All the rules of the city government committee meeting to order.

Welcome back, everyone.

Uh roll call, please note Alderman Arnett is present, and Alderman Shandemeyer is joining us by video.

I'll entertain a motion to approve the agenda.

Move to approve the agenda.

Did I get a second?

Your mic is not.

It is still not on.

Um how about now you're on?

Better.

Okay.

Second.

Thank you.

All in favor of approving the agenda is written, please say aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Thank you.

Um approval of the minutes from the July 11th and the July 23rd meeting.

So we'll entertain a motion.

So moved.

Second.

All in favor, please say aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Okay.

First item on our agenda is legislation 014 25.

Implementation of Annapolis Ahead Comprehensive Plan 2040.

And I see uh our director, Mr.

Kubiak, would you come up?

Mr.

Densky, please come up.

Good morning.

Good morning.

So tell us why we have to why we should be approving uh 01425.

Well, there that's a big question.

Yeah.

Um the address and uh the the ordinance and in its various uh the various aspects of the ordinance address uh a number of obstacles that um are preventing uh land development or redevelopment more more appropriately uh that's consistent with the city's comprehensive plan.

Uh you know the the the document is relatively large, addresses multiple um zoning text amendments, but that's the theme that runs throughout the the ordinance that these uh changes would improve the implementation of the city's comprehensive plan.

And naturally, once an adopted plan is um on the books, the next step for municipality is to uh adopt the text amendments and zoning map amendments to help bring the plan about.

And um there will be in the future other text amendments forthcoming.

Um, but this is the first cut of those, and um there'll be map amendments as well that will be presented to the uh city council in the months ahead.

So uh should we just begin with I see the attachments with the amendment alderman?

Thank you, madam chair.

Um as I look at this legislation, it feels like it has three distinct component parts.

The majority of it up through page eight has to do with the changes that are going to help us accommodate the goals of the comprehensive plan 2040, more specifically to increase density in plan development areas, which if I'm correct, are largely the 12 opportunity areas.

Is that a correct assumption?

Yeah, yeah.

Um there, I would say a better way to think about it.

They do capture those areas, but we're thinking about the major corridors of the city as where these opportunities will be.

And then we have a small section that deals with the 3250 rule, which uh starts on page eight, and then on page 10, we get into some bulk and height changes in a specific portion of the city.

So Alderman, are you asking specific questions about I just want to make sure I'm uh that there's really three components.

The big part of this, and really what the name of the uh legislation implies is the uh implementation.

I would say initial implementation steps for comprehensive plan 2024 or 2040 2040.

Yeah, I think that's a nice way of uh summarizing.

There's also a small section on parking in the downtown area as well.

Um but those those are the the big three elements of the all right, the the document.

And then, madam chair, you were proposing that we start focusing on the changes for the comprehensive plan.

Well, yeah, I you know, I was looking at all of the highlighted areas, and I thought that's what you were specifically asking, but you were just trying to lay out um the areas that need to be discussed, but not specific.

Correct.

So um do we want to just take it from the top?

Is that the best?

Sure, sure.

Okay, so um beginning on page three.

So um just a brief explanation as to why you think these things are um pertinent.

Yeah.

New addition.

Uh so I'll give some overview and Eric will um support with the and take it to the next level of detail as is needed.

The um the plan development tool in the zoning ordinance is a really important part of uh um our zoning approach.

Uh plan development is uh an approach that allows for flexibility in how these detailed bulk and setback standards are applied, but also allows for discretion for the planning commission.

So, in exchange for some flexibility, the planning commission has more discretion and improving projects and being engaged in making sure that the project advances the the goals of the city.

Um unique aspect of the plan development um approach is that it encourages mix of uses.

And as you recall from the comprehensive plan, the mixing uses is a major element of the the entire document.

The future in terms of land use is to mix uses and facilitate redevelopment.

Remember, the city is not growing, uh, it's not expanding physically outward, uh, and uh to remain uh vibrant, uh the city will need to continue to reinvest or guide reinvestment uh in ways that support the other goals of the city, like historic preservation or environmental protection, um, and importantly, housing.

So one element of these changes is to um increase the percentage of allowable housing within each of the planned development uh projects that may be built in the future.

Um and remember uh a planned development is a permitted use, uh as a use in like in the category of uses.

There's you know, it might be convenience stores, might be housing, there might be uh um uh light manufacturing, uh recreational uses, and planned development.

And plan development implies this approach that I've just outlined in terms of flexibility, but also implies that um you can stack uses on top of each other so that there could be retail and restaurant on the ground floor and apartments above, or a small retail establishment or restaurant on one part of the site while you have residential on another part.

Um this is really important because that plan development sits on top of a zoning category that might not allow for residential development.

So by going the planned development route, you open up the possibility to meet the city's housing needs on land that otherwise would have been prevented from being developed uh with residential uses.

And uh so these changes as they you know maneuver through this entire document, address flexibility to create more potential for the development of housing in combination with uh uh uh commercial uses.

And so as we thought about that, we realized well, the ordinance has to protect the residential qualities uh because if you're gonna introduce residential development, open space needs to be thought about more systematically, off-site improvements need to be cared for, um, and um the purpose statements in some cases change to to realize and to bring about the focus on on housing and residential qualities.

That's in a nutshell what this series of code changes do.

Uh there are far more specifics with respect to the percentages and the allowable densities and where bonus densities are permitted uh that we can talk about, but I just want to lay out that big picture for the uh the members uh for the time being.

And if you have any broad questions for Eric myself, please don't hesitate.

Then we can get into the details if you'd like to.

Alderman Arnett.

Thank you, Madam Chair.

So I'm on page four, which is the embellishment of item six to promote development, which substantially addresses the goals of the comprehensive plan, particularly the following.

And the very first one is supply of affordable housing.

And I understand this is an issue, but um I I can tell you that I don't think that there's any offset.

In fact, um Alderman Savage is going to be bringing us uh a number of amendments today uh about the impacts of increased density, having just come from Porto and Lisbon, where there's a huge amount of multifamily dwelling units and horrible, horrible traffic with trolleys, trams, subways, buses, Uber and Lyft, and major thoroughfares like I-97.

And yet traffic is just horrible.

So when you have these high-rise apartments and these uh mixed-use dwellings, you can achieve a goal of increasing housing density, and possibly, although I understand Lisbon is the most expensive city in Europe to live in now, even with all this high density, but you don't look at all the other factors surrounding this core facet of planning.

Um it it gives me pause.

It I did end up supporting fully the comprehensive plan, particularly all the extra embellishments we put in there, but things like this without compliments about how we adjust to the new density.

Um give me concern.

Um fortunately for you, I'll be going away.

But uh I suppose.

Can you be specific?

Are there specifically?

Well, so the A, promoting the supply of affordable housing, especially multiple multifamily, and here's our favorite word, missing middle, uh, to be developed lower cost.

That is a goal.

There's it's clear.

But I don't see, and that's what I think Alderman Savage is offering us in his multitude of amendments, it's not just dealing with traffic.

There are things that are talked about in the comp plan, which I think are goals about other infrastructure, like facilities for daycare, facilities for docking the buck, facilities for local market places that you can walk to, all of these things that you can walk to.

Um I guess you can say that's could be coming under promoting a mix of land use types, and maybe that's something that can be more fully developed as we do the plan.

But let me stop you and let's have ask them to answer the first question.

Right.

And that is uh with that uh goal of promoting affordable housing.

Is there considerations for transit or transportation and other services that would that would um support that proposal or that objective?

Yeah, uh Madam Chair, let me try to take a stab at that and um director Jacobia can support if needed.

Uh one of the really critical inclusions in this is the reference to the performance standards that are in the comprehensive plan.

That was an attachment to the staff report.

It's it's something that's in the land use chapter of the comprehensive plan.

It's titled performance standards for mixed use development.

It includes six categories of criteria that we think uh in you know, producing the plan and with a lot of input from the population that city's population addresses a whole range of things that make for better development, whether they include um housing or not.

And uh I just want to pay you back onto what Director Tekubia said about why we're focusing on plan developments here.

Um we recognize that when you look at the sites that are most likely to redevelop in the coming years or should redevelop or where they're just not performing to the extent that they could.

For example, right.

The plan development mechanism in the code is what we found to be the most likely avenue that a property owner developer team would take, and it gives us quite a bit of latitude to shape that development in a way that can really benefit the surrounding neighborhoods.

Um, you know, this particular item, this principle of including affordable housing, um, missing middle housing.

I mean, it's it's something we want to have on in the foreground of whatever happens is but it certainly needs to be balanced by other things, you know, it can't just be in isolation.

And so, in a way, we want these developments, should they happen to be transit ready, to be providing improvements to the streetscape that can make it more functional for other users other than people with a personal vehicle, um, set the standard, you know, be a model for how other developments um are shaped, you know, along the core.

So I think it's their nascent uh C, of course, speaks to transportation, but B here promoting a mix of land use types.

Some of the things that I cited are other land use types like daycare and stock in the box and so forth, it just isn't as prominent as affordable housing.

And I think that it is all of those make for successful uh comprehensive core of uh planning and development.

Um so you know, I've made these comments before, and I just would like to see these other uh complementary uses more highly highlighted, broadly highlighted.

Maybe there could be um a note that to refer to the addendum that you were referring to, Ms.

So that uh anyone who questions by that to provide a little more detail on what uh Eric was just explaining.

Um there's a section regarding plan development review criteria and findings that's in the current code, and that section principally deals with the impacts, it basically requires the um planning commission to consider the possibility for adverse impacts.

So that's the frame of reference.

Does this project impose burdens on the neighborhood?

And if so, how how do they get mitigated?

Well, we've evolved that to say not only do you have to minimize adverse impacts, but you have to contribute community benefits, the amenities to the community.

And um I think this is a real innovation um that was influenced by a lot of uh times uh speaking with on Minarnette.

Um so number three, uh, if you go if you go to page seven, seven of twelve under plan development review and criteria, you can get a sense of what we're sharing with you here.

Number three, by virtue of the planned development, the following community benefits shall be advanced.

This triggers an evaluation of whether a project will implement and advance our ideas about things like walking, biking, transit, high quality architectural landscape design, civic beauty, physical connectivity with surrounding developments, um revitalizing outmoded, obsolescent and physically deteriorated real estate, creating opportunities for public art and the modernization of stormwater management.

So there's those are specifically listed as criteria that the planning commission will evaluate.

But if you go on further, get to point eight, where Erica said clearly, um performance standards.

We for the first time directly link the zoning to the comprehensive plan, making those elements in the comprehensive plan required.

And that's what Maryland law provides for.

Comp plans not required, except when you put in the code that standards specifically referenced in the code shall be used to evaluate a project.

Now those standards that are quite detailed, and and Eric has worked with broad community consensus to develop those mixed-use standards, they are now part of the city's code, linking the comprehensive plan vision to zoning review and development review.

Um, so yes, we should get a copy of those.

Oh, they are in the staff report, but um we can get a separate copy to you know through an email, but um really places the planning commission in the role of site planner working with the developer to make sure that projects advance these broader goals uh and not just the sort of the efficiency of the project and minimizing its impacts.

They're much more affirmative and future-oriented in in the reviews now.

And thank you.

If I may say I very much appreciate this notion of community benefits, I remember conversation we had in your office about this very thing.

And um I think that's where all of these other amenities that are necessary for the quality of life in the new development for the new people, but I think are also something that can assuage the concerns of the 40,000 people who already live here.

Right.

And uh are worried about how this might impact them.

And I've always thought that we have to remember that a lot of this focus is on people who don't live here yet.

We want to make it possible for them to live here, but it does have impact on people who already live here.

And by doing these high density developments with daycare and doctors, it's not just exclusive for these high density houses for all the neighborhood around them, too.

Right.

So they get that benefit.

And that's why this community benefit is such a strong idea.

Thank you, Alderman.

Um Alderman Chandlermeyer, did you have a question before we go on?

Yes, Madam Chair.

Thank you.

Uh, first off, is my audio working?

I'm sorry.

Uh that answers that question.

I said, first off, is my audio working.

It's you need to be louder.

Yeah, I'm not understanding.

How about now?

That's all right.

I'll just do this without my headphones.

Um that was the problem.

So uh, first off, thank you, madam chair.

Um I really appreciate some of the presentation and the work on this.

I really strongly believe that this comprehensive plan is one of the best that we've seen, and it is really focused for the residents that live here now.

Um, because one of the main issues that I have when I'm knocking doors is that people are concerned that the kids who live here now and a lot of the people who live here now aren't going to be able to afford to live here in the future due to their massive housing shortage and being out competed by wealthier people coming in due to the shortage of available homes.

So I do appreciate that.

Um in regards to the expansion of housing opportunities into the commercial districts, one of the successes that uh Texas has had with expanding its housing options and housing affordability options is apartments and duplexes, real homes, triplexes are now allowed by right in commercial properties.

Is that something that this comprehensive plan gets us towards?

Or is that something we would have to amend further?

Or is that uh to be determined?

I guess uh I wouldn't say it allows them by right.

It what it does is it looks at um I think a lot of the locations where we see stagnants in terms of um land use are places that are zoned for commercial uses, but where um the the type of commercial use that historically made sense there with uh drive-through, uh um uh convenience store, something that is very auto-oriented is not what the nearby neighbors want anymore.

And so, in some ways, we're trying to create more opportunities for other types of uses, residential being the the probably the most important.

Um so no, it is the base zoning is still important here, but when you look at the primary opportunities for infill redevelopment, um, they're places where the planned development mechanisms make more sense, and that's where um they would have more uh flexibility, you know.

We we just we hate seeing these sites be vacant or underutilized, and that's really what this is about, I think.

So um and I do also share my colleague uh Armin Arnett's concern with how do we try to get more child care facilities uh built in the city?

We had some success with the expanding daycare act, they're now allowed by right in every zoning district in the commercial zoning district in the city.

Uh, we got rid of some of the regulations for in-home child care facilities, but for the planned development portion, um is it worth trying to codify in the upcoming plan development bill or in the comprehensive bill stuff that would make it easier or streamline, or is that something that we can trust our planning commission um or through internal regulations to try and put forward to uh make more happen, or is that something we should just address in separate regulation, uh separate legislation in the upcoming term, finding what are some of the other bottlenecks that are preventing child care facilities from happening here in the city?

I I think the the bottleneck is that development is not happening where it could.

And uh if you introduce the possibility for uh residential development through these modifications, if the market suggests there's a need for uh those uses, it would be provided.

And what better uh use uh consistent and compatible with residential uh to see uh and not only that, um daycare centers, but also this small-scale residentially supported uses, like medical um and in fact we've looked at the Forest Drive corridor, and uh there is a lot of residential development nearby, but then there are gaps where land is zoned commercial and has been zone commercial for quite a while.

And while the city has seen a lot of revitalization, redevelopment in many parts of the city, some areas are still operating under uh development scenarios that date back to the 60s.

Um, and that investment hasn't come.

And we suspect that having the possibility for residential uh will bring about those amenities because uh uh development is an expensive proposition, and you just simply don't remove income producing properties to put a daycare center uh you you develop it as a comprehensive um uh vision and introducing residential as well as daycare.

Daycales then brings an amenity to the entire neighborhood.

Uh and uh and as the comprehensive plan discussed, the the forest drive corridor or West Street Corridor are not meant to be just a um a channel to convey traffic through in individual cars, but meant to be a more humane environment where people can walk to the middle school along Forest Drive in a safe way, or can cross the street from Robin Wood to a new commercial residential area, or where community centers can be built and parks can be connected to.

Uh, that's our you know, we live on Forest Drive, right?

We don't all live downtown in a in a walkable environment.

So a planning process is meant to bring about uh more livable communities, and it starts with regulations like these, you know, or amendments to our regulations like these.

I am very happy to hear you say that because something that always bothers me is when people say Forest Drive will never be walkable.

Uh I live on Forest Drive, and uh while my family doesn't have children, many of my neighbors do, and I hate seeing them walk along the side of that strode and put it at risk.

Um last question, I suppose, and putting the card above in front of the horse uh before the horse, you can let me know and I'll drop it.

Uh I was going through our zoning code and notice that child care centers, uh, so that's the larger child care facilities, not in-home, are permitted currently in our residential districts, but it's by special exception.

Um would going through and maybe allowing those by right be in line with the comprehensive plan and trying to whoa, the screen just kind of put me in an exception mode there.

Sorry.

Uh would put those being put in uh made those by right uh rather than special exception.

Would that be in line with comprehensive plan and go along with what we're trying to do with expanding these options and affordability issues, or would that uh just get in the way of what we're also trying to do with uh preserving neighborhoods?

That's a classic both and situation.

Um I think it could compliment complicate any zoning we're doing when you're introducing uh kind of uh traffic generating use within existing residential areas, and that's what implicitly would you could you know foresee.

Um, but the beauty of of this is that a plan development uh allows by right daycare centers, not just daycare homes, but daycare centers.

It's uh allowable use within our planned development scenario.

So the whole suite of commercial uses can be combined with a residential uses.

Uh so it's in there in a matter of speaking.

So the plan development allows for those larger facilities.

Yeah, yeah, that's right.

And that's that's that's right.

So where we have development and the uh and the the option is a plan development, it opens up the possibility uh for daycare centers.

Right.

Thank you.

Uh that's all the questions I have, Madam Chair.

Thank you.

Uh Alderman, um, yours.

I know it's been a while.

Welcome back.

Thank you, um, Madam Chair.

Um just since it sounds like we're we're kind of just doing big picture comments right now.

Um, just a few things.

Um, I I've come around over the years to support at least a lot more so than I used to.

The you know, the addition of density in the city.

I do see the benefit of that.

Um, but I still am a very firm believer of needing necessary infrastructure.

Um and so as I've mentioned before to staff, you know, uh I'm still I'm a firm believer of also having uh uh transit-oriented development as opposed to density-driven development, and I still feel like this is very much density-driven development, which means we perpetuate the impacts from that density without having with the anticip with the assumption that infrastructure improvements are gonna happen later.

Uh, and that's what I want to try to get away from because uh, you know, again, as I've mentioned, some of the top concerns from my constituents are traffic issues and parking issues.

And this doesn't address that.

Um, you know, there's also the fact that Forest Drive is again, I'm gonna keep saying this, the most dangerous road in the county.

And this doesn't do anything to really address that.

Um, you know, I because unless we have things in place that are really going to be reducing the reliance, the need for a cars, uh, we just simply can't make that road safer.

So it would just be too many vehicles on that road.

Um, so we can easily improve sidewalk.

Um, you know, we're working on bike lanes, but to really have any substantive change to Forest Drive, we have to start reducing the amount of cars on that road somehow.

And this doesn't really lay out a plan for that.

I know we talked to it in the comp plan, but this legislation just I feel like it just awards the density without asking too much back from the developers, and that's what concerns me.

Um and so, you know, we do have our APF, our adequate public facilities, but I don't believe planned developments have to comply with that, right?

I think they're exempted.

But any case, the planning commission asked that they we uh um amend that language to to state that they do, but even if they do comply with our APF, our APF is is not very effective right now.

Uh I I think it it really needs improvement, especially when you you're looking at mobility and road safety issues.

Um, and also, you know, I I think is as you both have mentioned and in the comp plan, you know, I realize that one of the intentions with this is to add more mixed use on Forest Drive and in these other corridors too, it's not just Forest Drive.

Uh and I and I support that.

But as you said yourselves in the comp plan, to have successful mixed use, you we have to have pedestrian traffic.

And I hear from my constituents, they just don't feel like they don't like walking on forest drive, and or if some of these other streets like West Street, it's not safe.

Every time I try biking on either one of them, I just get incredibly frustrated because it's not a good situation.

Um how do we get that?

We're just we're building the mixed use, but or enabling it, I should say, but we don't really have a solid plan to how do we make it successful mixed use with pedestrian traffic, and that's where you know obviously I'll get into this a lot more with my proposed amendments, but that's kind of my big picture on this.

I I posed it at introduction because I felt like this is gonna require a lot more time to craft correctly, in my view, um, to address some of the constituent concerns.

Um sure enough it is.

You've seen my I don't know how many pages I'm up to, 12 pages on the amendments.

It's it's there's a lot I feel like that needs to be addressed to at least to get me happy with uh supporting this.

Um but um in any case that that's kind of where I am with with the big picture.

Um I support the general idea, but I just feel like some of these details need to be fleshed out is how do we enact how do we get to this point we all agree with where we need where we want to go, right?

Well, I'd like for us to move on, uh Alderman.

But before we do, Alderman, one item you didn't mention in your list of things to um assist forest drive is speed.

You know, I think that's a pertinent issue um that has to be addressed.

Um if we want forest drive to be a city street that folks will feel comfortable walking.

They can't feel that feel comfortable if cars are whipping by them at 40 miles an hour.

So I think we can't have that discussion without the discussion with the state to, and we've asked the state in the past, but I think we need to continue to press upon them that the speed on Forest Drive needs to change, and then we can start to change some other things on Forest Drive that will make it more accommodating for the residents to live and do business and take care of their needs and so forth.

So uh I appreciate to add that into your your list of uh options.

Alderman Arnett, I'll ask you one, uh, give you one more chance, and then we can have to go ahead and I wanted to return to some of the high points of the legislation itself.

Uh but mention as an aside, I've read through the number of pages of amendments that Alderman Savage is proposing, and I like them, but again, it's only focusing on the transit part of the whole picture.

And I really do think as Alderman Shondemeyer said, there's other components that add to community benefit.

And maybe those are things that we'll pick up as we go further on.

This is just the first of many uh amendments that we're gonna have to make to the code, but I think they're equally important, and as I said earlier, those benefits don't just accrue to the new people, those those other amenities are available to the people who live here too, and and may make their circumstances.

But I wanted to just a couple of things on page three, um, under line 32, we change promote design to development that takes into account natural characteristics of the site.

Um I'm kind of reacting to what Alderman Savage just said, but what I know my constituents are saying is this is all about development, it's all about new density, and really design, I think is a better word.

I think it's more comprehensive.

So uh, you know, that's something that I'm gonna raise a question about to promote design that takes into account the natural characteristics of the site.

Uh, I think was just fine.

But then I wanted to move on to the Alderman.

Are you presenting amendments to No?

I'm just um and not at this point, no.

Okay.

Um, because we would like to, you know.

Yeah.

So that so that's what I wanted to do now is to go to the pages where we talk about the residential business and special mixed development changes, and I think it starts on page five, where we're changing um the amount of the underlying zoning that does not have to, I mean, the the plan development that does not have to conform to the underlying zoning.

So the first one is residential, and it's saying that um I think it's trying to see where it goes.

It goes from 10 to 30, if I'm looking at this correctly, um, and then business goes up to 50 percent, and special mix goes up to 75 percent.

That does not have to conform with the underlying zoning.

So let's just take something like Tyler Avenue, where it's mostly R2, and if it's going to be a mixed development, that would mean that up to 75% of that particular area, and I know that's not what you're planning, could be non-R2.

I mean, those are big changes, and I guess I'd like to have a little sense of why such big increments.

So I'm just to clarify, the um there are three types of plan developments that you're you're you're uh identifying.

Um a special mixed plan development that has the greatest uh density changes is not uh an allowable use in the R2 zone, so it's not applicable to to um Tyler, and uh and Tyler as a residential zone would be eligible for residential plan development, and the percentages are not changing there.

The only things changing is that rather than having the the percentages written out in letters, it's using numeral five.

I see.

All right, so there's no substantive change to the residential plan development.

So rest assured, Tyler Road and uh Thunder Avenue and other residential areas will remain um same mix of uses, 10% possibly, maybe the small uh daycare center, right?

Um in the rest uh resident residential.

All right, all right.

So but the special mix is where can a special mixed plan development go?

In a commercial court, commercially zoned properties uh along major corridors, West Street and uh Forest Drive principally.

So how does that differ from business corridor?

The business plan development is almost probably allowed in the same exact same zoning categories as uh the special mixed.

It's just that the plan, the business plan development is far more tilted towards business uh uh uses, commercial uses mixing them, uh whereas the special mix suggests uh and a greater openness to residential.

So the 12 opportunity areas in the comp plan of those special mix or I I'm trying to figure out how the the comp plan rolls out with the corridors and the opportunity areas they're not all uh eligible as a special mixed.

I would say um many of them are, but not all.

I I'm thinking um without having the map in front of me, the WNAV site, for example, as zoned as R1 on Admiral Drive, so that would not be eligible as a special mix.

Um what about the Sports Shopping Center and uh Nautilus Point?

What would they be?

Would they be eligible for special mix?

Esports shopping center, yes.

Um to be one, v2, two um sort of out of this point is zoned as R4.

Um so I don't so could it be could it become a special mixed plan development?

Don't know off the top of my head um without looking at the use table, you know.

Yeah, some of the maps you gave us in the comp plan were so helpful because it could tell you by a different color what kinds of development that we're talking about changing here could occur where.

So I'm I'm kind of curious where special mixed plan development would occur at all.

Um would it be the forest drive corridor?

Yeah, that's principally where it would occur.

Uh and and West Street.

West Outer West Street.

Yeah, upper outer west street.

Yeah.

Okay.

All right.

Thank you, madam chair.

Those were sort of uh general questions I had before we get into amendments.

Right.

Uh and the first amendment that we have is amendment one, Huntley amendment.

Right page 11.

Could I ask you gentlemen to react to the Huntley amendment?

The um Alterman Huntley amendment um addresses the part of the zoning text amendments that we haven't addressed yet.

Um it addresses um page 11 line 16.

Um just changes or to and yeah, it's a actually it just m means that the criteria under subsection B2 all have to be satisfied uh by changing the word or to and in item B.

Um so just to be clear, um in order for um structures on a rooftop to extend above the established height or the regulatory height maximum, all three of those conditions have to be found to be met.

Yeah, if you adopt the the amendment and use the word and which we support actually, and in fact, we thought it was drafted that way, and that's how uh we would support it being drafted.

So um this is an important um amendment because it corrects uh part of this draft questions about uh the Huntley Amendment?

Um yes, I I do ultimate internet.

Uh thank you, madam chair.

I'm trying to figure out the 25%.

I thought was for mechanical and other kinds of structures that could go beyond the above the ridgeline.

I don't think of green roofs as being mechanical or above the ridge line.

So I'm trying to figure out what does the 25% actually refer to.

That that refers to any type of um uh structure that is on top of the roof that exceeds those stairwell and elevated elevator HVZ panel structure for equipment uh mechanical, anything that projects above that uh has to be limited 25 percent of the footprint of the roof.

Is a chimney considered a mechanical structure?

Um, uh that's exempted already, but I but I think in the with Scoot Draft we likely count the footprint of the chimney too to make sure it didn't exceed that 25% and then going right back up to two itself, it says can extend 10 feet, but um the elevator overrun can go five more feet.

Is that up to 15 feet?

Yes.

Is that necessary?

Uh I mean, if it's there's two different kinds of elevators at least.

One is the kind that has the pulleys, and that's up on above the car, but there's also hydraulic elevators that just push the car up and down, and it wouldn't I I guess I'm what I'm trying to get at is I don't like the extra five feet.

Yeah, so can't we require them to use an elevator that doesn't stick up five more feet?

Uh I think the planning commission and reviewing a project or HBC and reviewing a project, or in this case the Board of Appeals reviewing if it requires a uh special exception, um, could make those judgments based on the actual application that's before it.

This provides some level of uh maximum that's allowed, but maximums are never guaranteed.

The the design solution that's best serves the particular project may call for 15, and and everyone would be happy that they had the flexibility.

Um the key to these uh requirements, all requirements is how they're administered.

Uh and uh because uh this applies within historic district, there are effectively three um planning zoning bodies in addition to staff that would be reviewed, would be involved in reviewing applications, and um so this is an attempt to make sure there's flexibility to have the best uh option available, not to guarantee a certain number.

Um we can't in the abstract in writing code design um any building or structure.

We we know we can't do that.

Yeah, I'm just every every foot you go up, so I'm thinking of standing at the building, those typical things where they show you're on the ground and this far back, you can see this much and this far back.

So I think if you're out in the harbor in this particular area, you're gonna see these protrusions, maybe coming down main street, depending upon where they're placed and what buildings you're looking around.

You might see some of them, but my sense some of the objections I've heard in all of the uh different comments made on this is that the more we can keep the height of this down, the better, the more satisfactory in the minds of the people.

But I hear your point.

Uh it is easy to sit here and have the temptation to try to pre-approve a plan in your mind that hasn't even been submitted and gone through all the administrative processes.

Right, right.

Well, the amendment we're working on simply adds the word and right.

So I make a move.

No, I make a motion that we approve the Huntley amendment.

Can I get a second?

Uh oh.

I'll I'll second it.

Thank the committee.

Uh further discussion.

Uh all in favor of the Huntley amendment, please say aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Alderman Chandlemai, are you with us?

He's up right already.

Oh okay.

Oh, okay.

I just thought I could hear it.

Okay.

Um, and then we have uh several amendments.

We have uh the Buckley amendment, which we received this morning on page 11.

Okay, this takes us to page 11 also front setback and bulk for replacement buildings.

Gentlemen, do you have this amendment?

I'm trying to figure out where it is so page eleven.

Uh is this the new I can't figure out what were here's ninety it would have to be new, I would assume um because what's in red now is twenty-one point five six point one seven oh, and this seems to be twenty-one point five six point one nine oh so it would have to be between Oh, I'm on I'm on page the wrong page.

Um can you help us with where this is supposed to be and how this is supposed to fit in?

So would this be a new CERN or would it yeah, that's true.

What is it?

Uh-huh.

Okay.

Mr.

Kubiak, would you turn your mic on?

You have to say all that all over.

Um this new proposed section 2156190 would be inserted under item three on page eleven as a new section.

That so now this uh uh this section of zoning text amendments would amend four sections rather than just three.

Previous sections don't begin there's two categories under this new section.

Yes, presently there's just one.

There's uh there's one paragraph under section twenty-one fifty-six one ninety, and the proposal is to add an a second paragraph.

So the first one already exists yes, it does.

Okay, so the new what's new is just the second paragraph.

That's in bold and our on our document.

Exactly.

So are you clear on where that is?

Page 11, just eleven after the new language in red.

Okay, so it's and it's section it's a new section.

Uh alderman's average.

Well, I think we need a we need a line reference on this amendment.

I think it would be not clear.

All it says is page eleven, but the and it says section twenty-one fifty-six one ninety, but I don't see that on page eleven.

It's not.

It's not.

So it would go in.

So this it's a new section.

Okay, so completely.

So a new heading, which is section twenty-one point five six point one nine.

If you go back, the previous section is section twenty-one point five six point one seven oh on the bottom of ten, page ten.

Then you go over to page eleven, a new section, similar to the previous three sections.

Okay, so so it'd be line like a twenty-eight or twenty-seven or twenty-eight, right?

Right.

Insert new.

And this would be new.

A new section.

Well, it's not it's not a new section, it's an addition to uh existing section, right?

That's currently in it it doesn't exist.

Right, but it's it's currently in the code, right?

The just one fifty-six one ninety, just the number one.

So this would add the number two as new red or blue.

So the two would be in red.

Okay.

I'm all right.

Is that correct, Mr.

Yes or Ms.

I guess.

I think that should be for the law office.

I don't know, I guess we don't have to.

Well, I don't think it went to the uh for final drafting this right.

Yes, of course.

So could you react to this new language?

Yeah.

Um you know, uh I'd like to just take a minute to talk about uh zoning and bulk standards in a very physical way, and maybe it would be best uh to do this with the graphics and illustrations or physical models, but I'm gonna attempt to describe it with words instead.

Um setbacks are regulations that govern how close a building can be to the side yard to side property line.

So they create yards around a building, open space around a building.

Height defines how tall a building can be.

So these two standards work to essentially create a physical volume of space with within which a building can be built.

So the verticality is established by the maximum height, and the horizontal or the amount of coverage is defined by the setbacks.

That volume of space is really important because you place a building within that volume, and typically you you can uh work to get approval.

Of course, there'll be articulation and the building might step back, and of course, in Annapolis, the second and third stories will step back.

Um but presently, and and that's typically candidly the approach used in many jurisdictions, and then the design process is used, the planning process to decide, describe how that building will actually be articulated within that buildable volume.

Within Annapolis, we have an additional complication, complicating factor.

It's called floor area ratio, and the FAR is a mathematical relationship between the amount of floor area and the amount of land area.

So you can have floor area stacked on each other.

If you can picture a single-story building, for instance, covering the entire lot, that's a floor to area ratio of one, one to one, floor area to land area.

But if it's a two-story building and it covers the entire parcel, then you have the floor area ratio of two.

Now you can imagine if you look at the the location where this code would apply.

If you have a two-story building and it covers the entire lot, like some of the buildings do, or three-story building that covers the entire lot, you already have at least a floor area ratio of two, and in some cases, FAR floor ratio of three or more that exists out there already.

So by allowing a building to um it and be enlarged to three stories, which the zoning allows three stories there, but still capping the FAR too, you've created a mixed match.

Uh a landowner can either uh build three stories, which means a big portion of the property will be left undeveloped, but the building will be pushed back away from the front yard or um situated narrowly on the site, or um the the property owner will have to live with a two-story building.

There's there's no way around that.

It's that's the effectively how you manage these competing regulations.

Um, but where you have an established building pattern, like in a historic downtown where you want to support maintaining buildings being placed right on the front lot lines and buildings being uh adjoining each other, like we have like there are no side yards on that.

Every building touches each other, right?

Except for the uh where Sophie's grapes is, that historic building, and uh so to allow facilitate redevelopment, you can't have a 2.0 FAR.

Uh we so we have a cut we have a conflict in the way the the code is drafted.

Um in fact, the the council will be dealing with this very same issue uh on um uh Clay Street and um I forgot the West Washington Street.

With another text amendment that's in the queue, and you'll I think the rules committee will take it up at your next meeting, at least it'll be offered to you for that purpose.

So this is not an uncommon situation.

It happens, and uh we'd like to clarify and clean it up.

And in this particular location from Craig Street out, it's particularly the issue because um there the buildings cover 100% of lots they go from one street to the next street, side to side, uh, and uh a three-story building could not be built.

You couldn't build build to the 2838 standard while maintaining on the other hand a 2.0 FER.

So this amendment says the vertical measurement, maximum height, and the horizontal measurement, the setbacks should control because they create the the buildable volume and to remove that FER.

FAR has an important role in playing and dealing with the intensity of development.

Like we can't handle three stories of the development there because uh we don't have the traffic capacity or the parking or things like that.

So we're gonna essentially allow taller buildings, but down somewhere to maintain a uh lower intensity of development.

Um but if you only have to look at annapolis, you know that very few parcels within downtown have an FAR of two.

So we'd like to correct this um so that uh the redevelopment of these properties could actually happen in a way that's compatible with the historic district uh and maintain that you know buildings up on the street and two or three two and a half, three-story buildings.

So it's complicated, but that's that's an explanation.

Thank you for that.

Um elsewhere in the C2, the FAR is two.

Yes, in that that's right.

Right.

So why aren't we?

I mean, why shouldn't we fix all of the C2 to go to this new formula rather than uh keeping the rest of C2 at a far of two, which means essentially limited to two store.

And I think may the city might want to consider that.

And I think we will be investigating that.

In fact, it may be a reasonable thing to think about citywide.

It's not necessarily an always a helpful standard uh candidate to apply.

However, this part of the city dock is especially unique in the factors that present itself there are not necessarily factors that present itself everywhere in the C2 zone, where we actually do have in some places um various building styles and and and a lot of the even uh buildings on Main Street do have rear yards.

They there do have open space along them.

Um we'd have to take a lot of time to investigate the impacts uh here in this discrete area where we already have a large building right behind it, where uh allowing facilitating uh to a second an additional floor or different half story would not have an adverse impact in that section.

Uh, where buildings are already covered 100% and sit cheek by jowl, it it it's presents itself as a uh a ready um uh uh candidate for a change.

Thank you.

Alderman Chanelmeyer.

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Uh Director Skubiak, if this is something that we should be considering in other parts of the conservation district or citywide, why are we why why just this narrow spot?

Um well, as I was saying, this narrow spot has um real potential for uh redevelopment in a way that can help repair and restore the the um historic quality.

We have buildings out there that are non-contributing from historic development standpoint, plus a major investment that the city's making and and developing the east the um city dock park.

Um, and as I mentioned, the the physical factors that present themselves there make this fixed, uh make this area perfect candidate for this fixed.

Um that is not the case generally.

It's the case that we ought to look at this standard and uh uh and how FAR works generally, but uh we I can't point to any location so clearly um uh a candidate for this type of zoning um improvement.

Like except for the the the location that we just mentioned uh earlier, which will be another text amendment uh in um on Clay Street.

There's another example where uh that FAR standard is preventing a buildable pattern that is consistent with the city's with the neighborhood and the city's planning uh and yet is holding back the investment of a in favor of a mixed-use project that would actually allow for uh a second story or half story or maybe a third story uh to build out what the um comprehensive plan imagines for uh for that section of of the city.

So I agree 100% with your assessment.

I I frankly find our floor area ratio regulations um a bit silly, but uh I just we're striking now.

I wish we could go further and take a look at other areas that this is holding back our opportunities here.

We we've seen from the Urban 3 study that there are a lot of underutilized properties in the city, and uh I think now is the time to be really taking a look at those regulations that hold those back.

But I will yield the rest of my time.

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Thank you.

Um is there a motion?

I'll make a motion that we approve this amendment.

Uh I don't know what it's being called, um amendment X.

I well, I think we can give it two.

We have uh amendment one, so we can name it in the amendment two.

But I do want to comment, I agree with Alderman Donelmeyer that uh, and that's why I raised my question about the rest of our two, but I think examining the whole usefulness of the FAR concept is something that this will hopefully precipitate.

But I'm make a motion that the rules committee recommend favorably amendment two, which is second.

It doesn't have a title.

We'll just call it amendment two.

Been moved and properly seconded.

All in favor, please say aye.

Aye aye.

Okay, and that takes us to the Savage Amendment.

Alderman Savage.

Uh thank you, madam chair.

So just to provide some context, I fully understand that these the draft amendments I gave you are not quite ready for prime time.

Um, but I felt like it was better to get you something than nothing.

Uh at least you know, to give you an idea of direction I'm going.

Uh and so I do still you know, hopefully I'll get some of your feedback today, but I do still intend to get obviously feedback from staff as well as the law office.

Um so Alderman, does staff have these or did that get these in advance?

I said, Yeah, I was and I know it's it was very last minute, but uh I feel like it's important, which is why I spent uh considerable amount of time last night to get these done.

Um so Madam Chair, I'll certainly I'm fine with however you want to handle this.

Um if you want me to just go over general big picture things I'm trying to change.

Um well, I think you've given us uh the big picture, um, but you've also given us about 10 pages of amendments.

I think I'd like to ask staff um what in these amendments are compatible with your with the document, the ordinance that we're reading.

And madam, if if I may add one other thing, just to again further context.

Uh there are kind of three different areas that these amendments uh address.

One is um trying to implement some of the recommendations from the planning commission, uh, and two, there are which is related to the number one, uh proposing a number of changes to the sections to the section of this legislation that deals with the height adjustments, uh, as well as you know, including the green roofs and the um accessory structures and those kind of things that uh planning commission recommended.

Uh and the third thing is the uh the uh transit orange development that I already spoke.

So just big picture, those are the kind of three areas.

Well, let me ask.

Um, did the planning commission not make their recommendations?

Yeah, yeah, we have and were they not considered or were they not agreed upon.

Uh so I'm not clear on why you're presenting the planning commission's recommendations when the planning commission has submitted their recommendations that were they not they report they weren't they weren't translated into amendments, they just gave their recommendations and okay.

But staff did not do any amendment to address the planning.

Usually when the planning commission makes recommendation, we get that in attached to the document, and then there's an amendment that follows that makes that correction.

Did we not see that this time?

Uh I don't want to duplicate our efforts, in other words.

On the on the visionary aspects of the Alderman's amendments, the ones about transit and aligning development with commitment to bringing about a transit future.

Um the planning commission saw those amendments, and I you know, I don't know if he's I haven't compared them, but saw the topic area, and we had discussion and ultimately decided that uh it was worthy of further research and study, and we fully anticipate bringing that back to the planning commission and building these regulations up uh into an ordinance.

Um, and that's it's that idea is preempted by you know your work, of course.

Um, but so the planning commission looked at them uh but decided not to uh f finding them a bit different, diverging a bit from what was what 1425 was was about and decided not to uh make a recommendation specific though in that except to recommend that we actually look into this and take it seriously and study it, which we are fully supportive of.

Um it's really a question of of uh maybe not allowing the the perfect to uh dissuade us from the good.

Uh and maybe that's essentially what this is, but it also gets complicated because it introduces new ideas and concepts that we have to wrestle with and spend time with uh uh the deciders here to understand.

But um if the council wants to go that direction, we'll be prepared to assist in that area.

Um the other text amendments um provide definitions where definitions are not yet provided, and we've actually heard from uh folks uh that it would be nice to have a definition of a green roof if we're gonna say one is required uh uh in historic area uh, for instance.

And so um, and I haven't had a chance to Eric and we were just talking about it this morning.

We haven't really got into the details.

We looked at them just before the the this session started.

So um, but we want to meet with the alderman and then sit down and go through each of those uh and um and evaluate them so we can make a positive recommendation to to this committee.

So let me ask the alderman, are you amenable to working with the planning uh director and staff to come back with amendments that are um that they you all agree upon?

Um because clearly I hear there's more research to be done.

Um and even if it means coming back with a different ordinance to implement the recommendation.

Uh yeah, I I'm certainly I I do absolutely wanna have uh conversation with staff and planning commission.

Um, and the planning commission, like the director said, uh is supportive of the intent.

Um they just felt like with everything else on their plate that they wanted to have the conversation later.

And so I do want to do that.

However, I you know, I still, you know, I'm I'm not gonna support any increase in density without addressing the very real concerns for my constituents.

I simply cannot perpetuate those impacts and assume that the next council or in the future, you know, some or sta staff is gonna address those.

Um I think they need to be coupled together.

I don't think we should ever be approving density without a solution to our very real constituent concerns, you know.

And some of them, like on I mentioned Forest Drive, we have what four or five schools on that road.

Safety should never be pushed away down the road, right?

Uh no pun intended there.

So you know, I I don't think it's perfect the enemy of the good.

I think this is responding to those concerns, and really it's seeking compliance, full compliance with our conference plan.

We've already committed to doing these things.

I think it's worth taking the time, but I just that's why I'm trying to amend it now to get to a point where I feel like I personally can support.

I'm not gonna support this legislation unless we have stronger language speaking towards again that future we're all share.

Um I I well, let me ask the question.

Is this timely?

I mean, is there an urgent need to pass this legislation now?

Monday next week or two weeks from now, whenever the next meeting.

Next meeting is 29.

Right.

So is there a need or is do we want to give ourselves time to go back and um look at the amendments?

I mean, we could deal with uh definitions today, um, and anything else that's already easily agreed upon, but I'm hearing I at least from one alderman, and he's one ultimate that there are um serious concerns about whether we're putting the car before the horse, um, you know, with increased density without the support system to go with.

Um, I'm not sure how far that should be going or it we're capable of doing, to be honest with you.

Um, transit is a whole whole bailiwick all by itself, uh dealing with how we move people around in the city that we've not been able to get our hands around in a timely fashion and to think we're gonna do it in time for legislation.

But anyway, um so you know, we can move forward with the things that we can do now, or we can postpone this until um we've had a chance to give the planning staff a chance to go back and do the research and gather additional information so we can address some of the concerns that they've already heard.

So that's my question uh to the committee members at least.

So my sense is that there are things here like the APF and other things in here that are addressing the height above the ridgeline and so forth that are not transit oriented.

However, having read it and already expressed earlier, I do think that we need to really be sure that we are considering transit improvements or whatever we need to do impacts when we're increasing density.

So for me, uh there's a very complicated set of bonuses that change things.

I find them intriguing, but I haven't had enough chance to understand it.

What I would suggest is the next council meeting isn't until September 29th, and that could leave time to have a staff meeting and schedule another rules committee so we could postpone uh action on 014 today.

I would like to get in the amendment about the APF.

I would like to consider the roof hype ones, and I definitely would like to consider the transit, but um it is complicated, and um I I also think that it is the transit portion is very consistent with the principal thrust of 01425, which is this whole notion of increasing density.

So um I I certainly would be willing to propose a postponement, reschedule another schedule another rules committee meeting in time to be able to get recommendations in on the 29th, if that would give the staff time to work with Alderman Savage, and I'd volunteer to work on that too, uh, to go through these um detailed amendments on transit.

Well, I'm I I'd be hard pressed to put that on staff, suspecting that there are already uh other things that they have been working on, and now we're gonna give them a timeline.

Yeah, I won't do that.

Um, but and to have to come up with another rules committee meeting date is gonna be a a challenge.

But let me ask Alderman Savage, I mean Alderman Chandelmeyer.

Um how do you feel about postponing action on this legislation, giving the staff an opportunity to meet uh with Alderman Savage and Alderman Arnett to try to come to some resolution on the differences?

Uh I think Alderman Savage has some pretty valuable and good amendments.

Uh while I love the potential for the upcoming plan development ideas that we have, uh putting large developments down is all at once can be uh pretty dramatic in scale.

So making sure that we have some potential infrastructure investments is very important.

Um it's different than like the gradual adjustment uh the gradual developments that are also part of the plan development that are also uh that we're trying to encourage with the comp plan.

So I I think that would be advisable.

Um that said, we're gonna have to pass this at the next meeting though, either up or down voted because we're coming down to the wire.

So I'm cool delaying it one more meeting, but can only be the one.

Okay, then um I will propose that we do postpone act.

Uh and we're talking about transit.

Um we can't pay for transit.

Um we have a hard time meeting the needs of transit now, and every year I'm uh been a stickler for making sure that adequate funds go into transit.

Um, so if we're putting additional burden stress, I hate to put it in a negative term, but if you're gonna use transit as a tool, then make sure you pay for transit as a tool, and that should be built into whatever you propose.

So, madam chair, I'm glad you said that.

First of all, you brought up something that I've long agreed with, which is it isn't just transit, it's also speed and safety, and that's a bigger part of this, but it isn't just improving transit, it's eliminating or greatly reducing traffic, i.e.

automobile, and a lot of major cities around the world are doing just that, including New York City.

Um, so there's I mean, I think this is very complicated, and maybe we can't get to it through postponement, but I think um just coming from Portugal where the traffic is horrible, and the number of cars, even with huge amounts of public transit resources, is just uh I mean we just can't keep going on this way, but um in any event there are more things than just adding buses, Alderman.

I suspect that people are not running away from Portugal from the city you visit, but they are attracted to it, even with traffic and the overcrowding, and they are attracted to it, and that's in Paris and London and New York.

Exactly.

That's their personal choices, yeah.

Um, and I believe that we have a wide variety of choices here in the city.

Some people don't mind the traffic because they know it's gonna eventually make it more accommodating to them in some capacity.

I don't know.

But anyway, um, I just want us to be careful about making others our model when they have taken decades to get to where they are, and it's gonna take maybe not decades, but it's gonna not gonna happen overnight.

So Alderman Savage, and then we're gonna have to move on.

Thank you, madam chair.

And yeah, I absolutely agree with you.

Um I take it to heart as far as needing to pay for transit, and that's why some of the mechanisms I want to that I included in this draft that I want to speak to staff more about are the um what other jurisdictions have done with tax incremental financing districts.

You know, we have identified specific corridors, so perhaps along some of these corridors we could put such a district that ensures that the future tax revenue from the additional density goes specifically to uh the transit to help develop and uh to help pay for what we've done, but also um potentially for uh future ongoing costs.

Um and uh similarly with starting the ball rolling on developing some of these community benefit agreements that would help address, I think not only cost sharing, but also um the need to get the affordable housing in first.

Uh and and again, the way that I would propose to enable some of that financing would be to allow even more growth and density than is originally proposed in this legislation, because my stance is that uh even with that added density we can manage the impacts of that growth if we get the transit system in place, and so um yeah, so absolutely that is the finances is core to the to what I'm trying to do.

So thank you.

And one other consideration in ridership is how to attract people to use the system, you know.

We have a system now that probably is not totally utilized, no question about that.

So that needs to be tied into the mix.

How do you attract people to the transportation system your feet?

So if gentlemen, if you're good with um you know, working with the alderman to address these amendments and bring them back to the next meeting, which is probably not going to be until October.

So yeah, it's the 29th.

That's after the yeah, right.

So it won't be until the first meeting in October.

Okay.

So that does give you a little more time.

This legislation will be on environmental matters on Thursday.

Okay.

Well, that'll give us a chance to get into some of the green roof change.

Because that's the other part of it, are the height.

Aren't we the three on environmental matters?

Yep.

Yeah.

Can you just play this video?

And um, so um, do we need a motion to postpone or I'll indicate a motion to postpone 25?

All in favor, please say aye.

Aye.

I only but um hey, cutting it close is our thing, I guess.

Okay.

Um moving on to 01725.

Let me think short-term rentals per block base.

Have we heard this before?

No.

I mean, we have we heard about short-term rentals.

Yeah, I think dealing with the block base.

Yes.

Uh this is uh seven.

Alderman uh Huntley's amendment.

And are you our uh short-term rentals lady?

Would you please introduce yourself?

Hi, I'm Karen Krause, short-term rental coordinator for the city here.

Well, thank you and welcome.

We've been waiting for you for a long time.

You know that, right?

Tell us what you think.

Um first of all, tell us what you think about our short-term rental process.

The process is great, but I'll tell you everybody complains about trying to get the Maryland sales and use tax form from the comp trolers office.

Other than that, it's pretty easy.

Okay, and you're able to track uh all the short-term rentals that exist in the city, or you're in the process of we're in the process of, yes.

Okay.

Is that a doable?

I mean, I know I think so.

It's gonna it's gonna take work.

I mean, yeah.

Should I give some numbers?

Yeah, yeah.

Are we still using host compliance?

Yes.

For our enforcement, yes.

I'm hearing from constituents that that's not even capturing 50 percent of the active short-term that's what we're working on now, right?

The numbers are like 560 short-term rentals any day of the week you can find here, but we only have like 283 in our system.

So sorry, can I ask you to to clarify the my understanding is that coast compliance sort of has two pieces to it?

One piece we're no longer using, which is the actual registration piece.

Um, and the first part of it is the scanning of the environment piece, you know, which properties are uh potentially needing, you know, they're they're having short-term rentals and therefore potentially needing to be licensed.

Um are you saying that that that piece of the scanning of the environment is only finding about 50% of them, or is or are you talking about out of that universe?

We have about you know, we have a shortfall in the licensing.

So um it is true that host compliance is doing the scanning.

That's the function that the city relies on.

Uh they've scanned and we rely on their scanning, and we believe their scanning is complete and it's revealed roughly 560 short-term rentals citywide, far more than are actually licensed.

We have 283 that are licensed, but since Karen began here, um we've narrowed that down considerably and 100, so roughly 270, let's say, are uh operating without a license.

Uh 129 of those are already into the the pathway to compliance.

Uh Karen is working with them to bring them into compliance, knowing that if they don't, then code enforcement will step in.

Um, but we're ensuring that they have a pathway to be compliant.

Um 41 of those additional you know, unlicensed are are actually people have said, uh, I didn't even know my unit or my house was on short-term rental.

I don't want to do short-term rentals.

Take me off the list.

So our advice to them is remove yourself from the you know, the Airbnb and the other platforms.

Um, so we have um uh we've narrowed down the list considerably, and there are a few holdouts where uh enforcement will be necessary, uh and the enforcement provisions are set forth in city code already.

So we know what to do.

Um but we made a the initial overture to those that were not licensed and asked them to come into compliance, and the bulk of them are well on their way to to be in compliance.

Okay, that's good news.

I I think so, yeah, absolutely.

Yeah, sure.

Okay, so tell me about this uh amendment that's being proposed.

For some reason, I remember we had the discussion about single block face, and I thought that was already in the code, but obviously when we passed the short-term rental life or the legislation several years ago.

We've had actually three tranches of copy of that.

Short-term rental legislation builder can be talking about.

I think in the first one that you and I sponsored, did I know?

We were talking about limiting the number of units that could be on the block face, and we had Mr.

Ledoux testifying that that was a violation of the constitution.

I think uh Article 5.

Um, but um, and so we didn't do it, limited it to the number on the block face.

And I think we've toyed with it many times, and here we are back toying with it.

And one of the questions when we get to that point, I want to ask is is this legal?

Is it constitutional?

Well, the the um the ordinance uh would have the effect of limiting the concentration uh of short-term rentals to 10% of the block phase.

That's the important purpose of this or the effect of this.

And the the purpose is to limit the concentration so as to reduce the impacts that long-term residents experience.

You know, as um as block faces or blocks streets change and have a higher and higher concentration of short-term rentals, they begin to lose the residential character.

Uh the next door neighbor that the um elderly resident relies on to shovel the sidewalk is not there anymore, right?

That's a very practical implication of short-term rentals being in our residential communities.

Um so uh I'm gonna turn it over to Eric to talk about the the specifics of the code and the code amendment, and um, I'll be here as well to to help.

And uh Karen has these specifics on what you know the operational type of uh perspective that she can weigh in on uh as the council members need.

Yeah, so this you know it's a it's a multi-page amendment, but the substantive part is simply this um section D, which limits the number of short-term rentals per block face uh to fewer than to 10 per no more than 10 percent.

Um so we did do an analysis of how many block faces currently have more than that percent.

Um working with IT, Sean Wampler was very helpful.

Um and you know, the greatest concentration, not surprisingly, is in ward one, 30 block faces currently are over that 10% limit.

Um in ward two, you have five block faces, and then ward eight, you have seven block faces currently.

Excuse me, Mr.

Lyshinski, what do you mean block faces?

So 30 block faces.

If you think about a city block, you know, you have two sides of the street.

We're talking about one side, the all of the buildings on one side of the street on a single block between two streets.

So you your number you said 38 and ward one.

30, 30 in ward one.

And on how many blocks are those 30 blocks?

30 blocks.

So 30 blocks.

In essence, have one per block face now.

Right.

Uh they have more than 10% of the units on that block face are short-term rentals.

So it's, you know, that's a substantial number.

And I mean, that's what Director Jacobia was referencing.

I mean, when you have that kind of concentration, it does start to change the composition of the neighborhood, so forth.

Um elsewhere in the city, far less in terms of concentration, ward eight and ward two are the two other wards that have some of this type of concentration, but it's seven block faces in ward eight that are over that 10% threshold.

Um and five block faces in ward two.

Sorry, I I'm still not understanding.

Let me uh and and let me let me just say, you know, when we dealt with this originally, and we had committee meetings with community leaders constantly, and they were very concerned about changing the culture of the community and not knowing your neighbors.

So I understand all of that, and I understand one per block face.

I don't understand the 30 per block face in ward one.

Tell me how many blocks we're talking about, or is it 30 total in ward one?

33.

So okay, let me let me back up.

Um, so in ward one, we have 146 short-term rentals.

Okay.

Total.

Um now uh think about this way.

We look at the opposite side of Duke of Gloucester here, between Conduit Street and Charles Street.

That would be one block face.

Okay.

So we're saying that if you count the number of block faces that have more than 10% of the total number of buildings are short-term rented, you have 30 of those block faces throughout ward one.

Okay.

That are over that.

So some, you know, you could have 30, say you have uh 20 units total on that block face, 20 housing units.

10% of that would be two unit, two short-term rentals.

Okay.

You're over that 10% limit on 30 block faces throughout ward one.

So you're talking the blocks that have multiple short-term rentals.

Yeah.

You're not talking about the number specifically of short-term rentals, but okay.

Now we're talking about a percentage of the total number of units that are on that block.

So and this legislation is to look at to limit it to 10%.

Right.

And it would be m moving forward.

So in some sense, it it grandfathers in these blocks that already exist uh with that number of short-term rentals.

Now they I mean that that was one of our um concerns candidly.

Um, but um that some of these blocks where the problem exists today that I think the alderman is trying to address would not be changed by the legislation.

So but um, but moving forward, any block face in the city would not be allowed to have more than 10% of the units on that block face be short-term rented.

And it's a first come, first serve situation.

So, you know, say you have 10 residences on a block face, there's no short-term rentals today.

The next person that seeks a license for a short-term rental would cap that block face.

Nobody else on that block face would be able to have a short-term rental license after that first unit.

That's only I'm just saying 10% of 10 units would be one unit.

So for example, so my question is how manageable, and sounds like you may have the technology already that provides that information, because that would be my question.

How manageable, how doable is this for us to monitor?

Well, we know the locations.

Uh we have data on what's licensed and what's not.

Uh we have every short-term rental that's legal mapped, it's in our system.

Uh so it's it's it's doable, it's practical.

Um, it can be achieved.

It's gonna require monitoring.

Um, it gets where we're we anticipate it getting a little dicey is when someone um is late in getting their application in.

Do we are we forceful then and um uh removing their license so that the next person can get in?

In other words, you have to remain vigilant if you're a short-term rental licensee to maintain your license uh because now there's the onus on you.

You're part of the 10%.

someone um is late in getting their application in do we are we forceful then and um uh removing their license so that the next person can get in other words you have to remain vigilant if you're a short term rental licensee to maintain your license uh because now there's the onus on you it's you you're part of the 10 and um if you if you fall out of of that through some enforcement action or failure to renew on time uh someone else will likely be in the waiting in the wings waiting to um take that spot that you know that dynamic is going to be interesting we in terms of how to manage it we we probably have to keep people on a waiting list or or something like that and I'm not quite sure how we manage that but I'm certain applicants would want us to alert them when an option comes available uh so it's it's it's in more complexity uh in this short term rental business has gotten quite complex for city staff um that that's for certain and if I can jump in on on the IT side you know the the data that's within the staff report is a rough analysis that that Sean Wampler did for us um but that was not something that she like she would want to see something more robust than that and then the issue is keeping that up so that on an ongoing basis you have those numbers to work with I think that that in terms of operationalizing that so that it's um not onerous I think there are some things to work through um tried to kind of convey that a little bit within the staff report that um we would simply need time to work through that um we wanted to give council a sense of you know what's the potential effect um so she she kindly did do that rough analysis but um with the understanding that we would underscore on her behalf that it was a rough analysis okay um alderman savage this is it's not your legislation but you have five amendments so would you like to speak to your first and second third yeah yeah first I I have some general questions comments um one would be as far as constitutionality which Alvin Arnette brought up I do want to point out that we already have a some form of a block face limitation on traditional bed and breakfast and I but I think it's only in I'm not sure if it's only in e support but in any case we have already have some precedent for limiting businesses with Ockface.

Is this reading bed and breakfast the same as uh short-term rentals?

I don't know if I don't know if it'd be the same but similar as far as limiting the the number in a particular neighborhood um and as far as grandfather and I'll I get to that in some of my amendments but as far as my quiet I have two questions and I think I understand now and looking at the staff report uh it's actually it's quite a bit of block faces that are currently above 10% um I'd kind of like to dig into that if if staff or our GIS de farmer have the ability to to uh do that if you do have the data by address she uh you know our GIS department should be able to to um because what I what I'd like to see is either map or chart maybe color coded or something that'll indicates the current percentage of short term rentals in some of these blocks like is it is it 20% 40% 60% on some just to get an idea of where the pro I think I had no head where some of the problem areas are but what I'm also trying to get my head around is what does that 10% mean on some blocks does that mean one two three short term rentals does it mean five um because I think we may want to we may want to give some attention to is 10% too high is it too low do we want to go with 20 I'm just thinking out loud but I can't really make that decision unless I unless I see some of the actual numbers for some of the blocks um I do see the the the totals per ward um so is that something I think you might be able to explore with the JS department I I'll certainly connect um with Sean about whether we can okay thank you uh and as far as as far as my amendments uh madam chair do you want to start with the first amendment so the amendment one is something I worked with uh the planning department on the new definition for block base I believe this is the one we sat down to chat about a little bit um I thought I did with you yeah this is a while ago so this is the definition that's in that it's been a busy summer I'm sorry the definition is we were seeking because as written in the legislation it's um you know it it takes in consideration your your typical your typical block but there are some communities like for example my own we don't have traditional

Um I did with you.

Yeah, this is a while ago.

So this is the definition that's in that it's been a busy summer.

I'm sorry.

The definition is we were seeking because as written in the legislation, it's um you know, it it takes in consideration your your typical typical block, but there are some communities like for example, my own.

We don't have traditional blocks, it's a circle, and uh, or we have just you know meandering streets.

And so what I was trying to, but I still think the the 10% threshold is important to have even in those communities.

And it I don't think we necessarily have a uh too much of a problem at this point, but I'd like to make sure we capture some of those atypical blocks.

And so, and this is the language you came up with, which was uh better defining block face to be general enough where you can take in into consideration those atypical street or other boundaries, uh, and also gives the ability to for the director of plan zoning to essentially make that determination based on irregular features.

Okay, this is amendment one questions, Alderman Arnett.

Move amendment one, second second uh further discussion, hearing none, all in favor, please say aye.

Aye.

Okay, amendment two, savage.

Amendment two.

Oh, so this one exemps exempt um owner-occupied.

I'm sorry.

Yeah, under the section for limits per block base, it exempts uh owner-occupied short-term rental.

And so the intention is uh, you know, your traditional short-term rental started off as somebody renting out a spare bedroom as a short-term rental.

Um but they still live in the house, it's owner-occupied, and so you still have that stability that permanent resident provides, right?

With the owner being occupied there, but it still allows them to have their spare room be rented out because I don't think the spare room being rented out of short-term rental has the same negative effect as an entire house being taken up by short-term rentals, different person every week.

And so um, I wanted to exempt the limitation, exempt those owner-occupied properties from this limitation.

So the 10% would only apply to the uh non-owner occupied, so the entire building rentals, madam chair.

For me, question on so I I oppose this amendment.

First of all, I don't think that's the only way owner occupied is defined.

It could be an owner that rents their house four weeks out of the year and goes off on vacation.

So that's what happens a lot during the exempted commissioning week and vote show weeks.

So I think this would be a very hard thing to manage, but owner occupied still add to the density on the block base, and so I I think I could not support this amendment.

Alderman Chat and Meyer.

Thank you, madam chair.

Uh, we supported this amendment in economic matters because we're not having the same issues with the massive proliferation and takeovers and party neighborhoods with short-term rentals uh with the owner-occupied homes.

Uh it's how Airbnb was originally set up to be with a spare bedroom thrown into place.

Um they're a lot more accessible and responsible.

And um, I think this is a well thought out amendment.

So uh we supported it unanimously in economic matters, and I would encourage my colleagues to do so here.

I would ask the staff how will you deal with there are various permutations for owner-occupied, some of which are not just renting, in fact, most of which are not renting part of the house while they're still resident.

Most of them are people who go away completely and are presenting the same kinds of neighborhood impacts as people who own a short-term rental as a business.

Can you can you distinguish with the information you have with Sean Whopler?

Which is which and what they're doing.

It is true there's a distinction in terms of land use implications.

Clearly, a short-term rental that no one where no one lives is a vacation property.

It's not a residential use anymore.

And that's a fundamental issue that we have as your staff.

Um we're seeing a change of land use that's not anticipated, no one bargained for when they bought a house in their neighborhood.

So that's that's the policy that's being implemented.

Um while there is a distinction, uh it's a distinction that's hard for us to deal with from a regulatory standpoint.

So if you grant um owner occupied units uh a special favor within this ratio, you've placed an incredible burden on us to manage, maintain, track, and differentiate the those two things, and it gets complicated and uh uh just be advised that we're likely to have um uh difficulty administering that in a fair way, uh, and people will get caught into that process and it will cause delay, and so it's another complication that we're trying to get to.

Uh, we would prefer more simple simplified case, 10% is 10%.

Um, a unit that's owner occupied has the same adverse impacts potentially in terms of parking and noise.

Now you we presume the owner being present will help that, um, but they still have adverse impacts that uh uh contribute to the in the same way that a regular unit would um the way to mitigate that would be to limit further the the number of days of rental or to come up with some kind of way of mitigating the impact, and maybe fewer number of people can rent in an owner occupied versus the other, but um you can see this just gets really complicated practically to administer a law that's sliced and diced that way, Madam Chair.

I move the rules to recommend unfavorably or amendment amendment.

Would you hold for one minute?

I would I certainly would.

I will speak to it also, but I'll call on Alderman Savage.

Okay, thank you, Madam Chair.

Yeah, just quickly on that.

I mean we already do distinguish between owner occupied and non-owner occupied and the existing short-term rental code, because uh non-owner occupied have to get a local agent, property manager to um keep an eye on the property.

That is not a requirement for owner-occupied properties.

So my point is we already have that distinction.

We already have to make again, we already have to make that distinction in the permit process in the code because they are already treated differently, so we should have that separate data and ability to apply another separate standard to those properties.

So I I don't think it should be uh too much uh additional burden to make that distinction.

Well, um I am going to oppose it totally because of staff impact.

Um if this is something, you know, we tend to put legislation in place with not without total consideration of the impact it's gonna have on staff and whether it's doable.

So anything that's gonna be questionable about whether staff can complete the task.

I think we need to think twice about it.

Um so for that reason, I'm gonna um be on the opposing side.

Um, and you're right, we do have separations already, but still there's an additional challenge for staff, which I don't think is important.

Uh so Alderman Arnett, you'd like to make a motion.

I know move the rules committee opposed Savage Amendment 2.

There are second.

I will make a second.

Uh further discussion.

Hearing none, all in favor of opposing uh Savage Amendment 2, please say aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Opposed.

Thank you very much.

Okay, how about Savage Amendment three?

Would you come on?

So amendment three.

Oh, let's see.

Um it strikes the current language on page.

Page three, beginning on page three.

Uh five.

Page five, line 22 through page six, line six.

So that entire section would get stricken and then replaced with um new co uh new language.

Um reviewing this again myself, refreshing my memory.

I was focused a lot on the previous legislation.

Um, so this creates basically a lottery system.

Um because the underlying legislation would enact the 10% the new 10% cap, right?

But it doesn't, but it does essentially, I think as the director alluded to, it does grandfather all those properties.

Um all those block faces that are currently above 10% will get grant.

If they have a I think if they have an existing permit or license, um they would get grandfathered and could keep getting renewals, I think, right?

So it doesn't really so it could take many years, if not a decade, decades, to actually achieve this 10%, even if this passes.

So while it does stop the bleeding as far as it it caps it, so we won't go above the existing densities, it doesn't really get us to that 10%.

And so what I was trying to do with this amendment, and I looked at New Orleans and forget what other jurisdiction might remember, but um but any case it it I prime primarily I remember looking at New Orleans, and so it would create a lottery system, establish it would have it take effect, so it'd be phased in, so it would take effect in uh November 2027, and then at that point the lottery would start, and the lottery would have certain tiers of priority, so those who would get uh priority treatment would be those who are in good standing and want to get renewal renewals that are owned by Annapolis or county residents, and again the intention is to kind of deprioritize those who may be out of town investors.

Uh so the second tier would be, and this is on page four of the amendment at the bottom under lottery phases and priority.

Um the second tier would be properties seeking new permits that are owned by city county residents, and the third would be um properties that are owned by entities outside the city or the county, um, just to make sure that we can give some priority to our actual uh residents.

Um that's basically it.

I mean, some of the actual procedures and processes for this would be need to be determined by staff, but I tried to at least create a framework for them to hold off.

That's basically a high-level proposal there.

So let me uh staff um spin the wheel Karen, you want to handle that one.

So I if I get this, if I understand this correctly, it's um it's a deal with the question of there being a pool of applicants who got in early and having essentially uh locked up the 10.

This allows for others on that block face to enter into the world of short-term rentals, not being blocked out by virtue of the fact of coming late to the the game.

It wouldn't completely block them out, but it would say basically it would completely reset all the licenses would reset in two years, so it would give them a little bit of a notice, but in two years it would completely reset.

But if somebody does did get their foot in the door early, like the current who are following the process and actually getting permitted, um, they would get preferential treatment in the proposed lottery system.

I see.

So if a um someone who's operating a short-term rental now licensed, uh, do they is there a potential they don't get selected in the lottery in two years?

Yes, if it's owned, if it's run owned by an entity outside the city and county, they would fall down that list of priority.

I see so the first priority would go to city residents who are following the rules and and want to get a renewal, and then they would get so yeah, that's kind of the priority.

Okay.

Alternative.

So I love the concept of reducing the number of short-term rentals, particularly on overburdened block basis.

But first, uh, I understand New Orleans is doing it, but I really really think we get on some thin legal grounds here.

Secondly, administratively, I think it would be a nightmare uh to do, but also even uh even though I'm not a big fan of concentration of short-term rentals, think about the business model.

You put in the investment, you do the short-term rental, and then you lose the lottery for one year or maybe for two years, and then you're back in again.

I mean, I think it would be I think there would be a lot of legitimate complaints from the owner.

Short-term rentals are not illegal, uh, they're allowed.

And uh this would be uh, I think a nightmare to administer and a nightmare for the owners.

Um now I will mitigate what I just said a little bit.

My son bought a property in DC near the convention center, it had a short-term rental.

Uh COVID came along, he converted it to a long-term rental snap.

He could at any time, he's chosen not to go back to short-term rental.

Um, but he could legally go back.

So the ease of moving in and out of short-term versus long term is there, but boy, oh boy, I think this this amendment will uh really draw a lot of attention.

And I'm just not sure it's feasible to administer, at least not with current stuff.

Alderman Channel Meyer, do you want to weigh in?

Um Yeah, I think this opens us up to lawsuits.

The New Orleans law uh is being challenged in some of their upper courts, and um I share the concerns of we have a currently allowed use uh putting it into the ability to get taken away after these initial investments does get us into this unfair practice.

But I I guess I have a tangent question um that's slightly related for our staff.

Um under our current model, we we just had the report where there was like 50% of the STRs here were unlicensed.

Would they be eligible to get a license under our current code?

And under this, like yeah, yes, those those that are unlicensed now can become licensed under current code.

I'm presuming they they meet the requirements, sure.

Even after they've been operating.

I don't I don't know.

I'm just trying to puzzle something out on loud because I feel like if they've been operating illegally without our licensure, we shouldn't just let them suddenly operate legally, but I don't know.

I think I'm going in a different direction.

I apologize.

Uh that's no further questions, Madam Chair.

Thank you.

Um I this makes me uncomfortable, the lottery idea.

Um, you know, I suspect, and I have a few friends that have short terms, and they go out of their way to make their homes comfortable and attractive and desirable, and then all of a sudden they're in the lottery and they're out for a year or two.

Um I'm not sure how that works well with the business model that we've created in the city for increasing these units.

So I I would not I think, Madam Chair.

As far as the legal question, my understanding is that the New Orleans passed this.

Uh it was challenged.

My understanding is it survived the first challenge.

Uh, but I think it is getting appealed to the next higher level.

Uh, last I heard.

So again, the courts did rule initially that this is a legal thing to do.

We'll see how the rest of the courts uh rule on it.

Um, but again, without without a lottery of this case, you know, this is this legislation is mostly it may be called 10%, but it's mostly a moratorium.

It's a moratorium on new permit, right?

Because well, at least for those blocks that have 10 greater than 10% density, it's a moratorium.

It is not going to get us down to that actual 10%.

So I think the name of it is a little misleading.

Um, if people think we're actually gonna get there anytime soon, because without a lottery, we're we're not gonna get there again for a decade or more.

It's just because it would it's only gonna go down through natural.

I don't know if attrition would be the right word, I guess, but natural transfer of properties over time.

Uh it's gonna go down, but but um especially with if we keep the owner occupied STRs in that 10%, um, it's really going to um prevent any kind of new ones from going from coming in place anytime soon.

Just pointing that out.

I respect the the position of the of the of the committee, but that's just well, you know.

I remember in previous discussion, um that there was a lot of concern about realtors advertising their properties in the city, and the concern about what those transients units would do to the community care.

Um and so has that changed even with the regulations that we've put in place.

Um are realtors selling properties with the explicit purpose of using them for short-term rentals, knowing they have to hire a manager to uh oversee the property.

I mean, do we have any numbers to show that it was harmful or beneficial or you know, I don't know where our numbers were before they are now.

We we have good good numbers now, I think.

So anyway, that's uh uh one of those questions that you know doesn't have an answer rhetorical question.

Uh I'll entertain a motion.

Uh I I wouldn't move that we just have them count off by twos and twos, you're out.

Okay, so that's uh uh motion to oppose.

Is there a second to that?

Second.

Okay, I'll all in favor of opposition to amendment three.

Uh please say aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Okay, amendment four, alderman's have uh looks a lot like amendment three.

This is yeah, but I think this is related to the last one.

So yeah, I'm looking at the is that just a duplicate.

I don't see anything new.

Cynthia, I think, but yeah, I think this is related to the other one, so I don't think I need to say anything further on this, and then five is related to if we pass three, right?

Well, uh yes, so four is a duplicate, so we can eliminate it, correct?

Yeah.

Uh amendment five.

Yes, to the alderman or net's point.

I this also would have only really been of benefit if the other amendments were passed.

It would just essentially make clear that the legislation the 10% caps not going to take effect for two more years, which would which would have been when the lottery started.

So without that, the committee doesn't need to take action on this either, or just recommend unfavorably.

So are you withdrawing it or you're asking us to take no, I'll still bring it to the entire body, but if the committee didn't recommend the others, this makes no sense to recommend either.

Okay, so we'll take no action.

Yeah, bring it to the full body.

Okay.

Uh so we have um 01725 with two amendments recommended from the rules committee.

Do we have a motion?

I thought there was just one and two.

Savage one and two.

Both are savage.

One and two.

Yeah, one and two.

I I thought did two get passed.

Yeah, I didn't think so.

Two did not get passed.

Oh, you're right.

Just one just one.

Amendment one was given a favorable recommendation by the committee.

Amendment two was given an unfavorable recommendation by the committee.

Right.

With savage amendment one.

So second.

Okay, further discussion, hearing none.

All in favor, please say aye.

Aye.

Karma says hello from the vote.

think so did not get passed oh you're right just one just one just one amendment one was given a favorable recommendation by the committee amendment two was given an unfavorable recommendation by the committee i make a motion that we recommend favorably oh 1725 with savage amendment one so second okay further discussion hearing none all in favor please say aye aye karma says hello from the vote i was gonna ask we're supposed to be is she there alone yeah well let's the rest of us are here we have one more um i don't understand this one oh 25 24 25 oh 2425 election report deadline okay i asked that uh miss leahy chair of the board of uh elections be with us to uh share with us the impact of this legislation miss leahy welcome thank you can you hear me yes yes we can hear you so tell us what you think um well the board of supervisors of elections review um this ordin thank you to the planning staff i'm sorry appreciate it sorry miss leahy reviewed this and um want to just first emphasize that that this would not affect the upcoming election in 2025 this is for a future elections um in looking at the addition of two additional campaign fund reports the the board recommended that the uh the first one no later than the 26th Tuesday preceding any primary election be eliminated or not added the reasoning being that um it doesn't that early in the election season we really don't see that many new candidates um it's very early there's usually not a lot to report with new candidates and it also increases the number of reports that incumbents will need to to file uh which is actually a greater number than uh usually the new candidates um the the ordinance cuts the Tuesday preceding the general election and the board felt that that was an um that was not as important a report as the one that's four weeks before the general election um the feeling that we wanted to make sure that there was transparency um with the reporting of campaign funds so that the voters can you know use that to make their decision and that the Tuesday before the election was one week as opposed to four weeks which gave them a little bit better sense of um uh what might be coming up so that's what led to us saying to change uh number five which is line 11 rather than no later than the Tuesday immediately preceding any general election that it would be the fourth Tuesday okay I'm not clear I don't think on um the legislation adds to new reporting so correct and that's what I have um it adds you are opposing both of those addition or only the first we're opposing we're not opposing we've we're recommending that the first one which is no later than the 26th Tuesday preceding any election not be included in this legislation okay so you oppose number one number one that okay and the second one is the 13th Tuesday preceding a primary and that was that was fine that's that's an additional report okay then what we have currently thank you those are the only changes that I'm seeing other than reorganizing the rechange if you look at number five which is line 11 it currently says no later than the Tuesday immediately preceding any general election which is current what this ordinance does is it takes away the one that's fourth four Tuesdays preceding the general election and the board felt that if you were going to eliminate a campaign fund report they would re they would prefer to see a report four weeks before the election as opposed to a week before the election so number five number five so the should be eliminated is what you're saying.

So it would read no later than the fourth Tuesday immediately preceding any general election.

And that's what we currently have.

Okay, so no reason to change that.

Well, that's currently in the the language, the legislation.

What it does is it takes the it eliminates the report that is the Tuesday immediately preceding the general election by changing it to the fourth week.

I mean, rather than making an additional report.

The board felt that between having a report the Tuesday before the general election versus four weeks before that they preferred the fourth week before.

If if I may the Miss Beckley, I'll just yeah, that so if you look at the existing language in the strikeout portions, it's um uh it's line 14 on page two that fourth Tuesday right now is preceding any general election, but if you go to page three um line nine, that no later than the fourth Tuesday got changed instead of general election, it now says primary election, and so part of what the what the Board of Supervisors of Elections is doing is sort of reinstating that fourth Tuesday before the general.

So we've we've added a fourth Tuesday before the primary, but they would like to retain the fourth Tuesday before the general.

Is that is that fair, Eileen?

It does, but by adding it by changing number five, you're actually taking away the one that's Tuesday before the general election.

Correct.

Yeah, so which opposed to adding another report.

So what should five say?

Five, I think believe, and five on our report says no later than the fourth Tuesday immediately preceding any general election.

That's in the original line, which would mirror what the original language is, correct?

It essentially though takes out the report that is Tuesday before the general election.

So the net effect is you have one additional report and you have you I'm trying to figure out where that is to go.

Did the board of elections ask for these change this legislation?

Yeah.

So I'm questioning why are we doing this at all?

It just uh there's no reason in any of the legislation documents why we're adding a date and moving things around.

I I personally think there's too many reporting dates anyway.

It's hard to get treasures, and it puts a real burden on volunteer treasures to do it, but I don't see any reason why we should make change in the current code.

Period.

I personally oppose this order.

Alderman Savage, you've had your hand up.

Uh thank you, Madam Chair.

Uh yeah, I'm not on the committee to welcome disregard, but uh yeah, I I share the sentiment of Alderman Arnett.

I don't understand we're already proposing a change with ranked choice voting, which person I think is is uh is important and needed, but as far as these changes, I don't know why they can't just wait until the next cycle to um because we usually I believe get recommendations from the board to um you know to change our election code after the elections anyway, so we could just group this into that.

I'm just I'm wary of doing too many changes right now to the code because they're already there's already some confusion with ranked choice changes, so let's not pile on.

Thank you, Alderman uh Chandelmeyer.

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Thank you, Madam Chair.

I share my colleagues uh lack of appreciation for this legislation.

Um I don't get the point.

I I frankly think it's a little bit too close to this current election, even if it will be not relevant to this current one.

Um more than happy for the next council to take a look at filing deadlines and reporting deadlines, etc.

I think transparency, etc.

is good, but this is just sort of it ain't growing.

Thank you.

Yeah, it ain't broke.

Thank you.

That's a good way to put it.

And and my when I read this originally, it's like just the thought of adding another reporting date is just not appealing, I'll just say.

So I think it's unanimous, but I'll take a motion.

I move that we recommend unfavorably for 02425.

Second.

Uh all been properly seconded.

All in favor in opposition to um 2425, please say aye.

All right, aye.

Uh thank you, Ms.

Leahy.

Thank your committee for their work.

Um, and I hope you understand why we feel the way we do.

I I don't think you'll have any feedback or negative feedback from the board.

Perfect.

Thank you.

Okay.

Uh that's exhaust our agenda.

So I'll entertain a motion to adjourn.

So moved.

Oh, so you're not okay.

All in favor, please say aye.

Thank you very much.

I know we have to now run off to council one, but it's okay.

Uh thank you much.

Since poor karma is already eaten, should we just go to the market house?

Or where?