►
From YouTube: November 26, 2018 Committee of the Whole
Description
Minneapolis Committee of the Whole Meeting
A
Morning
my
name
is
Andrea
Jenkins
I
am
the
vice
president
of
the
City
Council
and
chair
of
this
committee
of
the
whole
and
I
am
going
to
call
to
order.
This
special
meeting
of
the
committee
for
Monday
November,
26,
2008
eeen,
put
me
at
the
diaster
today.
Our
council
members,
gordon
Palmisano,
johnson,
goodman,
ellison,
straighter
council,
president
bender
councilmember,
cunningham,
fletcher
right
coño
and
let
the
record
reflect
that
we
do
have
a
quorum.
A
So,
colleagues,
we
only
have
one
single
item
on
today's
agenda,
and
that
is
the
draft
2040
comprehensive
plan.
Today
is
the
first
of
two
markup
sessions
that
are
planned
to
allow
council
members
to
consider
any
amendments
to
that
draft
plan.
It
is
our
hope
that
we
are
able
to
bring
forward
and
dispose
of
all
major
proposals
to
amend
the
plan
today
and
to
use
the
second
markup
session
to
review
and
finalize
the
entire
document
prior
to
the
formal
consideration
of
the
entire
plan
by
the
full
City
Council
at
its
regular
meeting
on
Friday
December
7th.
A
So
before
we
began,
I
would
like
to
take
the
opportunity
to
review
the
timeline
that
has
been
an
important
part
of
this
work
and
stretches
back
to
the
prior
council
term
in
2014,
when
the
Metropolitan
Council
began
its
work
to
identify
long-range
trends
and
its
plans
for
addressing
some
of
those
issues.
The
Met
Council
provided
a
policy
level
guidance
for
local
jurisdictions
in
its
thrive,
MSP
2040
plan,
which
was
done
in
2014.
A
The
city
of
Minneapolis,
as
with
other
metro
area
jurisdictions,
was
involved
in
those
early
plans
which
helped
to
shape
the
creation
of
the
city's
draft
comprehensive
plan.
That
work
has
been
ongoing
since
that
time,
tracking,
almost
four
years
that
have
shaped
this
draft
a
lot.
This
draft
long-range
plan
for
the
future
of
Minneapolis
in
2016.
A
The
Council
adopted
a
resolution
that
formally
directed
our
long-range
planning
team
ncpad
to
bring
forward
a
comprehensive
plan
for
the
city
of
Minneapolis.
That
was
in
alignment
with
the
Met
Council's
policy
guidance
and
would
satisfy
the
requirements
of
the
Metropolitan
land
planning
act.
Our
long-range
planning
team
had
been
involved
in
every
aspect
of
that
work
and
that
has
included
multiple
public
engagement
efforts
to
inform
the
community
about
this
work
and
to
provide
opportunities
for
participation
in
the
development
of
every
aspect
on
that
plan.
B
B
Morning,
council
vice
president
and
council
members
I'd
like
to
introduce
the
2040
comprehensive
plan
draft
that
is
before
you
this
morning.
It
is
the
result
of
almost
two
years
of
community
engagement
over
200
public
meetings
over
18,000
comments
received
on
the
initial
draft,
which
was
released
in
March
of
this
year
and
additional
comments
received
through
the
clerk's
office
for
the
draft
that
was
released
as
a
final
draft
in
September.
B
B
Both
meetings
were
well
attended
and
we
stand
ready
to
answer
any
questions
you
have
this
morning
in
front
of
you.
You
have
a
series
of
text
amendments
and
then
a
series
of
map
amendments
and
in
the
audience,
is
our
planning
manager,
Paul
Mogis
and
our
project
leader,
Joe
Bernard,
and
so
we
all
stand
ready
to
assist
this
morning
and
please
let
us
know
what
we
can
do.
Thank
you.
A
Thank
you,
miss
Worthington,
and
so
now
I
will
summarize.
The
process
will
be
following
today
in
processing
amendments
again.
It
is
our
hope
to
bring
forward
all
substitute
amendments
today,
so
that
we
can
ensure
the
draft
plan
is
updated
prior
to
the
next
markup
session.
That
will
allow
all
policy
makers
and
the
public
to
review
the
current
status
of
the
plan
prior
to
final
action.
So
again,
as
I
already
stated,
today
is
the
first
markup
session.
A
When
we've
completed
our
work
today,
the
draft
plan
won't
be
updated
to
incorporate
all
amendments
we
approved
and
will
be
forwarded
to
the
regular
Committee
of
the
Whole
meeting
on
Wednesday
December
5th
for
second
review
and
potential
markup
to
put
the
chat
plan
and
final
plan.
Once
we
have
the
draft
and
final
form,
it
will
be
forwarded
to
the
full
council
for
final
action
at
its
regular
meeting
on
Friday
December
7.
A
A
A
First,
we
need
to
consider
the
recommended
amendments
that
have
been
ported
to
us
by
the
Planning
Commission.
As
you
know,
the
Planning
Commission
did
it
out
several
recommended
amendments
and
its
agenda
on
October
29th
following
this
public
hearing,
and
those
amendments
are
recommendations
to
this
body.
A
A
Just
want
to
reiterate
that
we
will
be
using
speaker
management
today
and
Kelly
will
be
helping
us
to
manage
the
queues.
So
please
be
sure
to
sign
in
to
speaker
management,
if
you
haven't
already
done
so,
and
the
first
packet
includes
those
recommendations
from
the
Planning
Commission
that
are
not
going
to
be
considered.
A
Which
have
been,
which
have
not
been
identified
by
council
members
to
be
incorporated
as
formal
amendments
to
the
Comprehensive
Plan.
Those
items
will
be
deleted
from
the
agenda
and
I
will
give
give
you
the
council
members
a
moment
to
review
those
items
on
the
first
Planning
Commission
packet,
which
the
clerk's
have
distributed
at
the
dais.
C
To
clarify,
then
the
packet
that
is
in
front
because
there
are
several
the
packet
before
the
council
right
now
should
be
labeled
CPC
number
one
CPC
number
one
includes
recommended
amendments
that
were
forwarded
to
us
by
the
Planning
Commission,
which
have
not
been
identified
by
any
single
council
member
to
carry
forward.
So
the
proposal
is
to
eliminate
delete
from
the
agenda
and
not
take
further
in
this
process.
All
of
those
recommendations
listed
in
the
packet
labeled
CPC
number
one.
A
D
You
manager,
I
just
have
a
question
so
I'm.
Looking,
for
example,
at
amendment
number,
two
which
I
am
a
very
keen
interesting
is:
is
it
just
that
the
general
language
and
what
strict
stricken
out
and
what's
underlined,
is
all
going
to
be
eliminated
in
this
proposed
in
this
proposal?
So
all
of
these
things
that
are
on
here
are
being
eliminated
or
what's
being
eliminated,
is
what
struck
out
and
what's
being
added,
is
what's
underlined,
I,
don't
understand
how
to
read
this.
A
E
Vice
president
Jenkins
councilmember
Goodman
in
packet
number
one.
What
you're
looking
at
are
on
mend
mens
that
were
forwarded
to
the
council
recommended
to
the
council
by
the
Planning
Commission.
So
if
you
vote
in
the
affirmative
on
an
item
in
this
packet,
you
are
voting
to
not
accept
that
recommendation
from
the
Planning
Commission.
D
G
Just
there
is
more
general
language
in
in
goal:
5
action,
step
F,
but
this
language
really
doesn't
work
for
many
parts
of
the
city
that
are
have
a
variety
of
development
patterns
or
parts
of
the
city,
they're
transitioning,
from
one
used
to
another,
such
as
industrial
to
residential,
so
I've
moved
to
strike
this
and
to
rely
on
the
more
general
language
that's
found
in
goal:
five
action
step
F
and
for
the
second
one.
Similarly,
this
is
about
protecting
solar
air
rights
and
there
is
a
more
general
statement
in
goal.
G
Sixty
nine
action
step,
G
that
talks
about
encouraging
solar,
friendly
design
and
provision
provisions
that
protect
solar
access
and
I
think
through
ordinance.
Any
councilmember
could
take
this
a
step
farther
and
write
more
specific
regulations,
but
that
this
amendment
that
the
Planning
Commission
brought
is
very
detailed
and
includes
language
that
isn't
legally
defined,
so
that
would
really
be
best
served
through
an
ordinance
and
then
I'll.
Just
briefly
comment
on
the
industrial
land.
G
I
think
the
intention
from
the
Planning
Commission
was
to
look
at
parts
of
the
city
that
are
zoned
for
production
and
processing
that
that
have
high
development
potential
in
terms
of
their
built
form.
But
that
said,
I
do
still
support
the
amendments
that
council
members
work
in
Palmisano
brought
I
think
we
are
down
to
a
very
small
part
of
our
land
area
that
is
now
available
for
production
and
processing,
and
we
need
to
be
very
careful
about
encroaching
on
that.
G
H
Thank
you.
I
just
noticed
that
there's
two
of
these
items
eleven
and
thirteen
that
have
my
name
listed
as
somebody
proposing
them
from
removal
number
eleven
actually
has
to
do
with
policy.
Seventy
five
and
later
there'll
be
an
amendment
where
I
just
added
language
to
this
Rockwell's,
so
it
well
hopefully
I'm
assuming
that
amendment
gets
approved,
that
language
will
still
be
in
the
plan.
So
it's
a
little
bit
confusing
that
it's
removed
here.
D
Gordon
I
have
an
entire
policy
new
policy
that
takes
all
of
the
language
referring
to
shoreland
overlay
views,
historic
structures,
that's
being
introduced
in
the
master
Amendment,
which
would
address
these
issues.
So
basically,
staff
was
good
enough
to
look
through
the
entire
plan
and
to
take
all
of
the
things
that
had
to
do
both
with
historic
context.
So
the
view
sheds
and
environmental
protections
and
put
them
into
a
new
policy
called
preserving
and
enhancing
public
lakes
and
waterways,
ensuring
ongoing
preservation
and
improvement
of
the
natural
and
built
environment
near
City,
lakes
and
waterways.
D
J
D
H
I
appreciate
that
I
think
this
is
what
I'm
concerned
about
the
few.
Everybody
probably
maybe
as
follows.
A
little
of
this
with
some
of
the
historic
landmarks
in
the
city
that
aren't
near
water,
so
I'll
keep
that
in
mind
and
I
guess:
I'll
watch
carefully,
I'm,
not
necessarily
gonna
move
the
prongs
or
amendment
right
now,
but
we'll
see
how
where
it
lands
later.
K
Thank
you,
madam
vice
president
I
appreciate
the
commentary.
You
know
specific
uses
in
mind
that
require
production,
appreciate
hearing
that
even
future
industries
that
are
not
the
active
in
our
community
would
be
accommodated,
but
even
current
ones
would
not
be
accommodated.
If
we
did
not
have
this
land-use
and
many
of
these
things,
we
celebrate
cultural
quarters,
arts
districts
brewing
areas.
These
are
the
things
that
really
make
a
lot
of
vibrancy
and
they
absolutely
require
an
industrial
or
as
we're
calling
in
our
production
area
and
I.
K
Think
the
jobs
component,
that
was
a
case
was
very
well
made
from
staff,
not
only
in
terms
of
the
use
in
the
economic
development,
but
there's
a
sociological
factor
to
this
when
they
analyzed
who
gets
paid
in
these
places.
People
of
color
get
paid
and
paid
well
extremely
well,
statistically
significantly
well,
and
that's
something
we
can't
ignore
as
well.
Given
our
overarching
goals
around
equity,
that's
where
the
rubber
hits
the
word
wrote
in
terms
of
economic
empowerment,
and
if
you
don't
have
proximity
to
opportunity
in
many
cases
you
don't
have
opportunity.
L
Thank
you,
madam
chair
I,
just
wanted
to
say
that
you
know
this
under
number.
One
I
appreciate
come
summer,
bright
and
Palmisano
bringing
forward
the
language
flexibility
around
generally
versus
strictly
I,
do
have
problems
with
prohibited
I
think
that's
pretty
heavy-handed
for
a
future
that
we
don't
quite
know
what
it's
going
to
look
like,
or
what
kind
of
technology
is
going
to
be
available
or
what
kind
of
projects
creative
projects
could
come
together.
L
If
so,
I
think
the
word
prohibited
might
cause
some
problems
in
the
future
interpretation
of
those
policies
and
decisions.
So
I'm
just
curious
about
why
you
know
prohibited
was
I,
guess
favored
over
something,
that's
a
little
bit
more
flexible
like
discouraged
or
you
know,
dependent
on
other
issues
where
I
do
see.
Some
of
that
language
is
built
into
some
of
these
other
amendments
kind
of
down
lower
on
the
page.
Mr.
E
My
supposed
to
Jenkins
council
member
kind
of
be
happy
to
address
that.
First,
a
the
use
of
the
word
prohibited
a
council
member.
It's
a
it's
a
term
that
is
very
specific
to
the
zoning
language.
Now,
of
course,
we
are
not
at
the
point
of
Zoning
yes,
so
we
do
all
need
to
be
cognizant
of
the
fact
that
this
comprehensive
plan
is
lays
out
a
framework
and
policies
for
setting
us
up
as
a
city
to
then
implement
it
through
regulation.
E
In
the
zoning
code,
I
will
say
that,
on
that
staffs
intent
here
was
to
use
that
Ward
to
be
extremely
extremely
clear
that
that,
if
this
policy
is
adopted
by
the
council
in
the
comprehensive
plan
that
proposals
for
housing
would
not
be
considered
in
production
areas,
now
I
want
to
couple
that,
though,
with
an
acknowledgement
that,
on
the
future
land
use
map
in
this
draft
plan,
there
are
two
different
land-use
categories
that
deal
with
production
and
processing.
The
subject
of
this
text
that
we're
talking
about
here
is
the
production
and
processing
category.
E
It's
that
small
subset
of
the
city
that
councilmember
Wright
was
speaking
about
just
a
moment
ago,
where
the
intent
is
to
make
sure
we
are
protecting
those
areas
for
future
employment
uses.
There's
a
second
category
in
the
draft
future
land-use
map
called
production,
mixed
use.
That
is
very
much
in
line
Council
Makana,
with
what
you
just
described
about,
allowing
that
you
know
kind
of
a
a
mix
of
creative
uses,
creative
production
uses
and
and
housing
in
some
cases
in
in
those
areas.
A
M
A
Next
I
will
move
to
approve
all
recommendations
submitted
by
the
Planning
Commission
that
were
not
identified
by
council
members
to
be
set
aside
for
further
modification
prior
to
formal
action,
so
the
next
packet
that
includes
those
recommendations
from
the
Planning
Commission,
which
the
council
will
be
accepting
and
incorporating
as
amendments
to
the
copy,
has
a
plan
as
they
were
submitted
to
us
without
further
modification
and
I
believe
that
would
be
a
CPC
amendments.
Packet
number
two
and
since
I'll
get
folks
a
little
bit
a
chance
to
look
that
packet
over.
A
So
sorry
again,
the
motion
is
to
adopt
all
the
recommended.
Amendments
in
the
second
packet
then
includes
all
recommendations
from
the
Planning
Commission,
which
were
not
previously
identified
by
any
council
member
for
further
modification
and
which
will
be
in
which
we
will
be
accepting
and
incorporating
as
formal
amendments
to
the
draft
comprehensive
plan.
A
N
You
Venom
chair
I'd,
like
to
pull
item
number
29,
it's
related
to
lighting
at
nighttime.
It's
it's
well
intentioned,
but
I
would
say
that
the
way
that
this
language
is
written
flies
in
the
face
of
a
lot
of
the
best
practices
that
are
emerging
around
dark
sky
friendly
ordinances,
and
that
is
something
that
supported
elsewhere
in
the
comp
plan
that
we
developed,
such
an
ordinance
and
so
I
think,
there's
a
way
to
better
achieve
the
balance
of
what
the
intent
of
the
author
is
with
the
latest
best
practices.
A
Thank
you,
council
president
ender
thank.
G
You,
madam
chair
I,
just
wanted
to
speak
generally
in
support
of
the
amendments
that
the
Planning
Commission
passed,
which
I
think
really
fall
into
three
major
categories.
The
first
is
strengthening
our
city's
commitment
to
fighting
climate
change
and
I
was
really
struck
during
the
public
hearing.
How
many
people
spoke
very
passionately
about
the
issue
of
climate
change,
particularly
those
who
are
younger
than
I?
G
So
I
really
think
that
the
detail
that
the
Planning
Commission
took
in
some
of
these
specific
amendments
related
to
design
are
important
and
then
the
third
is
things
that
are
focused
on
making
sure
their
infrastructure
is
ready
to
support
new
development.
If
we
are
going
to
focus
new
development
almost
entirely
new
near
transit,
as
we
have
been
doing
for
the
past
decade,
we
really
need
to
make
sure
that
our
transit
and
transportation
systems
are
set
up
to
provide
transportation
options
for
people.
I
The
amendment
text
does
prohibit
driveways
for
new
small
scale
residential
buildings
on
blocks
that
have
alley
access
that
is
similar
to
an
amendment
that
staff
helped
to
drop
for
me,
which
was
to
require
alley
access
for
all
three
plus
unit
residential
buildings.
So
my
intent
with
this
that
perhaps
is
satisfied
by
Commissioner
Rockwell.
I
It
is
when
we
have
things
on
corridors
on
future
transit
corridors.
We
don't
want
there
to
be
a
backup
in
requirement
and
for
people
to
need
to
ingress
or
egress
from
a
multi-family
structure
onto
a
future
transit
corridor.
So
my
questions
his
staff
is
what
is
the
intent
of?
What
does
new
small
scale
mean?
Does
that
mean
two
plus
units?
Does
three
plus
stories?
Can
you
help
us
to
understand
what
prohibiting
driveways
and
new
small
scale
buildings
mean?
I
I
A
E
Districts
are
referring
to
small
scale
residential
buildings,
presumably
their
zoning
code
that
results
from
this
document
in
the
future
would
would
would
treat
the
driveway
issue
according
to
this
action
step
the
same
way,
it's
there's
obviously
a
lot
still
yet
to
be
determined
by
the
council
later
on
when
the
new
zoning
update
is
is
considered
and
completed.
But
that's
how
I
read
that
action
step
so.
I
I
L
L
It
doesn't
meet
the
need
of
the
neighborhood
and
then
I'm
asked
them
to
rely
on
MPD
mobile
cameras
to
provide
that
extra
lighting
or
oversight,
so
I'm
just
curious
I
like
the
way
it
reads
now
and
and
I
wasn't
sure
what
what
you
were
saying
was
kind
of
what
it
was
in
conflict
with
so
I'm
talking
about
number
29.
N
D
You
mister
I,
just
wanted
to
point
out
two
things:
the
Planning
Commission
added
here
that
I
think
are
really
important,
not
overlooked,
but
not
highlighted
enough
item
number
30
requiring
new
developments
to
preserve
existing
mature
trees
in
the
public,
right-of-way
I
probably
put
a
period
after
that,
not
to
say
we're
reasonable
or
feasible,
because
we're
always
gonna
hear
it's
unreasonable
and
unfeasible
to
save
an
existing
mature
tree.
But
the
truth
of
the
matter
is
an
existing.
Mature
tree
is
worth
100
times
when
a
new
young
tree
would
be,
and
so
I'm
glad.
Mr.
D
Moreno
brought
this
up
because
we
see
this
time
and
time
again
where
trees
are
considered.
A
problem
for
development
and
cutting
them
down
is
just
seem
like
no
big
deal
and
actually
from
an
environmental
sustainability
perspective,
as
well
as
a
natural
environment.
Perspective
I
think
it's
important
for
us
to
value
those
existing
mature
trees
as
much
as
we
can.
I
also
want
to
commend
mr.
Rockwell
and
mr.
O
Thank
you,
madam
chair
I,
also
wanted
to
speak
to
I
am
29
I
agree
with
councilmember,
Cano
and
so
I
council
member
Johnson.
I
would
really
like
to
be
able
to
see
information
from
this
book
that
you
spoke
of
around
the
public
safety
aspect
of
it
around
lighting
policy
and
and
the
reason.
Why
is
because
much
the
same
as
customer
Cano
spoke
to
as
somebody
who
represents
an
area
that
that
has
high
crime
rates.
I
think
that
all
of
my
constituents
would
say.
N
You
veterans
here
I'm
happy
to
sit
down
with
councilmember
Cunningham
after
this
I
mean
it's.
It's
pretty
interesting
stuff
I
mean
oftentimes
when
you're,
for
instance,
lighting.
If
you
well
light
an
area
outside
at
3:00
in
the
morning,
if
there's
not
somebody
out
there
to
watch
that
area.
Typically,
all
you're
doing
is
helping
an
individual,
for
instance,
who
might
be
trying
to
burglarize
building
giving
them
adequate
light,
see
what
they're
doing
and
I
would
really
just
say.
N
I'm
pulling
the
policy
number
12
on
lighting
right
now
and
making
sure
that
lighting
contributes
to
safety.
Is
one
of
the
goals
of
this
I?
Think
it's
a
well-written
chapter
and
a
well
written
policy
and
I.
Think
staff
did
a
great
job
with
it
and
I
would
just
say
if
there's
something
that's
not
being
captured
there
in
that
policy
around
safety,
then
let's
work
together
over
this
coming
time
before
we
actually
take
up
the
final
version.
We
can
put
an
amendment
through
at
that
time.
P
Places
some
responsibilities
with
homeowners,
property
managers,
landlords
and
business
owners
in
the
way
that
this
amendment
does
and
I
actually
think.
That's
a
really
important
thing.
I'll
say
that
students
in
Dinkytown
one
of
the
most
important
things
that
the
Minnesota
Student
Association,
has
brought
to
the
council
as
their
big
priority
has
been
lighting
in
areas
that
get
very
dark
around
Dinkytown
and
create
areas
of
unsafety
and
so
I
think
similar
to
councilmembers,
cano
and
Cunningham.
I.
P
Think
one
of
the
things
that
we've
seen
is
that
there
needs
to
be
some
priority
on
this
and
I
think
paired
with
amendment
28,
which
educates
homeowners,
property
managers,
landlords
and
business
owners
about
best
practices,
around
efficiency,
around
dark
skies
policy,
around
non-glare,
etc.
I
think
this
is
these
are
very
appropriate
amendments
that
I'm
going
to
support,
leaving
them
in
as
they
are.
L
Thank
you,
madam
chair
I,
wanted
to
shift
attention
to
number
37
and
number
38,
and
perhaps
the
question
for
staff
and
our
council
members
working
on
the
I
believe
there
was
a
racial
equity
amendment
that
might
be
coming
up
later
on
today,
so
for
number
37
for
those
of
us
who
have
been
active
in
advocating
for
in
north-south
Greenway
and
who
actively
participate
now
in
the
Midtown
community
works
partnership
that
engages
the
Midtown,
Greenway
and
other
governmental
partners.
I'm.
Just
curious
of
this
amendment.
L
So
I'm
just
curious
if
this
is
connected
to
something
that
gives
a
nod
to
that,
to
that
additional
engagement
of
other
jurisdictional
partners,
who
are
often
key
in
allowing
to
unleash
the
city's
deep
appetite
for
fire
for
bikes
and
multimodal
transportation.
So
that's
one
question
then:
I
have
another
one.
Mr.
A
E
L
L
The
addition
of
the
addition,
I
believe
of
the
of
the
language
here
is
and
new
development.
Some
of
our
wards
don't
have
as
much
new
development
as
others
and
so
I'm
just
curious
about
how
a
racial
equity
analysis
can
be
inserted
here
or
is
a
connector.
Or
do
you
feel
like
the
racial
equity
language
that
might
be
coming
through
later
in
the
discussion
would
juxta.
You
know
it
would
kind
of
I
guess
like
impose
itself
on
to
this
sort
of
implementation
sentence
in
terms
of
understanding
that
you
know.
L
So
I'm
just
curious
about
how
we're
going
to
make
sure
that
this
kind
of
new
development,
language
in
relationship
to
public
transit
also
has
an
acknowledgement
of
a
racial
equity
lens
and
if
we
need
to
actually
amend
this
further
or
if
there's
more,
if
the
racial
equity
language,
that
a
few
other
I
think
council
members
are
working
on,
will
sort
of
trump.
This
and
and
provide
that
as
a
guiding
tool
for
this
for
number
38.
Mr.
E
Muggles
nice
present
Jenkins
councilmember
Cano
in
terms
of
I'd
like
to
in
terms
of
the
racial
equity
language
that
will
come
up
later,
as
a
proposed
amendment
from
councilmembers
I'd
suggested.
Deferring
to
that
discussion
when
that
comes
up.
I
do
want
to
point
out,
however,
that
in
this
instance
that
you're
talking
about
councilmember
Cano,
where
development
isn't
happening,
but
there's
still
a
need
to
make
improvements
to
the
public
realm,
including,
for
example,
transit
shelters.
E
L
G
I.
Don't
think
the
intention
here
was
that
literally
every
single
house
in
Minneapolis
is
can
is
contributing
in
that
way.
So
that
was
an
offer
of
an
amendment
that
might
help
meet
the
intention,
but
clarify
the
kind
of
scale
or
scope
and
then
to
councillor
mikanos
questions
about
the
race
equity
amendments.
Council,
vice-president
and
I
decided,
after
discussions
with
race,
equity
staff
and
planning
staff,
to
focus
our
changes
in
the
implementation
chapter
rather
than
going
policy
by
policy
and
inserting
race
equity
into
a
number
of
the
policies
where
we
could
have
strength
in
it.
G
That
way,
I
know
a
number
of
council
members
are
working
on
things
specific
to
race
equity
as
well
in
their
own
boards
or
citywide,
and
so
that
is
where
that
language
will
land
that
certainly
doesn't
preclude
going
through
specific
policies
and
adding
that
language.
But
that
is
just
the
approach
that
we
chose
to
take
after
many
meetings
and
discussions
with
those
two
groups
of
staff.
N
Johnson,
thank
you,
madam
chair
and
hopefully
I
can
just
suggest
compromise
in
language
to
address.
My
colleagues
concerns
I
would
say
on
item
12
G
policy,
12
G.
That
really
I
think
encapsulates
both
the
that
and
public
side
of
things
that
says,
update
city
regulations
to
reflect
best
practices
of
best
available
practices
related
to
dark
skies
and
the
environmental
benefits
of
strategic
lighting
management.
A
A
A
L
A
Motion
passes
and
those
items
have
been
approved
and
will
be
incorporated
as
amendments
to
the
draft
twenty
forty
company
as
a
plan.
Next,
we
will
consider
those
recommendations
from
the
Planning
Commission
that
have
been
identified
by
a
council
member
as
requiring
further
modifications
before
being
acted
upon
as
potential
amendments.
These
recommendations
are
included
in
the
third
CPC
packet
which
their
clerks
have
distributed
and
is
titled
CPC
amendments
packet
number.
Three
again.
A
E
You
know
the
green,
highlighting
you'll
see
this
in
some
of
the
packets
that
are
forthcoming
later
in
the
meeting
as
well.
The
two
that
are
grouped
together,
they're,
amend
the
exact
same
language
and,
if
they
were
both
approved
by
the
council,
would
not
provide
clear
direction
to
staff
and
exactly
how
to
make
the
Edit
on
the
plan.
So
the
council
will
need
to
reconcile
those
two
proposed
council
member
proposed
amendments,
either
by
choosing
one
or
working
together
to
amend,
to
find
one
common
amendment.
H
Okay,
so
with
that
understanding,
the
nine
and
ten
which
don't
necessarily
look
like
they
conflict
with
each
other
to
me,
it
looks
like
it
could
be
part
of
one
action
step
or
potentially
there
could
be
two
separate
action
steps,
one
we're
encouraging
retailers
and
manufacturers
to
reduce
and
eliminate
packaging.
That
could
be
done
with
incentives
with
educational
programs
with
other
things
going
on,
and
a
second
option
we
could
do
is
explore
additional
ways
to
disincentivize
or
prohibit
disposable
packaging
containers
and
carry
out
bags.
H
M
H
Actually
think
we
could
pass
both
of
those
and
staff
could
have
them
as
two
separate
action
steps
or
if
they
I'd
also
be
open
to
putting
and
and
make
it
one
action
step.
But
I
really
think
would
be
easy
if
there
are
two
action
steps.
So
with
that
in
mind,
I
think
leaving
them
both
approved
as
two
action
steps
isn't.
Keeping
with
the
motion
that
was
made
and
seconded
and
I
just
wanted
to
clarify
that
for
folks
and
also
wanted
us
to
all
get
a
training
in
on
what
the
dark,
green
highlighting
means.
Thank
You.
I
You,
madam
chair
I,
have
a
comment,
or
perhaps
a
friendly
amendment
to
amendment
number
10
from
councilmember
Gordon.
At
the
end
it
says
and
carry
out
bags
carry
out
bags
to
me
and
I
think
to
the
public
mean
any
type
of
carry
out
bag.
I.
Think
the
intention
behind
this
was
single
use,
bags
and
I'm
curious.
If
that's
true,
and
if
so,
would
that
be
a
friendly
amendment
that.
O
O
G
Thank
you,
madam
chair
I.
I
just
want
to
note
a
procedural
point,
which
is
that
I
think
we
have
a
lot
of
agreement
here
on
the
general
policy
direction
and
at
this
point
we
are
talking
about
sort
of
wordsmithing
policies
where
I
think
there's
unanimous
agreement
within
the
council.
So
I
don't
have
a
strong
opinion
about
the
specific
language
that
we
use
but
I'm
watching
the
time
and
just
want
to
make
sure
that
we
have
time
to
get
through
all
of
the
very
thoughtful
amendments
that
everyone
has
brought
forward
today.
G
So
I
wonder
if
it's
these
two
items
item
nine
and
ten
that
needs
to
be
pulled
off.
Perhaps
we
could
take
them
up
separately.
Perhaps
council,
member
Gordon
could
offer
something
I
just
I'm,
trying
to
think
of
how
we
can
sort
of
make
sure
that
we
get
to
all
the
really
important
items
in
today's
meeting
and
probably
don't
have
time
to
spend
like
a
half
hour,
on
particular
words
missing
items.
A
L
Thank
you,
madam
chair
I'm,
wondering
if
council
member
Johnson
would
accept
a
friendly
amendment
to
item
number
eight,
which
currently
reads
implementing
and
Ettore
recycling
program.
Maybe
I
should
say
programs,
but
doesn't
amendment
implement
mandatory
recycling
program,
that
includes
audits,
education
and
eventually,
penalties
from
compliance
and
I
would
like
to
add
in
multiple
languages
right
after
the
word
program,
and
then
I
would
like
to
add
outreach
in
front
of
the
word
education.
So
it
would
read,
implement
mandatory
recycling
programs
in
multiple
languages,
that
includes
audits,
outreach,
comma
education
and
eventually
penalties
for
non-compliance.
N
D
Sorry
to
jump
in
here
and
I
have
no
objection
to
what
council
member
Cano
is
suggesting,
but
I
want
us
to
think
about
when
we
look
at
the
statistics
for
who
actually
recycles
and
who
doesn't
it's
people
who
don't
have
any
other
problems
in
their
lives
who
are
able
to
recycle,
and
it's
generally,
people
have
a
lot
going
on
who
can't
recycle.
So
if
we
can't
educate
them,
we're
gonna
turn
around
and
penalize
them
find
them
seems
like
that
would
fall
disproportionately
on
people
of
color
people
who
are
renters.
D
People
live
in
buildings
that
don't
have
adequate
composting
or
recycling.
I
would
urge
us
to
take
a
step
back
and
think
about
who
that
could
affect
before
we
just
jump
on
penalize
people
who
don't
comply
because
I
assure
you
people
of
my
work
would
probably
have
a
pretty
high
compliance
right
rate
and
I.
Don't
want
to
guess
where
the
compliance
isn't
good,
but
I
doubt
it's
in
kenwood,
so
I
mean
if
we're
talking
about
racial
equities.
I
would
think
that
education
might
make
a
lot
of
sense.
D
R
I
would
like
to
actually
make
an
amendment
to
erase
the
eventually
and
eventually
penalties
for
non-compliance.
I.
Think
when
we're
thinking
about
you
know,
there's
like
a
movement
to
eliminate
bail.
There's
a
you
know
we're
trying
to
figure
out
how
to
not
get
people
parking
tickets,
we're
trying
to
figure.
You
know
like
we're
already
in
the
progress
of
trying
to
figure
out
how
we're
not
sort
of
adding
a
tax
on
to
people
who
are
already
facing
some
financial
difficulty.
R
You
know-
and
it's
sort
of
you
know
kind
of
getting
them
in
this
spiral
of
this
downward
cycle.
I
could
see
us
here
in
the
next
couple
of
years.
Saying
like
hey
penalizing
people
for
not
recycling
is
actually
she
created
more
problems
than
its
solving
and
so
I
say
yeah,
so
I
I
agree
with
councilmember
Goodman
I
I
would
like
to
make
it
I
would
like
to
strike
that
from
my
to
me,.
A
O
N
Thank
You
councilmember,
coming
ham
for
the
question.
I
did
not
clarify
that,
because
I
think
that
the
council
should
explore
that
we're
looking
at
implementing
the
program
and
I'll
also
add
in
just
a
clarification
that
penalties
may
not
necessarily
mean
fines
either.
There's
different
ways
to
look
at
that
so
and
that's
I
can
elaborate
on
that
comment.
So.
O
To
I,
guess
I
guess:
I
just
have
a
hard
time
being
able
to
understand
the
implementation
of
single-family,
home
residential
audits
and
then
being
able
to
then
somehow
like
it
makes
sense
commercially
like
I
think
that
this
could
make
sense
commercially,
but
I
I
think
that
within
my
ward,
individual
it
just
it
wouldn't.
This
would
not
necessarily
help
us
at
the
individual
level,
so
I
just
so
to
be
to
clarify
you
are
thinking
both
commercial
and
residential.
When
you
write
okay,
thank
you
and.
N
Madam
chair
I
would
just
say
on
this:
the
pieces
and
I
don't
want
anybody
to
forget
this
back.
If
people
do
not
recycle,
there
is
a
cost
to
that.
It
costs
less
to
process
recycling
than
garbage.
So
when
people
do
not
recycle
when
they
can,
everybody
else
is
paying
that
cost.
So
there
is
a
penalty
that
is
going
on
to
folks
and
it's
easy
for
folks,
with
higher
incomes,
to
just
pay
a
little
extra
for
that,
but
there's
a
cost
that
is
borne
by
everybody
for
that
so
I
think
in
the
spirit
of
compromise.
H
Thank
you,
I
appreciate
the
discussion.
I
think.
Actually,
this
this
idea
is
pretty
consistent
with
our
zero
waste
plan.
I
think
we
could.
We
could
lose
this
section
on
eventually
penalized
because
we
have
to
have
the
word
mandate
sitting
there.
So
what
the
heck
does
that
mean
anyway?
I
also
just
want
to
remind
folks
too
right.
Now
we
have
rules
and
regulations
and
mandates
about
the
garbage.
If
you
put
scrap
metal
in
your
garbage,
you'll
get
a
little
tag.
H
M
H
Big
stretch
and
what
we're
doing
right
now
to
try
to
organize
our
ways
to
manage
it
better
to
protect
the
city,
so
I
just
wanted
to
bring
that
up.
I'm
a
little
bit
ambivalent.
On
this
specific
amendment,
because
I
think
when
we're
mandating,
it
will
eventually
get
down
the
line
we're
going
to
explore.
What
does
that
actually
mean
with
your
citation?
I
will
say
typically
what
happens
now?
Is
people
get
a
card
with
the
warning
and
it's
circled
and
that
takes
care
of
it.
H
So
not
many
people
get
finds
about
putting
the
wrong
stuff
in
there,
but
we
do
reserve
I
think
some
authority
to
do
that,
because
we
actually
don't
want
paint
put
in
with
our
garbage
and
sent
to
the
garbage
burner
and
burn.
It's
important,
I
think
for
health
reasons,
as
well
as
trying
to
get
to
zero
waste
elsewhere.
O
Cunningham,
thank
you,
madam
chair
I.
Just
wanted
to
speak
to
research
about
behavior
modification,
so
I
as
a
special
education
teacher
was
trained
as
a
behavior
analyst
and
I
can
say
that
it
is
very
clear
that
incentives
change
sustainably
change
behavior,
while
penalties
do
not,
and
so
I
just
want
to
throw
that
out
there
not
just
specifically
to
this,
but
just
as
we
move
forward
and
how
we
think
about
how
we
relate
and
how
we
try
to
shape
and
change.
O
Population-Level
behavior
that
we
have
to
also
think
about
on
the
individual
level
and
individually
on
the
individual
level.
Incentives
work
far
more
and
more
effectively,
and
so
I
just
want
us
to
be
really
cautious
about
walking
down
a
similar
path
of
the
way
that
punishment
and
punitive
approaches
and
strategies
they
just
don't
work
sustainably,
and
whereas
incentives
do
so
as
we
are
thinking
thinking
forward.
Of
course,
we
want
to
hold
folks
accountable,
but
if,
ultimately,
the
goal
is
to
change
people's
behavior,
then
we
have
to
be
taking
that
in
consideration
as
well.
Thank.
A
L
Try
to
be
brief.
Thank
you,
madam
chair
I,
do
appreciate
the
language
around
incentives
and
more
about
accountability,
and
perhaps
that
means
you
know
we
all
dress
up
as
trees
and
go
in
front
of
the
restaurant
who
hasn't
been.
You
know,
recycling
and
saying
hey.
What's
going
on,
we
got
to
hold
you
accountable,
but
my
point
here
is
that
then
scent
if
piece
is
really
important,
because
sometimes,
when
you're
talking
about
some
very
small,
you
know
immigrant
owned
businesses,
making
a
change
on
recycling
actually
is
connected
to
a
broader
systems
need
within
the
business.
L
For
example,
if
you
go
to
Seward
co-op
you'll
see
that
some
of
the
things
are
color-coded
so
like
the
organic
section
is
like
green.
So
if
at
the
Mexican
grocery
store,
you
wanted
to
have
somewhere
where
the
organics
are
are
dumped
and
you
wanted
to
make
that
green.
That
means
you
have
to
buy
three
new
garbage
cans
to
do
that,
and
so
there
is
a
broader
conversation
about
how
do
we
shift
the
the
culture
and
the
economics
of
recycling
and
reuse
an
organics
waste
in
our
city?
L
R
Won't
belabor
this
just
to
say
that
this
isn't
a
conversation
about
whether
we
should
recycle
or
not.
It's
just
a
conversation,
as
councilmember
Cunningham
pointed
out
as
to
whether
penalties
gets
there
and
I
see
this
as
having
the
potential
of
like
the
the
worst
of
the
worst
right.
You
know
we're
gonna,
penalize
people
and
it's
not
gonna,
get
us
any
closer
to
our
recycling
goals,
and
so
so
that's
why
I'm
sort
of
gonna
keep
my
motion.
I
appreciate
the
compromise,
but
I
would
like
us
to
vote
on
this
item
as
the
as
the
clerk
articulated.
R
P
Thank
You
mr.
president,
I
can
expand
on
what
councilmember
Allison
said.
This
is
not
only
not
a
debate
about
whether
recycling
is
good,
but
it's
a
debate
not
just
about
whether
we
want
to
go
to
penalties,
but
whether
we
want
to
put
that
in
the
comp
plan
and
I
actually
think
it
makes
sense
to
consider
his
ordinance,
but
in
the
spirit
of
both
time
and
sort
of
keeping
this
document
at
the
level
of
sort
of
broad
policy
vision
that
we
need
to
I'm,
very
supportive
of
it
all
since
men.
Thank
you.
A
A
A
30
nice,
thank
you,
man,
I'm,
Paris
and
I
would
just
like
to
pause
here
just
offer
my
thanks
to
the
Planning
Commission
for
all
of
their
work
and
ideas
on
the
comprehensive
plan.
They
brought
forward
some
important
and
thoughtful
proposals
to
help
improve
the
final
plan
and
we
are
very
much
appreciative
of
their
efforts
and
engagement
over
the
many
years
so
on
behalf
of
the
entire
City
Council
I
will
extend
our
thanks
to
the
Planning
Commission
and
with
that
colleagues,
we
have
dispensed
with
all
of
the
recommendations
submitted
to
us
by
the
Planning
Commission.
A
A
C
A
We
have
identified
all
of
the
proposed
amendments
that
need
to
be
separated
for
additional
consideration
or
further
modification.
We
will
proceed
to
vote
on
the
remaining
items
in
the
packet
with
a
single
poll
similar
to
how
we
process
consent
agendas.
So
we
are
following
that
same
procedure
and
that
should
be
familiar
to
all
of
us.
One
difference
is
that
any
further
modification
that
might
be
proposed
will
be
a
second-level
amendment,
so
we
will
need
to
act
on
each
proposal
as
it
is
as
it
is
made.
O
You,
madam
chair
I,
just
wanted
to
call
attention
to
the
amendment
that
I'm
bringing
forward
for
goal
1
itself,
the
amended
language
that
I
am
bringing
forward
is
in
2040.
Minneapolis
will
see
all
communities
thrive
regardless
of
race,
ethnicity,
gender
country
of
origin,
religion
or
zip
code.
Having
eliminated
deep-rooted
disparities
in
wealth,
opportunity,
housing
and
safety
safety
and
health
I
just
wanted
to
explain
why
the
current
bill
as
it
is.
There
are
two
things:
first,
it
centers
whiteness
as
the
standard
of
success,
which
is
an
area
in
which
we
don't
want
to
begin.
O
Our
long
term
planning
is
from
goal
one
from
the
beginning,
centering
whiteness
as
the
standard
of
success,
and
ultimately
we
want
all
communities,
including
white
folks,
to
do
better
than
what
we
are
doing.
What
folks
are
doing
now?
We
want
everyone
to
succeed,
and
so
this
is
a
way
to
be
able
to
more
clearly
name
some
of
the
marginalized
classes
and
speak
more
directly
to
the
issues
that
we
have.
O
C
P
Thank
You
vice
president
Incans
I
want
to
know
in
g
1.8.
There
is
a
typo
just
fixed
institutes.
Two
institutions
and
I
would
move
an
amendment
to
strike
the
phrase
such
as
places
of
worship,
I,
think
they're
included
the
cultural
institutions,
but
I,
don't
necessarily
want
to
put
that
into
the
language.
N
A
M
C
G
I
You,
madam
chair
I,
when
I
sent
out
a
notice
that
we
were
undergoing
this
comprehensive
plan.
I
did
not
send
out
notice
to
all
property
owners.
My
intent
was
to
send
out
notices
to
all
residents
that
particularly
captures
renters
and
is
inclusive
and
adds
them
in
to
this
process.
So
my
understanding
is
that
si
ped
by
ordinance
keeps
a
list
of
every
known
residence
in
the
city
and
I
would
hope
that,
as
we
undergo
the
next
steps
of
the
implementation
part
of
this
comprehensive
plan
that
we
would
seek
to
involve
their
voices.
In
this
conversation.
H
Not
really
the
intention
that
any
time
we
make
a
future
new
land
use
their
zoning
change
as
a
result
of
the
plan,
we
deform
all
residents,
I
give
it
to
small
thing
in
Ward
2
and
we
realized.
Oh
somebody
wants
to
build
there,
we're
gonna
now
rezone
it
based
in
the
comp
plan.
So
maybe
we
need
to
if
we
say
the
impacted
residents
or
maybe
we
need
to
need
to
refine
this,
and
so
there's
a
little
more
guidance
to
ourselves
in
the
future
about
what
it
actually
means.
H
G
You,
madam
chair
yeah,
just
to
echo
that,
and
you
know
we
do-
have
a
lot
of
robust
policies
in
the
Comprehensive
Plan
that
are
related
to
community
engagement
and
I.
Think
those
things
are
really
important,
particularly
in
words
like
mine,
that
are
80
percent
renter.
We
really
have
to
go
a
lot,
a
long
ways
beyond
mailing
something.
G
If
you
sent
a
mailing
to
to
my
ward,
you
would
get
a
giant
number
of
returns
and
as
far
as
I
know
and
staff
can
correct
me
if
I'm
wrong,
we've
had
discussions
about
this
many
times
over
the
years
we
rely
on
the
property
owner
list
as
the
one
that
we
give
notification
to.
So
in
order
to
reach
renters
and
residents,
we
rely
on
neighborhood
organizations
on
social
media,
on
email,
on
websites
on
all
the
different
ways
that
we
fund
six
million
dollars
a
year
and
our
NCR
programs
specific
outreach
to
cultural
communities.
G
That
is
the
ways
that
we
are
really
committing
as
a
city
to
reach
all
residents
when
we
make
important
decisions
of
in
them
and
I
agree
wholeheartedly
that
we
need
to
do
better,
particularly
in
reaching
the
more
than
50%
of
our
residents
that
rent
their
homes,
but
I
would
I
would
really
be
concerned.
If
we
put,
you
know
this
amount,
the
amount
of
money
that
it
would
cost
us
to
send
a
mailing
to
property
owners.
P
Thank
You.
Mr.
president,
in
Cannes
I'm
wondering
our
city
staff
can
clarify
for
us
what
the
current
policy
is,
because
my
understanding
is
that
if
we
propose
a
zoning
change,
there
is
some
amount
of
notice
within
a
certain
radius
and
obviously,
if
we're
changing
zoning
that
impacts
the
whole
city
is,
is
I
guess.
My
question
is:
is
this
something
that
we
would
be
doing
already
is
this
sort
of
redundant?
Is
this
adding
anything
to
the
notice
that's
already
built
into
our
current
city
policies?
P
A
F
And
councilmember
Fletcher,
the
notice
is
driven
by
the
municipal,
Planning,
Act
and
state
law,
and
our
local
ordinance
state
law
requires
a
publication
notice
for
any
zoning
code
change,
whether
it's
a
text
change
or
a
map
change,
as
well
as
a
mailed
notice
to
property
owners
and
when
it
involves
an
area
of
five
acres
or
less,
only
our
ordinance
builds
on
that
minimal
notice
requirement.
It
includes
the
publication
notice,
a
mail
notice
to
register
neighborhood
groups
and
then
the
similar
mailed
notice
when
it
involves
an
area
of
five
acres
or
less.
F
Typically,
that
would
be
represented
by
someone
applying
to
rezone
a
specific
parcel
so
for
a
large
scale
of
amendments
that
we
would
enter
during
a
zoning
implementation
phase
that
have
been
initiated
by
the
City
Council.
In
this
case,
the
city,
the
only
legally
required
notices
would
be
the
publication
notice
and
the
mail
notice
to
registered
neighborhood
groups.
However,
it's
my
understanding
that
in
the
past,
where
there
have
been
rezoning
studies
and
a
large
number
of
reasonings
done
over
a
large
area,
it
has
been
C
peds
practice
to
give
individual
property
owners
mailed
notice.
F
D
Thank
You
Madame
sure
I
kind
of
see
this
as
something
we
absolutely
have
to
do,
and
the
fact
that
a
lot
of
people
are
saying
they
didn't
know,
not
everybody,
but
a
lot
of
people
are
saying
they
didn't
know
means
there's
been
some
sort
of
breakdown
in
the
system.
But
I
don't
see
this
amendment
as
requiring
mail
because
it
doesn't,
it
says,
inform
residents
of
the
new
land
use
and
zoning
changes.
So
there
might
be
multiple
ways
to
do
it.
D
In
the
advanced
notice,
ordinance
that
councilmember,
Schrader
and
I
authored,
we
required
property
owners
to
put
up
notices
in
their
Lobby.
As
an
example,
we
even
provided
a
template
for
the
notice,
so
we
know
we
can
reach
renters
and
in
the
ward
I
represent
citizens
for
Loring
Park
community
two
years
ago,
went
through
a
complete
rezoning
of
the
Loring
Park
area
and
Hill,
and
there
are
tons
of
renters
in
Loring
Park
and
we
were
able
to
get
noticed
via
mail
by
the
city
to
every
one
of
those
folks.
So
it
is
possible.
D
It's
just
a
question
of
using
multiple
different
ways
of
doing
it.
We
probably
can
use
utility
bills
for
some
people.
We
can
use
mail
for
other
people.
We
can
use
our
model
of
advance
notice
for
rental
protections,
for
others.
I
think
we
just
need
to
simply
make
a
commitment
to
notify
people,
and
we
can
like
all
of
the
other
thousands
of
ideas
in
this
comp
plan,
they're,
not
all
going
to
be
law
tomorrow.
D
Someone
suggesting
that
you
know
something
happens
in
this
plan
someone's
going
to
have
to
take
that
issue
up
and
run
with
it
over
the
next
ten
years,
and
so
it
sounds
like
councilmember
Palmisano
has
said,
she's
going
to
run
with
it
and
try
to
figure
out
how
it
would
happen.
I,
don't
think
you
should
count
on
everyone
up
here,
joining
you,
but
as
long
as
someone's
willing
to
take
it
on
as
their
issue.
We
have
to
have
multiple
ways
of
notifying
people
of
zoning
changes.
I
So,
in
fact,
my
intent
was
simply
about
the
implementation
phase
of
the
2040
plan.
This
was
not
a
forevermore,
but
because
we
are
taking
a
very
bold
approach
with
rezoning,
an
enormous
part
of
our
city
and
that
I
do
believe
that
that
has
been
a
factor
in
the
frustration
and
anxiety
is
voiced
by
constituents
here
through
the
process
I
also,
as
I
was
just
conversing
with
councilmember
Gordon
I
do
not
believe
that
the
zoning
changes
need
to
be
sent.
I
My
understanding
of
how
we
implement
this
per
the
long-range
planning
director
is
that
we
will
do
this
by
geography,
whatever
geography
that
is,
if
that
is
by
Ward,
that
is
by
segment.
If
we
parcel
this
out
by
Ward
and
we
go
through
the
implementation
phase
of
the
2040
plan
by
Ward,
then
I
would
anticipate
that
we
would
be
looking
to
send
all
residents
in
that
Ward.
A
piece
of
mail
was
my
intent,
though,
as
you
pointed
out,
what
sending
doesn't
necessarily
mean
mail
that
we
are
going
through
this
process,
as
the
city
attorney
suggested.
I
This
is
something
that
in
practice
we
have
done,
but
because
there
is
a
five-acre
rule
and
anything
larger
than
5
acres
does
not
require
this
notice.
I
would
like
our
commitment
to
inform
residents
of
this
implementation
of
the
2040
plan.
I
do
believe
it
was
missed.
It
is
a
lesson
learned
from
the
beginning
of
this
process.
I.
L
Thank
you,
madam
chair,
for
me.
The
way
that
I
connect
to
this
specific
amendment
is
that
if
you
recall,
when
we
had
our
public
hearings
on
the
comp
plan,
there
were
very,
very
few
people
of
color
that
came
to
testify
and
a
much
smaller
amount
of
immigrant
folks
that
were
able
to
engage
with
this.
So
I'm
I'm,
looking
forward
to
working
with
comes
from
a
Palmisano
and
I'm
looking
at
how
we
form
people
about
not
only
the
changes,
but
not
only
that
the
change
is
happening,
but
what
that
change
means.
L
What
do
we
do
with
our
multilingual
communities
in
our
immigrant
communities
that
may
also
be
facing
similar
challenges
and
getting
through
to
access
the
information,
so
I
think
we
do
need
to
figure
out
how
we
communicate
these
important
decisions
that
we're
making
about
how
our
city
is
going
to
grow
who's
gonna
benefit
from
that
growth,
who's
going
to
benefit
from
that
density?
How
is
that
being
managed?
How
is
that
being
shaped,
because
there's
a
lot
of
conversations
that
relate
to
wealth,
building,
wealth
and
equities
racial
justice,
racial
and
equity,
within
all
of
that.
M
L
Of
knowledge
that
a
lot
of
people,
don't
even
know,
is
happening,
so
my
concern
is,
is
along
similar
lines
but
perhaps
looks
in
a
different
way
in
that
I'm
interested
in
seeing
some
of
this
information
again
be
distributed
in
multilingual
manners
being
shared
in
in
a
way
where
folks
not
only
are
given
the
notice
of
here's
the
day.
The
change
is
going
to
happen.
Here's
the
time
and
here's
what
the
landlords
are
going
to
be
receiving
in
the
mail
but
more
about
well.
What
does
that
mean
from
my
neighborhood?
L
What
does
that
mean
for
my
community?
What
is
what
does
this
actually
mean
for
for
the
long-term
viability
and
health
of
our
city,
so
I'm
I
connect
with
this
a
lot
and
I
know
it's
going
to
be
heavy
work
to
unpack
all
of
those
years
of
outreach
and
civic
education
that
the
city
should
be
doing,
but
I
meant
I'm
looking
forward
to
digging
in
so
thank
you,
councilman
Palmisano,
for
bringing
this
up.
G
You
madam
chair
I'd,
like
to
move
an
amendment
that
reflects
the
discussion
we've
had,
which
is
to
strike
by
sending
out
notices
to
all
residents
and
adding
communicating
through
multiple
methods
in
multiple
languages
which
I've
emailed
to
the
clerk
and
to
the
council.
So
the
final
version
would
read:
inform
residents
of
new
land
use
and
zoning
changes.
That's
in
the
2040
plan
by
communicating
through
multiple
methods
in
multiple
languages.
I
You,
madam
chair
I,
do
need
to
speak
against
this
amendment,
because
I
believe
that
this
is
what
we
tried
to
do
with
the
comp
plan
this
year.
I
think
that
the
proposed
language
covers
exactly
how
we've
been
communicating
this
2040
plan
this
past
year
and
what
I
am
suggesting
here
in
this
amendment
is
that
we
need
to
do
something
specific
and
something
different.
I
do
also
I
had
been
next
in
queue,
and
I
had
tried
to
modify
the
amendment
to
something
that
I
think
would
address
the
concerns
that
were
previously
stated.
A
Ok,
so
councilmember
Gordon.
H
So
that
was
just
my
thought,
because
I'm
starting
to
get
a
little
bit
overwhelmed
by
this
one
particular
amendment,
we
have
a
lot
more
to
cover
I'm,
not
gonna,
move
to
table
I
guess,
but
a
lot
of
people
nodded
their
heads
and
I
said.
Maybe
this
is
something
we
should
set
aside
and
bring
it
back
next
meeting.
K
Right
this
would
echo
what
comes
my
record
and
just
suggested
I
think
when
we
do
find
that
we're
close
on
something,
and
it
needs
a
little
bit
of
more
detailed
work.
That's
best
done,
maybe
off
the
dice,
and
then
we
presented
out
in
the
Dyess
when
we've
had
that
time.
So
I'm,
just
echoing
with
cosmic
coordinate,
suggestion
and
I,
wouldn't
move
to
a
table
that,
if
that's
the
appropriate
motion,
no.
A
A
G
Right,
council
members
are
looking
over
the
seven
items,
please
feel
free
to
add
yourself
in
queue.
If
you
would
like
to
pull
any
items,
I
would
like
to
pull
item
G
2.1
for
discussion
and
I'll
pause
and
see
if
there
are
any
other
council
members
in
queue
to
pull
items
before
we
vote
on
the
rest.
So
I
will
go
ahead
and
move
to
through
seven
and
see
if
anyone
else
wants
to
pull.
G
N
Johnson,
thank
you,
madam
chair,
when
I
sent
this
over
to
staff,
I
noted
in
the
I
had
a
comment
which
was
basically
a
question
on
this,
and
so
honestly,
if
folks
aren't
comfortable
with
this,
we
can
leave
it.
The
whole
reason
I
brought
this
forward
and
and
the
question
the
staff
was
basically
if
we
have
in
I
believe
it's
transit
30
a
minimum
of
10
stories.
Why
would
we
not
have
a
slightly
higher
minimum
in
core
50?
It's
not
my
ward.
It
was
just
an
idea
and
so
I'll
do
whatever
people
want
on
it.
D
Support
this,
so
we've
had
a
lot
of
very
good
positive
conversations
with
developers
about
increasing
density
voluntarily,
and
it's
happened
over
and
over
again.
I
can
point
to
Krause
Anderson's
new
headquarters
block
to
the
project
that
Krause
Anderson
is
doing
jointly
on
the
Block
next
to
them
where
they
come
in,
with
like
six
or
eight
stories,
and
we
say
to
them
no
way
you're
not
doing
that,
and
they
say
alright,
we'll
rethink
it.
I,
don't
think
we
need
to
have
a
man,
people
who
are
operating
downtown
know
they
have
the
best
zoning
possible.
D
They
can
build
pretty
much
as
high
as
they
want
and
they
work
towards
doing
that.
I.
Don't
think
it's
very
friendly
to
businesses
to
tell
them
that
there's
a
difference
between
ten
and
twelve,
but
I
do
I
do
think
there
has
to
be
some
minimum.
I
mean
we
can't
always
be
successful
in
getting
them
to
build
big,
build,
build
big,
build,
build
big
buildings,
but
somewhere
around
ten
or
twelve
makes
the
most
sense
because
you
have
to
change
your
construction
type,
add
additional
elevators
and
there's
an
increased
constable.
D
P
Goodman
said
most
of
what
I
was
thinking,
but
I'll
just
add
that,
because
you
have
to
move
away
from
stick
building
to
a
concrete
building,
you
know
at
six
or
seven
storeys.
We're
not
gonna
get
any
ten
story
proposals
anyway.
So
this
isn't
going
to
have
a
lot
of
impact
and
there
are
a
couple
of
lots
in
the
core
50
where,
if
we
had
a
12
story
proposal,
I'd
be
pretty
ecstatic
to
see
something
built
there.
So
I,
don't
necessarily
want
to
foreclose
that
possibility.
K
Right,
thank
you,
madam
vice
president,
and
just
extending
the
comments
by
up
of
Goodman
and
Fletcher
I
think
we
have
good
examples
when
we
want
to
very
specifically,
for
very
specific
reasons,
have
a
minimum.
That's
larger
we've
been
successful
in
that,
but
in
a
very
targeted
way,
I
would
say
the
Nicollet
Hotel
block
would
be
a
great
example
of
having
a
much
higher
minimum
and
getting
a
much
different
result,
but
having
that
intentionality,
knowing
that
that
specific
site
would
support
something
like
that,
and
anything
less
would
be
against
our
policies
and
objectives.
K
I
mean
there
might
be
some
other
areas
in
that
broader
lots
in
that
broader
area.
That
might
be
a
different
challenge.
I
think
this
flexibility
and
our
past
practice
would
indicate
we
could
achieve
the
spirit
of
councilmember,
Johnson's
intent.
While
maintaining
the
insights
that
the
the
Ward
council
members
have
expressed.
L
Wanted
to
give
a
nod
to
this
issue
that
we
raised
during
our
strategic
planning
for
the
City
Council,
which
was
a
this
issue
of
supporting
the
local
economy
by
both
welcoming
and
supporting
small
businesses
and
workers,
and
so
I
just
want
to
make
a
note
on
G
2.6
that
this
could
be
a
way
where
we
could
add
a
little
bit
of
language
on
the
workers
issue,
so
regularly,
review
and
update
city
ordinances
policies
and
processes
to
make
them
friendlier
for
small
businesses
and
workers.
So
that's
something
we
could
consider
for
either
today
or
Wednesday.
L
C
N
A
A
M
B
A
D
Thinking
manager
I'm
just
wondering
if
councilmember
Gorton
will
yield
to
a
question
council
member
Gordon
I
asked
you
this
via
email
to,
and
you
talked
any
housing
staff
about
all
these
ideas.
I
mean.
Did
you
just
like
take
every
idea
that
you
had
with
regard
that
affordable
housing
and
toss
it
into
the
comp
plan?
Because
there
are
probably
things
in
here,
our
staff
could
not
do
couldn't
support
have
too
much
stuff
going
on
on
their
work
plan.
H
H
H
I
might
have
emailed
you
back
about
the
30
to
50,
but
maybe
it
didn't
email
didn't
get
through
yet
yeah.
There
is
some
pushback
about
that.
So
this
is
where
it
says
we
should
pursue
policies
in
term
and
tools
and
programs
to
ensure
long
term,
housing,
affordability
and
the
the
recommendation
was
such
as
requiring
the
maximum
affordability
term
of
at
least
30
years,
and
the
suggestion
was
to
pursue
something
long
lines
of
50
years.
H
This
is
a
stretch,
goal
and
might
even
take
some
state
law
changes
or
who
knows,
but
in
20
years
we
can
pursue
these
things,
so
that
was
the
idea
was
to
pursue
it
and
definitely
there's
people
who
come
back
and
say
that's
gonna,
be
really
difficult
and
challenging
to
do
might
even
require
us
to
add
some
incentives
and
as
soon
as
we
did
create
some
incentives,
even
like
hooking
them
up
to
40
along
the
way
we
might
get
to
50.
But
I
wanted
to
set
the
site
to
pursue
that.
H
If
that
seems
like
it's
too
much
for
the
council
or
my
colleagues,
I
can
understand
that
and
we
can
keep
working
on
it.
Even
if
we
say
30
in
the
comp
plan
and
I'm
alright
with
that
I
think,
a
lot
of
the
other
changes
are
adding
some
details
that
were
missing
when
we
talked
about
different
kinds
of
housing,
and
also
lots
of
things
are
consistent
already
with
where
we're
moving
with
our
unified
housing
policy
and
plans
as
well
and
so
I
thought
it
would
be
good
to
include
those
in
the
comp
plan.
D
Madam
chair
I,
just
feel
like
what's
happening
here,
is
that
our
staff
are
completely
overwhelmed.
They
can
barely
handle
the
changes
that
have
been
proposed
and
you
have
like
another
20
ideas
in
here
that
are
now
directing
staff
around
this
work
plan
process.
To
do
this,
that
and
the
other
thing
and
that's
what's
of
concern
to
me-
I
mean
suggesting
something
that
isn't
even
consistent
with
state
law,
as
part
of
it
seems
like
just
a
way
around
your
own
prescribed
work
plan
that
you
put
in
place
for
the
housing
staff
that
they're
already
drowning.
D
In
so
I
mean
someone
sees
this
I'ma
give
you
an
example
of
Support
Community
generative,
an
innovative
housing
solutions
such
as
prefabricated
and
manufactured
housing.
Well,
I
can
imagine,
and
the
more
stressed
parts
of
town
what
they
think
think
about
prefabricated
and
manufactured
housing.
There's
already
concerns
about
gimmicks
quality
of
housing.
Do
people
have
concerns
about
that
have
to
worry
that
that's
going
to
come
forward
on
the
work
plan
or
staff
direction,
because
it's
been
included
in
the
can.
This
seems
to
me
like
a
way
around
all
of
the
gigantic
body
of
work.
D
That's
happening
in
housing
now,
and
this
seems
like
you've
taken
every
idea
that
you
ever
could
think
of
and
put
it
in
here,
because
it's
not
part
of
the
unified
housing
policy,
the
affordable
housing
work
plan
or
anything
that
the
affordable
house,
the
housing
policy
committee
is
discussing.
I
worry
about
how
that
will
affect
our
staff,
who
are
already
hugely
overworked.
G
You,
madam
chair,
you
know,
I,
take
the
heart,
comes
over
Goodman's
comments
and
I
think
they
actually
apply
to
a
lot
of
the
amendments
that
are
coming
through
this
process
from
council
offices,
I
mean
even,
for
example,
G
3.4,
which
has
an
idea
that
I
support
from
customer
Palmisano
that
says
established
specific,
affordable
housing
goals
for
all
neighborhoods
I
mean
I.
Think
that's
a
great
idea.
The
city
of
Portland
has
a
goal
that
every
neighborhood
be
affordable
to
the
median
income
of
the
city
of
Portland
in
Minneapolis.
G
That
would
be
an
enormous
shift,
but
I
think
it's
an
aspirational
goal
that
I
would
support,
but
of
course
it
would
take
an
enormous
amount
of
staff
work
to
get
to
that
level.
So
I
I
think
there's
a
balance
to
be
struck
here.
I
think
I
mean
frankly,
I
think
there
are
a
lot
of
amendments
coming
from
council
members
today
that
that
are
as
councilmember
Goodman
is
saying,
are,
are
certainly
going
to
take
a
lot
of
effort.
That
said,
you
know
we're.
G
This
is
a
plan
that
is
going
through
to
2040,
so
I
think
it
is
a
time
to
incorporate
some
aspirational
ideas,
so
I'm
willing
to
support.
You
know
the
rest
of
the
items.
I
did
have
some
concerns
about
items
one
into
here,
but
taking
this
as
a
plan
through
2040
understanding
that
we
will
have
to
can
very
carefully
consider
our
staffs
workload
and
work
program
with
a
lot
of
these
new
additions
that
are
coming.
L
Thank
you,
madam
chair,
so
I
do
like
a
lot
of
the
things
that
that
are
being
proposed
here
by
council
member
Gordon,
for
example
the
50
years
of
affordable
housing,
construction,
the
the
maximum
affordability
term,
I.
Think
that's
wonderful!
I
want
to
be
able
to
be
visionary
with
this
kind
of
work
and
be
able
to
get
ahead
of
the
problems
we're
seeing
in
other
cities
and
I
think
that
gets
us
there.
That's
that's
more
proactive!
That's
visionary!
L
Cooperative
housing,
for
example.
G
3.7
is
something
that's
extremely
low,
funded
or
supported
in
our
city
in
terms
of
the
financial
tools
we
have
available
to
make
it
happen,
yet
it's
one
of
the
most
popular
and
most
affordable
ways
to
keep
housing
accessible
to
communities.
So
there's
a
you
know
like
a
very
long
wait
list
for
one
cooperative
housing
project
in
my
district
and
I
would
love
to
see
that
multiplied
throughout
the
the
city,
because
I
think
a
lot
of
people
would
be
really
interested
in
it.
L
But
we
just
don't
have
enough
prioritization
within
the
institution
to
really
elevate
those
creative
models
that
are
that
I
think
are
very
viable
in
certain
parts
of
the
city,
perhaps
more
than
others
doesn't
mean
they
shouldn't
exist
in
a
robust
way,
g3
one
one
talking
about
serving
the
lowest
income
people
in
our
city.
That's
a
really
important
value.
Aging-In-Place
3.12!
L
That's
actually
something
that
our
some
of
our
residents,
at
least
in
the
Ninth
Ward,
who
are
active
in
the
in
the
senior
citizen,
commission
or
board
that
we
have
here
at
the
city
are
talking
about
because
they
don't
want
to
live
in
their
in
their
single
homes
anymore.
They
want
to
be
able
to
stay
in
Minneapolis.
L
They
want
to
be
able
to
stay
close
to
public
transit,
but
they
don't
feel
like
they
have
a
lot
of
options
where,
where
they
can
do
that-
and
we
know
that
this
is
a
demographic
that
is
going
to
be
increasing
in
our
state
in
our
region.
So
I'm
curious,
if
there's
a
way
for
staff
to
kind
of
take
a
stab
at
this
and
look
at
some
of
these
high
level
values
and
come
up
with
some
ideas
as
to
how
we
can
continue
to
uplift
and
focus
our
work
on
that.
L
So
I
would
love
to
be
able
to
support
some
of
these
because
they
do
resonate
with
a
lot
of
the
issues
and
needs
that
are
presented
by
people
in
my
district
and
I
would
like
to
see
us
coalesce
around.
How
do
we
get
there
and
because
I
don't
think
we're
maybe
disagreeing
on
what's
on
here
as
much
as
like
the?
How?
How
do
we
get
to
some
of
these
values
and
goals?
And
perhaps
maybe
there
is
some
division
around
30
and
50?
L
J
Thank
you,
madam
chair,
and
all
these
I
had
taken
in
two
different
ways
like
first
I
want
to
echo
the
concerns
of
councilmember
Goodman,
that
this
is
putting
a
lot
on
staff,
but
I
on
that
I
will
be
supporting
these
for
a
couple
different
reasons.
First,
you
know
just
to
use
a
different
example
like
g3
hi
echo,
that
establishing
specific,
affordable
housing
would
be
fantastic,
but
that's
also
a
conversation
I've
had
with
staff
already
and
they've
talked
about
actually
implementing
it.
J
It
would
be
a
huge
burden
and
the
choice
was:
do
you
want
to
continue
working
on
programs
like
advanced
notice,
like
4d
things
that
are
happening
in
the
short-term?
That
will
help,
or
do
you
want
this
really
global
shift
and
I
think
it
has
to
be
in
the
end,
but
it
has
to
be
a
nuanced
and
why
I'm
would
be
supportive
of
putting
these
in
the
comprehensive
plan?
It's
also
that
you
know
the
other
point
that
anything
in
there
we're
gonna
need
council
members
and
staff
to
jump
on.
J
It
can
be
in
the
plan,
but
if
no
one's
implementing
in
ten
years,
that
doesn't
mean
a
whole
lot.
I.
Also
feel
a
little
bit
more
comfortable
with
the
housing
committee's
work
plan,
and
you
know
my
commitment
that
I
mean
we
want
to
make
sure
that
we're
not
all
over
birthing
staff
and
further
than
that
I
want
I
want
staff,
they
have
the
kind
of
leeway
to
be
able
to
innovate.
J
We've
talked
about
some
of
these
ideas
already
councilmember
and
I
think
that
some
of
these
it
they're
in
there
because
of
that's
where
we're
going
we're
talking
specifically
about
prefabrication
being
able
to
talk
about
putting
it
in
the
comprehensive
plan.
So
people
have
an
idea
that
we
are
on
this.
We
are
trying
to
figure
out
a
way
to
produce
safe
and
affordable
homes
for
everybody.
So
thank
you
very
much.
I
think
that
that's
kind
of
the
best
stretch
forward
and
I'll
be
supporting.
H
Well,
I
just
wanted
to
say
that
anything
in
the
comp
plan
is
gonna
impact.
My
work
plan
of
the
committee
at
all
those
things
have
to
get
introduced
as
ordinances
and
staff
directions
and
something
that
comes
through
the
process.
So
these
will
be
things,
and
some
of
these
are
actually
probably
already
appear
on
the
work
plan
in
one
form
or
another
and
others
don't
also
they're,
not
necessarily
my
best
ideas
that
I
pulled
out.
Any
a
lot
of
them
are
things
that
have
been
in
conversations
talking
with
colleagues
here,
things
that
are
coming
down.
H
The
line,
things
that
have
we've
been
looking
at
and
I
will
also
note
that,
as
chair
of
the
housing
policy
and
development
committee,
I
think
I
took
the
responsibility
of
trying
to
look
at
this
part
of
the
plan
more
carefully.
There's,
certainly
a
lot
of
changes
to
under
this
goal
that
are
appearing
here
in
the
other
areas
and
the
other
goals.
I
didn't
make
very
many
changes
to
the
plan,
so
this
is
somewhere
where
I've
took
an
investment
and
you're
right.
H
You're
gonna
see
my
name,
maybe
more
in
this
section
than
in
any
other
sections,
and
I
can
appreciate
that
some
of
these
ideas
also
came
from
community
activists
and
brought
forward
through
comments
through
the
process
of
other
people.
Reviewing
the
comp
plan
and
making
suggestions,
I'm
willing
to
explore
and
consider
changing
them,
I
actually
be
willing
to
pull
the
one
about
the
50.
If
that
seems
like
it's
too
much,
we
could
set
that
aside.
H
For
now,
30
is
a
good
is
a
good
thing
to
pursue,
and
once
we
get
there,
we
can
look
at
35
or
40,
or
something
like
that,
so
I
I
think
a
lot
of
these
are
things
that
we
can
work
for
and
are
good
and
I
think
it
actually
shows
that
we
acknowledge
the
challenges
and
the
difficulties
that
we're
facing
right
now
in
terms
of
housing.
We
need
to
be
creative,
we
need
to
stretch,
we
need
to
be
looking
at
things
we
weren't
looking
at
in
the
last
comprehensive
plan
to
look
at
them
now.
H
H
O
Thank
you,
madam
chair
I
have
a
couple
of
points.
My
first
is
actually
a
question
for
council
member
Johnson
for
G
3.26
explore
the
creation
of
a
public
bank
to
further
this
goal.
I
wanted
to
get
clarification
if
you
meant
a
financial
institution
or
a
land
bank
I'm,
a
financial
institution.
Okay,
thank
you
for
that
clarification.
I
also
just
wanted
to
put
out
the
information
for
folks
to
my
colleagues
to
know
that
tiny
houses
are
not
inherently
more
affordable.
They
actually
cost
about
the
same
as
a
regular
sized
house.
O
So
I
want
to
be
careful
about
us
codifying
that
as
a
an
affordable
housing
strategy
and
I
would
like
to
actually
pull
for
discussion.
3G
3.20,
where
the
amendment
is
proposing
to
strike
funding
for
prioritizing
funding
for
rental
housing
development
I
just
think
we
need
to
have
a
little
bit
more
conversation
about
that
within
the
context
of
affordable
or
excuse
me,
fair
housing
and
so
I
just
wanted
to
pull
that
for
further
discussion.
D
You
my
sure,
I'm
not
suggesting
that
any
of
the
ideas
other
than
the
50
years
of
affordability,
which
is
not
even
consistent
with
state
law,
are
bad
ideas.
I'm
just
simply
saying
that
we're
just
not
paying
enough
attention
globally,
as
a
city
council
with
regard
to
work
full
flow
in
the
housing
section
of
c-pen
and
I'm
hearing
it
back
from
staff
and
I'm
surprised,
everybody
else
is
not
as
well.
D
I
would
suggest
that
if
we're
gonna
have
this
level
of
ideas
floating
out
there,
that
people
want
to
take
on
at
any
given
time
that
somebody
better
have
a
budget
amendment
that
suggest
hiring
five
more
people
in
the
housing
sector
to
get
some
of
the
stuff
done,
because
everyone
is
interested
in
affordable
housing
despite
anyone,
yeah
sharing
it
or
serving
on
the
committee,
people
who
don't
share
it
and
don't
serve
on
the
committee
care
about
this
issue
too,
and
are
bringing
forward
items
as
well.
But
very
few
people
are
actually
getting
anything
done.
H
G
You,
madam
chair,
just
again
looking
at
the
time
of
almost
12:15,
knowing
that
we
have
45
minutes,
left
I've
talked
with
the
clerk
and
it
looks
like
there
is
time
open
on
Wednesday
morning
from
9:30
to
12:30
to
continue
this
discussion.
Unfortunately,
that
is
the
same
day
as
our
public
hearing
on
the
budget,
which
would
mean
a
very
long
day
for
council
members,
but
I,
don't
even
know
if
we're
going
to
finish
this
item
by
the
1
p.m.
time
that
we
need
to
finish
in
order
to
get
set
up
for
the
committee
meeting.
G
That
starts
at
1:30
and
also
just
note.
You
know.
The
vast
majority
of
these
amendments
have
come
from
a
handful
of
council
members
and
I
really
encourage
those
folks
who
are
bringing
a
lot
of
amendments
to
between
now
and
whenever
we
have
the
chance
to
do
the
final
markup
to
really
talk
with
our
staff
and
and
colleagues
about
these
I
mean
I,
know
I
have
like
four
or
five
things
that
I
worked
on
that
I'm.
Everyone
should
know
about
it,
not
be
surprised
by
I'm.
G
H
A
A
G
You
my
chair,
so
I,
have
concerns
about
these
two
taken
together,
but
also
separately
as
they
are,
as
the
draft
shifted
from
staffs
initial
recommendation
to
what
is
before
us
today.
There
was
a
shift
down
from
allowing
for
units
across
the
city
to
three,
and
this
would
take
it
a
step
further
to
prescribe
that
those
units
must
be
three
two
units
plus
an
accessory
dwelling
unit.
P
A
different
way
and
I
will
say
that
I
do
think
that
there
are
a
lot
of
old
buildings
that
make
a
lot
of
sense
for
our
triplex
conversion
and
I.
Think
prohibiting
them
from
doing
that,
limiting
it
to
duplexes
plus
an
ad.
You
could
really
constraint
some
good
options
in
a
way
that
I'm,
not
supportive
of
so.
I
I
This
is
in
working
with
staff.
How
both
of
these
amendments
are
coming
forward
and
I
want
to
note
that
something
that
we
did
just
pass
was
councilmember
Gordon's
amendment
3.15
that
he
and
I
were
just
speaking
about.
Was
this
in
conflict
and
I?
Don't
think
that
it
is
I,
think
it
intersects
in
a
way
in
just
the
interior,
one
in
the
furthest
away
parts
of
our
city
to
the
core.
G
G
Again,
sort
of
reiterating
the
problem
of
moving
from
this
overall
statement
of
up
to
three
units
to
a
more
specific
definition
that
includes
accessory
dwelling
units.
There
are
parts
of
the
city
that
are
today
single-family
homes
that
will
be
designated
interior
to
or
other
different
designations.
That
I've
had
many
discussions
with
council
members
about
so
limiting
this
again
to
two
units,
plus
an
accessory
dwelling
unit
and
discriminating
against
rental
housing
in
neighborhoods.
That
today
have
a
lot
of
rental.
O
All
right,
Thank,
You,
councilmember
Palmisano
Lin,
madam
chair,
as
someone
who
has
a
large
amount
of
interior
one
in
my
ward,
a
concern
that
I've
had
around
the
three
units
is
what
we
have
seen
historically,
which
is
property
management
or
bad
landlords,
come
in
convert
units,
a
single-family
home
with
a
addict
and
attic
as
that
as
the
one
unit.
The
first
floor
is
one
and
then
the
basement
as
another,
so
essentially
what
it.
I
You
I
appreciate
councilmember
Cunningham's
concerns,
but
I
do
want
to
just
strongly
assert.
This
is
absolutely
not
discrimination
towards
renters.
This
is
about
local
ownership
and
local
wealth
building
and
not
having
property
in
interior,
one
owned
by
large
portfolio
companies
that
have
no
interest
in
the
in
Minneapolis
as
a
whole.
So
that's
why
this
is
before
you.
This
way.
G
You,
madam
chair,
in
words
where
we
currently
have
many
multifamily
units
that
are
duplexes
and
triplexes.
Thousands
and
thousands
of
those
are
owned
by
local
residents
of
our
city,
and
so
there
really
isn't
in
any
sort
of
factual
way,
a
correlation
between
small
multifamily
buildings
and
absentee
ownership.
In
fact,
I
think
we
see
the
inverse.
G
You
know
inspections
that
really
focus
on
the
quality
of
housing,
for
the
people
who
live
within
them,
work
that
I'm
doing
along
with
council
members
for
North
Minneapolis.
But
again,
this
is
about
the
land
use
and
it's
specifying
accessory
dwelling
units
which
are
only
available
for
unoccupied
buildings
and
so
I
think
again,
rec
going
with
councilmember
Cunningham
said.
The
concerns
that
are
being
voiced
can
be
addressed
in
different
ways
and
I.
G
D
So
people
who
live
in
interior,
one
now,
which
is
kind
of
like
r1,
have
one
house
on
one
lot,
and
maybe
they
have
an
Adu,
but
even
after
three
years
later,
there's
less
than
a
hundred
of
them
built.
So
with
what
folks,
who
live
in
these
areas
that
I've
heard
from
don't
like
is
having
three
houses
on
one
lot.
No
one's
talking
to
me
about
well,
if
it's
owner-occupied
and
there's
one
and
the
other
than
three
is
okay,
they
just
don't
like
three
generally,
and
this
is
not
getting
at
that.
D
If
this
was
just
taken
cherry
or
two
and
make
it
a
duplex,
that
would
be
something
I
could
support,
because
I
think
my
constituents
want
that.
But
I
think
what
we're
doing
here
is
we're
trying
to
differentiate
between
owner-occupied
and
rental,
and
that
feels
a
little
bit
discriminatory
towards
me
to
me
and
that's
why
I
don't
like
it.
I
would
like
to
see
and
I
doubt
it
would
pass
an
amendment
that
said
an
interior
one
you
can
only
have
duplexes
I
would
support
that.
D
That's
what
I'm
hearing
it's
a
density
issue,
not
a
homeownership
issue
and
I.
Don't
think
my
constituents
are
trying
to
differentiate
between
whether
or
not
there's
three
condos
or
three
apartments,
those
that
don't
like
it
don't
like
three.
So
this
isn't
solving
their
problem
and
it's
kind
of
making
them
look
like
they're,
discriminatory
and
I
would
say
that
they're
not
just.
I
Honor,
thank
you,
madam
chair
I
need
to
assert
again
that
my
intent
here
is
absolutely
not
to
be
discriminatory
at
all.
This
is
absolutely
about
local
wealth
building
and
local
investment.
I
would
be
happy
to
retract
three
point,
one
and
three
point
two
and
instead
assert
something
that
I,
don't
think
will
pass,
but
will
have
been
prompted
to
do,
which
is
to
instead
take
interior
one
as
three-unit
developments
down
into
two
unit.
I
O
You,
madam
chair,
actually
right
before
the
motion
was
made.
I
was
gonna
check
in
to
see
if
this
might
be
something
that
we
could
pull
and
discuss
further
before
the
next
markup
since
we're
talking
quite
a
lot
about
it,
and
so
I
just
wanted
to
throw
that
out.
There
everybody's
been
talking
about
time.
So
if
this
seems
like
it's
a
big
big
conversation,
kind
of
fundamentally
underlying
almost
like
the
whole
plan,
and
so
it's
just
a
really
big
conversation,
so
I
just
wanted
to
throw
that
out.
There.
G
You,
madam
chair
I,
mean
I.
Think
we've
had
a
lot
of
time
to
contemplate
our
position
on
some
of
these
major
questions.
So
I
think
you
know
if
folks
really
want
to
table
it.
I
would
just
caution
against
leaving
too
many
of
the
larger
decisions
till
this
three-hour
period.
Since
we
have
most
of
the
goals
left
to
discuss,
you
know,
I
would
speak
against
no
surprise
to
anyone.
G
The
second
point
I
would
make
is
that
this
is
the
most
gentle
incremental
moderate
approach
that
we
could
take
to
increasing
housing
options
in
our
city
when
we
unanimously
or
maybe
twelve
to
one
something
like
that,
nearly
unanimously
legalized
accessory
dwelling
units
I
think
now,
four
years
ago,
we've
only
seen
a
hundred
of
those
built
in
the
past
four
years,
so
that
did
legalize
up
to
two
units
everywhere
in
the
city
in
owner-occupied
buildings.
Only,
and
so
it
demonstrates
that
those
numbers
demonstrate
two
things
number
one.
G
This
is
absolutely
not
the
only
thing
that
we
need
to
do
to
increase
housing
options
and
affordability
in
our
city.
It
is
a
very
moderate
and
incremental
approach,
but
number
two
that
over
time,
we
are
able
to
get
a
number
of
housing
units
through
this
approach
of
allowing
more
flexibility
for
people
when
they
are
reconstructing
a
home
or
more
likely
remodeling
an
existing
building.
G
This
is
a
preservation
strategy
to
allow
multiple
units
within
the
same
building
in
places
where
we
have
older
housing
stock
and
overall,
it
is
again
a
very
moderate
and
incremental
way
for
us
to
increase
housing
options
across
our
city.
In
all
neighborhoods,
rather
than
only
only
concentrating
housing
in
the
few
neighborhoods
that
have
seen
the
most
growth
in
the
past
few
decades,.
H
Yeah
I,
don't
think
I
can
support
this
change.
I
don't
have
any
interior
one
in
the
second
Ward
and
it
seems
like
if
we
carve
this
out
now
to
preserve
kind
of
the
low
density
in
these
pockets.
We're
just
going
to
be
reinforcing
and
exacerbating
some
of
the
things
that
we
apparently
are
trying
to
change,
having
to
do
with
the
restrictive
covenants
that
were
put
in
place
and
the
redlining
and
those
kinds
of
things
secondarily,
I
haven't
had
lunch
yet
and
I'm,
not
sure.
H
If
I
can
think
clearly
about
such
a
major
issue
and
engage
in
these
discussions,
but
I'm
gonna
have
to
vote.
No
I
was
getting
pretty
comfortable
with
the
triplex
idea,
and
I
also
appreciated
how
it
would
apply
in
the
outside
parts
of
the
city.
Those
two
ends
that
seem
to
have
special
protections
already,
even
even
who
has
interior
ones,
but
also
a
manger
two
areas
that
covers
lots
of
my
ward,
yeah
and
so
I
think
this
is
a
big
dramatic
change.
I
haven't
had
a
lot
of
input
on
it
doesn't
necessarily
surprise
me.
H
H
I
You
would
not
be
able
to
retrofit
most
of
the
homes
in
my
ward
to
be
a
triplex,
but
you
could
certainly
do
that
to
be
duplexes,
and
another
thing
that
this
would
address
is
that
I
didn't
hear
a
single
piece
of
feedback
that
said
it
through
our
process
from
the
public.
That
said,
they
wanted
triplexes
and
not
for
flexes.
I
heard
a
lot
of.
We
don't
want
any
I
heard.
A
A
C
Madam
vice
president,
to
clarify
I'm
sorry
I,
think
item
3.1
at
3.2.
We're
going
to
hold
the
last
I
understood
after
the
substitute
was
made,
is
that
the
original
underlying
intent
was
to
pull
these
and
allow
these
to
be
held
over
for
the
next
Marco
percent
markup
session.
If
not,
then
the
clarification
would
be
needed
for
us
to
know
the
specific
direction
that
we're
calling.
A
C
A
K
But
thank
you,
madam
vice
president
I
believe
I
heard
two
conflicting
things
actually
I
heard
both
pulling
it
for
purposes
of
entertaining
at
the
substitute,
but
prior
to
that
there
was
seemed
to
be
some
discussion
about
some
element
of
further
time
for
further
refinement
to
achieve,
maybe
some
of
the
intent
that
wasn't
clear
in
the
language
as
presented,
and
my
understanding
is,
if
it
is
pulled,
something
could
re-emerge.
That
would
be
a
part
of
that
exercise.
If
a
council
member
of
council
members
wanted
to
do
that,
I
mean
that
would
be
a
possibility.
G
I
A
G
A
O
Thank
you,
madam
chair
I
pulled
this
for
a
further
discussion,
because,
while
in
my
ward,
there
is
a
huge
demand
in
need
for
wealth,
building
opportunities
and
I
take
home
ownership
very
seriously.
I
just
have
a
lot
of
question
around
the
demand
of
need
around
housing.
I
think
that
there
is
from
from
what
I
have
heard.
O
That's
absolutely
a
huge
issue
in
my
ward
and
something
that
I'm
prioritizing
myself,
but
overall,
with
the
city
of
before
thinking
about
all
of
the
available
units.
What
is
the
demand
that
folks
are
asking
for
that?
Need
right
now,
as
well
as
how
are
we
making
sure
that
we
are
really
increasing
the
supply
of
rentals
so
that
they
are
affordable.
L
Thank
you,
madam
chair
I
appreciate
comes
from
our
cunningham,
pulling
us
out
before
their
discussion
and
then
the
spirit
of
that
you
know
some
of
the
some
of
the
challenges
with
the
comp
plan
and
as
we're
voting
on
these
maps.
Is
that
there's
there's
theories
about
what's
going
to
happen,
and
there
are
things
that
we
can't
control,
and
so,
while
some
parts
of
my
neighborhood
are
being
you
know
the
densities
being
increased,
it's
not
a
for
sure
strategy
that
that's
actually
going
to
retain
and
protect
low-income
renters
and
communities
of
color
in
the
area.
L
It's
a
it's
a
nice
theory
and
I
hope
it
works.
But
it's
I'm
worried
that
it
might
not
be
enough.
So
I
appreciate
us
discussing
whether
or
not
this
language
should
say
prioritize
funding
for
rental
housing
developments
I
want
to
go
deeper
and
say
you
know
who's.
Who
builds
wealth
off
of
that?
Because
I
I
can
imagine
that,
whether
they're
three
plexus
or
triplexes?
It's
not
going
to
be
the
Latino
families.
L
That
I
know
on
my
block
that
are
going
to
be
building
those
triplex
or
four
plexus
and
much
less
able
to
purchase
them
in
the
future.
And
so
we
know
folks
are
being
displaced
because
rents
are
going
up
and
we
know
that
our
people
don't
have
money
to
be
the
owners
of
those
future
rental
housing
developments.
So
we're
kind
of
stuck
and
and
I
feel
like.
One
of
them
may
be
more
clear
strategies
that
I'm
here
that
might
work
for
low-income
renters
and
people
of
color.
L
Who
rent
is
this
notion
of
cooperatively,
owned
housing
developments
and
so
I'd
be
happy
to
work
with
folks
on
further
refining
this
component.
But
the
way
that
it
reads
now,
it
seems
like
there's
kind
of
two
very
different
sort
of
things
happening
here.
It's
like
we
do
want
to
produce
more
affordable
housing,
but
then
talking
about
what
we
actually
want
to
prioritize
to
reach
a
specific
goal
and
the
goal
that
I
want
to
lift
up.
Is
this
racial
equity
goal?
L
O
Customer
cunningham,
I
would
echo
what
councilmember
Cano
said
around
neither
option
really
feeling
like
it's
getting
to
it.
I
also
just
want
to
say
that
right
now
we
are,
we
are
having
a
really
complex
question
or
conversation
around.
How
do
we
navigate
with
a
value
of
justice
in
a
real
estate
based
capitalist
economy?
So
that's
what
essentially
we're
talking
about
right
now
and
renting
is
inherently
a
wealth
extraction.
O
O
So
there
are
lots
of
factors
that
are
in
this,
and
so
wealth
building
and
wealth
extraction
are
really
complicated.
When
we're
talking
about
a
real
estate
based
economy,
I
would
really
like
for
us
to
pull
this
off
for
further
conversation.
I,
don't
think
that
either
are
necessarily
bad,
but
I.
Think,
though,
that
we're
and
again
this
is
in
the
context
of
fair
housing,
just
to
point
that
out
to
that,
this
is
a
part
of
fair
housing.
So
how
does
all
of
that
fit
together
and
I?
K
K
We
already
have
a
preponderance
in
practice
for
prioritizing
the
funding
for
rental
housing,
because
those
are
our
partners
in
our
tool
and
our
resources,
it's
just
how
we've
structured
it
to
date
and
so
I
in
striking
it
I,
don't
see
that
as
a
strike
against
rental
housing,
certainly
not
in
practice,
but
it
actually
just
says
we
are
going
to
be
opportunity,
driven
multifaceted
in
our
approaches
and
a
lot
of
that
will
be
to
be
determined
as
we
work
through
the
complexities
that
have
been
well
articulated
today.
H
Just
thought
I
would
note
and
that
I'm
comfortable
supporting
this
council
member
right.
He
actually
expressed
a
lot
of
the
sentiments
I'm.
Taking
that
prioritization
off
will
just
mean
that
we
could
be
more
flexible
and
nimble
up
moving
into
the
future.
We
can
certainly
decide
as
a
council
when
and
where
to
prioritize
investments
in
rental
housing
and
also
to
prioritize
investments
and
other
things
that
might
come
along,
so
I'll
be
supporting
it.
L
Was
curious
if
staff
had
any
response
to
address
some
of
the
concerns
that
were
expressing
around
prioritizing
the
language
that
seeks
to
prioritize
funding
for
specific
types
of
housing,
so
so
I
understand.
Councilmember
Mike's
point
is
that
you
know
if
we
just
say,
produce
more,
affordable
housing.
We
can
all
agree
on
that.
L
That's
awesome,
I,
think
that
we
took
it
to
the
next
level
when
we
started
unpacking
kind
of
what
that
means
through
the
adoption
of
this
comp
plan
as
we're
incentivizing
density
and
trying
to
promote
it
at
the
same
time
that
we're
trying
to
meet
our
city's
racial
equity
goals.
So
is
there
another
section
in
the
comp
plan
that
staff
can
point
us
to
that,
would
address
or
speak
to
some
of
these
ideas,
concepts
values
that
we
just
discussed
here
step
either.
E
Ex-President
Jenkins
customer
cannot
ever
just
one
quick
thing,
which
is
just
to
point
out
that
there
is
a
whole
policy
area
in
the
draft
plan
is
about
the
production
and
preservation
of
affordable
housing
and
deals
with
a
lot
of
subtopics.
For
that,
many
of
which
I
heard
in
the
discussion
just
now.
J
Illustrator
thing
commander:
chariot:
I
myself
will
be
in
favor
of
tabling
having
a
longer
discussion
as
brought
up
by
Homer,
Cunningham
and
I.
Think
just
listening
a
councillor
Meccano
and
councilmember
Cunningham,
it's
important
to
think
of
housing
as
a
spectrum.
Some
people
don't
have
access
to
affordable
rental
or
rental
at
all.
Some
people
don't
affixed
access
to
homeownership
and
if
we're
going
to
think
about
how
everyone
has
safe,
affordable
and
stable
housing
throughout
the
city,
we
need
to
be
prioritizing
and
making
sure
that
we
have
affordable
housing.
I.
J
Think
as
we
start
to
get
more
specific
beyond,
you
know,
produce
more
affordable
housing.
It's
important
to
take
the
time
to
be
specific,
because
what
has
been
brought
up
is
we
have
some
of
the
worst
racial
disparities
as
it
comes
to
homeownership,
but
that
also
a
number
is
reflected
as
we
go
get
in
a
rental
by
households
that
are
cost
burden,
and
that
means
just
who's
paying
too
much
for
the
rental.
G
You,
madam
chair,
this
is
a
comment
more
general
than
specific
to
this,
but
I
think,
given
that
we're
going
to
have
another
session
of
markup
and
then
the
CAO
meeting
and
the
council
meeting
to
come
that
I.
Just
kind
of
wanted
to
reiterate
that
the
council
members,
who
are
bringing
a
large
number
of
amendments,
I'm,
not
sure
if
they've
had
a
chance
to
check
in
with
like
the
housing
staff
that
manager,
affordable,
housing
programs.
G
But
if
not
I
would
really
encourage
it
between
now
and
the
next
time
that
we
have
a
chance
for
discussion
because
I
don't
know
why.
For
example,
the
second
phrase
was
in
the
sentence
as
recommended
by
staff,
but
they
may
have
had
a
reason
or
they
may
have
some
suggestions
about
had
a
better
in
capture
and
again.
I
You,
madam
chair,
the
staff
has
seen
it
that's
why
it's
in
this
document,
it's
because
staff
has
seen
and
helped
us
with
this
language.
The
reason
I
have
to
bring
this
forward
is
because
it
currently
has
the
second
piece
that
just
says
that
we're
trying
to
prioritize
funding
for
rental
housing
developments
instead
of
other
kinds
of
options.
I
A
C
Vice
president,
the
last
motion
I
heard,
was
proposing
to
postpone
further
consideration
of
3.20
to
the
next
markup
session.
That
was
what
was
pending
when
councilmember
Palmisano
then
said.
Call
the
question
calling
the
question
would
be
on
what
I
took
to
be
several
council
members
saying
postpone
this
for
further
consideration.
I
O
O
H
So
we
just
had
a
motion
to
move
approval
of
item
3.20
and
we
never
voted
on
that.
We
voted
to
call
the
question
on
that
and
now
we're
moving
to
motion
to
table
all
right.
I
mean
the
motion
that
I
heard
coming
from.
My
colleague
here
was
moving
approval
of
G
3.20
I'll
call
the
question
on
that
and
we
did
but
which.
C
Correct,
madam
president,
was
my
interpretation
when
councilman
Cunningham
said
he
would
support
postponing
this
item.
There
were
several
council
members
who
spoke
in
favor
of
that
I
assumed
that
was
the
motion
pending.
If
that
is
incorrect,
the
motions
already
taken
on
councilmember
Palmisano
saying
she
would
move
to
call
the
question
underlying
on
the
motion.
A
Yeah
and
my
understanding
was,
there
was
conversation
about
tabling,
but
never
a
motion.
I've
heard
several
council
members
speak
to
the
idea
of
tabling,
but
no
one
made
a
motion
and
the
motion
that
we
did
have
on
the
floor
was
to
call
the
question
on
the
original
motion,
which
is
when
I
thought
was.
We
were
voting
on
and
the
chair
will
recognize
council
member
coming
in.
O
M
H
P
A
Q
M
A
G
Mr.
president,
I'm
just
so
noting
the
time
I
know,
there
are
still
two
items
left
here
in
this
goal
and
then
9
more
goals,
I
believe
for
discussion
with
a
large
number
of
amendments
in
each
I
know
that
our
intention
is
to
adjourn
this
meeting
to
another
session.
That
will
give
us
three
more
hours
the
morning
of
Wednesday
November
28.
P
Thank
You
mr.
president,
Chen
kun's
found
I
wanted
to
get
some
clarity
on
this,
because
many
of
the
housing
forms
that
are
being
built
in
my
ward
are
housing
forms
that
have
a
hard
time
getting
natural
life
happening
in
them.
If
you're
doing
a
warehouse
conversion,
for
example,
in
the
North
Loop,
it's
often
gonna
be
true
that
it's
a
fairly
long,
narrow
apartment
that
doesn't
necessarily
have
a
ton
of
access
to
natural,
sunlight
and,
frankly,
passing
more
regulations
making
it
harder
to
build.
P
Those
would
be
extremely
unpopular
with
a
lot
of
people
who
really
love
that
form
of
housing
who
love
row,
houses
and
townhomes
and
other
kinds
of
things
that
don't
necessarily
have
windows
on
all
sides,
but
that's
a
really
great
way
to
add
some
nice
liveable
density.
So
I
guess
I'm
curious
to
hear
if
you
think
that
those
housing
forms
are
in
conflict
with
this,
and
if
you
can
name
a
design
standard
that
you
feel
like
currently
does
not
maximize
access
to
direct
sunlight
that
you
would
like
to
see
changed.
I
appreciate.
N
My
colleague
councilmember
Fletcher,
asking
about
the
intent
of
this.
My
intent
is
not
to
tie
anybody's
hands
with
this,
not
to
try
to
make
it
more
difficult
with
that
particular
form
that
you
have
mentioned
my
intent,
honest
is,
notwithstanding
any
other
policies
when
possible,
try
to
maximize
people's
access
to
natural
sunlight,
it's
something
that
you
know.
There's
a
lot
of
public
health
research
around
the
value
of
access
to
natural,
sunlight,
especially
indoors,
and
so
when
possible.
N
It
would
be
great
if
we
could
maximize
that,
and
so
really
it's
a
value
statement
that
hopefully
we
can
adjust
design
standards
in
a
friendly
way
to
developers.
That
would
encourage
hey
if
you
got
something
south-facing,
if
you're
capable
of
adding
windows
there-
and
it's
not
going
to
be
a
major
issue
here,
we
should
encourage
that.
A
P
N
Specifically,
we
know
that
when
you
have
a
demolition
of
homes,
there's
obviously
a
huge
carbon
footprint
environmental
footprint
associated
with
that
and
so
I
think
it
makes
sense
that
we
encourage
development
and
density
to
take
place,
ideally
prioritizing
homes
that
are
in
poor
state
support,
condition
where
we
can
continue
to
maintain
naturally
occurring
affordable
housing
in
our
city
that
already
exists
and
advanced
those
climate
action
goals
and
be
responsive
to
constituent
feedback
as
well.
So
I
personally
feel
comfortable
with
the
language
today,
if
others
have
suggested
amendments,
I
would
be
interested
to.
You
know.
G
You
madam
chair
I,
also
have
concerns
about
this
language,
just
because
I
think
this
could
mean
a
lot
of
different
things
to
a
lot
of
different
people,
and
it's
quite
a
lot
of
regular
it
could
one
interpretation
of
this
would
be
significant
regulation
for
who
and
who
cannot
do
what
they
want
with
their
property,
and
this
is
certainly
something
we
have
been
dealing
with
for
a
very
long
time.
G
Most
of
the
demolitions
are,
of
course,
in
southwest
Minneapolis,
where
single-family
homes
are
being
torn
down
and
reconstructed
into
larger
single
new
single-family
homes,
but
across
the
city
you
know
trying
to
define
original
craftsmanship.
That
starts
to
get
into
ideas
of
historic
preservation,
where
this
plan
has
really
worked
to
try
to
have
a
moral,
culturally,
inclusive
definition
of
how
we're
approaching
preservation
of
buildings,
so
I
think
perhaps
unintentionally
likely
unintentionally.
This
may
be
a
little
bit
at
odds
with
some
of
the
other
goal
of
the
plan.
A
K
Right,
thank
you,
madam
vice
president.
You
know
the
call
for
clarification
of
the
language
and
avoiding
unintended
consequences.
I
joined
that
that
sort
of
a
concern
but
I
also
think
there's
a
possibility
to
further
enhance,
what's
being
taught,
not
only
discourage
demolition
but
encourage
deconstruction,
and
now
that
could
be
reinforced
other
policies
and
so
I
think
if
we
could
table
and
that
spirit
of
trying
to
get
the
clarity,
avoiding
unintended
consequences
and
maybe
even
enhancing
the
policy
on
another
areas,
maybe
a
well
worth
our
time.
So
that
would
be
my
motion.
D
Mean
we
just
went
through
like
about
a
hundred
amendments
that
are
meaningless
unless
someone
takes
them
on
and
does
something
with
them
anyway.
So
I'm
not
sure
how
this
is
any
different
than
that
discourage
is
about
the
weakest
word
you
could
use,
it
doesn't
say,
prevent,
prohibits
or
anything
strong.
D
It
just
basically
says
like
we
don't
like
that
perfectly
good
houses
that
are
in
very
good
shape,
shouldn't
be
demolished
and
I'm
not
sure
how
much
weaker
that
could
be
as
a
preservation
initiative,
and
we
just
passed
dozens
of
things
that
were
just
ideas
that
no
one
took
on
so
I.
Just
don't
see
what
the
problem
is
with
this
I
mean
just
generally
speaking,
it's
a
statement
that
we
would
prefer
to
not
demolish
well-maintained
housing.
D
I
guess
I'll
also
say
for
the
record
that
happens
in
the
seventh
Ward
too,
and
we
hate
it,
and
so
we
would
rather
have
somebody
enhance
their
well-maintained
or
even
partially
maintained
house
and
keep
it
on
its
footprint
than
demolishes.
I
think
this
is
pretty
weak
language
that
we
could
all
agree.
Anyone
who
wants
to
work
on
this
after
the
comp
plan
has
the
responsibility
to
take
it
on.
Since
council,
member
Johnson
has
85
amendments
I
assure
you
we
won't
get
to
all
of
them,
so
I
don't
think.
N
Thank
You
councillor,
given
I
will
clarify
you're,
not
have
85
minutes.
It's
56
minutes
slightly.
Less
and
I
really
appreciate
your
comments.
Councilmember
Goodman
on
this
also
note
for
a
council
member
Reich
that
I
do
have
a
amendment
actually
related
to
deconstruction
of
homes.
There's
going
to
be
another
goal,
so
I
think
that
in
that
efforts
is
already
being
done
and
that
we
will
be
already
taking
that
up
so
I
don't
see
you
need
to
try
to
wordsmith
it
more
and
try
to
come
up.
I
hope.
A
A
G
H
Thank
you,
I
just
wanted
to
request
it
that
maybe
all
the
information
that
we
got
provided
to
us
in
paper
could
also
be
posted
on
the
agenda.
Not
only
the
actions
that
we
took
with
the
other
proposals,
so
they'll
be
online
and
they'll
be
available,
and
I
also
wanted
to
clarify
that.
It's
my
understanding
that
the
proposal
before
us
does
maintain
the
front
yard
setbacks
as
exists
right
now,
Thank.
A
N
You,
madam
chair
I,
just
wanted
to
speak
on
and
comment
on
something
I've
heard
about
going
around
and
talking
to
all
colleagues
before
hands
about
these
amendments.
This
is
an
imperfect
process.
We
were
told
specifically
what
the
process
was
going
to
be
before
we
came
here
today
we
were
told
to
submit
our
amendments
to
staff
by
Tuesday.
N
We
did
that
a
lot
of
people
were
out
of
the
office
by
the
way
last
week,
and
so
it's
you
know
we're
expecting
that
these
in
advance
have
adequate
time
to
review
them,
and
frankly,
I
have
heard
from
very
few
colleagues
about
any
of
their
amendments
as
well.
So
they
take
a
little
bit
of
that
personally,
because
I
am
bringing
forward
a
number
of
amendments,
but
I
just
want
to
say
you
know
it
we're
all
doing
our
best
here.
It's
an
imperfect
process,
let's
get
through
it.
Thank.