Wetzpark in our relatively small town. It sets us apart from other towns, even Edina. The comeback of wildlife to Wetzpark is truly a thing of wonder and hope. And we need to hold on to that. With that comes the responsibility to preserve what we have, not to take away from it. No wonder I defend it so.

Thank you. Next we'll have Kathleen Balaban.

Mm-hmm.

Now it is. My name is Kathleen Balaban, and I live on 65th and Stevens. And I had been prepared for communicating my concerns both at the public hearing and in the open forum because I have different things. And so I'm regrouping here right now. But one, I will speak too quickly about the apartment and the resolution about that. I don't agree with it. I'll just state that. I read a little bit about what they plan to do for our birds, and they're going to just manage it by keeping a kill count. They're not going to do what the citizens asked for at the planning commission. I'm going to run through this. So as a citizen, I don't agree with it for my wildlife as well as the size and placement of the building. I'm not interested in paying for an easement running from their property all the way to 66. I mean, I just don't think my tax dollars are worth it or it. That's that. Now, the other thing that I was going to talk about is not necessarily the amendments to the Charter Commission. But I am going to speak to the Charter Commission application process. IN THE MONTH OF OCTOBER OF THIS YEAR, THERE WILL BE ONE COMMISSIONER WHOSE TERM WILL END. ONLY ONE. AND YET OUR STAFF MADE A CHOICE TO SEND OUT A YEAR. IT'S ON THE WEBSITE. IT'S A SHOUT-OUT. YOU GOT X PERIOD OF TIME TO APPLY FOR THE CHARTER COMMISSION, AND IT IS ONLY DONE AT THIS TIME OF YEAR, FROM OCTOBER 1ST TO THE 31ST OR WHATEVER, OKAY? AND THEN IT'S IT. That's against the statutory laws. The city staff has absolutely no authority whatsoever of attaining and telling people when they can or not apply. The statute states when a term ends, the judge has 60 days after that term ends to allow the incumbent, the person who had had the term, reapply. I happen to know this because I applied for that commission. What this website was asking for is all five existing commissioners who's expiring in 2027 to apply now. That doesn't give anybody a chance to run against them if everything is filled now. But more importantly, I could come in later. You know, you can get all the applicants you want, but I can come in right before that term ends and apply, and I should be able to be interviewed by the judge. So I would like you to take a peek at what and how our city staff has elected to... manage the Charter Commission. I'm proposing that all applications go directly to the Executive Committee within the Charter Commission to run their own application process. The City Council, not the City, excuse me, the City Manager and staff have no right. Thank you.

Thank you. And next we have Angie Rieger.

Hi again, we've had a lot of talks about flock over the last couple weeks, so thank you for listening to us. My topic tonight is can flock be trusted. I know we've had a lot of conversation about our own PD, but that's great. I think you know we can trust what they've told us. We have to verify some things that we have some questions coming. I have a bunch of things here I'd like to go over because it's really about can flock be trusted. So here's some misrepresentations that flock is done. They have a blog that says, does Flock share data with ICE? It says, no, Flock does not work with ICE. Guess what, everybody? They had indirect access to local law enforcement systems, as we've talked about. So that's a lie. Does CBP have access? They admitted that they do have access to 80,000 Flock cameras, despite denials. There's also an insider who actually has come out and said that they denied giving access to the employees, which makes sense, but guess what? Our federal people have access to it. So they unknowingly have misled city councils about their federal surveillance. This was just in August, by the way. All right, here's a bunch of examples of cities where they have outright lied. If this was anyone else, a person, I would call this person a pathological liar. So this is what I'm calling them. In Denver, the CEO of Flock told them that they had no federal contracts, but they gave border control access to their tracking system through an undocumented pilot program. Hmm, okay. San Francisco, they found 299 improper queries from federal and out-of-state agencies. They circumvented, and I bet they know all of the loopholes in their contracts, and they go around it and then get access. In Dayton, Ohio, they found that the searches more than 7,100 times for law immigration enforcement purposes explicitly prohibited under their own policies. In Illinois, the Secretary of State did an audit recently and found that U.S. border and customs protection was in violation. They had terminated their contract. Flock went back and turned them on without them knowing. So there's another good one. In Texas, last month and this month, there were 380 unauthorized agencies who tapped into these cameras and they actually only have approved 80. So another place where they've been lying and overuse is in California. They have a vendor side that was able to get in to query and giving the outside access without the department's knowledge. Now we're talking to ACLU. They said that they had a partnership with them. They do not have a partnership with the ACLU. Once again, lying to the public. Hot off the press in Sheboygan this month, FLOC offered to sell them data back. This is so funny. They don't have data though, right? They're going to sell them five years of their data back. Traffic data, so not APLR. So can FLOC be trusted? No. I have the petition.

Thank you.

And you can give the written documentation to the city clerk. Thank you so much.

Is there anyone else who wishes to speak for open forum tonight? Anyone else for open forum? All right, and we did get one email submission that was emailed out to the whole council, correct?

That is correct.

All right, thank you. So with that, we will move on from open forum, and we'll next go to the consent calendar, and I'm going to turn it over to Assistant City Manager Tongbong.

Go ahead. Thank you. The consent calendar contains several separate items which are act upon by the city council in one motion. Once the consent calendar has been approved, the individual items and recommended actions have also been approved. No further council action on these items is necessary. However, any city council member may request an item be removed from the consent calendar and placed on the regular agenda for council discussion and action. All items listed on the consent calendar are recommended for approval. A, approve disbursements and claims. B, consider approval of the first amendment to the 2025 Public Health Preparedness Service Agreement with Bloomington Public Health. C, consider the approval of a resolution approving a cooperative construction agreement between Three Rivers Park District, the City of Edina, and the City of Richfield for the design and construction of connecting trails. from Southdale Library through Adams Hills Park to the Nine Mile Creek Regional Trail and authorizing staff to execute the agreement and proceed with the project. D, consideration of updates to the City Affordable Housing Trust Fund priorities. E, consideration of a resolution approving the Affordable Housing Trust Fund 2026 revised budget and 2027 budget. F, consider the second reading and summary publication of an ordinance approving changes to subsection 400.21 and the addition of subsection 400.22 to the city code pertaining to fire protection. Thank you.

Thank you. Is there a motion to approve the consent calendar?

Actually, Mayor, I... I had made a request that 7D be pulled.

Oh, okay. That's in order at this time. So if we'll pull 7D and move that to item number eight. So the motion would be for items A, B, C, E, and F. And I'll make that motion. All right. Is there a second? Second. Okay. It's been moved and seconded to approve items A, B, C, E, and F. And then we'll hold item D for later. Is there any discussion on the items that we're voting on?

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

Thank you. So all in favor of approving items A, B, C, E, and F, please say aye. Aye. All opposed? Thank you. So now we're going to move on to item D. and we'll pull that up so that we can present it. So item D, let's see here if I can get it to pull up here, is consideration of updates to the city's affordable housing trust fund priorities. In 2020, the city established an affordable housing trust fund to preserve and create affordable housing opportunities for households with the lowest incomes and directed the Housing and Redevelopment Authority to administer the trust funds. Funds from the trust funds have been allocated to various HRA programs such as the first time home buyer and new home programs through the budget process. Funds can also be made available to developers to assist in the construction, preservation, and rehabilitation of affordable housing. The city and HRA adopted priorities and procedures in 2022 to guide the use of the trust fund when reviewing requests from developers. In June, the city adopted a 4D1 tax classification policy following several work sessions where affordable housing priorities were considered. In light of those discussions and the resulting 4D policy, staff undertook a review of the trust fund priorities and procedures and are proposing to establish two priority levels for the funds. The first level is preservation and rehabilitation of naturally occurring affordable housing, housing with larger bedrooms, accessible housing, and housing where current rent subsidy households live. Second level would be housing affordable at 30% area median income housing with supportive services and high energy efficient projects. The proposed updates also adds language specific to consideration of 4D1 tax classification as it relates to financial award from the trust fund. The current 4D policy requires a declaration of restricted covenants to be filed against any property receiving trust fund assistance. Any declaration that restricts both income and rents, however, will automatically qualify the property for the four d one tax classification the proposed updates clarified that any request for funds will involve a review of the impact of any impact of any four d one tax classification and that any restrictions that trigger the four d one tax classification will be reviewed in light of the forty policy and be subject to council approval so uh... comes from work if you want to make the motion and then present which you what you wanted to discuss.

Yep. I will have a motion to pass this. And the reason why I had it pulled was I had questions I had presented to staff. I had concerns at the last paragraph of the executive summary. When I read that, it was unclear to me whether this was going to take away the automatic qualifications process. Then looking at the language in the actual priorities and procedures. I didn't see it explicitly stated that an applicant would not have the ability to automatically get it approved, but perhaps staff can explain why that shouldn't be a concern.

Yes, thank you, Council Member Burke. Members of the Council, the issue here is that based on the policy that the HRA and City Council approved related to 4D1, we needed to change this policy to change a couple of words from will to may. That means that currently a declaration of restrictive covenants and income qualifications are required when you get funds from the Affordable Housing Trust Fund. However, a project that would get funds from our trust fund and have both of those restrictions would automatically qualify for the 4D1 tax classification. The HRA and the City Council said they did not want that to happen automatically. So we are changing the language in the policy such that a declaration may be filed. And under the compliance section of the policy, you'll see... in red new language that states that projects will not automatically be approved with a trust fund award. And so that's why we're proposing this. I understand that the last paragraph perhaps did not state that as clearly as it could have. But what we're doing here is implementing the policy that the HRA and the city council agreed to at previous meetings.

I probably found ambiguity that wasn't there, so I appreciate you explaining that and making it clear on the record, so thank you. You're welcome. So again, I have a motion to pass it.

Okay, so just to clarify, what you're saying is that we may still go ahead and do it, but you want to make sure we do it with a conscious decision and are all aware of what all the ramifications are of the decisions.

That's correct. It says that you're going to analyze the tax impacts of the project, the individual project before putting any declaration and income restrictions on a project.

Okay. So it wouldn't necessarily stop a project. It might just change some of the.

Correct. Correct. We don't want it to be automatic. That is what the HRA and city council said.

All right. So is there any further discussion?

I will second Council Member Burke's motion.

All right. So we have a motion to approve updates to the city's affordable housing trust fund priorities and procedures. It's been seconded. Any further discussion? All right. All in favor, please say aye. Aye. All opposed? And we have passed this. Thank you. And thank you to staff for all the time that was spent going over the 4D policy. Appreciate it. Next, we'll move on to item 10A, Council Member Christensen.

Thank you, Mayor. This is an item for consideration would be for the approval of a first reading of an ordinance amending section 617 of the Richfield City Code related to mobile food units or food trucks. Mobile food units or food trucks, as they are more popularly known, have been an ordinance consideration at times over the last 12 years in Richfield. After ongoing staff discussion, societal changes, increased demand and lessons learned, staff have developed an ordinance language for consideration. Highlights of the draft ordinance included definition of a mobile food unit, written consent from a property owner, locations approved for operation, performance standards for all locations and suggested license fees. We are asking for a motion to approve the first reading of an ordinance amending section 617 of the Richfield City Code related to the operation and use of mobile food trucks in Richfield. Does the staff have anything to add?

Good evening, Mayor and Council. This is a draft ordinance. essentially just an insertion of mobile food unit language in the existing food establishment code. There is one edit that I wanted to bring to your attention, page five. It's page 61 in the agenda.

Oh, 617.17, subdivision five.

So performance standards on collector and arterial streets, mobile food units located on a collector or arterial street are subject to the following additional performance standards. The customer ordering and pickup areas must be facing a sidewalk, not a street with a sidewalk. This is something that the city attorney and I had discussed because it just didn't read right the first time. And I said, wait a minute, we want the window of the food truck facing the sidewalk. You had sent, the city attorney had sent me draft language and I think communication fell apart at that point and it didn't get into the draft. So that is one change that we will be making. It will read the customer ordering and pickup areas must be facing a sidewalk.

So that's the only quick edit, which is easy enough to make.

The ordinance, the draft ordinance just requires that a license be required for a mobile food unit. It goes on to just talk about some exemptions. So for food establishments that already have a food truck like Sandy's, there's the hot chicken place on 66th and Penn. They have food trucks. If they want to operate those on their site, they can do that without any city intervention. A food truck that's already licensed by the Department of Ag and food trucks that operate on a private residence. So if you're having a reception or a wedding and you want a food truck, fine. It can be on the street. The window needs to face the house. It cannot sell to the public. We're not going to license you. That's your deal. Those are exempt. It talks about defining complex menu items, types one and two. So preparation of a hamburger and maybe some homemade coleslaw. versus a scoop of ice cream. There are different levels of food licenses for those. It talks about locations for food trucks. And essentially in this draft, they can be pretty much anywhere in the city other than the highways. There are performance standards for different locations. So if you're gonna have a food truck at your home, There are different hours for that versus what we're going to allow in a commercial area. Trash and recycling has to be picked up wherever a food truck sits. If you're going to have a food truck at your home, you can't have it more than three times a year. For anywhere else in the city, commercial nodes and things like that, this will be an annual license. Um, the only requirement, um, which comes out of state statute was that a food truck cannot operate any more than 21 days consecutively in one spot. So if we get an application for a food truck that wants to be at the hub and the hub has provided permission, um, then they can be there for 21 days and then they're going to have to move to a new location. So, um, all that is spelled out in those performance standards. Um, And I think other than that, there isn't any significant changes to the food code. Are there any questions? Do we have any questions?

And thank you for clarifying about the facing the sidewalk.

We'll get that squared away for the second read.

And one other comment, I remember when we were talking about the downtown branding and some of the ideas they were brainstorming were like mobile coffee shops. So that would allow this, correct? This ordinance would allow that?

Yep. Yep, typically food trucks in the city have been here for events like PenFest, Unity in the Community, and things like that. And they're given a temporary food permit And so this will be an annual license that will allow them to operate year-round. And there's been interest. There's a half a dozen or so food truck organizations that have kept inquiring with us through our business licensing staff about wanting to be able to be here more frequently than just those special events.

All right, thank you. Council Member Christensen, if you could make the motion, please.

Okay, I make the motion that we approve the first reading of an ordinance amending section 617 of the Richfield City Code related to the operation and use of mobile food trucks in Richfield.

I second that. It's been moved and seconded. Is there any further discussion? Council Member Hayford-O'Leary.

I just want to say I'm excited that we're doing this, and thanks to staff earlier for asking for some feedback. It's good to see that integrated. Several years ago there was a business on Lindale and 76 that was hosting a food truck in their parking area. And I was going to like compliment that, but it was so exciting to see and then it turns out that was illegal. So obviously they will have to comply with health codes and the various good rules we have, but it is nice to know that at least conceptually that sort of thing could be allowed because I think it is something that people have a lot of enthusiasm for in the community and would like to see here. I will say I also got a kick out of us removing the requirement that they be of good moral character and repute. Not that we don't appreciate good moral character, but I imagine that was probably tricky to enforce.

Thank you, and thank you to all the staff for making that possible. All in favor, please say aye. Aye. All opposed? And we have done the first reading, so it will come back to us next meeting for a second reading. Next, we'll move on to item 11A, and I'm going to turn that over to Council Member Hayford-O'Leary.

Thank you, Mayor. This item is consideration of a conditional use permit and site plan approval for a multifamily residential development of 290 units in two buildings at 6501 Portland Avenue. Pope Architects, the applicant, has submitted an application on behalf of MSP Lupe Richfield LLC for land use approvals to construct a five-story, 290-unit housing development at the former American Legion site at 6501 Portland Avenue. The project is to be constructed in two phases. The first phase will be 130 units of workforce family housing in the eastern building. The second phase will be 160 units of senior housing in the western building. Both buildings feature courtyard amenities, underground parking, and a green roof that covers approximately 30% of the rooftop. The project has a modern design with lots of windows and wood paneling that befits the natural surroundings of the adjacent Veterans Park. See the applicant's project description in the bottom corner of the plan set cover page. Subject area zone MR3, high density residential, and lies within the Veterans Park overlay district, which prescribes conditions of approval for properties near the park. A conditional use permit is required for all projects over 100 units in size. A CUP allows the city to place reasonable conditions upon the project in order to implement the intent of the code or to protect adjacent properties. The following are the areas where the plan does not meet code requirements. The items are a future connection to 66th Street, signage plan, parking setback from the east property line, and the details for rooftop screening, which are not provided yet. The draft resolution of approval includes conditions to bring those above items into compliance. There are also areas where the council has discretion. Those items are bird collision reduction plan, electric vehicle charging, Tree preservation planting requirements. Mulch alone is not permitted, they note. Other landscape requirements having to do with internal parking lot, landscape islands, tree diversity, and number of trees. Parking stall count. Parking lot screening when adjacent to the park. Green space within the setback areas and housing variety. Conditions addressing these items are also included in the draft resolution. The allowable discretion and details of the conditions proposed by staff are discussed in the policy section of this report. At the time of the Planning Commission meeting on August 24th, the applicant objected to five conditions of approval. The requirement to cooperate regarding a future connection to 66th Street, as well as the first four discretionary items that I just read. Taking those objections into consideration, staff worked with the city attorney to modify two of the recommendations, the connection to 66th Street and the bird collision reduction plan. At the planning commission meeting, the applicant's attorney distributed to the commission proposed revisions to the condition of approval and explained the reasoning for the requested changes. During the public hearing, eight members of the public spoke, raising questions and concerns about the bird collision reduction plan, surrounding home values, noise impacts, tax implications, traffic and turning movements from the site, payment for future road construction, purchase of the site by the city, a preference for the previous plan for the site, the height of the proposed buildings, impact on the park pool and Veterans Memorial and their users, utility impacts, and a lack of on-site green space. Ultimately, the Commission recommended approval with all conditions as presented by staff. The Commission also asked staff to emphasize their concerns regarding left-turning movements from the site and bird impacts to the City Council. On September 1st, the City received the attached letter from the applicant's attorney, Jake Steen of Larkin Hoffman, regarding the 66th Street connection and the bird collision reduction plan. Staff and the city attorney have revised the conditions to clarify that the requirements related to a potential future connection to 66th Street and the requirements related to the bird collision reduction plan do not require alterations to the building material or other components of the building that are regulated by the state building code. A council member raised concerns about maintaining minimal accessible sidewalk widths when a vehicle is parked in a stall perpendicular to the sidewalk. That was me, and I will read that amendment later, but in the staff report they write, staff recommends the following language. Pedestrian routes through the property must maintain minimum ADA clearance on sidewalks that abut parking stalls at a perpendicular angle. If the condition is not met, the city can work with the owner to determine potential solutions. One example might be wheel stops, but the condition leaves open the possibility for other potential solutions. Staff recommends approval of the attached resolution, which includes stipulations requiring the project to meet the requirements of the code. Does staff have anything they want to add at this point?

I don't have anything to add, counsel, but I'm happy to answer any questions.

And, Mayor, I would suggest prior to the resolution, if we do have any burning questions, to try to address them with staff now and perhaps allow the applicant to speak for a little bit and be available for questions after that.

I did have one question for staff. It talks about that we're going to need to have the sanitary sewer upgraded and we're having the city engineers working on that. Could you clarify how the necessary sanitary sewer improvements will be paid for?

Yes, Mayor. Thank you for the question. Normally with a new development, a developer is going to pay for improvements related to their particular project. At the January work session for this project, the developer did state that they will plan, or I'm sorry, they will include those costs for the upgrade of the sanitary sewer in their pro forma and that they would not expect the city to pay for those upgrades.

All right, thank you. I had one question for the developer, but I can save that for later. So is there anybody else that has any questions for staff? Council Member Burke.

I had a question about the... REQUIREMENT CONCERNING THE HOUSING VARIETY. AND WHEN I'M READING IT, IT SAYS THE VPA OVERLAY DISTRICT REQUIRES THAT, QUOTE, RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT SHALL INCLUDE A MINIMUM OF TWO TYPES OF RESIDENTIAL LAND USES THAT EXPAND THE VARIETY OF LIFESTYLE HOUSING OPTIONS IN THE STUDY AREA. CAN YOU TELL US WHAT WAS THE INTENT OF HAVING THAT LANGUAGE? IS IT A MATTER THAT THE BUILDING SHOULD NOT LOOK THE SAME OR BE two different types as far as structurally. Can you just give us any kind of information about the intent of that?

Yes, Council Member Burke, members of the council. That condition was put in when we were exploring, when we had the moratorium on the sites around Veterans Park. My recollection is that that requirement was related to the form of the housing. At the time, the property owner was proposing a mix of townhomes and apartments. and policymakers in the community were supportive of that, and I believe that this condition was drafted with that in mind. That said, the words of the condition would leave some discretion there, and it would be up to the policymakers to determine if apartments that are focused toward two different populations would meet the intent of that code as it's written.

Thank you for that clarity.

Other questions for staff? I would weigh in that I think having it for two different populations makes sense to me that that's variety, so I wouldn't object to that, the way it's currently being offered. Okay, any other questions for staff? All right, then.

Yeah, if the applicant would like to say anything off the bat or otherwise be available for questions. As you know, the public hearing was at the Planning Commission, but you're welcome to spend a couple minutes and say whatever you'd like to say.

Yeah.

Thank you, Madam Mayor, members of the council. My name is Jacob Steen with Larkin Hoffman Law Firm, and we represent the applicant. I DO WANT TO SAY THAT WE APPRECIATE STAFF'S HARD WORK AND THE RECOMMENDATION OF APPROVAL. WE OBVIOUSLY APPRECIATE THE 6-0 RECOMMENDATION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION AS WELL. WE APPRECIATE THE CITY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE WORKING ON SOME REVISED CHANGES, BUT UNFORTUNATELY WE STILL HAVE OBJECTIONS. WHILE THEY ARE BETTER, THEY DO NOT CURRENTLY MEET MINNESOTA LAW AS WE SEE THEM. I WILL ADDRESS SPECIFICALLY a couple of these conditions, the 66th Street connection. I want to be clear that we do appreciate the changes that have been made, but as it's drafted, it still allows the city to determine that impacts from the subject site or that we are required to install these improvements if the city determines that impacts from the subject site necessitate the connection. That is extraordinarily ambiguous and vague There are no standards. There are certainly standards under Minnesota law that determine when such impacts would be borne by the applicant but this doesn't meet that. So unfortunately we still object to this. We have suggested a condition it's on I believe page 205 of your packet that we have discussed with the city attorney's office and we believe would meet Minnesota law. So we would ask for that condition to replace the proposed condition. We also have a real objection to 3.0. It's a condition in your packet regarding the whole building threat factor. And the whole building threat factor is a function of the ratio of the building wall to glazing. And as it's drafted, this condition would require a whole building threat factor of 45 or otherwise reduce bird collision by a similar amount. Now, it adds language that that doesn't explicitly require changes to the building systems, which is prohibited under Minnesota law. You can't be more restrictive than the building code. However, as it is drafted, this condition together with some of the other conditions are impossible to comply with. It is not possible to meet a whole building threat factor of 45 or an equivalent without modifying the windows, the glazing on your building, or simply reducing glazing to the building. It is a direct function of that ratio. And there are two other conditions, 3G, and I believe it is 3G and 3F, which require the existing building window ratios to remain the same and prohibit any covering of glazing on the entire western wall of the senior housing building. So those in combination together with the specific language requiring a 45 rating or less is impossible, categorically impossible to comply with, so we cannot comply with that condition of approval. I also want to just briefly touch on the memorandum that Council Member O'Leary inserted in the packet. This includes reference to providing access and clearance for parking spaces, and the proposed condition would prohibit any bike parking stalls that are put on a vehicle parking stall. That would prohibit those from counting towards our minimum. And I want to be clear, we have 300 bike parking stalls on this project. 100 of those would be on the parking stall wall. This is not something that would prohibit their access and clearance. To the contrary, this is a luxury to our clients. Our clients want to be able to pull into their stall and see their bike. This does not hinder access because the person driving that bike or riding that bike is also driving the car that pulls into that stall. They control their access and clearance. We can certainly comply with this provision through alternative means, for example, wheel stops. But as it's drafted, it's an interpretation that's not in the zoning code, it's not in the building code, and it would therefore be arbitrary and capricious. And lastly, I want to touch on 3G. Again, as I mentioned, this is a provision, a condition that would prohibit us from complying with 3.0. but it also locks us into the art and windows as proposed. We have proposed either glass block or art to satisfy this requirement on both buildings, and it's our intent to continue to leave that option open based on the project specifics and the budget as we move forward. It's important that we note that that meets the zoning code, So we just want to retain that flexibility. So with that, we're happy to answer any questions. I will also hand it off to Steve Minn, who can address a few other conditions of approval.

Madam Mayor and members of the Council, my name is Steve Minn. I'm with the applicant, Lupe Development Partners. I just won't repeat what Mr. Steen has articulated other than to emphasize that if the budget permits, we would like to do the artwork on the exposed walls that the staff has identified on the ramps, but the code requires fenestration windows. And that may be what we end up doing. So I want to make sure we are preserving the option to do either. That's what we had proposed in our written material. So I think what is written in the resolution item G, I want to emphasize we have to retain the option to do windows or artwork, although we prefer artwork. I wanted to spend a moment or two, and then I'm happy to take questions if it requires it to be resolved. There's an additional condition, resolution letter L, relates to tree preservation. And in the staff report from earlier in the month, referred to as the ARC report, August 10th, the Public Works Department asked us to provide a loop for a fire hydrant on the northeast corner of the property instead of a dedicated line to the fire hydrant, just a single dead-end line. There are dead-end lines all around the city. They do require occasionally to be flushed because they're a dead-end line. A loop would provide for water flow. It's a much more ideal situation. But we pointed out to the staff the conflict, which is I cannot preserve those existing very tall trees in the northwest corner of the parcel if I do a loop. Now, staff said, well, you can go ahead and put it in a trench. I've conferred with my civil engineers and I've conferred with our grading specialists. We cannot put a trench box for the loop of your fire hydrant line and still preserve the trees. We will kill sufficient quantity of the roots that we will lose the trees. Now, the staff condition is Within five years, if we lose those trees, I have to replace them with 14-foot new trees, which would be a challenge if I have a trench box. So I ask you, allow me a dead-end loop that will flush with the fire department's help every year, or understand that I'm going to cut the trees down at construction time and put new trees in at the time of construction because there's no way to preserve the trees, and I won't have money five years down the road to replace the trees, so I might as well just cut them construction time and bring in new trees i would much prefer to keep the trees so please help us do that by allowing a single dead end line and we will make a commitment to work with the fire department to flush that hydrant and the last item i just want to emphasize a little bit more about what mr steam spoke to with regard to the bird collision reduction plan we would not like to reduce the amount of glazing but we can meet some of the bird reduction without impairing the window units. There's a film that can be applied to some of the windows. I'm happy to put that film on the lower first level where there are large panes of glass, which are the most likely areas where a bird strike might occur. I'm not willing to etch glass. That would be a change to the building code. And I'm not willing to do some units get film on them and some do not because that sets me up for a dynamic of violating fair housing. Some residents get windows they can look out in and some do not. And the lower units are the ones where the bird collisions occur. And so the inference by fair housing is the lower units are lesser quality units, lesser quality people, lesser benefit and not putting film on windows of some and not to others. I won't go down that road. So we will have a fight about it if we can not come to a compromise. So let me find something other than a 45 and let me do what I can to do the big windows with this film. It will not impair the enjoyment of our common areas, our community room, our staff office. Any of those areas that have large glass will do that. But I can't set up a dynamic where residents have a difference of quality of life in their units to meet a bird protection plan. So I ask for your indulgence in that matter. And the last item is with regard to Council Member O'Leary's suggestion that we not be allowed to count the parking spaces in the underground parking of both buildings as toward our 300 unit count for bike parking racks. Our experience with 2,300 other units throughout the metropolitan area is that residents who rent a space from the underground garage value that rack as a amenity inconvenience and a safety concern for their bikes. They can lock their bikes with a double U-shaped padlock. It's preserved in an underground safe environment. Discounting those 100 spaces means I've got to go find another place to put 100 enclosed bike parking spaces somewhere on this property. Your zoning code requires 90% of those spaces to be in an enclosure. Unattended consequences. I either lose more parking spaces to provide for bike parking, Or maybe you want me to lose units to provide for bike parking. Or the garage that's sitting behind the VFW doesn't get torn down and I leave it as a bike shed. It's a non-conforming building. These are not attractive choices. So let's be more practical and allow the bike racks in car parking spaces to function as they intend. It's an amenity. You're going to love this building the way we've amenitized it. I think your residents will be thrilled to live there. And we look forward to working with you. But I ask you to make these Adjustments so that we can move forward together.

Thank you All right, do we have questions I Had one that hasn't come up and I think it's probably going to be an easy one to answer But I noticed you had the dog run and you've got fencing and stuff But the thing that happens whenever we have a new development is there's always questions about what happens to the pet waste So I'm assuming you have some kind of a system for dealing with the pet waste

Madam Mayor, we do. We put doggy pot stations all around our properties. We also subscribe to a program called Pooprints. I don't know if you're familiar with it, but it's a national DNA registration for dogs. We swab the dog's mouth. We record their DNA. And believe it or not, we do send our maintenance people out, pick up evidence that was not picked up by residents. We match the DNA and they get a fine. And it's a very effective program.

All right, thank you. And I'm sure the neighbors are going to be very happy to hear that because it comes up a lot.

It's amazing as it is that we have a DNA program for our pets. It's what it's come to. So we do it.

Thank you. I had a question. I wrote down when Mr. Steen said that there was something on page 205, but I'm not seeing something about the 66th Street connection. So I don't know if I have the wrong page or if I have...

Yes, Madam Mayor, I believe that Mr. O'Leary's comments were added later in the day, so it would probably be two pages further.

Oh, like page 207?

207, that sounds right.

All right, thank you. All right, now questions that people may have.

Mayor.

Go ahead.

So let me get back to the required findings because most of your comments were about those. Can I clarify your comments on the tree preservation versus the loop? Sure. Did staff, like rejection, update a tree preservation plan that showed the reality of needing to remove those trees, or did you not submit one?

Madam Mayor, Council Member, we responded to staff in the written response to the initial report that we could not preserve the trees and do a loop. We made that written response. Staff then responded to us and said, we'll just do a trench box for the sewer line. And I went back to our civil engineers and our landscape architect, and we determined even with a trench box, you still need to take, in order to build a trench box, you've got to kill enough of the root system that those trees won't live.

Okay.

I'd much rather keep the trees.

Okay. Okay. And then regarding that you've raised a lot of concerns about the connection to 66th Street Is it your preference that you just sort of build it shovel ready now and like not provide those parking spaces? Or what is your what is your solution to that item? I'm sorry There seem to be a lot of objections to the idea that a future facilitation of a connection to 66th Street would be required I'm asking if the applicant if you would rather build that now or build it within your site arrange your site for it's such a connection now or What you would like to do with that?

Madam Mayor, Council Member, our view is that you can't compel me to build something that you don't necessarily have a record that shows you need. When you make that finding in the future, you'll have to demonstrate what the nexus under state law is between my project and whatever your need is to build that roadway. The transportation study clearly says the road's not needed to meet my parking requirements. I don't want to be in a litigation fight with you folks about this, but I'm just not going to have a – it's essentially a taking. You're insisting that I pay for some improvement that you might need at some future date that you don't have a basis for demanding. We're just not going to do that. In terms of how I finance the project, my lenders will look at that approval and say, reserve for that. And I'm not prepared to reserve for that because I don't know if you'll ever do it. And I don't know if you'll ever need it. And the transportation study that we currently have says you don't need it. So you can come and buy it from me by condemnation. Same thing if you take Mr. Nielsen's property. If you're going to build a road, you're going to take his land and my land. Nothing I can do about that. But you're not in a position, our view, you're not in a position to demand that I deed it to you or cooperate with you or pay for an improvement for your benefit that doesn't improve my benefit.

So I don't think... We're asking for the D. I think we're asking, like, the language is arrange your site or whatever it is within the improvements of your site to be compatible with a future road connection. Is your contention that we can't ever require that you connect to a road or be prepared to connect to a road that doesn't yet exist? I'm not the lawyer. I'm going to let the lawyer respond to that.

Yeah, Madam Mayor, Council Member, that's an excellent question. So Minnesota law has a very clear process for special assessments. I'm sure you're familiar with it. You see it. It's under Chapter 429. There's also a very clear framework for having exactions associated with a project. The nexus has not been demonstrated here, so it would be an unlawful exaction. What we're saying is you're absolutely correct. The city code does require internal circulation to be adjusted, but this proposed condition of approval takes it a step further. And it says that if and when there is a decision that is made, decision based on some quite vague standards, that we are then required to pay for those improvements with respect to our property. Now, you may very well have that authority at a later date, and what we propose is a condition that is consistent with the city's exaction rights and Chapter 429 of the Minnesota law. We're just asking to not be tied to pay for something based on somebody's decision at an arbitrary date in the future, based on some arbitrary and unknown factors today. We are, and to be clear, we are happy to comply and cooperate with the city on this. We're just not happy with an unlawful exaction. We have designed the site internally to swap out for a road if in the future that is deemed necessary. And that is what we would do would be remove that dog run. And there is actually a connection shown where you could easily connect to the parking lot as proposed. So we do comply with the city ordinances proposed.

Okay. All right.

Council Member Burke.

You know, I'm looking at a lot of these challenges as far as the traffic and the screening and the tree removal and a lot of these and the birds, the bird situation. I think a lot of these problems really get solved if one thing had been followed, and that's the housing variety. And I'm kind of stuck on the housing variety. Now, I hope the mayor will reconsider what her already stated opinion, but it seems clear to me that the intent of this condition was that there'd be a variety of structures there, not two identical, very large buildings. And the reason for that is that considering where that location is, some variety of the structure itself is more compatible with its location as far as the birds, as far as the traffic, as far as the amount of people living there. And so I'm kind of stuck with the housing variety. And I've been persuaded that it's not just a matter of the use or the intent of the structures. It's what they look like, what they are. And that hasn't been met because I have two lovely buildings. Don't get me wrong, they're beautiful buildings, but they're exactly the same and they're exactly the same height. And there's a reason why that spot had that condition. And so I'm stuck there. So, and I don't know what you can really, I'm sure nothing you can tell me, but that's where I'm stuck right now.

Well, Madam Mayor, Council Member Burke, all I can say is that we commissioned the architect to draw the plan based on your zoning code and a want versus the building code and the zoning code, we're not tied together. I feel for you, but I can't reach you in this circumstance in that we are building a conforming project.

I understand, but this is not a surprise. I mean, Council Member Hayford O'Leary, I believe two meetings ago, did bring up and asked about the possibility of townhomes there and not just two large buildings. And so the It's not something out of the blue. This is something that had been presented, and I know you gave a response. I think it was economic. I'm sure that's what the response will be, but I'm sorry. That's why I'm stuck with this right now.

I understand. We approached the staff almost 18 months ago. When we first made an introductory meeting with the staff, there was a fair amount of enthusiasm based on our work in the metropolitan area, our reputation, and our ability to get something done. I would say this has been challenge for us to work in the constraints that we were not prepared to deal with we've tried to address them as Enthusiastically as we can but I've been upfront about doing an affordable project with this much housing since day one and so You know the opportunity to buy the land from me or tell me nope don't proceed would have been great 18 months ago You know here. We are on the cusp of you know talking about how to START WORKING ON BUILDING PERMITS AND FINANCING AND I REGRET THAT THIS IS STILL A CONCERN OF YOURS BECAUSE I THINK WE MAY BE MET WITH INFORMALLY AND FORMALLY WITH STAFF AND THIS BODY FOR 18 MONTHS TO TRY TO COME TO A DESIGN THAT WE THOUGHT WOULD BE PLEASING. I UNDERSTAND.

ADDITIONAL QUESTIONS? I HAD A QUESTION FOR CITY ATTORNEY TEEJEN. I'm looking at the language on 3C that the developer is objecting to. And I believe it got changed to say could only happen if it was an impact from the subject site. So we can't say that somebody wants to build something next door or down the road and then we're gonna charge. It would only be if there was an impact their site. So what is your opinion about the legality of the language that we have here?

Um, thank you. Marin council. Uh, we did, I would note that the, I, and I believe, and I had to scroll towards the end of the agenda, but the red line of the condition that was in the letter from Larkin Hoffman, I believe was based on a previous version of the condition where there was some language about acquiring easements, paying for that and assessments. that was a result of a conversation we had with council where he had thought that was something he thought his client would agree to. So, After we received more feedback, we talked with staff and proposed some revisions to that condition so that it no longer is requiring a dedication of property or easements or payment of any fees. We revised it to attempt to address the concern of their council with respect to the connection. So the only requirement here is that if There are impacts from this development, from this property that would cause the need for the future connection. They would only be responsible for building the portion on their property and paying for that. The city is not asking them to dedicate property to the city, to pay for public improvements. And so in our opinion, we believe that is a reasonable condition and does not violate the exaction law that council has referenced. Thank you.

Other comments or questions? I had some questions about what you're talking about with the bird thing. So is it the west wall that is the... area of concern because of all the glass there? Is that why you're saying this is not going to work?

No, Madam Mayor, Council. It's not just a singular wall. The way a bird mitigation score can be lowered is by reducing the impact risk of the glass itself. And so the largest risk area are large panes of glass. And then smaller panes of glass. It's a square footage measurement. It's a ratio of the glass to the building facade size. So it's not one side or the other. But realistically, I have to reduce the glazing area by about 6,400 lineal feet of window. So that means I either remove that much, not linear, square feet. I have to remove that much window from the two buildings total, which would be completely undesirable. I mean, some bedrooms get no glass. We wouldn't want to do that. Or I can put this film that's approved by this, whatever this organization, I'm not a bird watcher, I apologize, but whatever, there's an organization that endorses this particular type of film, which reduces the amount of reflection and allows birds to realize, oh, I'm not looking at Blue sky, I'm looking at something else. And so they veer off. The film is recommended to be put on the lower levels first as opposed to the upper levels. Larger panes of glass before smaller panes of glass. But I don't have 6,400 feet of large glass. So I'm going to have to do some large glass to start at the first level, community room, office, fitness room. Those are big pieces of glass in both buildings. And then I have to start working my way up, second floor, third floor. I probably won't need to go to fourth floor or fifth floor. but that sets up this dynamic where some units are gonna have film on their glass and some will not. And so what I'm asking for is, I'm happy to meet this concern. I'm surprised at the enthusiasm for it and I welcome participation in how to help us fix it. What I'm told is, put as much film as you can on the first level and you've reduced the score, maybe not from 54 to 45, but maybe I've reduced it from 54 to 48. Is that close enough for government work? I would hope so. We want to be sensitive to it and responsive as we can without impairing the habitability of the units. And to the point of putting film or etching the glass, we think that's a change in the building code that you can't burden me with, so I'd rather just come to an agreement with you that we'll do the lower level, big glass first, and call it a day. I hope you'll take that as a good faith effort.

Okay, then I had a question about, you mentioned item 3G, which says the amount of windows, balconies, and art shall not be reduced in size or number from these approved plans. So my question is, you want to be able to mix and match whether you put art or glass blocks or whatever, is that what you were saying?

Correct.

So I guess my question for staff is, Does that mean that the total amount, this restriction means the total amount cannot be reduced? Or does it mean each specific thing has to stick exactly with where they were? Because I think that's the question you're getting at. Is it in total or is each part separate? I'm just wondering what that means.

Mayor, members of the council. The idea here is that this is a condition that we put in most of our resolutions. The idea being that the building that is built will look substantially like what you have approved in your plans. The developer proposed art in their plans. They said that that was a better option than windows. Staff agreed, and so that's what we have required as a condition of approval. I don't think we understood that they were asking to make more of an on-the-fly call based on costs and what they would actually install on that lower level. So as it's written, this would require them to build the building that they have shown on those plans, including all of the windows, including all of the balconies, including the art.

Okay, and do you want to respond to that?

Thank you, Madam. Council in our response to the ARC report dated August 10th We clearly state that we would like the option of to either doing glass block or art we put that in writing a month ago and That's really a function of some of the other issues There are over 30 conditions in this conditional use permit some of which are very expensive and at a certain point I got to make some choices and that's meeting the code with windows is a baseline. I prefer the art, I propose the art, I would like to do the art, but I don't like this condition of G that says, okay, you suggested it, now you're done, no way of going back to window, which is the building code. And we didn't agree to this before the ARC report came out, and when the ARC report came out, we said, no, we don't agree to that.

Okay, go ahead.

Could I clarify with staff, if If the applicant provided an alternative thing, could that be administratively approved, like swapping art for windows, if that was appropriate in SAS view?

Yes, I believe it could if the council modified this condition. Yes.

Okay, so we would need to change this condition in order for you to have administrative discretion to allow variation?

Yes, you would, because otherwise we would ask the developer to build what they presented to you, which includes art.

Okay. And if I could just ask, why can't you show, or why can't you provide plans that show what you intend to build with regard to the art versus the windows?

Madam Mayor, Council Member O'Leary, I'm sorry, ask again, please.

Why can't the plans just show what you intend to build with regard to what's art and what's window?

Madam Mayor, Council Member O'Leary, I believe we proposed art on the East Building, and the staff did identify that we didn't propose anything on the West Building. if I understood it correctly, the way it was commented on in the ARC report. Maybe I have that reversed. And so when we went to clarify, we clarified that we wanted to do either windows or art. And that was our intent. Okay.

So I obviously have a preference for art. but I could live with minor changes as long as the staff was able to approve that. So that part I could live with, but I would really prefer the art if at all possible. My question was though, is this a function of dealing with the bird protection or is it two totally separate issues?

Madam Mayor, they are two completely different issues.

Okay, and it's the east building that you are asking about or the west building?

Both buildings would have an art or window display on their eastern side because of the way grade changes, that part of the low grade garage will be exposed based on the way grade is anywhere from 10 to 20 feet lower as we move from west to east. So the east wall of the west building will be exposed and the east wall of the east building will be exposed. And we understand the need to have you break up the wall. You don't want a whole plinth of wall. So we understand why there's a need for fenestration. But we came up with the art idea. And actually, if you've ever seen the mobile art on the garage downtown near the Twins Field, I mean, it's kind of a cool effect. And it would be just fantastic if we can get it done. We'd love to do it. But I have a few other things you want me to do. And so we had said, well, let's make sure we have an option.

So now that you've clarified where it is, You're asking to be able to either do the artwork or glass blocks, not actual windows.

Correct.

Because I don't think actual windows would be appropriate.

No, we don't want, for security reasons, we don't want windows in a garage. But I'll tell you, if I may, the west building, second phase, which would be facing our connecting path to the park, is a much more art priority for me than the east building that's facing the wall of the ice rink. So if I had to make a decision, I could do one or the other. I would act on the art next to the path before I eliminated both. I would try that. But I would just like to have the option because it's just expensive.

All right. Other comments, questions?

I think after we make the motion, I look forward to council discussion on some of these items. You've done detailed notes on where there are issues with the applicant, but I think I have no further questions for the applicant. Thank you very much.

Thank you.

Okay, so for discussion, I will make the initial staff recommended motion, and then we can discuss any amendments that are desired. Scroll into the recommended action. I move that we approve a resolution approving a conditional use permit and site plan approval for the multifamily residential development of 290 units of two buildings at 6501 Portland Avenue subject to the conditions recommended by staff.

I'll second that.

All right. So we have a number of items to go through. We have, well, I'll just move through my amendments first so that we can get to some of the ones the applicant recommended.

Do we want to first vote on whether it's going to be approved in general or not, or do you want to go into the specifics?

Parliamentary, you have to do each amendment first, and then you vote on the overall thing at the end.

Although I would say your concern regarding, if it was something that would result in an amendment, your concern about the housing diversity, I think that either could be, I don't know how it could be an amendment because it's so fundamental.

Yeah, I get that.

Well, let's go through these and we can discuss. Okay. So I don't think there's actually any objection to M&A, but just I do want to just like big picture why I propose these two amendments about walking and biking. This, you know, is a relatively parking light building. They are granted discretion because they are assuming that more people are going to be walking and biking to this building than a typical building in Richfield. They have a reduction in the required parking stalls because they're close to a mass transit line, close to the D line. And because the expected population of these buildings at least initially is going to be in their view with lower driving population So I think it's especially important to be very clear when we require pedestrian circulation and bicycle circulation and parking that we ensure that those are high quality experiences that actually allow bike biking and walking or taking transit to be viable transportation options and Amendment A, that has to do with they're proposing a lot of back of curb sidewalks, and that can comply, that can be compliant, but when you have a larger vehicle or really any vehicle with the hood going over the sidewalk, that can create an obstruction that makes it not possible to pass with a wheelchair. So I'm asking that they find some solution to that, specifically that we add a condition. So I will move that we add a condition that pedestrian routes through the property must maintain minimum ADA clearance on sidewalks that abut parking stalls at a perpendicular angle. including when vehicles are parked in these stalls.

I'll second that. Discussion?

I'll be voting in favor of those, but obviously that doesn't mean I'm approving the whole thing. Yeah, understood.

I think this is reasonable, and it didn't seem like the developer objected to that, so I think we're fine. So all in favor? First of all, is there any further discussion?

And again, just to clarify, you're only voting yes, no on this amendment, not the overall approval. Yes. Okay.

So on amendment a all in favor, please say aye. Aye. All opposed. So amendment a passes.

Okay. So amendment B, um, that we received some more feedback from the developer on, but our existing language and city code is that we allow enough space around park bicycles for user access and clearance. Um, In my opinion, staff made an error in not considering the fact that parked vehicles would be in vehicle parking spots in that. But I'm asking that we make this very clear by saying that if you have to move a car to access the bike, that should not count towards the minimum. Now, the developer mentioned that it is a benefit, and they are certainly free to add additional spots above the required spots in those locations. Among the concerns I have, again, they are receiving a lot of flexibility, 45 spots in reduction. on the assumption that people are going to walk and bike more. If you have to have a car parking stall, you have to move your car in order to access the bike. The bike is not a very useful transportation tool. They're just not providing enough spots that are actually usable on their own and are viable for transportation purposes. I was deliberate in this language to not have anything that would suggest they can't add additional amenity spots above the thing or long-term storage spots. I just want to be sure that the minimum of one per unit is met without requiring a vehicle or other object be moved in order to access the bike. On the back, I provide examples of this so you can see this. I realize not everybody might know bicycle parking, but these are approximately the three things that are described. So the typical wall-hung spots above the thing, you can see that you can't possibly access the bike with the car parked there. Some residents might not object to that, but the reality is, like, if you're not a licensed driver, if you're the kid here, this is a family-oriented building. You can't move the car to get to the bike. I think this is a reasonable requirement, and there are a number of ways that the developer could achieve this. They could add an additional structure if they wanted to. They could fit more in existing walkway spaces. they could potentially use some of the main floor amenity spaces for some of this if they wanted. So I think there are a number of ways to achieve this. All we are asking for is one spot per unit in a building that's expected to have more than one resident per unit be accessible without moving cars. So I move that we add a condition that the bicycle parking minimum for both buildings should be met in a manner that allows enough space around parked bicycles for user access and clearance. Because an occupied parking spot could not reliably ensure this, bicycle parking installed within a vehicle parking stall may not be used towards the minimum bicycle parking requirement.

Is there a second? Second.

Okay, it's been moved and seconded. Is there discussion? I would be okay with the first sentence of it, that allows enough space to get access because I was picturing things like outside the building, making sure it was space. But I do think if you're the person that owns the parking stall and you have the bike there, you can make adjustments for what you do. So I do think that's kind of a reasonable thing to say it's okay. So I would like, be okay with the first sentence, but not the second one.

Well, to be clear, the first sentence is just repeating what is in code. So we wouldn't need to move on that. I don't think it's reasonable to expect that because in part, we have no guarantee that people will be installed in the long term. This is a permanent approval that sticks with the building forever. The requirement that parking spots be bundled are only tied to the time period of it being senior or affordable housing income restricted. The bicycle parking requirement, if we go lax and we don't expect them to meet that now, means that in the future, you could have somebody that doesn't have a spot in the building and thus doesn't have access to those bike racks. And frankly, it is to the developer's benefit that we included that language. We do not require that as a permanent condition. Again, you don't require that a spot be assigned to each apartment in the long term of the building. It's a very minor cost in the total thing. Obviously, Mayor, of course, you are free to object to it, but I think it is reasonable and I think it is possible to achieve this.

All right. So any further discussion? All right. So we have an amendment before us all in favor, please say aye.

Aye.

All opposed. And I'll say nay. And so the motion passes and we've adopted the amendment. All right. So moving on, we are now talking, let's go through probably the suggestion to go through the, Conditions makes a lot of sense. So I don't think there were anybody bringing up anything about the site perimeter walks. We've already dealt with that with the amendment. So item C has to do with accommodating, make sure there's an access connection so that we can do that. So do we have any comments or questions about whether to go with this language or amend it?

Go ahead. I feel the city attorney has adequately addressed this the only way that I would see to address the applicants Remaining concerns if they still are concerns would be to require that they build it now, but I don't think anybody's really asking for that I think it is very clear that they're not asking the developer to pay for a road outside their property But just to arrange their property with this in mind, so I'm happy with the existing language

Okay, and it sounds like it can't just be on a whim. It has to be something that's an impact of the subject site, according to that. Is that correct? All right. That is correct. Thank you. Moving on to item D. Anybody have anything they want to talk about here?

No, but I would just... I don't think there's any objections from anybody, but just to clarify that there is a requirement that rent be bundled with the, excuse me, parking be bundled with the rent, and that is for the life of the age and income restrictions. But in a future point, that could be unbundled. I think that's an appropriate measure as opposed to requiring it being bundled forever, because if it were a market rate building and had to be bundled, they would just increase the rent. Whereas right now, they at least have an upper limit on the rent they can charge because it is income restricted.

All right, thank you. Anything about item E or F? Okay, so item F, when it says shall remain transparent, that would allow film to be put on it, right? Because you can still see through it?

Yes, that is correct.

All right. Then item G is the amount of windows, balconies, and art shall not be reduced in size or number from these approved plans. And there was discussion of that. Does anybody have anything they want to bring up on that?

Madam Mayor, just a point of clarification. I believe the developer was asking that they be given flexibility to install glass block versus the art, if that is what worked out. I do want to clarify that the code says that they need 30% of the area of the ground floor to be windows. We would not consider glass block to be windows. So what they were proposing at that time would not meet code. So that would not be an administrative approval. Unless you said here, yes, glass block is fine. If you, the council, made that decision.

So I was understanding that it was in lieu of artwork, which is also not a window. So is That, can you help me understand?

Yes. We specifically called out the art in this condition and in the staff report to say that staff found it to be an adequate, if not better, alternative to the code requirement for Windows. That's why it is in here as specifically as it is. What the developer stated at the dais was that they would like the option to consider glass block. which would not have been an approved alternative when this was reviewed at the staff level. If the council would like to consider that, then I would ask the council modify the condition to specifically say that you are okay with glass block meeting this requirement.

I do believe that we need to keep the art on the west building for sure, but I think that we could have a discussion about the east building since it's basically facing the wall of the ice arena. What do people think about that?

Well, I would say first off, I don't support giving a specific exception to use Glass Block. I think it's deliberate that we promote transparency. Yeah, looking into a garage is not the most compelling thing, but it does look better to see real windows than Glass Block, and there's a reason that's in the code. I don't necessarily have an objection to sort of flexibility of art versus windows when we agree that the art is fine. I just don't know how to do that without kind of writing a blank check. So that's my concern.

All right, other comments, questions? Does staff have a suggestion of a way to write that so that it's not a blank check as you said?

Council Member Hayford O'Leary, could you repeat your concerns for me?

My concern is that, like, I am fine with conceptually what the applicant described, that they would like to do windows or art on the ground floor and have flexibility between those, but I don't know how to facilitate that flexibility without, like, I think this requirement is important. I don't want them to shrink all the windows by 40% and say this is the same project. So I don't want to remove it, but I don't know how to achieve what they described, which I think is generally reasonable.

Sure, and maybe city attorney teaching can weigh in when I suggest some language. I think that you could add a sentence here that would say that in places where art is shown on the approved plans, the community development director has the authority to grant an alternative design, which would include windows that meet code requirements.

Okay.

Did you catch all of that?

Yeah, hold on.

I have in places where art is shown on the approved design, the community development director has the authority to, and then I... To approve windows as allowed in code.

I guess we could say in lieu of art. That's fine with me. I don't know if anybody else is motivated to make an amendment.

And I guess I'd ask the developer if you want to come up if there's any comments you have on that. All right, so the safety part you're talking about is to prevent break-ins.

These windows will be at pedestrian level.

Okay.

Can it be made clear that if glass block is to be used, it's only to be used where the garage is? Is it possible to add that line? It's just on those two garage walls. Staff have an opinion on that?

That would be up to council. I do want to clarify that we do not allow bars in the windows, so that wouldn't be an option.

Thank you. But could I ask the applicant, regarding the flexibility of windows versus art, is that fine with you?

Yes. As long as it's windows that I can protect my residents with. Regular windows with a glass bar or a glass block, which we can make look prettier.

That's the thing was we can't do bars. So basically the question is, are we allow going to allow them to switch it over from art to glass blocks?

Well, no, I don't. I think that's a distortion of art. Like I don't support giving this one property, a special exception to use glass block just because it's the developer's preference to use glass block in that situation. There are other buildings in Richfield. In fact, I could point out that Henley has windows into a garage. I'm not sure that one has ever been broken. I don't think just because this applicant prefers that material that we should allow that. So to me, at least the amendment that I would be prepared to make is to give them discretion to swap windows and art as they see fit and as approved by the community development director. I am not in favor of allowing them to use glass block.

Okay.

So I'm thinking that chances are that they're probably going to just stick with the art then. There would be no point in making the amendment.

To me, I think it still makes more sense to give them the flexibility to choose.

Okay, well, do you want to go ahead? Yeah, sure.

I'll make the motion. I move that we amend item G to append the sentence in locations where art is shown on the approved plans. The community development director has the authority to approve windows as allowed in code in lieu of art.

All right. Is there a second? Second. Is there discussion? All right. I'm thinking at this point I'm probably going to go for the original wording and not the amendment, but anyway. Okay. All right. All in favor, please say aye.

Aye.

Aye. All opposed? And I'll say nay. All right. So we have added that amendment. I'll call it Amendment G for the record. I don't know how else to do this. Yeah. All right. So I don't think there was any issue with landscaping. Sanitary capacity issue is going to be dealt with. Moving down to EV chargers, was that resolved?

Yes, the EV chargers. Unless you would like to change the number of requirements, this requires them to meet the code.

Okay. but we are having them near the entrances and things like that for fire safety. Yes. All right. Then brings us to item L, the grading and construction plans to comply with tree preservation plans. Is there a later talk of the tree preservation plan or is that?

I think this is it. Okay. Yeah. So to just remind myself and if others can correct me if I'm wrong, this is the applicant saying there's a conflict between the tree preservation plan and the desired arrangement of the line for the fire hydrant? Okay. Does staff have any thoughts on that, the issue that was raised?

This is the first that we have heard tonight, that the developer's civil engineer disagrees with our engineer's take on the situation. I haven't had a chance to confer with engineering. When I initially had the discussion with them, they felt that a trench may not even be necessary, that it would be pretty close. There was also an option to slide the building slightly south, but they said to address it all, just use a trench box. So I would have to go back to them and say that the developer disagrees with this. I don't know why that would be. So I don't have a good answer for you other than that our engineers felt like this was a solution.

So the first part of what you said was that we could just be installed a little out of trench box and probably would be fine.

That is what our engineering department said, yes. They said it would be close, but it looked to them like there was enough clearance to do it without a trench box. They said to be certain a trench box could be enclosed or could be used, yes.

And then this is the first I'm hearing about just having a closed dead end versus a loop. And I'm assuming there's a reason that the fire chief wanted the loop.

It is our public works department and they feel strongly that this is a best practice for water service delivery and design. And that is why they've requested the loop. If we're installing new utilities, public works feel strongly that they should be installed to best practices. And so they feel strongly that this loop should be required.

All right. So does anyone have any feelings about this particular issue?

I mean, public safety, especially with units this large, certainly seems important and takes priority over the possible potential loss of trees. And if public works is telling us that this is the best way to... assure public safety, I would go with the recommendation from staff.

But just to clarify, I believe the recommendation from staff is that they disagree with the conflict that's been stated by the applicant and that there is not a conflict, I think, between what Public Works wants and what the tree preservation says.

But maybe I misunderstood. I thought you were saying that staff is recommending doing it a certain way that there's greater assurance that water would be provided in the case of an emergency, correct?

Correct. The Public Works Department has stated that they would like the water line to loop around the entire building rather than dead end. And they do not see a conflict between that requirement to loop and the tree preservation plan as it's written in the Veterans Park overlay. They believe that both of those things can be achieved.

So what's before us is to do it in a loop?

That's correct.

Okay. So is there anybody who wishes to make any amendments? No. Okay. Letter M, I think that's all been dealt with for the landscaping. So then we'll move on to letter N about the bird collision.

Yeah. I wonder if we want to discuss maybe O first and if we decided on a change to O that we would probably need to add something to N to cover that as well. Just because O is the more specific requirement about the bird collision plan.

Okay. Okay. I am certainly not an expert. I think putting film around the whole the windows on the first floor takes us a long way towards what we want to do. Because I do think it's important and we've been hearing from residents that it's very important and I think having a plan in place makes much more sense than simply just counting how many birds die the first year. So I don't know enough about this whether 48 or 45 is the correct number, but I do think it would be good if we can get assurances that we get film on that first level at least. I don't know what other people think about that. Like I said, I am not an expert.

Well, I think I want to clarify with staff because it almost sounded like We have this general requirement for a bird collision reduction plan. The applicant proposed using building materials to achieve that goal, and then is also saying we can't require building materials, which we never did. I think they suggested the building materials, and I understood that correctly. So I guess my question to staff to clarify, is it possible to meet this requirement without specifying specific building materials?

Council Member Hayford-O'Leary, members of the council, yes, that is what we are doing. We do not believe that film on windows is building materials. The applicant is free to meet this requirement in whichever way they choose. In regard to installing film on the first level, I will tell you that we don't know numerical difference that will make this is the first that we've heard that the applicant is willing to consider installing the film and so I you know I don't have those calculations I can't tell you what that impact will be from their existing threat factor to lower but we have revised the condition to say You know, you're either going to meet the threat factor of 45 using B3 or some other calculator or otherwise quantitatively reduce the anticipated bird collisions. So what we need from them is something that shows us where they are and what this new plan that they've proposed tonight would do. We don't know that right now.

I would say I think. I appreciate Director Palin pointing that out, that they have the option to present to staff an alternative approach. I think that provides adequate discretion for them to, because I will say this is one of the things that has stood out on specific details of the site that we've heard the most from the public about is they are really concerned about this. This has been in the plan from the get-go. Like you, Mayor, I don't know the exact correct way to do it, but I think that staff have provided a reasonable solution in providing different alternatives to achieve this. So I would prefer we leave the language as is.

So this has come up a couple of different times where there's a new thing that came up just this evening or today that we haven't had time to look at. If we approve the conditions as we have with a couple of amendments, does that preclude the developer after coming back to us and saying, hey, would you reconsider this? Here's more information. rather than just guessing.

Madam Mayor, are you asking if the developer could come back and ask the Council for additional discretion? For instance, if staff found that their proposal did not meet these requirements, could they come back to you and present new information and ask you to change the conditions?

Yeah, that's kind of what I'm saying.

Yes, they could request an amendment and come back to the council. They could request a staff-level amendment. Depending on what they're changing, there are minor amendments. And if they disagreed with the decision at a staff level, they could appeal that to you. So, yes, there are ways for them to come back to you and request adjustments.

Because I'm hesitant to just... for lack of a better term, give away the store when we don't have the accurate information. But if we could say that may be reasonable and if you come back with us with better information that we've had time to analyze, we could reconsider in the future. Is that legal? I'm trying to figure out

Mayor and counseling Director Palman I think is correct as far as the process goes there can be an amendment to the conditional use permit With new information. I would say too that the condition as proposed Does allow for some flexibility with the similar amount? And so I think that was intentional to provide for some additional flexibility there. I suppose and I director Palman can I interject if she disagrees, but I suppose an option could be to give staff some discretion there with a particular range or something like that. But it's written in such a way to provide that flexibility and staff was trying to be reasonable in that respect.

Because I do agree that this is the thing we've heard the most from the community, and people have spoken up a lot. So I think it's important that we make sure that we are protecting the birds because that is a valuable part of our community, and people have made that very, very clear. So at this point, is there anybody that wants to make any amendments?

No, but I do want to just say I agree with what You said that I am hopeful this can be resolved with the discretion already available with staff, but if not, I am open to hearing an amendment on that item. So in the future.

All right. Is there anything else?

I think those are all the specifics.

All right. So we have made three amendments.

Actually, I do have one last question.

All right, go ahead.

As far as M, comply with all setback and landscaping requirements, does that include the fencing? There's supposed to be fencing that separates the property from, I believe, the parking lot of the hockey rink. Is that included in this requirement of setbacks and landscaping requirements? Or is that someplace else in here?

That is included, although it was listed as one of the discretionary items. So as the property owner, adjacent property owners can waive certain requirements. certain requirements and there is normally, there would be a fence required between this property and the north side of the pool. As the property owners, you can waive that requirement in discussions with Parks and Rec that seemed reasonable to them. There's a significant grade change, there are trees there. It could be, although we would not allow snow storage on our property, there may be a little bit of room there to provide for that. And so staff's recommendation was to waive that requirement.

Was there also fencing on the east side in between? I thought there was fencing on the east side.

There is not fencing. There is significant landscaping included between the ice arena and the building, as well as a walking path.

So the fence is only on the south side in between the?

That is the only fence that we would be waiving, yes.

That we would be waiving?

Correct. There is a fence around the dog enclosure area. I believe that is the only other fence. Yes, I'm getting a head nod.

There is no perimeter fencing at all? What's that? There is no perimeter fencing at all?

Correct. Okay, thank you. I would agree that that's reasonable. All right, so any further discussions? I did have one question after we decide this that I wanted to ask the developer, but it's not to do with this, so I want to keep things clear. Any other questions? All right, so we have a motion with three amendments. And so now we're discussing the motion as amended. So I believe, Council Member Burke, you had more you wanted to say.

I just want to explain my vote. I'll be voting nay. And again, I'm focusing on the housing variety. You know, I watched the Planning Commission last meeting, all two hours of it. I've looked at the surveys. I've listened to the public comment. And... the explanation from staff, there is a reason why there was an expectation that there'd be a difference in the variety of the buildings themselves, not the purpose, not who's living there, not the intent. Um, and I know that another council member has brought that up earlier. Um, and I, you know, I appreciate the developer explaining the financial constraints that, that they're under. Um, But that is a special piece of property. And I think if that had been focused on and if that had been addressed, a lot of these problems and all these different conditions that we're talking about would have gone away. There'd be less concern with bird strikes. There'd be less concern with parking and bicycle spots and so many other things would have been taken care of if that had been taken care of, if the housing variety had been taken care of. And so it's not easy for me to make this vote. I know that more housing is important. I know this is a quality developer. But this is why I'll be voting nay. I just want to make that clear.

So anybody else have any other comments? Council Member Hayford-Leary.

I will be voting in favor with the amendments in place. You know, I think the intent of a good zoning code is that there can be projects that aren't exactly what you would have wanted and they still get to move forward because the goal is to be fair to everyone, to be fair to what the community wanted, to be fair to what the developer and the property owner, whether it's a single family homeowner or a much larger developer. With regard to Council Member Burke's comments, yeah, it is squishy on whether it's really meeting that intent, but I do feel like that's just such a fundamental thing. I don't feel like I can... hold this project against it at this point. I think at this point we're perhaps being a little bit generous to the developer in interpreting the two different intended audiences to achieve that. I also think I might have preferred the vision that you're describing, but I feel like it's just too large of a change, and I do think with that generous interpretation it is met, so I'm prepared to support it. I do also want to acknowledge, as frustrating as some of these things have been, both staff and the developer, a lot of these things have been done according to the community's vision, and I think that's important to recognize. We're worried about lots of little details on this, and they're important to get through, but broadly, I think that the overall vision of what was seen in the site is being met here, and I think it's worth recognizing that, so I do appreciate that.

Any other comments? No. Well, the only thing I would mention is I agree with Council Member Burke that variety in housing is needed. It really is needed in Richfield. But we're really kind of landlocked here. We don't have a whole lot of property. available to us that affords us the amount of housing we need. And sometimes to make a decision on putting smaller units or something like that in, that's all well and good, but we also need to look at the number of housing issues that we need, the number of affordable housing that we need. So I would just agree with Council Member O'Leary that we do need to approve these amendments.

I also agree that if it's meeting the code, that's one of the things with land use is that we are obligated to approve it if it's meeting the code. And I think we've put the reasonable conditions on here. So I would say that I would be in favor of voting for this because we do need the housing and we have worked very hard, the developer and the staff and all the community members in figuring out a compromise of how we can move forward with this. So I will be voting in favor of this as well. Any further comments or questions? All in favor, please say aye. Aye. All opposed?

Nay.

Okay. And the motion passes. Um, so I had one more question and if Mr. Min, if you'd be willing to come forward, um, I w I sat in at the planning commission to listen to hear what the public had to say. And I heard a number of, um, concerns raised about the public hearing regarding financing the project. And the city has just concluded a significant discussion regarding the impacts of the 4D1 class rate for affordable housing. So would you let us know if you plan to return to the city or the HRA at this time to request financial assistance or letters of support for financial assistance from their project? I'm just curious if you've decided if you're going to be seeking out financial assistance.

Madam Mayor members of the council. Thank you for that question. We have read with interest your Priorities and procedures that you're adopting today by consent and the June changes to your plan As I read the changes you made to the plan you just disqualified my project from qualifying for your trust fund and for TIF So I'm not sure why I would apply if you've disqualified me. I mean your statement is Your policy no longer allows projects over 80 units. I'm over 80 units. Maybe you don't support affordable housing. I cannot produce this project without using 4D and without some accommodation with supportive funding. We were going to come and ask you for your trust fund. We were told by staff to expect maybe about half a million dollars as your ballpark for each phase. That's what we've represented to the county and to Met Council and to others. And if that's off the table, I'm going to either have to find other funding or this project won't happen. It's as plain as I can make it. And disqualifying me from your trust fund and not being able to get to TIF, I could probably work a way around not doing TIF. I think that's kind of, given the way the 4D class right now works, TIF is not nearly as important as it used to be. but I will need authorization to go get bond authority from Minnesota Department of Revenue. You have to make an enabling resolution to do that, and I have to make an application to Met Council. You can do that by letter. You don't have to actually pass a resolution. I've already received money from Hennepin County, which we got without your consent, but we'd like your support for it. So if you're amenable to amending your policy and allowing us to come in for the trust fund, we would like to pursue that with some vigor, and I'm prepared to make that application quickly. But we're going to need a letter of your engagement for the Met Council and for sure to get the bonds from Minnesota Management and Budget.

Thank you. That helps clarify what's coming up and what we need to discuss in the future.

Thank you for asking.

And then a question for staff. Given that answer... and the way our policy is, can they apply for us to say, hey, would you reconsider this project even though given the policy? They can make that ask?

Well, Madam Mayor, anyone can apply for financial assistance from the HRA, yes, and they could request that you make an exception to your policies, yes.

Okay, thank you. Thank you. And thank you to everybody for the time. And I'm glad I asked the question because I think that would be the next step in the process. And I appreciate all the time that everybody has put in. Thank you. With that, we will be moving on to item 12A. Council Member Burke.

So the item for consideration is to consider the Charter Commission's recommendations for amendments... to the current city charter by ordinance and publish a notice of public hearing on the proposed city charter amendments. Charter Commission is recommending amendments to several sections of the Richfield City Charter related to election petitions. The proposed amendments would align the charter with petition form and content requirements established in Minnesota rules and reorganize the charter's petition requirements to make them easier for residents to use and for city staff to administer. Charter Commission voted on August 19th, 2026 to recommend amendments to sections 4.05, 5.04, 5.05, 5.10, 5.12, and 5.15. Staff have any comments or additions?

Mayor and Council, I'm available for questions if the Council has any or to give a brief background for the reason for this.

Yes, that would be wonderful if you could do an overview.

Thank you. I'll just give you a real high-level summary. These proposed amendments to the charter were triggered last year when the League of Minnesota Cities did kind of an overall review of city charters in Minnesota. A number of cities received the same message that they were missing the requirement to include the birth year in various election petitions So that's what started the conversation. I brought that to the Charter Commission and after further discussion They agreed with making those making that change to align the Charter with state rules and in addition there was a Also discussion about amending the charter to make the petitions more accessible to residents. And so the commission is going to be recommending amendments that would do that. The action tonight is a preliminary action, which just involves having the council accept the letter from the Charter Commission, which gets the time clock going, and then authorizing staff to publish a public hearing notice. This would be an ordinance that would go through the normal ordinance procedure with two readings. It also involves a public hearing. so that the public would have a chance to weigh in on this as well. So if the council takes action to accept the Charter Commission's letter tonight, then a notice of a public hearing would need to be published within the next month, and then the public hearing would be scheduled. And we're tentatively planning on October 13th, depending on when the notice can be published in the newspaper.

The only question I had is procedurally. Can I make this a single motion? There should be two separate motions.

You can go ahead and do that in a single motion.

So you've made that motion?

So I'm making the motion to accept the letter from the Charter Commission transmitting the recommendations for proposed amendments to the Richfield City Charter and to authorize staff to publish a public hearing notice. Second.

Okay, it's been moved and seconded. Is there any discussions? I also want to thank all the Charter Commission members and all the staff that worked on this because I do think it's going to be much cleaner and easier for everybody to understand. All right. Any other discussion? All in favor, please say aye. Aye. All opposed? And we have approved the Charter Commission amendment. Thank you. Next, we'll move on to the city manager's report. Assistant City Manager Tongvan.

Mayor, City Councilman, thank you. I would like to address and respond to comments raised during the last City Council meeting at the open forum regarding the use of FLOC, the Automatic License Plate Reader, or ALPR. We take great concern with privacy, accountability, data collection and use, data retention, and access very seriously. These are important considerations whenever technology is used in service for public safety. Our police department has done an excellent job proactively addressing many of these concerns through the frequently asked question documents available on our city website. I encourage residents to review the resource The FAQ is a living document and will continue to be updated as we receive additional questions and as we identify opportunities to provide greater clarity and transparency. The city and the Ridgefield Police Department are committed to responsible use of technology. We are fully compliant with statutory requirements and have completed the required biannual audit. The goal is to use effective technology to protect our community and assist crime victims while maintaining strong legal safeguards, privacy protections, accountability, and transparency. We recognize that public trust is essential. Our commitment is to continue answering questions, providing information, and ensuring that these tools are used responsibly and consistently with both the law and the community's expectations. Thank you.

Thank you. Are there any comments or questions? Go ahead, Council Member Hafer-Leary.

I just want to say briefly I appreciate staff's effort to get more information out there and to respond to some of the concerns. I also want to acknowledge that a lot of the concerns are not technical. They're sort of morally and how do we weigh these issues, and those are things that can't be answered in an FAQ. So I sort of welcome the council continuing to discuss this issue and figure out what the right way to respond to the community concerns are. But I do appreciate all of the safeguards the staff have put in place to make sure that if we are using this technology, which we currently are, that it's as safe and responsible as possible. So thank you for that.

Also, I don't know, I might be stealing council member Burke's thunder, um, about the human rights commission is look, is planning to have a panel discussion in October and more information is to come out in that. But on this topic, because people showed up at the human rights commission and, um, asked for more information and gave a lot of questions. And I know the, Police Department's working on getting the answers to the questions because a lot of them were technical and about things like that. One of the gentlemen that spoke at the Human Rights Commission wanted to know if we could document whether there was any change in effectiveness of policing because of the cameras. And I remembered that in the city budget presentation, there was a thing about the clearance rates for violent crimes. And so I asked Chief Enthorn to go back and look at before and after to see if there was any difference in that. And so he's gathered that information, and I think that'll go up on the Frequently Asked Questions website in the next day or two in an effort to answer that question so people can see whether it affected the clearance rate for violent crimes and that kind of stuff. So I guess I'm saying you should watch for that because it should be coming out. That'll come up a little faster than trying to dig through all the contract things that happened. Any other questions or comments? All right, thank you. So then we will move on to the council discussion and we'll roll that together with the liaison reports for the Hats Off to Hometown Hits. So Council Member Christensen.

Thank you. I just wanted to remind people of the upcoming Penn Fest coming up on Sunday, September 20th from noon to 5 p.m. It goes all the way from Crosstown all the way down, I believe, to 76th Street and Penn Avenue. Both sides, there's food trucks, there's hundreds of vendors, city staff is represented, all sorts of different activities for all ages are going to be there.

Thank you. Councilman, we're here for Larry.

I just wanted to share that last week, the Transportation Commission, we did our annual moving meeting on bike, looked at a number of construction sites across the city. It's just a great opportunity for us to get out to see some of the project sites that we talked about, that the commission talks about, and see progress on it. So some things that we looked at this year, we took a look at, well, it's not a new thing, but some of the challenges of crossing 35W at 66th Street with that interchange. We talked about the future 73rd Street overpass. We took the bike route along the south side of the crosstown, looked at Penn and talked about how a future Penn might make that more bike-friendly. And then got to see some of the Safe Routes to School items. The one by Sheridan Hills is fully complete, and it looks really nice with the sidewalk over there. So it's always fun and great that so much of the commission can join in that meeting.

Thank you. Council Member Burke.

The only thing I'll add from the mayor's comments about the Human Rights Commission is that I believe the chief of police is trying to get a Representative from flock to be there also someone who works with government relations, so that would be Really good reason for the public to be there to hear from a representative from flock and I'm sure they'll Try the best to answer any questions about what flock is doing with information And since city manager Rodriguez is out of town at the moment

she had asked when she gets back, she'll be talking to the council to figure out which council member will be on the panel. And so just keep that in mind that that's coming up, but we wanted to be respectful of her to wait until she got back for that. So I believe it's coming up probably October 6th, but I don't want to say for sure because they were still working out the final details. Thank you. I wanted to, do a little promotion for the postcard that you all got in the mail, hopefully about great plans, great cities. We're kicking off the comprehensive plan, um, process and incorporated into that plan. There's things like the parks master plan and a number of other things. And so it's, we're going to be asking for your input for the next, you know, a couple of years for doing some longterm planning of what we want to vision for the city. And so they're, We're getting it set up on the website. You got the postcard here, so please, please, please tell us what you think. We need to hear about that. Another good piece of information is that if you're a small business owner, we have a thing called the Business Bulletin, and in that there's all kinds of details about a new program we're starting called Revive. It originally was gonna start earlier, but we, We backed it off a little bit to provide an opportunity to get some assistance to businesses that had been impacted by Operation Metro Surge. Since that has gone through and we've provided that assistance, now we're back to the original revive program. So if you have an older building and whether you rent it or own it and you want to do some upgrades, we can try and get you some funding and you can apply for it. So look in the business bulletin or go on the website to look for the revive information. Finally, the city manager has announced that she is going to be retiring in early 2027. And so we have posted the position. And so if you know anybody that wishes to come work in Richfield as the city manager, that position is open until the 27th. And we also, I believe, are posting and looking for a fire chief position. So our interim fire chief, Kappa, has been kind to help us out and doing a lot of great work. And he's also helping us to find his replacement. So if you know anybody that qualifies for those two positions, please let us know. Thank you all. I know it's been a late night, but I think there was a lot of important discussion and it's important to take the time to talk through all of those issues and do true deliberation. So thank you all for your time. With that, we would be, have a motion in order to adjourn the meeting.

So move. Second.

It's been moved and seconded. All in favor of adjourning the meeting, please say aye.

Aye.

All opposed? And we stand adjourned.