Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

All right. So, I think we'll call the Wednesday, October 15th, 2025 meeting of the Foster City Planning Commission to order. Uh, Mr. Trainer, can you call the role, please? Mr. Duncan, here. Mr. Kraner, I'm here. Mr. Stevens, here. Mr. Kinsky here. And Madam Chair, I'm here. Thank you. We have a quorum. Great. Thank you. And I I know um Miss Freedellander will be absent tonight. And we do have one commissioner who would like to join remotely. Uh Mr. Pollinsky. So, Mr. Pollinsky, can you please identify your location and the reason for your participation by electronic means? Uh I am in Bloomington, Delaware and traveling for work.

Great. Thank you. So, can we have a motion to allow Mr. Mr. Pollinsky to participate electronically. I move that the planning commission approve electronic participation by Mr. Pinsky in this meeting for professional reasons related to travel pursuant to the planning commission's policy for remote participation in planning commission meetings as adopted on February 5, 2025. Great. And uh Mr. Trainer, I think you said we could do a voice vote or is it a roll call? Just need a second. Second. Oh, second. I'll second that. Second. Thank you. Yeah. Um, and you said it was a roll call vote. Uh, we can or and all in favor. Okay. Is it okay to do all in favor? Okay. All right. Uh, all in favor? I I I I

All right. Great. Welcome, Mr. Pinsky. Thank you for joining us remotely. Thank you. Uh, we'll keep an eye out for your for your hand. Um, or if you if we're not seeing your hand, please just chime in. So, I know remote participation is tough. Uh, okay. Um, did everybody have a chance to look at the agenda? Any suggested changes? If not, can we have a motion to approve or adopt the agenda? Madam Chair, I move to adopt the meeting agenda. Thank you. Is there a second? A second. Okay. All in favor? I I uh Mr. Pinsky, I said I, but I wasn't sure if you guys heard me.

Just getting it on the record for Jack. Uh, no speaker series tonight. Uh so then that takes us to the receipt of petitions. Uh Mr. Trainer, do you have a summary of our written correspondence?

Yeah, Madam Chair, uh Jillian Economo of 1203A Lincoln Avenue uh wrote to the commission in support of the city uh exploring an update to its shared mobility device regulations. Uh Aaron uh exploring an update to its shared mobility device regulations. Uh Aaron Welsh at 314 West Columbia uh wrote with concern um about the city exploring an update to its shared mobility device regulations. And Gene Gresco of 120 North Fairfax Street wrote with concern uh regarding the cottage housing letter uh on the agenda tonight.

Okay, great. Thank you. Uh do we have any in-person petitions? Uh, no speaker slips, madam chair. Okay. All right. Uh, I think that takes us then to our action items for tonight. The first action item is the aforementioned cottage housing ordinance letter. Uh, thank you for putting a staff report together for this, Mr. Trainer.

Sure. Um, I will I will give the uh staff report presentation also. Um, so um let's see. the planning commission um had a work session on the um basically the last time that uh this was before uh the planning commission which was back in 2020. Uh I think we have the exact date on here. Um well at least city council held its last work session on exploring an update to the cottage housing ordinance during its uh February 13th 20 uh or I'm sorry, February 17th uh 13th, 201 um 17 was when the cottage housing ordinance was adopted and the planning commission I think in early 2020 uh reviewed um then staff proposals uh regarding uh an update to the cottage housing ordinance. Um there was a uh clause in the adopted cottage housing ordinance that uh required the city council to consider uh either updating uh or repealing or uh no changes to the cottage housing ordinance after 3 years had passed. Um and so now it's been more than 3 years and and no action has taken place. And so during the um planning commission's um in its annual report to city council uh for its 2024 calendar year, the planning commission uh included a recommendation to city council that it include cottage housing um review to its work plan. Um to date that hasn't happened. And so, um, the planning commission held a work session earlier this year, uh, sort of rehashing what those, uh, staff, uh, recommendations were, uh, from 2020 and, um, expressed an interest in, uh,

drafting a letter, uh, formally kind of again, um, recommending that city council uh, include reviewing an update to the cottage housing ordinance um, during its 2026 six calendar year work plan. Uh and so one has uh been drafted and included in the uh package for y'all to tonight to consider. Um, and so this is this is an action item where uh the commission's being uh asked to uh and recommended to um finalize the draft letter uh language and that'll be um signed by the chair and circulated to to council uh as a a uh formal recommendation correspondence letter from the commission to city council. Uh and so that that is attached uh and I could pull that up for the commission's review unless there's any other

questions. Yeah, it might be helpful to have the letter for reference um for the any discussion and thank you for that summary, Mr. Trainer. So yeah, so we talked about this. I think it was three months ago, maybe it was in July, um had discussed drafting a letter um to nudge council to take another look at this. So, here's the drafted letter. What discussion um do we have on this item? I know, Mr. Stevens, this was something that you were interested in in moving in advancing, and so I don't know if you want to kick us off.

It is. And actually, I have very little to say. I thought the letter was uh looked balanced to me as far as uh its goal, which is to uh recommend to city council that they include this as part of their work plan. Obviously, there's a lot of discussion that still has to take place both here, obviously within council, and also within the community. So, I think the letter kind of sets that tone and uh and uh provides uh it urges the council to uh to incorporate those needs into whatever action that it takes. So, as far as I'm concerned, it's it's good to go, but I'm eager to hear what uh what the rest of the commissioners think. Okay.

Anyone else? Mr. Yeah. Duncan, I thought it was an excellent letter. Thank you for drafting it. Uh, just to make sure I understand the fourth bullet point, reduce the minimum required lot size from 40 thou 45,000 square ft to 33750 is reducing it from an acre to 3/4 of an acre. Is that what the math works out to be? Um, and is that what we decided that that's what staff recommended? That was the staff re those numbers were the staff recommendation.

And if I'm remembering correctly, I think those numbers come from the um minimum lot area for R1A. Um, and so the the way that works out is um I think those numbers basically suggest that in terms of consolidation, you would need two um you would need fewer uh parcels to consolidate to form a vi a uh a site that would meet the the new requirements versus what's on the books today.

Mhm. Okay, that's my understanding. And the uh second point is in response to some public comment that we've gotten, this would apply to um properties in T-zones as well as R1A and R1B.

So right now, um I think these only apply to R1A, uh with a special exception. Um and uh so there's other requirements as well. Um among the the staff recommendations that were made at the time um inclusion of R1B uh was also uh recommended. Um as well as you know other other recommendations like lowering the um minimum lot area uh expanding the eligible location uh with respect to you know distance from a uh revitalization district. Uh I I also want to stress that the these recommendations were were staff recommendations from 2020 and um there's there's been no obviously directive to to move forward with these these were um made at the time for for consideration. So any any council directive would require you know renewed and extensive public engagement. Um I I imagine if given the the directive to explore an update, these would be starting points uh for for the conversation and um you know adjustment could be you definitely would be on the table um following that public engagement and and um going to boards and commissions and and having more work sessions and etc.

Okay. So, as it stands now, it would not uh include T-zones, which were a creature that occurred after long after this recommendation was made in 2020. That's correct. Yeah, T-zones aren't part of the current um inclusion. Okay. An eligible district. All right. Okay. Thank you. Thanks. Go ahead. If I might

um and I I was not here. I think it was in July. It was definitely a summer month that I missed the meeting where this was discussed and I so I just had a few questions about some of which you just touched on as far as you know the the genesis of I'm sorry I was speaking to the mic the genesis of the um the recommendations in the letter you know from staff um and so and now you just answered that question that it was stuff that staff had developed can do you mind maybe expanding just a bit on how and again forgive me if you went through all through this in the summer but how staff arrived at those as a starting point even I mean did you was there data know you looked at I mean was and I don't know if it was you personally your predecessors yeah it was not you but um do you was there any in the record you know indication of where those suggestions came from both you know why those why those as opposed to others or why you know

yeah um let's see I should have included the staff report um that had I think last time we had the staff report uh from the last time uh either council or planning commission and um looked at this but which has that history but uh so I'll I'll do my best but um I I think a lot of these recommendations stem from the fact that um in the history of this ordinance which again was adopted in 2017 there's only been one cottage housing or um development which is the railroad cottages um and so uh you know recognizing that cottage housing could be another way to diversify the housing stock uh in in the city both in in terms of uh form and and price point. Um they represent, you know, something that the city uh you know could have an interest in in making um more obtainable. Uh and so in order to do that, staff was making these recommendations about lowering the uh minimum lot area required for the site. Um, again, kind of lowering some some of the um uh some of the steps that were put in that original ordinance in order to um perhaps make it more obtainable to developers or more attractive to pursue. Um I think it would remain a special exception uh

item. So, so it wouldn't be uh at least, you know, as as was previously proposed, uh that wouldn't change from a special exception item. So, it it it would still go to council in addition to um the planning commission for, you know, on an application basis. So, there it wouldn't be a buy, right? But, um as well as other boards and commissions, of course. Yeah. Yeah. So, a lot of those proposals were were aimed at just trying to get more, I believe.

Okay. No, that that's helpful. And I I I surmise that, you know, that's what the point of it was. I mean, maybe just, you know, given that it might be maybe the letter could be tweaked to say that to kind of indicate that that's a starting point to make it more clear that um and you do say that in here that this was following the 2020 recommendation, but um you know, to indicate that this is a starting point. I mean, again, maybe also to allay some of the concerns that we heard. you know, we received one letter, but you know, I don't I'm sure, you know, this again, this is something that, you know, we we kind of took this up um kind of on our own in the summer, and you know, there wasn't a lot of community input or or not really any. Um, and so I think it's important that we couch couch it that way that this is a starting point. We're building off of what I think the most salient thing honestly to underscore is the fact that the original ordinance had this this direct directive to do a to do an assessment

of the ordinance in 20 was three years so in 2020. Yeah.

And that didn't occur. I mean, to me, that's the most salient thing to try to drive home to council, to the community that this was supposed to happen. Whatever your view is on loosening up the ordinance or not, um the point is, you know, the the or it was adopted specifically with this directive to take a look at it, which is a very smart thing to do. And that's a good thing anytime we're doing something. I believe the T-zone ordinance might have had something like that, too. I don't recall, but it's always good to do that. And it didn't. It hasn't happened. And I think that that something that, you know, is the most important thing to stress as the main thrust of the letter to be like, "Hey, council, this is something that, you know, should have been done. It wasn't done. It's important." Um, there's an opportunity here and maybe, you know, not make it seem like we've come up with these, you know, these suggestions and that's what we want you to do. That this was a starting point. You know, just to remind you, staff had come up with these ideas. These are an example of the type of changes that could be made. um not that we're recommending you must you should you should immediately proceed to you know set about an ordinance update for this um because I think that's some of the concern. I mean I'm trying to parse through the concern that I heard. I think that that was part of it that it was somehow you know the commission was just sort of you know going to put our opinion out there and we've done and you know it almost implies that we've done a lot of analysis or you know and and decided this is what we need to do and I don't think we mean to imply that. So, that's my main comment overall. Again, again, having not been part of the discussion in the summer, but um you know, I think it's it's important that we tell council, hey, like we never did this check-in. There's been no further cottage development. Um the two that's probably a sign that we should have done the check-in. We haven't done it. Let's do it. Um and we can this is a starting point, but it it's not the end. and it and it's it's at this point it's it's a very you know it's just an initial recommendation of ideas to study for further study. That's

my opinion. That's what I would be more comfortable supporting as far as the tone. So, it's really a nuance overall. You know, I'm on board with kind of, you know, letting council know that this is something that's important, but maybe just slightly adjusting the tone of the letter. Mr. Steven.

Yeah. No, I think it's a good suggestion. I I certainly support putting in the uh uh objective that there be a three-year uh review and that we kind of pass that. Obviously, CO influenced the delay as to why it hasn't happened in part. Um, and just another kind of thought occurs to me to to share is when we talked about this in July, uh, it was staff's view that uh, without some direction from council, they couldn't really uh, you know, put work in on on this uh, issue at this time. So I, you know, that just kind of further supports the notion that, you know, those four bullets were not things that the planning commission came up with. they were simply pulling those from uh consideration that were that was uh developed back in 2020 by staff. So, I don't know if it if the letter needs to have any wording to further clarify that, but that that uh is the background as I recall it.

We do use the word re-examine the following 2020 staff recommendations. So, um, but I'm I'm I'm fine with adding a um like a a paragraph or something maybe even under those those four recommendations saying that they should serve as a starting point. We might need to like word smith, right? just making clear that, you know, we would certainly as part of any as part of any process to do this, we would expect and and and and pursue a robust um you know, community engagement um you know, process or or that's the last line in the letter, but yeah, we could we can add that um

community supported way, right? I think I just think we Yeah, we we we touch on it. I think, you know, maybe just needs to be underscored that, you know, we're we're we're you know, I think we're observing the fact that one, we missed the deadline. Two, there's been no development and that, you know, is really, you know, those are those are kind of like alarm bells that, you know, something um isn't working with that ordinance. It it was a one-off, you know, um we got one project out of it and it's almost like the ordinance was tailored just for that. Um and I don't think that was the intent, but that's what it appears, you know, was the effect. Um, and so and that's so I like the fact that we put it in bold, you know, that appears unlikely additional projects will be feasible. I mean, that's also good. Um, but yeah, so I think the more just maybe I don't think we even need a whole new paragraph or maybe something that just refers to these recommendations as a starting point or encouraging staff to, you know, again to start with these, maybe reassess, you know, there may be additional things they'd like to, you know, to look at. Um and that you know any and then and then just again just to kind of maybe put the community at ease that any such activity you know if council was to authorize it um would you know there would be a robust community um engagement process that would that would that would follow as part of anything like that.

It's a good suggestion. Um I want to make sure Mr. Pinsky and Mr. Kinsky got a chance to weigh in before we do any like word smithing. Uh it's a solid letter. I think I support it. C uh certainly support it. I think just to clarify uh 33750 I think is three R1B lots. That sounds right to me. Yeah. So I the R1B I think is 11250. That's R1A I think. I mean R1A. That's what I meant. It's three maybe three instead of four. So 33750 is three R1A lots.

That um

and I certainly support um adding the reference that there was a uh missed requirement to review this because of COVID. And this is this is actually a a requirement for the city to do this. Um that was missed during CO. Uh and the last question that I have is and uh Mr. Trainer, I don't know if you can answer this question for the whole staff. Uh what is your sense of the burden this is going to place on your current work plan? Uh I think this would um be a considerable um lift you know to uh just think about the public engagement that would need to happen. Um this is uh something that would affect um you know a lot of of the city and large parts of it. Um and so just thinking about you know the effort um behind the accessory dwellings update which you know also affected you know not probably not as uh large a part of the city that um this would although one of the recommendations is including R1B uh and so it would be close to the accessory dwellings um uh update in terms of um zoning districts and um percentage of the city affected. So, I would imagine it would be something close to the accessory dwellings update. Um, I don't know if it would be uh I I I think that's kind of the closest thing we we can think of. Um, that's the thing that comes to mind. So, you might want to be prepared when this does get to city council to answer the question of what's the workload associated with it and what might have

to fall off of your 2026 work plan if we take this on. Uh, you know, it seems like a great initiative, but we need to figure out the, you know, how the priorities of your work plan, right? That's all. Thank you. Yeah, that was going to be the part. So, I had two pieces. I mean, I agree with what everybody Hold on. Danny, can you um turn him up a little bit? Yeah. Let's see. You're a little quiet in the room. Is that Yeah. Is that any better if I talk louder like that? That'll help. That'll help.

Any better? That I'll just I'll just yell in this hotel room. Hopefully, nobody's in the room next to me. Um, two things I wanted to add here in general agreement with what everybody said here is one I would want to make sure that like any piece of uh any opportunity cost from doing this work would be clearly understood before the city council did any sort of um directing staff to do this work uh because I think we want to make sure like this is a good thing this is a good thing to do but also at the time like with all of the city engagement with all the public engagement we're going to definitely want uh it's definitely going to take up a lot of time and we need to make sure that we are uh making the appropriate prioritization decisions. The second piece of this is if so if you could scroll up just a just a hair uh Jack on the on the thing is I don't I wasn't clear that this uh the issue was that projects are un are not feasible based on the existing criteria just that we had not seen the uptake that we want and we think

changing some of these criteria uh would give us would give would make it more enticing to developers. Uh so I think that this I think my only point here was that we didn't I didn't think it was necessary to make it um sound as though the restrictions are coming from these particular set of criteria though they may be right like I think that's definitely possible but just that this might be a way to spur interest in this particular set of uh uh this particular set of uh opportunities and was something that the council had committed to or had planned on doing uh previous to this and we should follow up on it.

I'll stop yelling at my neighbors now. Great. Thank you. Um so I I guess maybe we're at a point where I think we want to agree we want to make a few tweaks. So now we get to do the fun sort of word smithing part of this. Mr. Duncan is documenting our our trials. Make sure my mother. Thank you. I thought you might. Um, Mr. Trainer, are you able to do uh track changes in the Yeah, they're document. Okay. On and ready. All right. So, um,

uh, let's see. Let's maybe we can start with yours, Mr. Kraner. Okay. Is there a particular way that you would think you would like to word I I I I think it would be good to include the the fact that this was uh required by the original ordinance this review that was I don't know sort of started but not completed. I mean like that there was a review there was a staff review that was done in 2020 and then a code happened what happened it was right this this was right because the the ordinance was passed in February of 17 so March 2020 right right at the beginning of co there was a pandemic so it's not surprising that this sort of briefly was discussed and then discarded because there were much more pressing issues that the city was dealing with

should that threeyear maybe go at the beginning of I can't quite see the oh under the emergency That's true. Mr. Nuggan has raised the point that there was like restrictions in uh in the early days we were almost you know we could barely even work on the budget. I mean it had to be something extremely right. The law was very strict about how you could have a public that later was liberalized but there's no sense of that in this letter which is

yeah that's a good point. It might be good to mention that that the the three-year mark, you know, came at the right at the beginning of the CO emergency um which limited, you know, the city's ability to to complete that review. Um and since then, right, it hasn't been completed. another I'll jump in here because others have spoken but uh the wording of the first graph sort of presupposes that an update you know is the is the default position but really what it is

that we're recommending is the city council uh review the city's cottage housing ordinance uh make that review a priority item without weighing in on whether it needs to be changed or

updated or whatever. That's so I'm I'm looking at the original ordinance. It does say at the last paragraph, be it further ordained, blah blah blah, several things. But then C, within 3 years of enactment of this ordinance, the city manager will bring to city council an analysis of applications, approvals, and pro projects with a recommendation for continuation, amendment, or repeal of this ordinance. So it's pretty clear that there was a requirement for that. Right. Right. You could quote that. Yeah, Mr. Duncan is right. You could just quote that and say that

that process, you know, started but never completed. Right. I mean, staff did an analysis. Did you actually present it to council? Did it ever? It was. Yeah, it was presented. Yeah, it was even presented to the planning commission, but staff did not make a recommendation as to whether the ordinance should be continued, amended, or repealed. It was sort of like the the very beginning the very beginning of the discussion. So that's what you say that you know you could quote that and say that it the process to to complete that requirement was initiated but not completed um because no recommendation was ever made or or adopted. So and I think maybe that's how we say it. That'd be somewhere I guess further up in the letter kind of as an introduction. Yep. Why we're doing this.

Also um maybe we can Mr. Sher for Mr. Duncan's um point. Maybe we can address that in that first sentence first. The Foster City Planning Commission respectfully recommends that the city council review the city cottage housing ordinance. Is that right? Is that initiate review? Initiate review of the city cottage. The city right rather than and just strike consider making an update to maybe say as required. I don't know. Maybe maybe we just need to say as required by the 2017 ordinance. Yeah. Yeah. Consistent with the

ordinance number. Yeah. Pursuant to that pursuant to Yeah. Ordinance number 1966 adopted February, you know, 2017. Yep. And then maybe we can include that sort of COVID context here. Trying to keep ordinance number 1926. Is that 1966? Ordinance number 1966, right? It was adopted February 13 of 17. Um, and then you can cut that a priority item for its 2026 work plan, I think. Okay. Do you agree, Mr. Duncan? Okay.

Uh, and then do we want to add this sort of COVID context as an additional sentence here at the intro? Did we want to include the adoption date? Was that Oh, yeah. I'm sorry. Um uh February February 3rd 13 13th 13 is 2017. Yeah. Thank you Mr. Kraner.

Okay good. Uh and then do we want to do another sentence after this? this um uh an initial staff review was right started or was presented Mhm. was presented in February of 2020.

Well, actually, yeah. So, maybe maybe it's reinitiate because they started it right and now we're kind of picking it up again. So maybe the better verb is uh reinitiate review because it was started pursuant to the ordinance, right? Because it it was started within the three years and then it just never finished. So in some ways we kind of were, you know, we were trying to comply with the ordinance but then it it fell away. Maybe the word resume city council resume. Yeah, resume. I like reinitiate. I don't Okay, it's fine. I don't Well, I'm easy. Yeah. Initial an initial staff review was presented in February 2020 but further discussion did not occur or the day

was interrupted due to well it was interrupted that's good right was interrupted by the co 19 emergency and never completed. Yeah. So the planning commission work session was in January 2020 and city council was February 3rd. Yeah. Mhm. I have no recollection of that. I guess I was I was here. I have no recollection of it. I was sitting at home. So, an initial staff review is presented in February 2020, or maybe not a comma. I never know if there's a comma before the but but was interrupted, right? Or this. Yeah. interrupted was interrupted or

it was interrupted by the COVID 19 emergency and never completed. Um it was never completed. Mhm. Mr. Kinsky, I I um I like that I I would not take out that priority item for uh 2026. I would just say as such the commission uh recommends this as a priority item for its 2022 work plan. I mean I think we we don't want to just rest on the technicality.

Yeah. So maybe well maybe add that clause at the end. This is still a priority. Yeah. Maybe after the word completed you could say comma um give me give me a semicolon. Yeah. and say therefore, right? We we recommend it should be a right. Yeah, we can move that there. Therefore, should be a priority item, right? Is that a new sentence? Yeah, I would say I would say therefore that's a sentence. Yeah. So, uh period after completed and then

Yeah. maybe like so therefore like a re-examination of the cottage housing ordinance should be a priority item something like that for council's 2026 work plan examination of the cottage housing ordinance right for the 2026 work plan the council's 2026 work plan whatever we call it in the council's or for council's work All right. Okay. And I think there's an E on the end of there for Yeah. This is the worst part about

doing this is you're live spelling. Go. My spelling gets tested. We all get exposed. Spelling typing. Yeah. No, you do great, Jack. Thank you for bearing with us. Okay. So, can we read that through? The Fals City Planning Commissioner respectfully recommends that the city council reinitiate review of the city's cottage housing ordinance pursuant to ordinance 1966 adopted on or just adopted February 13th, 2017. Take out the dash. Uh I think that might be a track changes thing. Yeah. An initial staff review was presented in February 2020 but was interrupted. But was is it the process was interrupted the sort of like but this review process

it was interrupted due to Yeah. The meeting wasn't interrupted the process but was interrupted due to Yeah. English major's here. I know. Yeah. Um so an initial staff review was presented in February 2020 but the review process was interrupted. So maybe after the butt, the review process was interrupted over to the left a little bit. After the after but after but yeah, the review process.

Okay, I think that makes sense. But the review process was interrupted due to the CO 19 emergency and was never completed. Therefore, a re-examination of the cottage housing ordinance should be a priority item for council's 2026 work plan. Does that make sense to everybody? Mr. Pollinsky?

Yeah, it does make sense to me. I think that works. Okay. Um, and the only thing do where do we address and maybe it's lower in the letter, the public comment. That's the very last sentence. The the very last sentence. Okay. Well, I I do think um Mr. Kraner had some good suggestions about, you know, just making sure that people understand that we're um we're not recommending these four. These are just the four that were initially proposed. You could have priority item. You could say priority item for council's 2026 work plan with full public engagement.

Sure. Yeah. I think that's it's always good to stress that that is how we do business. Um, so if you scroll down, uh, Jack B down to that section. So, council provide direction to staff to how do we want to how do you how how are you thinking of updating this, Mr. Croser? Make it clear. Um, do you have an idea here? Let's see. Are we Yeah, I guess my intent was I wanted to make sure that, you know, it was clear. These are starting points that the right we do say these were re you know these were 2020 recommendations and so um

you said initial staff recommendations maybe that right the initial so yeah instead of like strike following from 20 in front of 2020 so just the initial 2020 staff recommendations and do we want to say as a starting point for a public discussion or do we want to well you say that the first paragraph Yeah. Or maybe we see something to the effect of like, you know, including but not limited to these ideas. I mean, these were the initial ideas they had 5 years ago. Yeah. You know, a lot of time Yeah. a lot of time has passed.

So maybe something that, you know, Yes. I want I looking to imply to to people that these were the initial ideas. We should it's been five years. We should evaluate whether or not these are still valid um proposals. But this is not it's an exclusive list, right? We want to make sure people know this is like a it's not chiseled in stone,

right? It's not including but not limited to these ideas um of ways to to amend the ordinance. So something like that. I don't I got to think of a better way to more concise way to say that. So given the city's ongoing need for a broader range of housing options and staff's previous detailed review of potential updates, planning commission recommends that council provide direction to staff to reexamine the initial 2020 staff recommendations uh as part of future work planning. Uh let's see. I'm not sure how to get that including but not limited to

Yeah, give it to somebody. I we could we could add the including in here but not the but not limited to cuz these were the four recommendations maybe like again I think you know it's getting back to that the the second clause in that sentence staff's previous detailed review. I mean I think you know again that's also implying that like staff came up with these ideas five years ago and and these are great and we're going to just you know this is what this is what we want. I think we maybe we don't, you know, I think we should maybe instead of saying, you know, given staff's previous detailed review, that's kind of implying like they did all the work already and so we just need to adopt this. I think we want to maybe say that something different. So maybe that that second clause needs to change

to something that, you know, um more more the gist of the end of the paragraph where it says we should reexamine these. I mean something like so maybe it needs to be more maybe not not even like a given

just staff had previously identified um you know uh was it four you know four four recommendations um and then we should acknowledge the fact that five and a half years has passed um so it might be more you know given that five and a half years has passed and you know um I think staff should the council should direct staff to you know re-evaluate um these uh these recommend commendations and and identify if if if further um if if modifications or further uh recommendations are are warranted or something like that.

Well, we sort of I guess make the case for picking this up again in that first paragraph now more strongly than we did um before because this paragraph originally was sort of making the case for you know we're looking at a broader range. we we would like to have a broader range of housing options in our community and cottage housing is one of the pieces of that puzzle. And so that was sort of the the why for I mean I'm not arguing against I'm just saying like now the why is is also we said we were going to do this and we didn't do it. So, um, uh, let's see. I I I always hate like I think in the context of that first paragraph,

the way it's worded now is is pretty solid. I mean, we're saying we we didn't complete it in the uh when we were supposed to and so we want to reexamine the initial recommendations. I mean, anything's up open to misinterpretation, but I think it we're we're pretty clear there. Mr. Duncan, do you feel council members would feel themselves limited to just these four bullet points?

Well, I was thinking the same thing. I mean, is it possible to say given the city's ongoing need for a broader range of housing options? Okay, we all agree with that. And just drop the next phrase, the planning commission recommends that council provide direction to staff to re-examine its 2020 recommendations. comma which included colon removing expanding permitting etc. So so that was just a listing that list sounds less comprehensive and decided than just like here's some things that they came up with that were

specific enough to you know be worthy of including in a letter like this but not pre-ordained. Yeah.

Okay. So, um, so let's Jack, can you strike that clause that end staff's previous detailed review of potential updates? If that's rubbing people the wrong way, um, given the city's ongoing need for a broader range of housing options, the planning commission recommends that council provide direction to staff to re-examine the initial 2020 staff recommendations. And maybe here um, let's cut that as part of future work planning. Yeah. And let's say 2020 staff recommendations to that would expand the or that would um uh a mod amend staff recommendations to amend the cottage housing ordinance. Well or just we were we first I thought we were saying like which included

you know those things which included we can we can do that but I think we need to be clear about what those re what the origin of these recommendations are what what was the purpose of them. Um, okay. Right. Okay. To expand the Yeah. the to reexamine the initial 2020 staff recommendations, expand opportunities to implement, you know, implement the ordinance or to Right. Because that's the whole point of it is that it's it's we're at a expanding opportunities to um yeah to expand the ordinance,

the reach, the breadth of the ordinance. I mean, something like that. I mean, that's kind of what we're looking to do by, you know, both spatially by saying we're going to, you know, look at more locations and more parts of the city, but also the age restriction. I mean, we're opening it up in different directions both. Yeah, it was a there were four very different areas to consider. Um, that's fine. Okay. So, the planning commission recommends that council provide direction to staff to re-examine the initial 2020 staff recommendations that would expand the ordinance. Is that what we want to say there? Expand the reach of the ordinance. That would expand the expand opportunities to implement the ordinance.

Maybe we don't need it. Okay. If we're struggling, then maybe we can just drop it. Um, so do we want to add here like comma including colon? Mhm. And then um so after recommendations Jack add a comma and including

okay and I think we have a colon already after that. And then if you scroll down under the four do we want to say something like you know this is these are these these ideas were recommended in 2020. We're not limited to these because right right here we're already we're sort of talking about the work plan. Um but do we want to add a line here that sort of gets at that idea Mr. Kraner that um uh you know this is these are a starting point these recommendations should be considered a starting point for public review and discussion. Okay.

And it's just maybe it's just one sentence that's all on its own unless somebody has a better idea there. But I I I want to get that idea in in into the letter because I don't I don't want this to cause some sort of panic that we're planning on. Right. So, can you just add another like a paragraph here, Jack, and then say these these recommendations? Yeah. Not not changing this paragraph, but like Yeah. Adding another one above it. Yeah. Should be considered a starting point for public review and discussion. Okay. Is that clear? Yeah, that that makes me happy. I'm comfortable with that.

Okay. Yeah, that's definitely the intent. Uh, any other The only thing that I just from a strictly a style point. Yes. Um, if we're going to use the word including, I think we go to removing the age restriction, expanding the eligible. Oh, yeah. Uh-huh. You have to add to your verbs. And we need moving, expanding, permitting, and reducing. Expanding. Permitting has two T's, Jack. I think I would get that one wrong. Is that a preemptive spelling correction? You didn't even You didn't have You didn't have time to get it wrong. That's probably a word that you see a lot.

I trusted you, Jack. I knew you were coming through on that one. I always I always get that one. I was panicking. You know, it's a liberal arts colleges. All right. Thank you. Exactly. Right. All right. Are we happy? Do we want to read through the whole thing or are we good with it? I like to read through the next paragraph. There's something sort of Yeah. I mean, is it too abrupt? Is there I don't know if we even need to say I mean, if it's if it's important to us, I don't need we I don't think we need to apologize. We know you're busy. It's like saying like we know you're really busy, but Yeah. Do you want to cut that? Yeah. Get rid of that. We think it's important. I mean,

say we believe re I guess we have a stronger case now that we this is the ordinance and we didn't do it. We believe that revisiting the cottage housing ordinance represents a meaningful near-term opportunity is a perfectly fine sentence. Everything. Yeah. From nonetheless to the beginning. You could delete that from Yeah. Nonetheless, go up. Yeah. Commission. Yeah. Sorry. From the commission through nonetheless. Through nonetheless. Yeah. Get rid of nonetheless because we're just just saying it. We believe their revisiting the ordinance represents a meaningful near-term attorney for change or res challenges. That's fine. That's good. Yeah. Yeah.

Any include a clear public process that just underscores what we said. That's fine. Now we've said it. Uh oh, Jack, you better fix the you better fix the sent the word in the the sentence we added there above. Oh yeah, let's fix that. The classic planning error. Actually, you're writing. You have pubic meetings all the time. All right. Here, I'll stop there. I'll I'll not tell the joke. I'll stop there. I can keep on going. But makes company. All right. Anything else? Mr. Pinsky. Um, he had to go. He got knocked off. I think he get But he he's in there. Admit.

Oh, can you admit him, Jack? Yeah, it's trying to probably got admit of I'm not sure if it's I can see the admit. Yeah, you can't click it. He's in the lot. I'm trying to let him in. It's just spinning. Wonder if I can. Let me text him. I have his number service in Delaware. Back on I don't know. I guess he might be watching maybe.

Okay. Um, any luck? It's just spinning. Yeah. Yeah. Okay. Can you vote over my my text messages? Might have to to reboot. Yeah. Well, I don't know if that works if the if you quit the team's meeting. Okay. Well, any other edits? Nope. Okay.

Okay. Um Oh, I see. Yeah. Okay, then. I think with those changes, can we get a motion to approve the letter? Since I was there at the beginning, I think I should probably make a motion that we send the letter as revised to our friends on the city council. I will second that. Great. Thank you. Uh do we need a roll call vote? Um yeah. Okay, let's just do it. So, uh, first was Mr. Duncan.

Yes. Is that right? And sorry, who seconded? Um, Mr. Stevens. Okay. Uh, now the vote. Mr. Duncan, I. Mr. Kraner, yes. Mr. Stevens, yes. Mr. Kinsky, yes. Uh, Mr. Pollinsky is still not with us. So, uh, Madam Chair, uh, yes. Okay. Thank you. We have the motion passes. All right. Thank you. Thank you for bearing with us, Jack. You're a very good tech. You win. You win the track changes hero the week award. It's terrific. I uh real time government here.

Couple trial and errors. We'll uh identify some best practices. Yeah. Oh, I see it's spinning now. I don't think it's going to work. Yeah. Okay. Once it gets that. Okay. All right. Well, thank you all. Um, so I think that takes us to our next action item was which is the approval of the planning commission minutes from the September 17th meeting. Did everybody have a chance to review? I was not here so I'll abstain.

I did have a chance to review if nobody else caught anything. I didn't see anything and therefore would move to adopt the meeting minutes for September 17th, 2025. Second. All right. All in favor? I I. And I'll abstain. Okay. [Music] He's back. We got him. No, he's back. Mr. Plinsky. Very exciting feedback. Y thought you got blown away by the wind or something. Um

the the internet died. The hot water's out just having a rough time. Sorry. Sorry. What a bummer. Uh I don't suppose that we can record Mr. Pinsk's vote. Oh yeah, sure. Can we? Um I think we already procedurally. No. Okay, we already passed. That's fine. Um, sorry about that. Bad timing. Okay. So, then that takes us to item seven, work session items. We have none. Uh, so information items. Any planning commissioner reports, Mr. Stevens? No, I don't. You are representing the planning commission at the uh regional chair on Friday. Yes.

Word breakfast on Friday. Thank you for doing that. Welcome. Hopefully it'll be a useful uh opportunity to learn what our peer organizations are up to. You said single stair is on the Yeah, they have a roundroin of different topics. Uh housing initiatives in each jurisdiction. They threw in single stair just to find out if anything's going on in various jurisdictions. Um anything on parking? Uh didn't see anything specifically on that, but uh the last meeting I attended, if somebody has an issue they want to share, you just do it. Okay. It's pretty loose format. Yeah. Well, thank you.

Uh Mr. Duncan, did you have

uh the only thing I wanted to report was something I meant to report at our last meeting, which was to for the historical record take note that uh Carol Dong and Freddy Foot's portraits are now watching over us at planning commission. And uh I think for historical record purposes, that's significant. obviously the town's city's first woman mayor and the town's first African-American alderman and uh Carol, my mother-in-law, also was a longtime member of the planning commission before she moved up to moved on to city council. So, I just wanted the minutes to reflect that somewhere if that's possible.

They're lovely portraits. Yeah, it was a nice ceremony that was hardworked by not only the artist but the staff who organized the choreography of it all. It was very impressive gathering of the community and tante opened at West Broad and Southwest. Exciting. More restaurants to choose from. I I will add in uh the neighborhood got a chance to go on uh the try out day for Tate on Monday and it was is wonderful. So really excited for that to be open. That's great. Mr. Krosner, did you have

Oh, just a brief report. I mean it's sort of Yeah. Well, it's it's um I had the ability to attend the National Capital Area Chapter of the American Planning Association meeting in DC two Fridays ago. Um, in addition to seeing our former director, Mr. Stoddard, which was fun. He's now the dire now the director in Alexandria, but actually, you know, what was of more note, um, there were a number of good sessions, but um, one that I think was particularly interesting, um, was about there's a, and I wasn't familiar with this actually, there's like a a group called housing and like housing with an amperand. Um, and they produce some they like aggregate data um, for the region um, and I can send around the, you know, their their information. Um they have this tool called the housing indicator tool like hit. Um and what was interesting too is that as a as a jurisdiction we ranked um at the top in a few of their measures. Um which was particularly interesting like including um well you know they they again they set production targets of um of new units um and you know for example false church exceeded the annual production um target. We had 464 new units built in 2024 and we've produced at least 1,388 units since 2019 exceeding our six-year target of 780. Um, and we were actually were at the top of the entire region and like in two of those measures, which I thought was really interesting. I'll I'll forward it around. I could put as an info item maybe for the next meeting, but um, you know, it was it was a good a good thing. I mean, obviously we always have more work to do, but sometimes it's good to kind of look backwards and and take stock of some of the successes that we've had as a jurisdiction. I mean, you know, it's all again, it's it's it's all relative, you know, but for our size, I mean, we're we're overproducing compared to our peers. It doesn't mean that, you know, we should rest on laurels and that that's enough, but it shows that, you know, we we've done quite a quite a bit.

There's any chance you could circulate that tomorrow? It might come in handy when I'm in with the other planning commissions uh around the region. Yes, I will forward that and um so you can you can take a look at that. But it was, you know, again, I was in a big, it's at the National Press Club and they had this PowerPoint up in this big, you know, banquet hall and on a couple of the slides, false church is number one like by a large margin. So like, uh, and it wasn't like a function of our small size. No, it's per capita, right? So we we Yeah, we were we were it's normalized per,

right? So per capita per our small size, we're over, you know, we were we were ahead of our, you know, of all the neighboring jurisdictions as far as that that goes. I mean there still you know again doesn't mean that the region's doing you know what it needs to do but it was it was good to see that. So yeah I will forward that around again I was not familiar with this thing again it's called the housing indicator indicator tool um if you Google it you'll you'll find it but um it's I'll send around the link too and um you know I'll send it to staff as well. Um I think it's a good it's just a good resource you know again it it provides a lot of metrics and um you know again some ability to compare jurisdictions within the region. So um pretty pretty interesting. So, anyhow, that's my report.

Thank you for pointing that out. Looking forward to seeing it. Nothing from you. Okay. All right. I have no I don't think I have anything to report, but I'm looking forward to checking that out. Uh, okay. Are you delivering the director's report or is there a director's report? There's no director's report. Nothing. Okay.

Um, but I um can run through the look ahead. Yes. The schedule ahead. There's a busy um couple months coming up. So, uh it'd be good to review that. So, um the November meetings are the 5th and the 19th. Uh they're jam-packed with stuff. Uh October 27th, uh council meeting. Um there's several action items scheduled to tee this stuff up, including initiating resolutions and uh first readings. Uh so on November 5th, we have scheduled um the Tinder Hill reszonings. These are uh several properties on Tinder Hill Road and uh two over on Liberty Avenue um that have been used as single family homes um since the early 20th and late uh 19th century. These are legacy African-American uh homes whose families have owned uh these properties and used them as single family residences um that are uh zoned commercial. These are in B3 districts. Uh and so the um city council in 20uh 21 appropriated about uh I think it's $15,000 uh for the city to cover the costs uh associated with the resoning. Uh and so staff has uh done the work to uh tee that up and uh is ready for um the public meetings which uh includes an amendment to the uh future land use map uh for uh certain properties. This that includes changing um uh the Liberty Avenue ones from a commercial uh use to

a residential use on the future land use map. and um amending the Tor Hill properties um from uh one residential density to a suggested another density on the future land use map. So, that one's a little more housekeeping. Um but that's what those items are. Um and uh coming to the commission also is a work session on the tree canopy code amendments. Uh this is something that um Charles Prince uh the city arborist and uh Trevor uh excuse me u Kurt Lawrence uh our environmental planner uh are working on updating the city's u minimum tree canopy requirements for commercial uh developments in the city. Um that's another one that's getting first reading on October 27th from council. Uh, and then lastly, the zoning cleanups uh are coming back to the commission for a work session. And then

have we seen those before? Oh, maybe not. Sorry. The city council had a work session on those. And so the the planning commission will have its first work session. These are very um uh very cleanup items. Uh you know, adjusting things for clarity and uh punctuation and and that kind of things. These aren't substantive items,

uh, but are very kind of clerical in nature. Uh, there's three of them. Um, and so they're they're very straightforward items. And then uh November 19th uh we've got scheduled a public hearing for the Tinder Hill reszoning items. Uh public hearing for the site plan code amendments which the which the commission had um a work session on I think in August earlier this year. Uh and then we've also got scheduled uh Caitlyn Sabsi coming back to give um her quarterly CIP update to the commission. Great.

Uh, and I'll I'll remove that tentative tag because that is confirmed. So, yeah, we've got two uh very busy November meetings uh followed by a very busy uh December 3rd meeting uh with a public hearing on the tree canopy amendments and the zoning cleanups. Um uh Andrew Olison um will be coming to the commission to talk about uh a bike false church initiative working with uh Nova Parks uh regarding the uh stop signs I believe and trail crossings on the WOD. These are this is a design item I think specifically for the stop signs. Uh I'm but I'm less familiar with this item. Uh,

is that a I don't know if it's a work session item though. Is it more of uh I thought he was going to be speaking during public comment. Yeah, I I thought he was seeking some feedback. He has a presentation and so I I I think his intention was to get some some feedback. Okay. Which probably warrants a work session more than more than a threeminut public comment. Um I I can touch base with him and and sort of get some more information. But that was the sense I got. It sounds like um I think this is an update to an initiative that Bike Falls Church um undertook a couple years ago. Um so he came before the the planning commission

again a couple years ago and I think that was a work session item. Uh and so I think this is a continuation or update of that process. Okay. So just allow for a more expansive discussion. Yeah. If needed. Yeah. Okay. Um, and then also that December 3rd meeting, it'd be good to talk about the schedule of meetings for 2026. So, we'll we'll put that together. Um, one last thing I wanted to flag um is any preference for when the planning commission would want to have uh its annual advance.

I was just thinking about that. So, we've been that's been scooting back like kind of later. Yeah. um which makes it harder because we don't have those discuss we we can't really do our annual report to council that that also gets pushed to like April if we do the advance in like March. So would people be opposed to doing it a little earlier January February time frame? That's when we used to do it right January maybe.

I was even going to pose either December or January. council has their um advance retreat meeting um in I think in mid January. That date's still being finalized, but it it would be beneficial to have the commission's recommendations and annual report finalized ahead of that meeting. So they're talking about January 24th. Is that right? That's what was on the the 24th. I as Yeah. last I heard that day was still being um finalized but um it it will be in January.

So our meetings in December are um the 3rd which looks quite busy and then the 17th is cancelled. So would we would we have like a special meeting if we wanted to do it in December? Yeah, it'd have to be if you wanted in December it have to be a scheduled meeting or um tough month as as part of the schedule of of meetings, discussion, you know, we we could talk about when in uh January too might be okay. I think a Janu a December meeting is always challenging. Yeah, I think with the holidays it's it's too much. Um Mr. Pinsky, did you have a comment? Danny,

we lost him again. I I was going to say like if for me the se like if we could use the 17th it actually seems like it'd be a good time but um I understand like it's a lot challenging for holidays and other things. Yeah. Yeah. Okay. So we'll look to schedule the advance in January. Do you all do it on a regular meeting night or is it a weekend thing or what's Actually usually we we're in Dogwood. We get some sandwiches. Okay. So you do it like Yeah. Could you do it as soon as January 7th? Yeah, potentially. Uh, is it usually on a regular meeting night? It is, right? Yeah, usually. I I I think actually

I'm trying to remember. I I feel like there have been extra meetings scheduled for it, but that may have just been a function of we had other packed things agendas. Yeah. Or come down the pipe that need

that are timesensitive. Um but yeah, typically it's it's a regularly scheduled planning commission meeting that's set aside for um planning and and discussion about what the what the commission wants to recommend to city council to include on its work plan. So similar to tonight's exercise with the the cottage housing ordinance that you know that could be something that and it was this past year. It was part of the planning commission's advance. It's uh part of why I you know we we ended up um having the that item on on tonight's agenda. But that's that's similar to or you know that's that's what the advance is is meant for is sorting out what what the commission's priorities are uh in terms of making a recommendation to council on uh what to include in their work plan for the next calendar year.

How would that work for staff do you think? I mean, uh, the off the, uh, offsite or whatever we're calling it, the advanc is a little bit of a heavy lift for staff. So, you guys are going to be off probably a lot of will be off between Christmas and New Year and stuff like that. I I you think you can handle it, the staff can handle it, as soon as January 7th? I I would think so. I mean, the the sooner we know the date, the the better we can prepare. Uh we also have a planning director this year so that's that's always helpful. Last year part of the delay a big part of the delay was um just we were short-handed. Yeah.

Um and uh you know everyone on staff was in the middle of their own projects and so planning the the advance on top of that um was uh an an extra heavy load than it normally is. But I think this year now that we're full strength, um it it shouldn't be um you know too too much more. If if we met on January 7th, you can do a lot of the work hopefully in December when we're otherwise not meeting for the last two or three weeks of December. Some of which are holidays, but not all of which are. And you'd still have a few days left at the beginning of the new year to set things finally up for our meeting on the 7th.

Right. Mhm. Well, it sounds all right to me. Mhm. I agree. Okay. Very selfishly, January 7th is my daughter's birthday. So, if um if we I'm not saying we but like we could start at 6:37 so we could do dinner and then her birthday and I can come out for that that would be really useful. Uh I know we started it this year at I think it's six I want to say. So, um, yeah, we can we can adjust the start time. You bring bring her if she brings the birthday cake. She'll she'll bring all the cake. Yeah. Yeah. And you can always join us like if we if we you know, if you're a little late, that's okay, too, Danny.

Okay. Yeah. But thanks for raising. It's hard to coordinate all these schedules. Fair. Okay. Well, we can we can uh there's plenty of time to to nail down that date, but we can we can keep looking at the 7th. Yeah, I think that's good. Let's pencil it in. I mean, I think if it's helpful to you all to have like a date in mind um that you can work towards than What do you need from us in terms of um I know sometimes the advance it's sort of is more staffled and sometimes we're providing topics that we want to discuss. So what's the maybe this is a question for Mr. Matusk too. I think Mr. Matusk has has some ideas about how that that'll go.

Um yeah I I think in in years past a successful advance has had some exercise to you know foster some discussion uh amongst the commission instead of just staff talking at at the at the commission. And so, um, yeah, I think he's got some ideas to, you know, have a have a good advance and and we'll, uh, it'll be catered. So, if there's any, uh, we've done Panera in the in the past, and I think that seems to have been wellreceived, but if there's any other, uh, recommendations, then we can certainly hear those, too.

We could do a progressive dinner. We could start with, you know, dinner from Panera, desserts from Tate. Maybe by that time the uh Parisian baguette place will be open and we can have you know. All right, I'll check the budget. Yeah, exactly. Really is fine. I think for me Yeah.

Uh one question, one question about the schedule. Um at a point in time, it was on city council's agenda and I think it fell off probably six months ago. Do you know when the cable franchise agreements are going to come back to us? I have they it fell off the radar completely. Yeah, it was on the schedule for re the latest calendar was December 8th Cox Verizon and RCN I second reading so oh okay

they must have put it but yeah it's the first reading is uh November 24th for those franchise agreements on city councils it yeah city council's at least on the last mayor's meeting agenda that they handed out. That's Oh, okay. So, that's a week. It's not on this schedule, right? That's a week old, but that was what All right, that's good. Yeah, I can I can I'll follow up with you, Mr. Kinsky, on on that schedule. All right, great.

And in the are we can we back up to October? So, we're not meeting anytime for the rest of the month, right? We're not meeting again until after the election. The way it looks, correct? Yeah. The next planning commission meeting is the November 5th.

If I could, since it's not too off late, ask a couple of questions about then what we would face on November the 5th, including the tree canopy. Jack, I know this is not your staff lead responsibility, but I listened to the work session the council had the other night and I know more information is being collected and it's still a bit of a work in progress, but I just wanted to uh ask a question that I want to make sure it gets discussed and that's how the methodology for measuring canopy um didn't seem entirely clear to me. Mr. Stevens can speak about this at length with eloquence, but it still seems as far as we are into this discussion that there's not a a clear-cut way to actually be sure that the canopy measurement that we use is accurate. And specifically, and with great granularity, uh, I understood them to say that the count that they're using now counts the scrub trees on a prospective redevelopment site, but does not count the green space that is lawn. For for instance, the Madera Paul's Church Founders 2 development has as we all know a nice green lawn on the Ellison Street side which is you know per a permeable surface and as I understood the discussion that I heard that doesn't count in terms of canopy. I mean I guess canopy is only specifically trees and shrubs. At any rate, it's I mean I have many pictures of scruffy, ugly, useless uh

trees on the old development site and a nice picture of the lawn that's there now that soaks up the rain just as well as anything that was there before. And I would by the time it comes to us at least like to have somebody explain pretty clearly why that makes sense. So, if you could pass that along in the office, I would appreciate it. We'll do.

And also, I I didn't catch whether they're counting the investment that we made at the fellow's property to keep that land, that 2 acres in green as opposed to developing it for eight single family houses, which is where we were going until we spent the millions to buy the land. that that needs to be counted on the plus side. And also the purchase of the house uh and any other properties for storm water uh management mitigation also in my mind ought to be included in the calculation of what we're doing to you know make make the city more absorbent basically is is what I want to measure up not specifically only tree canopy but you know permeability improvement index is something I'd like to somebody who's crunching these numbers to take into consideration. And the only other thing that I had not related to that, but is um the Virginia village uh topic is supposed to be discussed at council on November 17th. I just want to make sure that in our meetings in October and I'm sorry in November and December we keep posted keep keep us posted on what's being discussed about Virginia Village. Um there's any developments that's a pretty key cornerstone of planning for not only land use use of the land but also housing. And that seems like it ought to if there's a joint meeting that we could listen into or participate in, that would be useful in the middle middle part of November on until whenever council quits for the holidays.

Okay. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Duncan. Uh, one thing I forgot to flag, um, is that, uh, our our team working on the, um, public utilities comp plan chapter update, the, uh, community building blocks chapter 8, uh, Zoe Larive and Emily Basemore will be, um, hosting a uh, popup event here at city hall um, right before the November 5th uh, planning commission meeting. Uh so that'll be advertised um to to to the community and and um is trying to to you know piggyback off off the planning commission meeting and um hold aformational and uh again an engagement event um that night and um I think the um regarding the planning commission's review of this item um a work session will be scheduled in um early 2026 I think in January. that doesn't have a a date yet. Um, but we'll be coming back to the commission in early 20 26. Great. Looking forward to seeing it. All right. Anything else, Mr. Pinsky? Anything from you?

No, nothing. Nothing else from me. Thank you. All right. Uh well then I think that takes us uh oh we have correspondence. Any correspondence Mr. Trainer? Okay. All right. So then I think that adjourns us 20 minutes after your estimate but not too bad. Thank you all. When are you coming back to town, Danny? We got to meet at Pontate. Uh I'm ready. I'll be back on Friday. Ready to ready to have a secondary meeting over there anytime. Okay. All right. the West End branch will we will not violate the open meetings law. There's only two of us. Only two of us. [Applause] Safe travels. Thank you.

Thanks, Danny. Bye.