Environmental Matters Committee - Regular Meeting

Good afternoon, everybody. I'm gonna call to order the, September 11 meeting for environmental matters and call to order. Roll call. For the record, all the members are present. Approval of the minutes, I, just I I would entertain a motion to approve the minutes as introduced.

I move approval of the agenda the minutes as written.

I'm sorry. Did I say minutes? I did? Okay. Well, I first, we need a motion for the agenda.

All right. All those in favor, please say aye.

Aye.

Aye. Now

Cross your mic. So

sorry. Alright. Now, now the minutes. Is there a motion to approve the minutes from July 25? So

moved. Second.

All those in favor, please say aye. Aye. Motion carries. Alright. General discussion. We have ID 5125, plan zoning and development updates. Mister Meakins, please join us.

Greetings. How's everybody doing?

Good. How about you?

Good. Thanks. I forwarded earlier Please

state your name for the record, mister Meeks. I'm sorry? Please state your name for the record.

Sure. Sure. Mike Meeks, senior planner in planning and zoning. I forwarded a email to the members of the updated current projects list. I have paper copies if you'd like. Any of you would like to see those.

We we have two We have three different attachments that which one are we looking at? EB 11. Only one of them has red on it. Okay. Thank you, sir.

Alright.

Okay. Thank you.

Alright. So, obviously, we've gone through this list before, but just to refresh your memory, everything that is in blue, there are no changes, no updates. The rows that are in white have updates and specifically the red text are the updates from the last meeting. So I will go through these starting at the top of the page. The AutoZone project at 1942 West Street.

Site design was approved by the Planning Commission. It's also been approved by planning and zoning. The forest conservation and forest stand delineations have been approved. And currently, the applicant is in for the last three demo building and grading permits. And those are all in approximately the second review. So they are getting very close to the finish line and we'll be able to pull permits soon.

May I Yes. So

they made a lot of accommodations to us and are all of those in there about access to the we and plantings and so forth?

Yes. Everything that was agreed upon, they are on board with and they have designed around that.

Thank you. Mhmm.

The next one, Bay Village 2, the senior or, excuse me, age restricted building at 960 Bay Ridge Avenue. That is still being reviewed for grading and building. I would I would say similar to AutoZone that that is getting very close to being approved. So but that that one has actually been much more slower in the push from the developer to resubmit and move forward.

You did you include plans for the for that one?

I did not include any plans, but in the future, certainly can if you'd like a boil down rendition because there's, you know, probably a 100 pages of plans for those.

I can look it up. What's the proposal for Bay Village Drive? Is it still just the senior what was it gonna be? Independent living, I think? Or is it a mix of different uses now?

It's a mix. It's independent, and I believe there's skilled care and also incorporated that with that. There's surface parking structured surface parking on the Ground Floor, and I believe four stories above that approximately. Off the top of my head, I can't remember how many stories.

So it's independent skilled living, but no other it's not mixed use?

No. I thought there was

a discussion about trying to include some site.

To my knowledge, it's just the there's a memory care portion. So but it it is it's it's all more or less residential.

This is the one This is the

one as you look at

CVS. Right?

Yeah. The Starbucks to the right as you look at it from Bay Ridge Road. Are they still planning to protect that tree? They are. They've designed the entire complex around preserving that tree. And they're taking extraordinary effort to preserve the root structure, the root the critical root zone. In fact, I did some reviews on the grading permit and had some questions about how the methodology and and type of protective fencing that is going to surround that tree, which they went into further detail as to the preservation the proposed preservation.

Good. Thank you.

Okay. So moving on, Briskum Square, which is at the corner of Bay Ridge and Tyler, that has, I'll say, come back to life, but that is an active construction site at this point. The developers are, as best I can tell, working on clearing the entire site. They've cleared they've demoed the existing house that was was there. They've cleared the area around that house, and I believe they're working deeper in parallel to Tyler Avenue, but deeper into the site.

Next really the next phase of that, which I don't have an update on, would be the utility connection in Tyler Avenue, the storm drain connection. And I reached out to Public Works to see if they had submitted their traffic control plan and pulled a permit, and they have not as of yet. So I I really don't know what the lag is, but I'm sure if you've driven by the site, you can see the the progress that they've made.

Have the has that changed ownership? It was John Pilly. Is he still involved?

No. John Pilly has sold to a development group, Ryan Development Group LLC, and I actually googled their headquarters, and they're actually out of New Jersey. I don't know if they have other projects within the county or Maryland itself.

My recollection is that grading permits are nontransferable to the new owner.

You know, I don't know the mechanism of how that, transpired, but they do have an active grading permit.

You don't have anybody from the law? Who's supposed to be

who's supposed to be here from law? Oh, there you are. Yeah. 17O8140. I looked past the there has to be concurrence from the director.

Correct. Yeah. So they are allowed to transfer it. They can't unilaterally do it. They have to get notice to the city, and the director of planning and zoning has to agree with it, which I believe occurred in this instance. At least I I remember seeing the paperwork for this particular one. Yeah. I I remember seeing the paperwork for this that transferred the, the ownership over and concurrence from planning and zoning.

Okay.

Sorry. And Ashley Leonard, assistant city attorney.

I have put that. All another yeah. One of the very first things that mister Vogel did when he took office was call me while on vacation in Maine to ask about the roadwork for the all of the pipes and whether it was better to do it at nighttime or do it in a concentrated around the clock three day period or whatever. Do we know what the plan is? That's just gonna be horrible when that all gets torn up.

Yeah. I think there was a great pushback from the community to do night work. So it's my understanding that they will do this during the day. And we discussed this the last time I was here. You know, that's gonna be it's gonna be a nightmare, really, but it's it has to happen for the development to occur.

They're gonna open cut, basically, the middle of Tyler Avenue down the hill in with a deep deep trench to get the storm drain situated. But, again, to be able to speak more intelligently and clearly on that, we will need to see the traffic control plans what they propose. And that is not available as of yet. I think there was discussion last time where we talked about or you talked about, obviously, staggering when that construction happens, not at rush hour, maybe not at lunchtime, definitely, you know, morning and evening rush hour.

And school.

Yeah. Yeah. And exactly. We're in school. School's in session now, so hopefully by the next time I see you, we'll have a plan and I can share that. And, you know, that plan will outline what the proposal is.

Yeah. That'd good to know. Yeah. I mean, I don't have a I haven't heard too many complaints about this project. I think people are generally resigned to it.

But my biggest concern is just because it was approved by the planning commission, I guess, probably back 2016 or '17. Kind of an old one. So my biggest concern is just what you know, we've adopted a new comp plan. You know, was any consideration given to ensuring that this is going to be in compliance with a new comp plan, with the new Tyler Avenue overlay? And because of my recollection, it's mostly just single family homes that are going in there.

No duplexes, anything else like that. I'm looking back at next mister Lushinski. But, I mean, that's where, like, I you know and we probably missed the opportunity now, but with the new owner, we probably should have said to them, look. We we'll agree to your transfer of the permit if you make x, y, or z changes, but now it's kind of a moot point if we've already given them that approval.

Yeah. To speak on the comp plan, we could we could ask mister Lishinsky. He is present today. The the proposal is for single family dwellings Yeah. And and access access road that gets that actually goes there there are two entry points off of Tyler, kind of a u shape, and within that u and Tyler are existing structures, existing houses. But I believe there are ten ten or excuse me, 12 single family dwellings.

Say 12. Yeah. 12. Yeah. But how close to the intersection on Tyler is gonna be one of those openings? Because that's also a turning lane to go on to Bay Ridge. I mean, that's really sounding dicey as far as access out of the community.

Yeah. Like the left out to go out towards Hilltop. I would wager it's probably 400 feet from the intersection. It's kind of at the, I'll say, maybe top of the hill. It is close, but as far as the queuing for the right turn as you come down Hilt or come down Tyler to turn right on Bay Ridge.

That access point is beyond the striping, the solid white striping for that turn lane. But, again, if, you know, to make a left out at rush hour in the evening, not the most ideal, yes.

Yeah. Well, I'd like to

Did you ask for where the other entrance is? Is that the only entrance? I thought you said there were two.

Are two. Second entrance is further out moving away from Tyler at the Tyler Avenue Intersection. And that's kind of the u that I was referring to where you have that the first access point that Alderman and Arnett asked about. And then you have two, either two or three lots in between. And then you have another, that other access point. So it's further west away from the intersection.

So that road is not delineated as of yet? The new the other end. I drove by there yesterday and happened to notice.

Yeah. They have not they have not graded or cleared that, but there is I believe there are survey markers that may or may not still be there that identify the two outer edges of that second entrance.

Mhmm. Yeah. Thank you.

Mhmm. Yeah. So, I mean, this is related to, again, the overall work we're doing on Tyler Ave. I think they're planning on improving the sidewalk on Bay Ridge. That's already in there.

But to my colleague's point and something that's been brought up before, I'd really like to see a traffic circle at that intersection, and that'll prevent people from having to turn across traffic at these points of egress because they'll just go with a little circle and go around it, you know, to go the other direction. So, you know, it might be more of a question for public works, but I'd like to get this included into some of the Tyler Avenue, the the Tyler Avenue rebuild project for all the traffic improvements. Does anybody know if traffic circle's been considered for that location? Can we use some of our existing traffic safety money to look at that? Anybody?

I I can't I can't answer that. I I do not know but I can certainly find out for you.

You mean like the traffic circle at Spa Road in Bay Ridge Or the one that Jess Packler was talking about? Spa Road and Well, people there too.

I was under the impression we were gonna look at that for a number of intersections on that road. So I know that's not your project.

Just just for clarity so I understand, you're you're talking about a traffic circle at Hilt or at Bay Ridge and Tyler That's correct. Immediately adjacent to this the Griscom development.

Correct? Okay. I mean, Alderman Gay has mentioned 101 at the intersection of Primrose, and we've also talked about 101 at intersection with Bar Road. If I may

Yeah. Eric Lashinsky, chief of comprehensive planning. Our division has been coordinating somewhat with public works with Jeff Wentz, the traffic engineer, and that is one of the locations that part of that roundabout analysis Bay Ridge at Tyler. So I don't I know it started a few weeks ago, but I don't know the status of what they've done so far. Almost done. Hilltop and Tyler is also

part of is almost done. That intersect. Okay. Yeah. I mean, my plan is to get them to the next transportation committee meeting to talk to us about it. In any case, thank you.

Thanks, Eric.

We can move on, I think. Thank you. Yeah. I think we're good. Ross is next. Thank you.

Yes. I know. Sport.

A long awaited esport shopping center.

Okay. So, yes, there I did some digging and did a little research for loss at Eastport Landing, which is an Eastport shopping center. And, again, update in red if I have a letter from the director to the applicant's attorney, mister Hyatt, that basically outlines some windows of expiration. And, basically, I'll just read what I have. APF approval, a plat must be recorded and a building permit must be obtained within five years of of the approval date, which is 10/18/2024.

So there's life left in that, but the bigger picture or the bigger issue for that development is the site design, which will expire approval will expire if a building permit is not obtained by 10/16/2005. And obviously that is right around the corner and to date we do not have an application submitted for that permit.

Just for the building permit?

No. So that's site design. That would be site design review. They would conceivably at the end of that expiration period on the October 16, they would have to go through site design review again. But APF is good for five years, so they would have four additional or four years remaining on that approval.

Does it still be a grading permit?

Well, yeah. So they would I mean they would have to pull a building permit and grading permit, but it specifically says building permit in that communication. That that has not an application for a building permit has not come in as of yet.

Thank you.

Okay. So on to the second or backside of the handout that I gave you, Primrose School, which is at the intersection of Hilltop Lane and Spa. The the building is has been constructed and opened in a limited capacity for some time now. And BGE has rerouted the utilities that have been basically preventing or holding up the destruction for the various turning lanes associated with the Hilltop area. And that is currently the road construction is currently taking place now.

That's what we're seeing.

It's not

That's Yeah. Exactly.

Not the Tyler Avenue reconstruction. I this seems like an example of Peter not talking to Paul, however the saying goes. It's like, why are we having developers spend their money to widen the road when we're looking at a complete redesign of that road and intersection. Seems like that money should instead have gone into some kind of transportation fund that we could use for

our planned improvements. So this project has been going on since approximately 2020, and I understand your point. I don't know at that the inception of this or the beginning of the project if those that proposal for the improvements that you're talking about on Hilltop were contemplated.

Yeah. I mean, I don't even think don't think public works has even put out an RFP for actually, no. Maybe they no. I think they're putting out the RFP by the August, their goal, I think, for the Tyler Avenue. That construction's gonna be at least a year out. Yeah. Again, I mean, the point is that a lot of this may get undone in another year, year and a half.

Yeah. So the improvements to that intersection were condition of approval basically to again prevent the left turning or the left out of the Primrose School. So you'd actually go right out and thus why those delineators were installed while the applicant was waiting for BGE to relocate utility line.

Mr. Chair, I have a question, actually, point of information. Are we talking about the intersection of Tyler Avenue and Hilltop? Are we talking about the intersection of Spa Road and Hilltop?

Spa Road and Hilltop.

That's what I thought we were talking about.

Yeah.

I think you were referring to Tyler Avenue, which is not the same entry.

Oh, you're right. Yeah. Yeah. Yes. Yeah. I'm thinking the same. I was saying the wrong thing, but that's

Where the Pantry 1 and St. Martin's School and Church and the Synagogue, that's the intersection that I'm talking about.

And they're currently I guess it's BG and E who's out there. They've been out there for a couple of days.

Well, BG has done their work and now it's the the contractor putting in curb and and paving to widen that intersection for a dedicated I'll say, restriped with turn lanes to accommodate the perimeter of school.

Are we getting are we getting a bike lane or anything in there?

I don't think you're getting a bike lane in the roadway, but they there there are two asphalt pathways, and there's going to be a crosswalk further down near where the entrance is to the synagogue.

Yeah. Yeah. My my point is, I mean, I just again, we have all these things in the comp plan about adding bike lanes, getting moving to complete streets. Yeah. We have these projects going in that are working directly against all of our pedestrian mobility goal. The only thing it might improve is safety for automobile traffic at that intersection, but it's just it's just disappointing. I mean, I don't know what kind of processes we need to change internally to make sure that these things don't happen, but it seems like a waste of money.

I agree with your point, but I would point out before we beat up on staff too much, this has been in the work long before the comp plan. But it only just started. Well, I realized that the

dog in the ground, it's our street. It's our infrastructure, so we should have the ability to just stay.

Let's see what mister Leshinsky but we already have a terrible reputation in terms of getting permits in the city, which I don't think is really totally warranted, but nevertheless, it's out there. And then we have the comp plan come along, which should have an impact on these things. I agree with you. But it is also conflicting with getting developed.

Although it's done. It's already done. It's it's improvement to our infrastructure I agree. Which contradicts all of our infrastructure plan. Alright. Mister Moshinsky.

I should've I should've come up sooner, when you start talking about this because I know this preceded, mister Meakins, but the the sidewalk in front of the day care was designed to be part of our future off street shared use path. So if you walk it today, you'll notice it's wider. It's 10 feet, I believe. And and so we actually recently received the Grady permits for the trail that will extend to Forest Drive from there on the other side of Spar Road.

Okay.

So this will be part of that. And then going towards Trucks And Park, this CI this capital project will go to Boxwood Road. That's the terminus of this that's where the bike lane ends today. So, Primrose did fulfill that part of their, you know, in terms of working with us on that. We did work with them on it. And all the other roadway improvements were really addressing other goals, but more for traffic flow and safety. But

Okay. Any other questions? Rocky Oh, no, that's not new. Village At Providence Point?

Yes. So the Villages At Providence Point, they are pretty much at the finish line. All The of the buildings, both residential and commercial, have been approved. The grading permit is still in review, but essentially what's happening now are agreements are being signed and recorded. So that is that is on the doorstep of permits being issued and construction conceivably being started.

And that over the course of the past well, over the course of the summer, but the past two months, there's been a big push both by the developer and by city staff in reviewing those permits to get those to the point where they can be issued.

Thank you. Yes. So the last one

on the list is a new ad, 15 Ridgely. It is a proposed three storey commercial office building or well, I'll say commercial building. Don't know exactly the composition yet, but I believe it's going to be office space with off street structured parking on the Ground Floor. Geographically, this is located approximately, well, I'll say at the end of the first block originally behind where the Growl Shopping Center is on the left hand side. Right now, it's a parking lot.

So that is that is in the works, but it's pretty early. It's had an initial site design review. It has to go through APF testing. So before it gets to the planning commission, the APF testing has to be sorted out, and that's currently being worked on by the applicant.

Is there any push for from staff to get is this one of our mixed use areas that we wanna get more mixed use installed? Is this has it just commercial?

Yeah. The proposal is just commercial for this this project.

But is that mister Lushinsky, is there do you recall what that section of I mean, I'm sure this will come out with the comp plan. We don't need to get it I mean, at the planning commission, but I'm just curious.

It's it is a site that we identify as mixed use in the comp plan, but, I mean, this project was already in progress before then. And and, you know, to be candid, it means we have limited ability to, you know, dictate the program of the building. So it's it's a it's a commercial building, and that's what the the owner was looking to do with the site. What we try to do in our review is shape the public realm of the of the site plan, you know, so that it's consistent with the comprehensive plan in that regard. But in terms of the interior program of the building, I mean, you know, it's we we have limited.

Sorry. Why don't why do you feel like it's too late to get them to

you talking about why they're not including residential or some other Yeah. Or I mean, it's

Whatever you think is the most appropriate for mixed use, but I'm just a bit surprised that it's a building dedicated to the entirely commercial in this part

of town. We're talking about the Ridgley Yeah. Well, you know, I mean, applicants come in with a they've done their market studies. They they have a sense of what's gonna work there economically. I mean, sure, a different a different applicant may have seen the potential for residential, but, you know, that's it's it's allowed by the zoning and meets every other provision.

So, you know, we we do have conversations with applicants prior to their formal application to encourage certain uses, but it's, that's I think that's the limit of what we can do. What do we need

to do to empower you to be able to get them to go a certain direction. I mean, because we wanna see the comp plan enacted just as much as you do. And

I I think just continuing to have preliminary conversations with owners and and developer teams and just we've had some really good experience with that, you know, with the Napa seafood market site where teams are coming to us wanting to know what what would the city like to see here. And I think in other places that are more current in terms of coming online this year, we're able to have those preliminary conversations. But in this case, I mean, just had been in progress earlier. So

and mister Smith used to, like, break out his sketch paper to to redo it for people when they Yeah. Where they, you know, when they came in. But

it it does seem like it's a a missed opportunity. Obviously, we can't make the developers do something they don't wanna do, but this could have been an opportunity to have mixed commercial residential and in a location that's not a food desert, relatively close to a major thoroughfare, good transportation. It was almost like it was made in heaven for

the comp plan. Yeah. Good point. I mean, it's a long, I think, city and county bus route if not taken. Yeah. It's not

commercial. Yeah.

Yes. So if I might add to that, get your notion. The developer in this case has developed or redeveloped several other properties within West Annapolis itself. And Caddy Corner to this development is, I believe, a four unit rental building with four apartments in it.

But what a win to turn a parking lot into mixed use with residential and commercial of some sort, anyway. Yeah. That is what are they gonna be doing with the are they keeping some of

the parking or are they getting a waiver? Are they doing it on the ground? What's the plan for that commercial?

The parking is on the 1st Floor, the Ground Floor, so it's structured parking with the building over top.

Thank you for the legend at the bottom.

Yeah.

I noticed PMPM thinking best management practices and it's buffer management practice here so that's very helpful. Thank

you. Sure. Alright. Anything else you want to add?

No. That pretty much checks all the boxes I have with the current projects.

Thank you, Mr. Smith.

Thank you. I think we said what every two months or three months? I forget.

Yeah. I think we agreed like quarterly, but I was here in I guess it was July. Yeah. So obviously, August was a month off. So if you'd like to see me, you know, whenever. Yeah.

I guess at this point, might as well wait till when's the new accounts gonna start? December?

December. Maybe December or January. You in January.

Yeah. Probably.

Right. Alright. Sounds good. But, obviously, please reach out if you have any specific questions, and I'll try to get you an answer.

Thank you. Super. Yeah. Alright. Next up on the agenda. Find it. O 14.

I thought you were rearranging the agenda to Yeah.

Move to Ross.

I don't know.

That's something to me. In any case, the o 14 is next. Who's here to talk?

If I might. Do we think there's gonna be a lot of discussion about the boat show leases?

I thought there wasn't, but then you said you wanted to talk about stuff.

I really wanted to have a question of the city attorney about

At this point, I'm sticking to the agenda. Okay. Sorry. Alright. Public. But alright. So for o 14, I don't wanna overlap too much. We just spoke about this, the rules in government. They post postponed action. And, you know, I intend to let you know upfront to post to make a or accept the motion to postpone action for this committee so we can do a joint committee with rules and government tentatively on the twenty second.

But I did wanna open up to the yourself, to the committee, if you have any comments you'd like to make. Particular, you know, it'll give me time to sit down with you, either one of you, and the law office to talk about the amendment draft that I sent around. I do wanna get those bind and fixed. So first of all, I wanna turn the floor to you, and I'll see if the committee wants to discuss anything. Yeah.

Before we we do the Yeah. I I as I said at rules, I'm favorably inclined to the lengthy list of amendments from Alderman Savage, particularly with much more emphasis on bringing transportation into the the changes in the code. But it is complicated if you you go to four page five of the legislation where we change the densities for the three types of land development. And this has a nuance on this which is to roll back some of the density permit and allow bonuses for transportation. I like that carrot kind of thing, but I am worried.

I think that it's important to continue the momentum of implementing the comp plan. I know there's probably several more rounds. I guess my overall overarching question is sense of the planning staff to these transportation bonuses kinds of concepts. And then there's other things that get into the building height and that sort of thing. But I guess just to do a general concept, are these doable and doable in this term? Or what is your your attitude towards

Hello. First, Chris Jakubiak, planning director, Eric Lashinsky, chief of comprehensive planning. I think I can speak for Eric when I say it's a pleasure to work with city council members and engage in legislation on the areas that we care about. So we're we are delighted that we actually have council that cares about the things that shape the the the environment of the city and the city's development and that work towards the comprehensive plan implementation. So, there's a lot in here.

There's no doubt. And, I think we're gonna work hard to try to get a set of amendments that are understandable in the limited time that the council has in this session to get adopted. And that's the key because the public generally should understand what's in the code as well as you, and we still have a lot of time to do that. But, Alderman Savage and I did talk about some of these bigger ideas many months ago, and I think we centered on some, like, basic principles that can establish or help codify an approach that can be built on later as more information is gained and understood and more consensus is built in the community. There are always obstacles to, development decisions.

And you're presented here with this set of zoning text amendments fourteen twelve with a development decision. Does the city embrace the idea of facilitating housing development in the ways that we've articulated in the comprehensive plan? And so I would ask the the the commission the council members to think really critically about the fundamental goal here and to work to facilitate the implementation of these regulations rather than their obstruction by adding layers of complexity that make make it harder for developers to deliver fundamental housing. In other words, what we're interested in is setting the context to build and advance the planning for multimodal transportation and and principally walkability and higher convenience and accessibility and and but not to stop an otherwise viable development project because those that infrastructure doesn't exist or can't be implemented. We don't wanna unnecessarily put obstacles in a way.

We wanna create a a future, and and that's what, we we're aiming to do with these regulations. It's gonna create a future that the city can build upon. And the density that's anticipated in here is only, the bonus is only allowed in certain locations. And practically speaking, because of the lay of the land and lots that are actually eligible, there are really few of far between that can get to that 50 unit density. But those are the ones that begin to set the context for functioning transit in the future.

Right? So, we would like to have code that facilitates their delivery to build the capacity in the corridor for functioning transit, not to hold them back and squeeze them in in hope that we come later, with transit. So it's a chicken and egg type of scenario. We wanna make sure that there's a, a development or land use program that can be served by transit, and not hold back that land use program with the hope that we can fund a transit system in the future. So the the key is getting the the right ideas codified and, you know, the idea of creating a conditions that allow for private sector contribution to transit just like they would contribute to making a wider turning radius or adding another lane or changing the signal timing at an intersection.

All those are capacity building events, but the capacity for the the vehicles, the roads. What we want is capacity building for alternatives. Alright? So the code that a code that sort of sets that into place and allows the council to, over time, build and build on that framework is what I think we can achieve here in the, you know, the remaining week or so that we have. But all the details are gonna be hard to, you know, work out, but getting that basic framework in place is fundamental, and I think we can achieve that.

Mike?

Feels like.

Some conflicting notions here. I specifically referenced page five which has the, allowances that vary from the underlying zoning for the three types of planned development. And at the rules committee, I asked in particular with regard to mixed plan development, how many opportunity areas could really take advantage of that? And I believe mister Leshinsky answered not that many in terms of the 12 opportunity areas. But if you look at the transit corridors, which is one of the thrusts of the comprehensive plan, that's where this mixed development could come into play.

Right. Then we got into a discussion of the community benefits of the development, and we talked not only about the benefit of transportation, but other kinds of things. We got into daycare and dock in the box mini marts. The sense that I have towards what I admit is complicated even for me to sort out the amendments is we're backing back on the amount you can vary from the underlying zoning, particularly with special mix, but then offering back the bonus if you do actually do these transit transportation developments. So suppose we said in special mix, instead of being able to vary by 75%, you can vary by 40% or 50%.

However, if you do certain things, it will have a list of transportation enhancements. You can get all the way up to 75%. That felt to me like a good carrot and stick, mostly carrot kind of approach. But my real underlying question is, do we have time in this term to actually work that out? I I know older woman Finlayson and I talked about our rules.

We wanna get something done. We wanna move more towards the implementation, and we don't want to do things that are actually gonna make us miss the boat in this term.

Right.

So the real thrust of the question is, and we're I think we're planning on a joint meeting of rules in, environment on the twenty second, Is there enough time to really work on, coming up with the amendments? I think you said you're working on seven amendments or some kind of additional amendment, maybe not. Is there enough time to come up with amendments that could be considered on the twenty second in order for it to go to the council on the twenty ninth, which is personally the date I feel comfortable bringing this to the council for a final vote? We don't we don't know what's gonna happen on the twenty ninth, but

we need to give ourselves rooms for at least two more council meetings before the term ends. So I know it's a complicated question. I hope it came through. I don't think we we wanna prejudge what we can get to over the next week or so. But when you start talking about the conditions and creating incentives to get to higher densities, it gets complicated and we have to really thoughtfully evaluate them.

Typically, you would evaluate it by checking with the public or stakeholders, developers, people in the business. Does that create the incentive that would actually trigger the added density, or would that just be a cost on the on the project that would prevent its realization? And I don't know that we have time to do all that, and we're gonna have to use our judgment. But what I would prefer to do fundamentally is create the structure or framework within by it that there that is embedded in these amendments, get that into the the ordinance so that these things can be developed and articulated later on, in the next cycle of comprehensive zoning amendments. So and and, also, as we know more about the corridor and our plans for transit, and those studies are forthcoming, we will have the basis and code to to develop it.

So we may not figure out all the details, but we can at least create the framework and code to build, you know, build that ladder. That's what I'm thinking. So two things that

in your mic.

The two things that came out of rules were this brief discussion about APF, but also about bar. That's not in full area ratio. That's the amendment that rules adopted to allow the the floor area ratio not ignore floor area ratio essentially and allow the full development of the parcel on multiple floors. So I think that that's that's through rules. It has to get through environmental matters or through the And then I guess my sense is whatever or anything we can do to get this notion of it's it's not just building cheaper small boxes, it's transportation, it's other infrastructure, kinds of things like day care, dock in the box, and Right.

Mini marts, the kinds of things that may not be an exhaustive list, but the kinds of things that build a community, kinds of things you would want to see in a community benefit agreement.

Right. Right. Right.

Well, I concur and I fully support what the director is saying about trying to do everything. You know, there should be a public component to changes that are being proposed here. And so, I say you know, I mentioned this to the chair when I came in, let's find the things that are complementary to this legislation that will kind of lay a foundation for what is. We can't outline transit as we would like to see it as it impacts new develop. I mean, that's taking us, you know, talking about the carpenter for the horse in my mind.

So let's put that aside and let's look at the things that really will help to move this along without not without, but sending the message to the future council that these are the things that you should be looking at that will accommodate new development and address transit and any other amenities that will will support. So and all of that to say. I

So this city is since I've lived here twenty five years, never done a good job with keeping pace, with improving our infrastructure to keep pace with new development. But I spent over a decade fighting mister Hyatt just knee jerk against new growth, new development because it was impacting the environment, which I think we've largely addressed. But it was also just impacting people's, you know, traffic and and, you know, mobility around town. Right? So we went in these big trips elsewhere, other jurisdictions, overseas, but also in Portland, and we see cities that do lead with the planning.

They don't lead with growth. They lead with planning. Right? And that provided me a way forward. It it was, like, you know, a a huge epiphany for me as far as I don't need to fight mister Hyde all the time. I'm gonna fight for getting these these infrastructure things approved so we can have the growth not to become mister Hyde. We can have the growth that folks, you know, wanna see along with the infrastructure improvements people wanna see, right, and have it be a partnership. And that's why I think it's worth pushing for. We have all these grand ideas in the comp plan. We had so passionate about talking about and discussing and adopting.

Yet here we are with a density proposal that is so disconnected from it. And I know it mentioned the comp plan, but it's so disconnected from those actual improvements we identify on the comp plan. But what I don't understand is why why this growth is worth rushing it through at the ascend of the term, you know, and risking not doing it right. Why is it worth that risk instead of just taking the time and doing it right, for example, next term or even I mean, I'm trying I've spent five hours the other night working on these amendments. I'm trying to do what I can.

I'm not trying to slow down anything. I'm trying to get it right so that I can get on board and support it, and my I can tell my constituents, you're being heard. We have a solid plan to address these concerns, but it just yeah. I'm trying to see a way forward, but I just don't if this passes as is, I just don't see how that gets to our goals. Except for housing goals, but that's

the Well, if I may, one of the things to keep in mind, I I think of transportation mobility as kind of a layered system of of improvements where we have today if you look at Forest Drive, we have a corridor that is very one dimensional. You know? It's very much just focused on moving cars as efficiently as possible. We have some limited sections of shared use path for pedestrians and cyclists. We we don't even have a dedicated, bus line that goes outside of the city.

It goes to Riva Road where we have a park and ride station in the high school and county offices. You know, our division within planning and zoning attended all of the transit development plan meetings this last year with the exclusive intent number one mission of getting a dedicated bus line on that corridor that we could do tomorrow. You know, that it doesn't require a redeveloped corridor, just involves a realignment of priorities, really, and budget realities for sure. But, so I mentioned that because, you know, to director to Kubiak's point that there are things that developments can do that are coming on in the near future that could be transit ready, that could be sort of a partner in facilitating the new bus line that's on the same roadway tomorrow that is, more open to connecting to that. That it's not an afterthought that maybe there's a setback area of the site is dedicated to where the bus is gonna pull in and and, you know, pick up riders.

And it could be a hub for people coming, you know, who live down Tyler Avenue and, you know, wanna come to a location. So, you know, I think there are ways to put things into the legislation that would be more doable in the short term for it, you know, that don't necessarily have to look ten years out to when we can really sort of fully design that roadway, which I'll be the first one to say. I would love to see Forest Drive completely redesigned, you know, and and might, like, county parts of the county may be hard to hear that, but I do think that, that's something we need to see. I just think that any sort of density we can create in the short term will benefit the future success of transit. You know, I think another thing that director Chukubiak says, this kind of sites that we're seeing along our major corridors are not, they're not Park Place.

You know? They're not, that scale. They will add have the potential to add some additional density, but they're, they're infill projects. And I think none of them on their own will really, break the system or, you know, change things dramatically to a point where, you know, it's gonna you know? So it's it's it's a paradigm shift in how we have to think about development, really. That's I mean, it's the wrong way

to think about it. I mean, a and mister Hyatt knows very well. People will complain about any addition of new density in the city. It could be five. It could be 10. It could be an office complex. It could be 200. It could be Chris Spring. It doesn't matter. People it's in their head, and I think the matter a certain degree, rightfully so. Yeah. Individually, they're small. But if you're talking about these on all of our major corridors adding a little bit of density here and there, it adds up. Right? And so what I'm trying to do is provide a framework for them to pay in.

Right? We have you know, 2009, we had a study for West Street. Unfortunately, that was never really incorporated into too much of our planning processes. We did incorp we did build out part of that, which is recommending the circulator shuttle. But if we have more of those studies, why can't we set up a system where we get the developers to help pay into a fund supporting the studies or supporting what comes out of them? Right? That's what I'm trying to do. We have RFP ready to go out very soon to look at the next recommendation for West Street, which was upgrading to some kind of high value transit entry rail. It was called for in 2009 as a long term goal. We're finally getting around to it.

Right? We have another $100,000 looking at Forest Drive transit improvement. And then not to mention another 50 or a 100 or so, I forget, for Bay Ridge Road, the intersection but the city and the county. We have money set aside to look at putting in a circulator in Eastport. Those are actual transit improvements that we get developers to pay into contribute.

Right? And, hopefully, some of them as they get moving will actually be able to contribute to actual infrastructure improvements. But those are the kind of solutions we can help point residents to, and I think I'd rather have them pay into that work as opposed to what we're seeing on Tyler Ave, which is not really, you know, exactly what we're looking for as far as adding expand they're making that road wider. I mean, that not what we want. Right? So I think setting up these funds for them to pay into would be a good thing.

I think that type of structure is what we're talking about, getting that framework into the code. It it just may be that we can't figure out all the details and the limited time that we have to make it right. But getting that structure to to to link land use and transit improvements closer together is is what we're talking about. So which really operationalizes some of the the elements of this. This talks about transit. Plant developments don't happen now unless they support transit. This it's adopted. And there are specific, standards for what a mixed use center is now. It's directly tied to the comprehensive plan. Totally new.

And I would just let encourage everybody to realize that we're not stopping after we adopt this. Work will continue. We will continue to build on this. This is a first set of comprehensive rezoning text amendments, but there are other sets that will will be forthcoming. And you've set before us the task of integrating transit into our zoning.

And we're saying, allow us to create the framework for that, the the place setting for that in the context so that we can spend the time that's necessary. Eric went through a a a comprehensive, thoughtful, deliberate planning study in Tyler Road with the community, got buy in. It resulted in a set of recommendations that has broad consensus now. It wasn't the first, cut that we realized. When we began our work, we had imagined something quite different.

And it would it changed the public process. So we benefited from hearing from the public. You're talking about substant substantive, like, meaningful text amendments, and we think it could be improved by a public process. And, and that's what we'd like to advise you on. We're always wanting to take these things through public process.

And those ideas you're talking about weren't really detailed in the comprehensive plan. They helped implement the broader vision of the comp plan, but they weren't in that level of detail. Lastly, I would say that getting land use right is really important. And, and what we're we've been on a continuity of evolution in the city, you know, Inner West Street, Upper West Street, the BCE zone, mixed use zoning, and and we were left with the the sort of the problem or policy of of how to facilitate and encourage housing so we can increase the housing supply and begin to moderate price increases for for families. And so this is a direct response to that.

It's fundamentally important to that it take place, and it's not gonna open the lid on development. You know, it's the the zoning or the the transit elements of this can still come in later in the New Year. We can still have time to do that. We're we're not, you know, we're not opening the door and getting letting the the horse out of the barn in by any stretch of imagination.

Okay. Yeah. I understand that. Yeah. I mean, I guess it's just I I mean, I get that my perception in a way. You're you're leading with housing, in my mind, I think maybe we just have disagreement as far as what our top power my most important issue in the city for me is not housing. It's important, not the most important. The most important for me is safety. People get be able to get around safely, without having to have a car, and just walk where they need to be mobility wise. Right?

Related to that is is all climate as well. That is very important for me. Yet, we're not leading with this existential threat of climate change. We're leading with housing. That's so that that's kind of where I'm coming from. Like, those I'm trying to make sure I find a way for our priorities mesh a little more.

So that's a perfect segue to what I wanted to do. I'd like to back up to page three because you mentioned the word framework and you mentioned this is setting the context for future changes. So, I'm on page three at the bottom. It's number six, which I'm not sure is the right priority under purposes to promote development which substantially advances the goals of the comprehensive plan, particularly the following. And this is where I would like to propose and will propose for the meeting on the twenty second significant change.

I would make the first item b promoting mixed use of land pipes with development projects mixed use. I would have the currency either a or b but promoting the installation and use of infrastructure such as sidewalks, trails, bikeways, parks. I would then say mobility and services because under me for me under mobility, it would be things like transit, but also bicycles and I think sidewalks and so forth. And then services, I think, is an important thing to get in there. And for me, services includes things like day care, health care, shopping, dining, entertainment.

And my concept here is services that are within reach of this new development. It doesn't have to necessarily be in the development itself, although I think that would be good. And as I mentioned at rules the other day, anything we do to enhance these new developments, the adjoining neighbors get to benefit from too. So I would really change the priority of these things in establishing the framework. Here's what I as soon as I read on the top of page four, promoting affordable housing, that whole development density thing just comes blanking red lights.

And as Alderman Savage said, I don't think that is our number one priority in the comp plan. I think our number one priority is improving our land use. I think land use improvements that take into account the environment. So I would somehow wanna get climate in as one of the things in this thing. But this to me at the top of page four is the guideline, the framework for all of the future implementation to accomplish the comp plan.

So I'll work on the amendments for the twenty second, but I I do like what's in the savage proposals here and I do think that transportation has to be done at least concurrently. But I also think some of these other infrastructure things need to be done concurrently. But for me, recognizing the time constraint, working on this set, this list on page four that is the list that we use, the next council uses going forward is something that I could be status

Alderman Savage, you you had mentioned that it seemed clear that or you were suggesting that your priorities don't match up with our priorities. I wanna assure you that our priorities are your collective priorities, the city council. It's up to you as our board of directors to set those priorities. So this is a draft that has gotten, you know, sponsor support, but ultimately has to be adopted by the council. So, we took the best stab at it to implement the comprehensive plan, but ultimately prioritizing priorities is is for you to advise us on.

So we're here to support that. And like I said, we are happy to work and set things aside to turn our attention to this over the next week or so so that when you come again on the twenty second, I heard you say earlier, we could we could have a meaningful discussion about real text amendments to this.

Okay. Thank you. And and and my last thing I'll say is I I as far as housing, density, I so maybe help on you understand where I'm coming from. Yeah. I when I support density, I see that as a way to allow us to achieve our other goals.

Be it, again, the climate, the mobility, the infrastructure. That's how we and that's why I'm trying to put in here the community benefit agreement, right, is to help make that and same thing with affordable housing. Right? That's that that development is the way that we can achieve our goals together, and that's why I'm what that's what I'm trying to emphasize with this. And right now, I just I don't see that partnership idea built into so maybe if we can build some of framework out, I'll feel comfortable.

But we've talked a lot about transit. Do we wanna the other parts of the the amendment draft had to do with the planning commission recommended adding definitions for green roof as well as accessory roof structures. I tried to do that. So I don't know if miss maybe I should include miss Gaud on some of this because, if you have comments on the green roof language, I'd like to get that worked in to honor. And I think they raised some good points about getting that clarified, which may go help help address some of the concerns we've heard from historic historic press the preservation staff there on some of the test money.

So are there any comments, thoughts on the green roof aspect or the height accessory changes? Because what I'm basically proposing, again, we don't have to get into super amount of detail, but I'm proposing to scale back scale down some of the height limit to address some of the public concern we've heard.

Yeah. I understand that. And, at last night's, Health and Human Services Committee meeting, we attended that, and, they voted to approve or to recommend out in a positive way. But they also said, it would be nice to work on those definitions, of these two terms that you mentioned. And I said that, in fact, you had drafted those those already, and, we kinda like them. So, we and we again, we can add the time to talk about that and work with Jackie, of course, to to get the right language as necessary.

Okay. I

I concur that I think anytime we can add definitions is a good thing to do. So I liked all the definitions on the first page of the all Solomon Savage amendments. And then I do think that the green roofs are something that's coming up elsewhere like the roofs over the bus stops and so forth. Green roofs, we've got mixed success in the city about maintaining them. And so I think it's something we need to pay more attention to.

But also in the savage amendments, there's this concept on the second page of overlay boundaries, which I think is something that is more debatable. That would be instead of just having this confined redefining it as an overlay rather than the Craig Street area, Craig to the the water area. And I don't know what your views are on that, and there's a lot of detail in their applicability procedure review pilot. And then we get into the green roof kinds of things. And, again, I just don't know how much we can accomplish.

There's a lot on green roofs, which I don't think is wrong, but I think is detailed and complicated. And then we get into some things starting on page five of the amendments that start to get into rooftop dining. And I mentioned to the chair at the beginning of this meeting, we already have a very successful section of city code on rooftop dining. And from my perspective, the the first one was black hole with black hole pitch. It has been working very successfully.

I've had no complaints. I think that it's a good model. This changes some of those things or maybe further enhances them. I'm not sure there's enough time to really think that through. If we can do it, we can do it.

But so there's an awful lot of meat, an awful lot of effort that went into these changes. There's there's more definitions on page six about high value transit and transportation on demand, which I think are good definitions. And maybe you can get into the 2172 just as changes to definitions if if they're acceptable definitions. But in any event, again, I go back to the the overall question, what's feasible over essentially the next couple of weeks in this term? And I guess I'm inclined with comments I made on the framework on page four.

Let's frame out the big picture stuff and leave the spaces for the development. Some of the things on page four as I reordered it and recommend embellishing it would fit perfectly into the benefit agreements as guidelines there for that. So, again, I'm really torn because I like these ideas, and I kind of agree with a lot of the detail. Rooftop dining is something I need to think about more in terms of what it does to what we already have in that old adage, if it ain't broke, don't fix it, kind of thing. But and I'm not sure that rooftop dining rules should be different on Craig Street than on Compromise Street, 6th Street.

So, yeah, a lot. You worked too hard.

What so are there any other I don't wanna spin our wheels too much on this since it's not ready for we're not gonna take final action today anyway. Are there any other things we should know as we move forward to the next meeting?

Well, I would ask that staff not hesitate to let us know what's doable with this because we can be having the same discussion again on the twenty second, and I think that's quite necessary. So really, tell us what's doable, and hopefully, the alderman will understand the things that we can't get. He's gonna be here after December. So there will be opportunities for him to bring back further legislation and fill in what was might be missing. But I trust you to decide what will work for you.

So and I invite Alderman Arnett to bring his amendment to the rules committee on the twenty second. Alright. Well Thank you.

Thank you to everybody for offering your thoughts. Do have anything else before we No. Thank you both for your work on on this, legislation. Alright. So need a motion for no action. Okay. So here there's I'm hearing no motion. Right. Right. So we're gonna postpone? Okay.

Do we need a motion to postpone or just no act?

Okay. I'll

move to postpone action on 1425 until our meeting on the twenty second.

Paul Marinette? Proposed. Is that good? Yeah. Can you second that? Second. All those in favor, please say aye. Aye. Thank you. O fourteen postpone until the next meeting. Alright. Next up on the agenda okay. Mister Lushinski is still not well. And we have I'm trying to be respectful with the time, but it's gonna be hard to do. Alright.

So move to r forty twenty five, Equitable Public Water Access. Mister Leshinsky, if you could I know you've been out here soon too. You could join us again for this. Although, again, my plan is to I would like to ask the committee. I would like to postpone this as well.

I didn't realize this was gonna be our Monday council agenda, and, so I wanted it to come to committee. I've not had time to work on any kind of proposed changes, but I just to be upfront, I did receive fun some feedback. What my goal is to try to get some improvements in the plan as far as some commentary on the importance of water access to, yeah, disabled and seniors, which I think it does touch on, but I want to take a closer look at that provision and and also include some more comments regarding Krabs' role in that. But that's so do we want a presentation from mister Luzhinsky in the future or just a a briefing? The Boston Committee.

Well, let

me ask. Isn't this just a you know, we already have a equitable water plant. Do we not? Right here. Okay. So is this just an update on the existing?

It was never adopted.

It was never adopted. So we're talking about adopting Yeah. That in entirety. That's right. Yeah. So I would ask for simply a overview of highlights of that report. It looks like a healthy document. But I don't want to put more

It's healthy document with some significant changes in red.

Is a lot thinner than the comprehensive plan. It's a lot thinner than the comprehensive plan, but but, yeah, everything that was changed that was added or significantly amended is in red in that document to kinda make it easy for people to see what the changes look like.

So that's what I was gonna ask. So what is in red? So those are changes from the original draft?

It's quite a bit. I mean Yeah. We we did we did a lot of community outreach on this plan, and we actually put together a memo during the winter that listed out all of the changes. We actually added some more to that, but it's it's substantial in the sense that, we added new sections to the plan. There was a lot of feedback about kind of an implementation section that would help folks know how we were gonna prioritize.

There's something like a 120 recommendations in here. They're not all physical improvements. Some are policy related or programs, but we made an effort to really summarize all of those in an implementation section and put together some some text that explains what brings certain recommendations to the top. You know? What what's what's the emphasis?

And so that's towards the end of the document, a whole new implementation section. We tried to clarify misconceptions about, you know, when you improve or add a street end park, tends to be, not tend. We heard opinions from residents that fears of traffic or crime or things, you know, of that nature, and we really had to, try to set the record on that. But, you know, we're fortunate we have a whole generation behind us of having many street end parks, you know, from the Ellen Moyer years in Murray Hill and Eastport. We have probably 30 street end parks in just those two neighborhoods, And so we've been living with them, and we've seen their impact on neighborhoods, and they've been overwhelmingly positive.

You know, people adopt them. They add to property values. You know, many of them are not well known. We really wanted to be somewhat clear about more clear about the benefits of the and just say, hey. Is a benefit to the whole city here to improve these street and parks.

So is this time sensitive?

It is in the sense that we would love to see this adopted under this council because that's really when it's happened. But yeah. But I could give a brief presentation if needed, you know, when I could keep it limited. You know, it's hard sometimes for me, but if that would be helpful.

So we had public testimony at the last council meeting. I don't know whether you were here for that. I think you came in after. It was just one person.

Right.

And she made two comments. One, she felt this was not connected to, Quiet Waters, the water there. I don't profess to I read the original version, skimmed the original version. I don't know whether it is or not. I'm not even sure how we in our comprehensive plan connect to the county facility, but it doesn't seem like a bad idea. But the other complaint she raised, I think, is a more serious consideration and had to do with the quality of water

Mhmm.

And that things that the vendor who did the study said were not accurate in terms of encouraging people to go into water with e coli and so forth. Right. So I don't know whether you have any reason comments.

Yeah. I I was here to hear the, the resident's testimony, that on Monday night. And, in fact, I've corresponded with her, directly. So to to the point about access to quiet waters, we agree that is a huge benefit to see residents that happens to be outside of the city. It's a county park.

We actually included a new map in these updated draft plan that shows all of the county parks that are in close proximity to the city and private public spaces like the Smithsonian, Greenbury Point oh, that's not private, but ones that are outside of, city, county, or state, management. So that, I think, addresses some of that concern. And then, you know, the resident came to all of our public meetings with some of her neighbors, and they have very specific concerns about the, recommendations for the, proposed public water access at the foot of Pump House Road behind the pool facility where we have a structure that is known as the boathouse, but hasn't been used in that fashion for many years. We actually corrected the recommendation based on their input to be clear that this recommendation really has to be consistent with other things happening. There's, there are number of constraints to implementing that recommendation.

You know, the bridge that's in that location, the footbridge, the so called Wobbly Bridge needs to be rehabilitated. There's a wastewater line that goes under that bridge. I mean, there's it's it's gonna be a capital project. It is a capital project, but there are a number of things that have to happen before that public water access can be implemented. And, you know, we're gonna follow all of that guidance. So but So to the time sensitivity,

are you thinking of postponing this to the next environmental matters meeting?

Yeah. That's well, yeah, that's what was thinking. So, I mean, a resolution, so we can get it passed a lot more quickly than an ordinance because we can have the public hearing and final vote on

the same night, if not mistaken. Is it scheduled for a public hearing on the twenty ninth? Nope. Not that. It's out of committee. So it would be a public hearing in the first meeting in October?

Oh, yeah. That's right. They don't have public hearing unless requested. So I would I think we have enough time. I would like to postpone until next meeting. What I would suggest from mister Leshinsky would be because I well, first of I think you're completely right. It's a really important point that this you know, we do get burns from people. I've heard it. Oh, it's gonna increase traffic and parking in the neighborhood. We've all heard it.

But to your point, once they're installed, communities see them as benefits, and they don't see those negative impacts, with the exception maybe of Tucker Street, which has been a little more controversial at times. But you're not really talking about those big access points for heavy boats, so to speak, right, for the most part. So my suggestion would be perhaps I think we could benefit from just a presentation on the executive summary, And then I don't know my colleagues. But for me, I think it'd be good to see some of maybe, like, the summary of some of the short term actions. We can keep those in mind for the future.

Right? Yep. Is there anything else that you wanna get a summary on?

No. Thank you.

Do you think that would be doable? No. I think it I I would say at the next meeting, I don't think mister is quite ready to I'm sure he could wing it, but

sure. I would just say before we move to postpone it that this clearly is water access is a high priority for the city council, pleasantly has been for a while. It certainly started with mayor Moyer and all their initiatives, and I think this report is responsive to that set of priority. By the way, our priorities come from our constituents. So this is clearly water access is a priority for our constituents.

And amazingly for a city that has as much door line as it has, water access is relatively limited. The street and parks being the best access point, and they're not as good as we would like in terms of access, and we really need to work on the repair. I was looking at the water access at the end of Burnside on Spa Creek. That is a real danger. There's bolts and things sticking up.

The wood is all rotting. So I think the report is timely and, by and large, I subscribe to what is recommended. So we wanna thank you for the effort. I mean, if nothing else, mister Lushinski, you can produce volume. But I think this is a pretty good report.

Well, I I also just wanna acknowledge the council. It should be noted that the last two years have seen the most historic increase in funding for public water access. I mean, I think there's 26 projects in the CIP right now that are all they're all concurrent with this plan. So, we haven't seen that kind of investment in some time.

Sure. Alright. Is Oh.

Yeah. I'll make the motion to postpone

All those

r forty twenty five.

All those in favor, please say aye.

Aye.

Motion carries. Alright. Thank you, mister Blushenski. Next up, have o twenty one twenty five harbor lines. I don't know if Alderman Arnett or deputy city manager wanna speak to this, but I'll turn the floor to whoever wants to.

Let me start by discussing some of the background why I I made this proposal. First of all, it is the tradition that harbor line adjustments be made by the older person of the ward in which the water facility is located, the marina is located. And I put this in because of some background things that are going on. We're improving our water access at the end of six feet on Back Creek by building an ADA compliant, access, which requires some ramps and then a floating, dock. And in the process, that impacts at least five slips at the adjoining marina was Muir's is now safe harbor.

And I felt that first order a second order priority for me is to increase the number of slips and other facilities, mooring balls, for recreational boating in the city. And so if we could do something that would replace those impacted slips elsewhere in the marina, that would be a good idea. So that's the genesis for this ordinance. However, I've said all along in any of the public statements that I've made that navigational safety, life safety, is priority one. And this has been discussed at the Maritime Advisory Board at least twice, once at the mayor the port wardens.

And it has been the opinion of both the MAB. Both of them have postponed decisions on this, but strongest sense of all of them is that this could have adverse impacts on navigational safety. That is also the opinion rendered by the our harbor master's office. There is some confusion about what this ordinance is really about. It is only about extending the harbor line and there is in the legislation an illustration of what that is along safe harbor.

It's not about number of slips. It's not about sizes of boats. It's an extension of the harbor line. Other things have gotten confused. But navigational safety has to be preeminent for the city and there are a number of concerns of navigational safety.

So when it's appropriate, which would be the next council meeting, my intention is to ask to withdraw this piece of legislation. I also would point out that I think that it's not very likely it's questionable whether the council will approve this ordinance, but it is not questionable about the attitude to date of both the maritime advisory board and the port wardens in that they are very concerned about navigation safe. So that's what I would have to say about is by way of introduction. I don't know whether the deputy city manager has something to say or not.

Mister chair, before I respond

Yes, Alderman?

Did I just hear the alderman say he's going to withdraw this?

When is when next time it's available, yes.

Right.

I'm gonna ask the council to support withdrawing it at the meeting on the twenty ninth

Okay. Of

September. And that's what I thought I heard you say. So I'm not sure why we're gonna continue the discussion on it if his intent is to withdraw it. We've got other folks.

We do have someone here that

wants I to speak to thought we were gonna

I agree, but I

But go ahead. Do we have someone here

to Yeah. So anybody from the public would like to speak? I'll give you three minutes. Please come up to the microphone.

Might have risked them.

You can go wherever

you at the table.

Can go wherever you want. Oh.

Thank you for allowing me to be heard. I'm Alan Hyatt. I represent Safe Harbor Marina. Alderman Arnett generally summarized the the background, and let me just elaborate just a bit. The the city had submitted a project at the End Of 6th Street to do this ADA compliant access to the water.

The port wardens approved that, but I think they did so irresponsibly because it blocked in slips. If if you look at the at the bottom of the document that's it showed it's showing us proposed harbor line that shows all these boat slips, that's 6th Street, and it shows a lateral line. It would prevent the use of those slips. And the port wardens, you know, it was surprising to me that they approved this, and we appealed it. And it's pending in the circuit court.

I can't guarantee what a judge is gonna do, but I think given the record, the judge that will ultimately hear this case, there's a good chance that they will set aside the decision of the port wardens. Now I don't feel great about that because that gives public access to the water. I think that's a great thing. But you can't deny the property rights of safe harbor. So, really, as sort of an equitable exercise, the idea was to expand the harbor line on behalf of safe harbor.

And the the second drawing shows the the that blue line where the that's where the harbor line would be expanded. And as Alderman Arnett said, that this doesn't mean there's gonna be boat slips there. That has to that's a process that we we would have to go through with the port warden. So what it does allow is maybe there can be an expansion up to that harbor line. Now Back Creek, whether you're a boater or or non boaters, this is pretty darn congested.

There isn't any argument that Back Creek is is loaded with boat slips. But the expansion of this harbor line doesn't exacerbate the problem. There's width of 202 feet, 206 feet, and 222 feet. That's what would be those would be the the the areas of the channel, the width of the channel in between both sides of the creek, and that doesn't really change. I mean, it it it's more or less the same.

So I I'm you know, I'll say that it's disappointing that Alderman Arnett might withdraw this, and and I'm asking him to reconsider because I think the harbor master's wrong. I think the the port wardens were really wrong, and this is this is a is a matter of fairness, and I don't think it in interferes with navigation Because Back Creek's already congested. This doesn't make it worse. It it's consistent. And I'd like a reconsideration by the alderman and let it go to the council for a vote.

They turn it down, then they turn it down. But I strongly urge the committee and the aldermen to continue to move forward.

Are there any questions for mister Hyde?

I have a question. I wanna make a couple of comments. First of all, it is the case that the marina by previous owners are egregiously in violation of the city's lateral lines. But more importantly, I think there is a means of relief for the marina by simply running the access of the dock out from 6th Street and opening those slips into the interior of the harbor. So there are some ways to recover the use of those slips.

They've already put smaller boats in there that we'll be able to negotiate in and out of there. But, I think there is relief. Again, I think, those those slips were impinging on the the repairing rights and the lateral rights of the city, and the marina should have been configured differently. What happened really to change the circumstances, There'd always been a floating dock at the end of six. It fell into disrepair and the harbor master at the time rather than getting repaired and replaced took it away.

The new harbor master recognized that there are ADA requirements for water access. And that changed the whole game. You can't have a floating dock with a six foot drop down and a ladder and have ADA accessibility. So the new plans do, in fact, impinge on the marina. That's why and I thought as an argument of fairness, that's why I was willing to try to find relief elsewhere.

But there is other relief for the marina and water access, as I pointed out in earlier testimony on the equitable water access, is surprisingly scarce in the city of Olafos, public water access. And that has to be paramount. It is our right to do that. I think there are other forms of relief for the marina. I still personally, as a second order priority, would like to see more slips in Annapolis, not fewer.

So I think that is another goal, but preeminent is navigational safety. Now whether or not I feel or mister Hyatt feels that this would have an adverse impact on by the way, these pictures don't show you mooring bore balls and anchored boats. Whether I feel that way or not, to me, is not relevant. It's what our professional staff feel and have opined and have consistently opined and have testified before the Maritime Advisory Board and the port wardens about the impact on navigation. So, you know, I really, really wanted to make this work, and I really do have the sense of the fairness issues.

And there's obviously the right of anybody to to question the decision of the court wardens, And that'll have to proceed as it's gonna proceed. But I cannot, in conscience, offer something that our staff or in their professional opinion are telling us as well. So I I just can't do that. So that's why I will withdraw it. Somebody else can possibly submit it if they want to.

I will argue that that's not a good idea, but, nevertheless, I do think it was also appropriate to let mister Hyatt present the input from his point. So I thank you for giving him time. I think we have one other speaker as well.

Is there anything else? Any other brief remarks, mister Hayer? With that, is there anybody else who wants to offer testimony? And does somebody I believe the next speaker might might be representing the Maritime Advisory Board? Okay.

And and state your name for the record.

When do say boater?

I think you're a little bit more than just a boater. He he trains the Naval Academy sailing team and has a long, long history of boating.

Turn your mic on, please.

Okay. Is that better? You. You. Thank you for allowing me

to Restate your name and everything.

Yeah. Rita Wilde. 403 Chesapeake Avenue, Annapolis in Eastport Two One Four Zero Three. And thank you Alderman Arnett for considering withdrawing this legislation. I like I said, I'm not speaking on behalf of the Maritime Advisory Board at all, but I'm a boater and and my friends are paddle boarders, and I think that this, legislation would be very detrimental to Back Creek and reduce the navigable waters there.

And also, I wanna point out that the Housing and Human Welfare Committee unfavorably reported this legislation as well before your August break. Several groups have have said this is not this is not a a good legislation. Yeah. The Housing and Human Human Welfare Committee. This would benefit only a commercial entity on Back Creek and harm boaters and all those that use this waterway by reducing the transit area and potentially negatively affecting visibility when entering or leaving Back Creek.

I hope you reviewed our recent Maritime Advisory Board meeting discussion on this legislation plus read the staff report produced by the harbor master's office. This would set a bad precedent for the city to provide benefits to commercial entities when the city needs to take action on its shorelines. And I think this would only benefit Blackstone and Safe Harbor and would not benefit any any residents of Eastport. And if any residents came to you and said, would you do this? Well, sure. I could see you considering it, But it just benefits a commercial energy. So so thank you. Any questions?

I would just point out that marinas provide a service to residents, including Eastport residents, and there are four to eight residents who keep their boat there. So they are providing service just like all other arenas. But the navigational issue is paramount for me.

Exactly. It's a safety issue, I think. Yeah. Thank thank you.

And I and I see I I see mister Hyde's point that even with proposed change, it's not narrower than the narrowest point in the area. But I also see the point that paddle borders and smaller craft, like, still be important. I mean, personally, I'm first, I'm very hesitant to prove changes to the harbor line. Besides, over the years, I kinda I feel like I've kinda seen them being adjusted piecemeal, and then you end up with a narrower navigable channel. But in any case, guess we don't need

Alderman Savage?

We could just

May say something?

Oh, yes.

Sorry. Jackie Gyle, deputy city manager for resilience and sustainability. First of all, I have a question for mister Hite. During the last port wardens meeting, they meant they part of their difficulty in assessing the navigability and the harbor line question was the fact that the the photo you provided did not show the entire harbor, which was necessary in order to adequately measure the harbor line and to make some decisions about that. Is that the same photo that you provided before? Is that a revised one? Well, wouldn't remember if I looked at it. But Mr. Hyatt says that it's a revised copy that shows the entire harbor. Okay. This shows both sides. Yep. Got it. Okay. Thank you.

I just wanna point out that and mister Hyatt, I believe, will agree with me that his argument is one based on equity. And in fact, the city has an a right to exercise its riparian rights here and to make improvements to the dock and to expand it if if they wished whether or not it has an impact on any nearby marina. When Safe Harbor or its predecessor put in those slips on the side, they knew about this riparian rights, but they, you know, they took advantage of the fact that the city was at that time not doing anything but could in the future. However, with that said, I want mister Hyatt to be aware that the city does try to do equity with regard to its residents and its businesses as much as possible. We do wanna increase slips and assist marinas in doing that.

We wanna help our residents with access to the water and to marinas. And so when this legislation came up, we were trying to figure out with the harbor master how we could accommodate that request whether or not it meant a change to the harbor line because that is a very serious issue to take up. As you've said, and as others have said, this area of Back Creek is very congested. Navigation is tough here. Larger boats make it even more so.

Changing slips to accommodate larger boats. We understand that is a trend in marinas, and we understand why. There's a trend to larger boats now. So we are trying to work with Alderman Arnett on this legislation, and the administration was in support of that, trying to find a way to accommodate this request and this legislation. I think it's just a it is it just just comes down to a navigability issue and safe navigation and whether that harbor line should be moved or not.

And if there's a way to change the marinas so that without impacting the harbor line, if that really cannot be changed, you know, that's something the city would work with mister Hyatt and his client on. If it's possible to move the harbor line without impacting navigation, you know, we also would consider that. But at this point, I mean, when we do have the staff report from the harbor master, I don't think that will change. But if there is a way to, you know, make keep things safe and accommodate safe harbor's request, we would try to do that. I don't know if that's possible, and I agree with all of, you know, the things that Alderman Arnett has said about all the goals of the city.

You know, we agree with that. More marinas, more slip for our residents, more better water access, but we have we're balancing needs here and see. Thank you.

Okay. Yeah. I'm thinking I'm hearing no action. K. So we will dispense of this as far as community is concerned. Just send it back to the council. No action. Is that what I'm hearing? No. Alright. Thank you. I mean, I do have questions, but it's bringing them up. So the next item So But did you do something else?

I thought there was a motion. There should be a motion to take no action. We don't need

a motion for it. Oh, okay. Alright. Unless somebody has a motion to do something particular. That being said, we are now at o thirty two twenty five, lease to city property, fall boat shows.

Is there anybody from the public who wants to speak to this? You can you can you can wait if you, need to. But in any case, is there anything for your committee? I don't have questions, but I think

I do have a I have a question for the city attorney, and it's a generic question, and it's coming up because this isn't the only lease that we have under consideration right now. And that is what are the rights of both the tenant and the city to terminate this lease agreement? And is it termination with cause? I I'm going through you're the expert on contracts, not me. I'm going through trying to read the lease and I'm not sure where that would be.

Is it under remedies, under article 10? And what does it say?

So hold on. Alright. So it would be article 12, termination default, which is on page 16, and it would probably be the same section for both the fall and the Bush's release. And, again, Ashley Leonard, assistant city attorney. So this is a termination for default or for cause. It's not a termination for convenience. So we would have to there would have to be a reason to terminate. Generally, it didn't conclude things like not paying rent, violating one of the obligations they have to make, not following any other requirements of the lease, things of that nature.

So the just a general thank you for that answer, and that does answer my question. The general comment I would make is that, and it's ironic this is a discussion, a topic that came up in discussion at a lunch I was having. And we asked a business person from the city if you were asking, you were starting a new business and you wanted a lease, how long a lease would you want? And the answer without any prompting or background was twenty five years. And that person actually had a lease for one of their properties for fifty.

One of the reasons for wanting a long lease is because you're doing business and you're making investments, and you wanna be sure that you're still gonna be there doing business. So I'm making these as a general comment. I'm totally supportive of both of these leases. I think the length in extending these and particularly with changes I've been following the boat shows over the years. There's huge capital investment not only in docks but transformers and all the wiring and those things need maintenance and improvement.

So if we want a viable business here or at Annapolis City Marina or the Annapolis City Market, we need to give the vendor assurance that they can safely make an investment and recoup the benefit. So, thank you for the answer to my question and I see the terms and they are with cause not just convenience. And that seems right to me as well.

Do you have any comments? My comment will be that I will propose we give a favorable recommendation

to Second.

Thirty two twenty five.

Okay. Yeah. And I'll just say after support of the boat show, and after years of looking at Ms. Leonard's leases, I've learned that's a futile cause and not needed. She does an excellent job with these leases, so

Thank you.

Thank you for your work, man.

We'll need a second, though.

Second? I did.

I figured you did.

Okay. All those

in favor of favorable recommendation on o thirty two twenty five and o thirty six twenty five? Aye. Please say aye. Aye.

I just have one question

You for the

have more respect for the city council having to sit through a meeting like this.

You sat through a lot this this week. Oh, no.

Alright.

This is the end.

For council, presumably, most economic matters might be hearing it.

Okay. Mister chair, I thought you said 035036.

Yeah. Thirty Yeah.

No. I just thought he said thirty five. Just wanted it to be clear for the record. So

last item on the agenda, ID twenty one twenty five, resilience and sustainability update. I know we have a few things to discuss. I know you sent

He was he said that, though. Yeah. He said

Yeah. And it's getting to be a larger quarter here. I

just I know we're we're past time, so I just wanna highlight a couple big changes that happened recently. As you know, the electric ferry grant was paused by the Trump administration for reconsideration, and we received word in August that we could request a change in propulsion. After looking at some of the letters addressed to some of the federal secretaries, it was clear that this was could be a request, but if you didn't do it, your grant was not going to be reissued. It was if you did not, the grant would be pulled and looked at whether it was in line with Trump administration priorities and goals. Awesome.

After consideration, the city decided to make a request for a change of propulsion to hybrid diesel electric. This had some other advantages as far as range and reliability and some different hull designs that we the harbormaster's office felt would make the, very more stable, could go in the Severn River so we could access Carr's Beach and other points safely and more often, not be limited by, you know, even a light chop. So we made that decision to make that request to the Federal Transit Administration. It was just approved in the last week. We have to tweak the RFP.

What was approved?

The request for a change in propulsion to hybrid diesel electric for the ferries. So the harbormaster made some changes to our RFP because we have to resubmit an RFP to the public. We had to change the propulsion part of that. The RFP now needs to go back to the Maryland Transit Administration for approval and then to FTA for final approval. So we're waiting for the last step and going forward with a revised RFP is execution of the new grant agreement by the Department of Labor.

We're just waiting on that before we send the RFP over to the depart to the Maryland Transit Administration. So then that's the news. Yes. We can go forward with an elect with an electric ferry, a hybrid diesel electric ferry, two ferries actually, and send out a new RFP. So it'll be several months before we select a contractor for design build. Meanwhile, we also have to send the ferry landing site in Eastport over to the Maryland Transit Administration for proposal, for approval of their RFP before that can go out on the street as well. But this project is now moving forward where it was paused in February.

So two it'd be two hybrid ferries.

Yes.

Yeah. Well, I mean, it's disappointing.

It is.

And the federal government, it's disappointing that we're having to to adopt federal government's low standards. I I mean, I'm certainly not as excited about this project. I don't know if we should be spending all the money on it, if it's not gonna really work towards some of our other larger goals and targets. But

We can operate on electric, you know, because of the short route across Buck Creek that's gonna be electric.

I mean But can you so can you just specify that yeah. So you can turn it on and off so it'll be diesel if we absolutely need to Yeah. Extra range, but otherwise, it'll be electric?

It gets diesel backup. So we can work we're gonna work in the RFP, on our options and then before we send it out, and then it'll be up to the designer to help us with those options. The county also made the same decision. They were going to be all electric with their ferries, and they also made the same request for a hybrid diesel electric system.

Yeah. Well, I hadn't thought about

the It was clear the grants were not going to be issued without those changes.

Yeah. Well, if it's just a backup, I think that's a nice way to get around the federal requirements. Yeah. Don't you

wish this was your worst disappointment with the federal government?

Have an update on gas powered leaf blower band as well. We have finally reached an agreement with the Chesapeake Bay Trust to administer the rebate program. Yeah. We have a meeting with the the resilience and sustainability staff of a meeting with the trust on Monday to kick it off and to get an idea of when we can actually start offering the rebates. Once that is program is ready to go, there will be a mailer citywide to residents and businesses regarding the availability of the rebates.

As far as enforcement goes, know that Alderman Savage wanted an update on that. There's been one citation. Well, actually, two. One was reconsidered early on, but on in June, there was another citation issued to a contractor on Franklin Street. There have been 27 complaints total that Department of Planning and Zoning has considered.

We are the city manager agreed that we could hire two temporary employees for enforcement purposes for a period of three months. I have put together a job description which is being considered by Department of Planning and Zoning and HR to hire those two temporary positions. So these people would work too because we were trying to cover seven days a week and outside of regular business hours. So we wanted to definitely include the weekends for enforcement purposes.

Alderman Arnaud?

Just a personal note on this. You should know that I recently hired a lawn service person. Was freaking when I heard the gas powered leaf blower going. Told them that I could no longer use their services. If they were doing gas blowing, it would be particularly embarrassing as alderman. And, earlier this week, they showed me their new electric leaf blower.

Okay. Great. Nice.

And what's the timing on the CBT?

That's what we're meeting about on Monday. Okay. I don't know how quickly they can get this up and running. It's just to me, it's a simple program. It doesn't seem you know, we we've laid out it all out for them already and discussed it with them at length. I think it's just a matter of getting the agreement signed signed

with them. What's the timing on the staff?

Yeah. Sorry. Excuse me?

Timing on the staffing enhancements.

On The staff,

the temporary

Oh, the temporary staff? I do not I need, feedback from planning and zoning on the job description. Soon as I can get that done and get it over to HR to advertise, I wanted to hire someone by September. But

Does that mean Planet Zoning is still having I know they had a number of three out of four inspectors or something out.

They had a number of inspectors that are out on medical issues? Yes.

Is that still the case?

I believe so.

Yeah. So that's been pretty safe. That's been one of the big things that we didn't realize, and I think the public doesn't realize because we don't wanna talk to them about all that. But there are personal reasons, health reasons why planning and zoning staff and enforcement staff is very impacted.

And they're working at full capacity and Yeah. Director Jakubiak feels that they're overworked at this point.

Well, if we could fast track some of the, yeah, the the supplemental temporary staff, that'd be great. You know? Because leads are gonna start dropping here next month. But I think what I mentioned before is I really do think if if we just have some staff focusing on this for a short period, it'll they'll get the message, and I know residents are slowly getting the message with the notifications. And, hopefully, that'll trickle down to the contractors.

We believe with the season of hard enforcement that people will get the message and people like Alderman Arnett, who, you know, will require their landscapers to change, it'll cause a change.

Yeah. Yeah. And I think we do need the proactive inspection because my perception is some of the public is starting to get a little

I

don't know where it would be, but I think it's a little hopeless.

Mhmm. A little frustrating.

Submitting that many complaints anymore.

Right. I did include in this report on page four something from an excerpt from the Department of Transportation on EV charging functionality in Hillman Garage because we had a number of complaints. So I this was an email that was shared with, I believe, Alderman Savagin and Alderman O'Neil. I don't know if the rest of council received it, but I thought to include it in here because I thought it was some very good additional information about the charging uptime and downtime. The l two chargers are up 100% of the time in Hillman Garage, but the the fast chargers, the d c threes, they must be because of the strong current.

I'm not exactly sure. I'm not an engineer, but they seem to go down more often, and premium is slow to fix them. They have, a four to eight week period in order to fix them. The Department of Transportation is working with premium parking to decrease that repair time, that repair lag. We haven't experienced the same types of problems with the BG BG and E installed chargers that are in Gott's garage and at Pip Moyer or at the public libraries, different companies.

Yeah.

Different company manufacturers, that is, of charging infrastructure.

Yeah. And miss Lynn, didn't you just email me something about the charger contract?

I don't know if I I emailed you Jessica in my office. Oh. Because she was asking me, and so I provided the document that we have with BG and E for what they install.

That only applies to some.

Not It only it only applies to some, not yeah. Not all.

Hillman was the one let's just say you're and the committee are aware. Yeah. Hillman has this other company, but it's in but it seems to be enforced by premium even though the charging company is has a, I think, a contract with us, not premium.

Is that true?

Well, we have the the agreement that I forwarded to my colleague was just BG and E's right right to enter and to install their own their own devices. I don't know about the other contract with the private one. That would have been done, I think, through premium and

RVM. E mobility is the manufacturer. I'm on I don't know if they do the maintenance as well, but we're we do Department of Transportation or anyone in the city contacts premium when one of the chargers is down. There Marcus did note just recently that the contact there's no contact number on the chargers, and and I asked him, and he said he would do put a contact number on there, and he said he was the contact that we had before was not direct to repair, so they're rectifying that as well. So Department of Transportation is going to provide on the chargers a more direct line for anyone who notices the chargers are down. The problem is you don't know they're down until you try to use them.

Yeah.

They get that frustration. And they said there's no way for us to know if they're down, you know, if no one's using them at the moment.

We spoke to can I

ask, is there a number when someone goes to use it and it's down? Do they know is there a way for them to notify

Not at least in Hillman, not right now, but that's being rectified by transportation.

Okay. So there'll be a sticker that says call transportation instead

of Well, call this number in for repair because it won't go to our department of transportation. It will go to the company that's supposed to repair them.

But then we still won't know about it.

I believe that there's a reciprocal relationship with the Department of Transportation. I can verify that because they're they have the data, so they must know. Yeah.

I just would think that we should know about it. Right. Make sure

yeah.

What

are the updates on AMRI and Oh.

Eastport floods? AMRI, which is the Annapolis Maritime Resilience Initiative, that is the nature based solutions to build climate resilience within the Eastport and Spock Creek areas. I mean, at the Back Creek, it's Spock Creek Peninsula is mostly in Eastport. They've selected their top 10 priority projects from all the listening sessions with the public, the stakeholder sessions, and other field analyses. I can't they've asked us not to reveal the top 10.

That will be coming out within the next week. There'll be a joint press release by the city and the resilience authority in Council Fire, which is their communications consultant. So these are things like living shorelines, step pool conveyance systems. In addition, there's $250,000 that's going to be put towards monitoring no. Sorry.

That's a different one. Let me back up there. The Department of Public Works has identified with their East Port mitigation study that the best solution for the street end flooding is to put in backflow preventers at the street ends. Currently, they're definitely going to address the core area of Eastport with backflow preventers, and one of the options is to put the backflow preventers at every street end in Eastport, and that looks promising. A lot of activity. So, yes, Alderman Arnett.

So I'm looking at the LED lights and I just wanted to report in Portugal, both in Porto and Lisbon, their streetlights all have cameras.

Oh, good.

There's and they actually have signs on the street saying monitored by cameras. And I didn't think Portugal was a very high crime area, but, you know, I wish we had taken advantage years ago when we could have put the cameras in all the BG and E lights. Maybe someday we'll do it.

I'm let Dylan just update you on our our lighting study that we did which concerns BG and E real quickly.

Dylan Cunningham, our programs manager. Yeah. This is a great segue into a study that we just had completed by TANCO Lighting. This was funded through our operational budget. We have seen that different municipalities have transitioned from a utility owned light or street lighting approach, taking advantage of state legislation to actually obligate those utilities to sell those lights to municipalities.

This has yielded a lot of savings for different municipalities and this study has had an initial estimate, if we were to fully adopt this transition to city owned lights and city maintained lights of about $8,500,000 over twenty years. And coupled with that, you know, substantial savings, we actually have improved flexibility to what we can do with our street lights. So that would, of course, include upgrades like cameras and would increase our capacity to put on those WiFi luminaires that we'll be testing for that six month period. Put on what? Broadband luminaires, which provide public Wi Fi zones.

And that's what we're piloting with that six month program through US Ignite. So we're really excited about that study. We obviously have some internal discussions that we need to have with TPW among others. Like I said, that would be an estimate for total adoption or total conversion from BG and E to Citi owned. But, you know, this is really promising, and we're definitely along with you in terms of trying to upgrade our, you know, our public infrastructure in that way.

Since

we're so far over time, are there any particular questions?

I'm good.

Thank you.

Thank you

for your You're welcome. Yes.

All right.

There's a lot of changes in there, so if you have other questions, contact me as usual.

Thank you. I don't see anything else on the agenda, so

Here, I'll move that we adjourn.

Second. All All those in favor, please say aye. Aye. Motion carries. Me is adjourned. Thank you.