Looking at how this city grew and what went along, I'm currently the Chairman of the Planning Commission.
I don't want to ruffle any feathers, but if we have meetings in the Planning Commission and we have,
we routinely talk about all of these issues that you're talking about, process two, process three, process four.
If we have one member of the non-staff there, we're amazed.
When we have three or four, we're overwhelmed.
Please come to the Planning Commission meetings.
Look at all this. This didn't happen overnight.
It's taken us at least eight years that I've been there to see the development of all these rules that are in effect,
and the Mayor and the staff are compelled by the law to proceed with the process the way it is.
If you're not happy with it, come talk to us in the Planning Commission.
Come talk to the staff. Let's see if we can change those.
But they are compelled to follow the procedure.
Now, Warehouser was a private owner of the property.
They sold it to another private individual, and they read the zoning, the way they thought it meant,
and they thought they could do certain things.
And I don't believe there was any ill-will by Warehouser in their sale or these other people in their sale,
where they have come to the city and said, here's our proposal.
Can we proceed or not?
And the city will, in due process, tell them whether they can or not.
But he can't stand up and say, no, we won't tolerate this. It's ugly.
That's not according to the law. That's not the way we, as people of the United States, do business.
Please, give them the time to get the answers.
You might not like them. I don't always like them.
I don't like their answers all the time, but give them time to proceed and follow the rules.
Thank you.
Thank you all.
Do they publish a schedule?
Yes.
Yes.
Yes.
Lawson, they asked whether the Planning Commission publishes a schedule and a feeding.
They're on the website, right?
Generally, the first and third Wednesdays, but frequently we don't have one,
because the staff can only get so much done that we can only proceed once the staff is done there.
You can't invite other people to feed.
What?
You can't invite a feeding unless your husband feed is on it.
It's on the website.
It's on the website.
First and third Wednesdays of the month.
First and third Wednesdays of the month.
And what time?
6.30.
6.30 at City Hall.
They have openings, don't you?
Currently, we've got all the commissioners.
We're looking for a couple of all the commissioners.
Yeah, so look at the website, you guys.
Thank you very much, Lawson.
So we've got vacancies are announced on the website.
So first and third Wednesdays, 6.30 p.m.
That's a really good point about the Planning Commission and really getting in.
You can sign up on the website.
You can sign up on the website for weekly emails.
Oh, very good.
At all meetings.
Okay, thank you very much.
Okay, my name's Cindy Flanagan and I'm here concerned about IRG and what they're saying
their intent is, but what their legal right is.
And under the 1994 Concomitant Agreement, the headquarters of Warehouse Earth, the road
and the species botanical garden, the Bonsai Museum, the tech center and the 60 acres
of forest, long north way are all CP1 zoned.
And so they have the legal right to develop those areas, even though they are saying their intent is not to,
is to preserve the outside of the campus.
Their intent is to help the road, the garden's find more support so that they can stay there.
However, they're right.
For example, with the road, the garden's, they have a 10 year lease and should IRG decide that they no longer want them,
and that they give them a 10 year notice and they have to move upward.
My concern with that is that like the headquarters campus that is of iconic status, so too is the road
and garden because they are doing work that is saving road and species internationally.
And I feel that with the road and garden that the purchase IRG, IRG is an economic document to them,
both short term and long term, because can you imagine if you get this notice and you're told that within 10 years
you're going to have to move and you're a non-profit organization and you're going to have to figure out
how to remove over a thousand species of threatened and endangered road and dendron plants,
finding a location to put that, and then the expense to move that as a non-profit organization,
how are they going to afford that?
And I guess with the headquarters, with the road and dendron species, the town and garden,
with so many of the things that are on the campus, what is the city going to do in terms of actions for preservation?
And so, for example, do you have in your budget money for national register nomination?
Do you have more money for staff to work on getting a historical preservation ordinance?
What can you do to help us preserve some of these areas?
Well, the preservation aspect of the registration ordinance is actually on the agenda for the planning commission and staff.
They're working through that in regard to making sure that we get that ordinance.
But let's go back to the map, you guys.
So, obviously, the road and dendron garden and the bonzai garden here, and bonzai and road and dendron here,
there was some early discussion, and just ballparking, because we recognize how important this property is,
critically important to the quality of life in Northgate.
There was some initial discussion, nothing firm, about if these had to move to try to get these over here somewhere.
So I do want to let you know that's something that we've expressed to IRG to look at, to consider.
This is preserving this area, preserving this area, right here, preserving this vista,
that will serve actually not only for the whole property, but that headquarter building as well,
mitigating, if possible, any impact of this.
But these two locations, we've been thinking about putting right there, or having them put there.
But again, it's a 10-year time frame.
So, oh, there's something actually I pulled in just for a second.
There's something I'll call on you in just a second.
There's something I want to make sure that, especially when it relates to some of the details about this,
Tim Johnson, is Tim still here?
Tim put together a 45-page report.
There's all this talk about people didn't know about the concomitant agreement,
that some council members said they didn't know about the concomitant agreement.
This, you know, months, four months after, three months after the warehouse or property sold,
excuse me, after the warehouse were announced, they were moving.
In late 2014 and in January of 2015, Tim Johnson put out a 45-page report
that was posted online on our website called Conditions and Considerations for the Warehouse or Property.
And I'll bet you in that document, I don't have it in front of me right now,
the exact zoning of this Northlake 40 is addressed.
Again, we're done.
All those documents are also on our same warehouse.
That's right.
Okay.
All right, so there's been a lot of work.
I'd just like to say thank you, Tim, for all your work on that.
There's been a lot of background work over the course of the past two years.
Was that it?
I had one more question.
Okay.
I wasn't here for the beginning, so maybe you addressed this.
But when can we get a moratorium because I feel like we have historical and cultural
and environmental significant things that we need to talk about.
And trying to have a vehicle where you have IRG, where we have the city,
where we have the people talking and having a table, having a moratorium
gives us that opportunity so that we can network and figure this out.
Somebody asked the question.
All right.
So you guys, again, remember, in addition to representing you,
I represent everybody else in this community.
I represent the entity.
Now, we're going to disagree on this.
Okay.
Let me just say this.
I don't believe a moratorium is in the best interest of the city.
And I'll tell you why.
There are a number of things.
A moratorium won't do anything about work at bay or the preferred freezing.
That is vested.
Number two, I've already told you what's going on with the 324th site.
Number three, if we were to engage in a moratorium,
the first thing that would likely happen is we would actually have to initiate litigation
or legal action with IRG.
This is honestly, let me just tell you, you mind my honest opinion.
I can't really get into this with the council meetings.
It would take us down a rabbit hole.
We have no idea where we would go on the other side.
And we would be in constant litigation.
Let me tell you what, right now, in my opinion,
the consequences of doing exactly that, where did you go?
Right back here.
The consequences of doing that, in my opinion, would be catastrophic.
Catastrophic financially, it would take us down a rabbit hole.
We have processes for this.
But I'm telling you right now that if we were to go down that rabbit hole,
I have no idea where we end up.
We're talking about millions and millions of dollars.
If we did that, we are not covered by insurance as a result.
So whatever we do, we are on the hook.
What would be their grounds for breach of contract, collateral estoppel,
and justified reliance over it from the apartment building moratorium?
Because there was nobody that had purchased this property.
This zoning had been in place for 22 years.
These people put $70 million down, what we don't want them to do.
And I'm telling you exactly what I think.
I'm taking the bark off the tree here.
What we do not want, in my opinion, as your elected representative, as your mayor,
we do not want IRG to get their money back from you, the taxpayers,
in a $10 million, $20 million judgment.
Because someone or another, they justifiably relied on this zoning decision,
and now they're going to get their investment back there.
And then on the backside, they sell the property anyway.
And then imagine this in regard to police service.
We put a million dollars a year into human services in the city,
and we are talking about catastrophic loss for the city if we go down that rabbit hole.
And I'm telling you straight,
and I don't have any other than to make sure that we navigate through this storm,
and it is a storm.
We've got Dr. Rupickley.
But that's if you call for a moratorium with the intent of changing the zoning.
There's only one reason.
If you follow a logic tree, there's only one reason to call a moratorium,
and that is to, in whole report, set aside the concomit agreement.
And that will open up the city, in my opinion, to massive liability.
Well, you know what?
They asked for a master plan.
They asked for time.
So that we can take all these proposals into consideration.
There's only one reason to do a moratorium,
and that is to change, or give a whole or in part,
that if you think through logically,
what would be the purpose of a moratorium
if you weren't going to change the zoning?
Just think through it logically.
That's the only reason to do it.
And you guys may not want to hear this,
but that's my job to tell you the truth.
Sorry, Dr. Go ahead, in the back.
We've got to get to that.
How do you stop the peace kneeling of the campus,
and with stopping that peace kneeling?
Like, every time we're going to get an application,
you guys are going to be bombarded every single time then,
and we're going to be going through this process every single time.
So how do we figure out a better solution?
The concomit agreement does not call for this zoning
or this master plan development.
That's what's in place.
So I think that what we've got to do,
one of the things I told Nesmark,
one of the things I told Stu Lecter,
and you've got to be,
you absolutely have to be better communication
with the people in this area,
with the residents about what you're planning.
So anyway, that's, actually can you, anybody who's in line.
