Good afternoon, everybody.

I'm gonna call to order the um September eleventh meeting for environmental matters and uh call to order.

Um roll call.

Uh for the record, all the members are present.

Approval the minutes.

I um just I I would entertain a motion to approve the minutes as introduced.

Uh move approval of the agenda the uh minutes is written.

I'm sorry, do I say minutes?

I did okay.

Well, I first we need a motion for the agenda.

So all right.

All those in favor, please say aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Uh now your mic.

Uh so sorry.

All right, now uh now the minute uh is there a motion to approve the minutes from July twenty-fifth.

So move.

Second.

All those in favor, please say aye.

Motion carries.

All right.

General discussion.

We have ID 5125, plan zoning and development updates.

Mr.

Meekins, please join us.

Greetings, how's everybody doing?

Good.

How about you?

Good, thanks.

Um I forwarded earlier state your name for the record, Mr.

Meek.

I'm sorry?

Please state your name for the record.

Sure, sure.

Mike Meekins, uh senior planner in uh planning and zoning.

Uh I forwarded a email to the members uh of the updated current projects lists.

I have paper copies if you'd like any of you would like to see those.

We we have two paper would be we have three different attachments that one are we looking at?

EV 11.

Only one of them has red on it.

Right.

Okay.

Ah thank you, sir.

All right.

Okay, thank you.

All right, so um obviously we've gone through this list before, but just to refresh your memory, um, everything that is in blue, there are no changes, no updates.

Um the uh rows that are in uh white have uh updates and specifically uh the red text are the updates from the last meeting.

So I will go through these starting uh at the top of the page.

Um uh the auto zone project, the 1942 West Street.

Uh site design um was approved by the planning commission.

It's also been approved by planning and zoning.

The force conservation and force standard delineations have been approved.

And currently the applicant is in for um the last three demo building and grading permits, and those are all in uh approximately the second review.

So they are getting very close to the finish line and we'll be able to pull permits uh soon.

May I yes.

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

Yes, everything uh that was agreed upon.

They are all on board with and they have uh designed around that.

Thank you.

Uh the next one, Bay Village 2, uh the senior um or excuse me, age restricted uh building uh at 960 Bay Ridge Avenue.

Um that is uh still being reviewed for grading and building.

Um I would uh I would say similar to auto zone that that is getting very close to being approved.

Uh so but that that one has actually been uh much more slower in the push from the developer to uh resubmit uh and move forward.

Do you did you include a plans for those for that one?

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

Uh I can look it up.

What's the proposal for Bay Village Drive?

Uh is it still just the senior uh what was it?

What was it gonna be?

Independent living, I think, or is it a mix of different uses now?

Yeah, it's a mix.

Um, it's independent, and I believe there's uh skilled care uh and also uh it also incorporated that with that.

There's surface parking, structured surface parking on the ground floor, and I believe four stories above that approximately.

Uh off the top of my head, I can't remember how many stories.

Uh so it's independent skilled living, but no other mixed use.

No.

I thought there was a discussion about trying to include some site.

To my knowledge, it's just the uh there's a memory care portion.

So um, but it it is uh it's it's all uh more or less residential.

This is the one.

This is the one as you look at yeah, the Starbucks to the right.

Um, as you look at it from Bay Ridge uh Road.

Are they still planning to protect that treaty?

They are.

They've designed the entire complex around preserving that tree.

Um, and they're taking extraordinary effort to preserve the root structure of the root, the critical root zone.

In fact, I did some reviews on the grading permit and had some questions about how the methodology and and type of uh protective fencing that is going to surround that tree, um, which they uh went into further detail as to uh the uh the preservation, the proposed preservation.

Good, thank you.

Okay, so uh moving on Brisscom Square, which is at the corner of uh Bay Ridge and Tyler.

Um that has uh uh well I'll say come back to life, but that is an active construction site at this point.

Um the developers are as best I can tell, working on clearing the entire site.

They've cleared uh they've demoed the existing house that was was there.

Um they've cleared the area around that house, and I believe they're working um deeper in parallel to uh Tyler Avenue, but uh deeper into the site.

Uh the uh the next really the next phase of that, which I don't have an update on would be the utility connection in um Tyler Avenue, the storm drain connection.

Uh and I reached out to Public Works to see if they had submitted their traffic control plan and pulled a uh permit, and they have not as of yet.

So I I really don't know what the lag is, but uh uh I'm sure uh if you've driven by the site, you can see the uh the progress that they've made.

It was John Pilly, is he still involved?

No, John Pilly has sold to a development group, Ryan Development Group LLC, and um I actually Googled their uh their headquarters, and they're actually out of New Jersey.

I don't know if they have other projects within uh the county or Maryland itself.

My recollection is that grading permits are non-transferable new owners.

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

We don't have anybody from the wall.

Who's supposed to be supposed to be here from law?

Oh, there you are.

Uh yeah, 1708-140.

That looks like it has to be there has to be concurrence from the director.

Correct.

Yeah, so they are allowed a chance for it.

They can't unilaterally do it.

They have to get notice to the city, and the director of planning and zoning has to agree with it, which I believe occurred in this instance.

At least I I remember seeing the paperwork for this particular one.

We have the yeah, I I remember seeing the paperwork for this that transferred the um the ownership over and concurrence from planning and zoning.

Okay.

Sorry, and Ashley Leonard assistant city attorney with that.

Uh all another yeah.

One of the very first things that Mr.

Vogel did when he took office was call me while I'm vacation in Maine to ask about the road work for the all of the pipes and whether it was better to do it uh at nighttime or do it in a concentrated around the clock three-day period or whatever.

Do we know what the plan is?

That's just gonna be horrible when that all gets torn up.

Yeah, I think there was a great pushback from the community to do night work.

So it's my understanding that they will do this during the day.

And we discussed this the last time I was here.

Uh, you know, that's gonna be uh uh it's gonna be a nightmare really, but um it's it has to happen for the development to occur.

They're gonna open cut basically the middle of Tyler Avenue uh down the hill in with a deep deep trench to get the storm drain uh situated.

Um but again um the to be able to speak more intelligently and clearly on that we will need to see the traffic control plans for what they um for what they propose, and that that is not available as of yet.

Um I think there was discussion last time where we talked about um or you talked about uh obviously um staggering when that construction happens, not at rush hour, maybe not at lunchtime, definitely you know, morning and evening rush hour.

And school.

Yeah, yeah, and exactly.

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

Yeah, that'd be good to know.

Uh yeah, I mean, I don't have a I haven't heard um too many complaints about this project.

I think people are generally resigned to it.

But um my biggest concern is just because it was approved by the planning commission, I guess probably back 2016 or 17.

Kind of an old one.

Uh so my biggest concern is just what you know, we've adopted a new comp plan.

You know, was any consideration given to ensuring that this is going to be in compliance with the new comp plan with the new Tyler Avenue overlay?

Um because my recollection is it's mostly just single family homes that are going in there, no duplexes, anything else like that.

I'm looking back at Mr.

Lishinski.

So I mean that's where like I you know, and we probably missed the opportunity now, but with the new owner, we probably should have said to them, look, we we'll agree to your transfer of the permit if you make X, Y, or Z changes, but now it's kind of uh moot point if we've already given them that approval.

Yeah, uh to speak on the comp plan we could we could ask Mr.

Le Shizki is present today.

Um the the proposal is uh for single family dwellings um and uh access road that gets that actually goes uh the there are two entry points off of Tyler, um kind of a U shape, and within that U and Tyler are existing structures, existing houses, but um I believe there are 10 um or excuse me, 12 single family dwellings.

Yeah, 10.

Yeah, but how close to the intersection on Tyler is gonna be one of those openings?

Because that's also a turning lane to go on to Bay Ridge.

I mean that's really sounding dicey as far as um access out of the community.

Yeah, like the left out to go out towards hilltop.

Um I would wager it's probably 400 feet from the intersection.

It's kind of at the uh I'll say maybe top of the hill.

It is close, but um as far as the queuing for the right turn as you come down uh hill or come down Tyler to turn right on uh Bay Ridge.

Um it that uh access point is beyond the striping the solid white striping for that that turn lane.

Oh but again, if uh you know to to make a left out uh at rush hour in the evening.

Yeah, not the most ideal, yes.

Yeah.

Well, that's I'd like to I know could you ask where the other entrances is that the only entrance?

I thought you said there were two.

There are two the well, the the second entrance is further um further out, moving away from uh Tyler at the Tyler Avenue intersection.

Um, and that's kind of the U that I was referring to, where you have that the first access point that all Alderman and RNA ask about, and then you have two you have two probably either two or three lots in between, and then you have another that other access point.

So it's further um west away from uh the intersection.

So that road is not delineated as of yet.

The new the other entrance.

I drove by there yesterday and happened to notice.

Yeah, they have not they have not graded or cleared that.

Um, but there is uh I believe there are uh survey markers that may or may not still be there that identify the two outer edges of that second entrance.

Yeah, thank you.

Uh yeah, so I mean this is related to again the overall work we're doing on Tyler Av.

Uh I think they're planning on improving the sidewalk on Bay Ridge.

That's already in there.

But to my colleagues' point, and something I think I've brought up before, I'd really like to see a traffic circle at that intersection, and that'll prevent people from having to turn across traffic at these points of egress because they'll just be able to go to the circle and go around it, you know, to go the other direction.

So um, you know, might be more of a question for public works, but I'd like to get this included into some of the Tyler Avenue uh the Tyler Avenue rebuild project for all the traffic improvements.

Does anybody know if traffic circles have been considered for that location?

Can we use some of our existing traffic safety money to look at that?

Uh anybody I I can't I can't answer that.

I I do not know, but I can certainly find out for you.

You mean like the traffic circle at Spile Road and Bay Ridge or um the one that uh just packler was talking about splow road and um well there too.

Yeah, I was I was under the impression we were gonna look at that for a number of intersections on that road.

So I know that's not your project.

Just just for clarity, so I understand you're you're talking about a traffic circle at Hilt or at Bay Ridge and Tyler, uh immediately adjacent to this the Grisscomb development, correct?

Okay.

I mean Alderman Gay has mentioned one in one at the intersection of Primrose, and then we've also talked about one in one at the intersection with uh road.

Um if I may, uh Eric Lashinski, chief of comprehensive planning.

Um our division has been coordinating somewhat with public works with Jeff Wentz, the traffic engineer, and that is one of the locations that part of that roundabout and analysis um Bay Ridge at Tyler.

So I don't I know it started um a few weeks ago, but I don't know the status of what they've done so far.

Almost done.

Hilltop and Tyler is also spa roads almost done.

That interstate okay.

Yeah, I mean, my plan is to get them to the next transportation committee meeting to talk to spot.

In case thank you.

Move on, I think.

Thank you.

Yeah.

I think we're good.

Ross is next.

Thank you.

Yes, I know.

Um awaited Esport Shopping Center.

Okay, so yes, they're uh I did some digging and uh did a little research for Loss at Eastport Landing, which is in the Eastport Shopping Center.

Uh and again, update in red if uh um I have a letter um from the director uh to the applicant's attorney, uh Mr.

Um that basically outlines uh some uh uh windows of uh expiration um and basically I'll just read what I have uh APF approval, a plat must be recorded and a building permit must be obtained within five years of Octo of the approval date, uh which is October 18, 2024.

So there's life left in that, but the the bigger picture or the bigger issue for that development uh is the site design, uh which uh will expire uh approval will expire if a building permit is not obtained by uh October 16th, 2005.

And uh obviously that is right around the corner, and to date we do not have an application uh submitted for uh that permit just for the building permit.

So no, so that's that's site design.

That'd be the site design review.

They would uh conceivably at the end of uh that expiration period on the 16th of October, they would have to go through site design review again.

Um but APF is good for five years, and so they would have four more four additional or four years remaining uh on that approval.

Do they still have to get grading permit?

Well, yeah, so they would uh I mean they they would have to uh pull a building permit and grading permit, but it specifically says building permit uh in that communication.

Um and that uh that has not uh an application for a building permit has not come in as of yet.

Thank you.

Okay, so on to the second or back side of the handout that I gave you, Primrose School, um, which is at the intersection of Hilltop Lane and Spa.

Um the the building is uh has been constructed and opened in a limited capacity for some time.

Uh and uh BGE has rerouted the utilities that have been basically um preventing or holding up the uh construction for the various turning lanes associated with the the hilltop um uh area and that is currently the road construction is currently taking place uh now.

So that's what we're seeing.

It's not that's yeah, exactly.

Not the Tyler Avenue reconstruction.

I mean, like it, I mean, this seems like an example of Peter not talking to Paul, whatever the saying goes.

Because like why are we having developers spend their money to widen the road when we're looking at a complete redesign of that road and intersection?

Seems like that money should instead have gone into some kind of transportation fund that we could use for our planned improvements.

So this project has been going on since approximately 2020.

Um and I I understand your your point.

Um I don't know at that the inception of this and the beginning of the project if those that proposal for the improvements that you're talking about on Hilltop were contemplated.

Um yeah, I mean I don't even think I don't think public works is even put out an RFP for actually no maybe they have no, I think they're putting out the RFP by the end of August their goal, I think for the Tyler Avenue.

That construction's gonna be at least a year out.

Yeah.

Again, I mean the point is that a lot of this is may get undone in another year and year and a half.

Yeah, so the the improvements to that intersection were uh condition uh of approval um basically to again prevent the left turning uh or the left out of the primrose school, so you'd actually go right out.

Um and thus why those delineators uh were installed while um while uh the applicant was waiting for BGE to relocate uh utility line.

Mr.

Kerr, I have a question at the point of information.

Are we talking about the intersection of Tyler Avenue in Hilltop?

Are we talking about the intersection of Spa Road in Hilltop?

Spa Road and Hilltop.

That's what I thought we were talking about.

Yeah.

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

Oh right.

Yeah.

So yeah.

Yes.

Yeah, yeah.

I'm thinking the same.

I was saying the wrong thing, but that's intersecting.

Okay.

Where the Pantry One and St.

Uh Martin's school and church.

Yeah, and the synagogue, that's the intersection that I'm talking about.

And they're currently, I guess it's BGE who's out there.

They've been out there for a couple of days.

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

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

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

Yeah, yeah.

My my point is I mean, I just again we have all these things in the comp plan about adding bike lanes, getting moving to complete streets.

Yeah, we have these projects going in that are working directly against all of our pedestrian mobility goals.

The only thing it might improve is safety for automobile traffic at that intersection, but it's just it's just disappointing.

I mean, I don't know what kind of processes we need to change internally to make sure that these things don't happen, but it just seems like a waste of money.

I agree with your point, but I would point out before we beat up on staff too much.

This has been in the works long before the comp plan.

But it only just started.

Well, that's uh dog in the ground, and it's our street, it's our infrastructure, so we should have the ability to just say let's see what Mr.

Leshinski but yeah, we already have a terrible reputation in terms of getting permits in the city, which I don't think is really totally warranted, but nevertheless it's out there.

And then we have the comp plan come along, which should have an impact on these things.

I agree with you, but um it is also conflicting with getting development loans.

So the done, it's uh it's improvement to our infrastructure.

I agree.

Which contradicts all of our infrastructure plan.

All right, Mr.

Moschinski.

I should have I should have come up sooner um when you start talking about this because I know this preceded um Mr.

Meekins, but the the sidewalk in front of the daycare was designed to be part of our future off-street shared use path.

So if you walk it today, you'll notice it's wider, it's 10 feet, I believe.

And um, and so we actually recently um received the grading permits for the trail that will extend to Forest Drive from there on the other side of Spa Road.

Okay.

So this will be part of that, and then going towards Trucks and Park, this see this capital project will go to Boxwood Road.

That's sort of the terminus of this, that's where the bike lane ends today.

So um Primrose did fulfill that part of their um you know, and sort of working with us on that.

We did work with them on it, and all the other roadway improvements were really addressing other goals, but more for traffic flow and safety, but okay.

Any other questions uh Rocky, oh no, that's not new.

Villager Providence Point.

Yeah, so build uh the villages at uh Providence Point, they are pretty much at the finish line.

Um the all of the buildings, both residential and commercial, have been approved.

Um the grading permit is still in review, but essentially what's happening now are agreements are being signed uh and recorded.

Um so that is uh that is on the doorstep of permits being issued and construction conceivably being started.

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

All right, thank you.

Uh Ridley.

Yeah, so uh the last one on the list is a new ad 15 Ridgeley.

It is a proposed three-story uh commercial office building, or well, I'll say commercial building.

Um don't know exactly the composition yet, but I believe it's uh uh it's gonna be office space with uh off-street uh structured parking on the ground floor.

Uh geographically, this is located um approximately well, I'll say at the end of the uh first block originally behind where the Grouse shopping center is on the left-hand side.

Right now it's a parking lot.

Um so that is um that is in the works, but it's pretty early.

Um it's had an initial site design review.

Um it has to go through APF testing.

Uh so uh before it gets to the planning commission, uh the APF uh testing has to be sorted out, and that's currently being worked on by the applicant.

Is there any push for from staff to get is this one of our mixed use areas that we want to get more mixed use installed?

Is this has it just commercial?

Yeah, the proposal is just commercial for this this project.

Um but is that uh Mr.

Vaschinski is there do you recall what that section of?

I mean, I'm sure this will come up with the comp plan.

We don't need to get it, I mean at the planning commission, but uh I'm just curious.

It's um it is a site that we identify as mixed use in the comp plan, but I mean this project was already in progress before then, and you know, to be candid, it means we have limited ability to, you know, um dictate the program of the building.

So it's it's uh it's a commercial building, and that's what the owner was looking to do with the site.

What we try to do in our review is shape the public realm of the of the site plan, you know, so that it's consistent with the comprehensive plan in that regard.

But in terms of the interior program of the building, I mean um, you know, it's we have limited.

So sorry, why don't why do you feel like it's too late to get them to are you talking about why they're not including residential or some other yeah, or I mean that's whatever you think is the most appropriate for mixed use, but I'm just a bit surprised that it's the building dedicated to the entirely commercial and this part of town.

We're talking about the Ridgely project.

Yeah.

Um well, you know, I mean applicants come in with a they've done their market studies, they they have a sense of what's gonna work there economically.

I mean, sure, a different different applicant may have seen the potential for residential, but you know, that's it's it's allowed by the zoning and meets every other provision.

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

So what do we need to do to empower you to be able to get them to go a certain direction?

I mean, because we want to see the comp plan enacted just as much as you do.

And um I I think just continuing to have uh preliminary conversations with owners and and developer teams and just we've had some really good experience with that, you know, with the Naples seafood market site where teams are coming to us wanting to know what what would the city like to see here.

I mean, I think in other places um that are more current in terms of coming online this year, um, we're able to have those preliminary conversations.

But in this case, I mean just had been in progress earlier.

So Mr.

Smith used to like to break out his sketch paper to redo it for people when they for the, you know, when they came in but it does seem like it's a a missed opportunity.

Obviously, we can't make the developers do something they don't want to do, but this could have been an opportunity to have mixed commercial residential and um in a location that's not a food desert, relatively close to a major thoroughfare, good transportation.

It was almost like it was made in heaven for the comp plan.

Yeah, that's the point.

I mean it's along, I think both city and county bus route if prompt they can.

Yeah, it's 100% commercial.

Yeah.

Yeah, so if I might add to that, um, I I get your notion.

The developer in this case has developed or redeveloped several other properties um within West Annapolis itself, and uh Caddy Corner uh to this development is I believe a four-unit uh rental um uh building with four for apartments in it.

So but what a win to turn a parking lot into mixed use with residential and commercial of some sort anyway.

Yeah, that is uh what are they gonna be doing with their are they keeping some of the parking or are they getting a waiver?

Are they doing it underground?

What's the plan for that?

The parking is um on the first floor to ground floor, so it's structured parking with the building over top.

Thank you for the legend at the bottom.

Yeah, I noticed BMP.

I'm thinking best management practices and it's buffer management practice here, so that's very helpful.

Sure.

All right, anything else you want to no that pretty much that uh checks all the boxes I have uh with uh the current projects.

Thank you, Ms.

Meaton.

Thank you.

I I think we said about every two months or three months, I forget.

Uh yeah, I think we uh we agreed uh like quarterly.

Um, but I was here in uh I guess it was July.

Yeah, so obviously August was a month off.

So if you'd like to see me, you know, whenever.

Um I guess at this point might as well wait until when's the new council gonna start?

December?

December.

Maybe December in January.

Yeah, probably right.

All right, sounds good.

But um obviously please reach out if you have any specific questions and I'll try to get you an answer.

Thank you.

All right.

Um next up on the agenda find it.

Oh 14.

I thought you were rearranging the agenda to move uh to Ross.

Oh said something to me.

In any case, um 14 is next.

Uh who's here to talk about if I might um do we think there's gonna be a lot of discussion about the vocho leases.

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

Well, I tried in and I really wanted to have a question of um the city attorney about um at this point.

I'm sticking to the agenda.

Okay, sorry, all right.

Public, but um all right.

Um so for 014.

Uh I don't want to overlap too much.

We just spoke about this that rules and government.

Um postponed action.

Um and uh, you know, I intend to let you know up front to post to make a mo or accept a motion to postpone action for this committee so we can do a joint committee with rules and government tentatively on the 22nd.

Um but I did want to open up to the yourself for the committee if you have any comments you'd like to make.

Particular, you know, it'll give me time to sit down with you, either one of you and the law office to talk about the amendment drafts that I sent around.

I do want to get those refined and fixed.

Um, so first of all, I want to turn the floor to you and LCD wants to discuss anything in particular.

I I as I said it rules um I'm favorably inclined to the um lengthy list of amendments from Alderman Savage uh particularly with um much more emphasis on bringing transportation into the the changes in the code but um it is complicated if you you go to four page five of the legislation where we change the densities for the three types of plan development and this has a nuance on this which is to roll back some of the density permit and allow bonuses for transportation.

I like that carrot kind of thing but I am worried I I think that it's important to continue the momentum of implementing the comp I know there's probably several more rounds of but I guess my overall overarching question is um the the sense of the planning staff to these transportation bonuses kinds of concepts and then there's other things that get into the building heights and and that sort of thing but I guess just to do a general concept are these doable and doable in this term or what is your your attitude towards well Chris planning director and Eric Leshinsky chief of comprehensive planning.

I think I can speak for Eric when I say it's a pleasure to work with city council members and engage in legislation on the areas that we care about.

So we're we are delighted that we actually have a council that cares about the things that shape the the the the environment of the city and the city's development and that work towards the comprehensive plan implementation.

So there's a lot in here's no doubt and um I think we're going to work hard to try to get a set of amendments that are understandable in the limited time that the council has in this session to get adopted and that's the key because the public generally should understand what's in the code as well as you and we just don't have a lot of time to do that.

But um Alderman Savage and I did talk about some of these bigger ideas many months ago and I think we centered on some like basic principles principles that can establish or help codify an approach that can be built on later as more information is gained and understood and more consensus is built in the community.

And you're presented here with this set of zoning text amendments 1412 with a development decision.

Does the city embrace the idea of facilitating housing development in the ways that we've articulated in the comprehensive plan.

And so I would ask the the the commissioner the council members to think really critically about the fundamental goal here and to work to facilitate the implementation of these regulations rather than their obstruction by adding layers of complexity that make make it harder for developers to deliver fundamental housing.

And and but not to stop a otherwise viable development project because those that infrastructure doesn't exist or can't be implemented.

We want to create a a future and that's what uh we were aiming to do with these regulations going to create a future that the city can build upon um and the density that's anticipated in here is only uh the bonus is only allowed in certain locations and practically speaking because of the lay of the land and lots that are actually eligible uh there are really few or far between that can get to that 50 unit density um but those are the ones that begin to set the context for functioning transit in the future right so um we would like to have code that facilitates their delivery to build the capacity in the court or for functioning transit not to hold them back and squeeze them in in hope that we come later uh with transit uh so it's a chicken and egg type of scenario we want to make sure that there's a um a development or land use program that can be served by transit um and not hold back that land use program with the hope that we can fund a transit system in the future so the the key is getting the the right ideas codified and you know the idea of creating a um conditions that allow for private sector contribution to transit just like they would contribute to making a wider

We want to make sure that there's a um a development or land use program that can be served by transit and not hold back that land use program with the hope that we can fund a transit system in the future.

So the key is getting the the right ideas codified.

And you know, the idea of creating a um conditions that allow for private sector contribution to transit, just like they would contribute to making a wider turning radius or adding another lane or changing the signal timing at an intersection.

All those are capacity building events, or the capacity for tra uh this the vehicles, the roads.

What we want is capacity building for alternatives.

So the code that a code that sort of sets that into place and allows the council to over time build and build on that framework is what I think we can achieve here in the remaining uh week or so that we have.

But uh all the details are going to be hard to kind of work out, but getting that basic framework in place is fundamental, and I think we can achieve that.

So feels like you might some conflicting notions here.

Um I specifically reference page five, which has the uh allowances that vary from the underlying zoning for the three types of plan development, and at the rules committee, I asked in particular with regard to um mixed plan development, how many opportunity areas could really take advantage of that?

And I believe Mr.

Leshinsky answered not that many in terms of the 12 opportunity areas, but if you look at the transit corridors, which is one of the thrusts of the comprehensive plan, that's where this mixed development could come into play.

Right.

Then we got into a discussion of the um community benefits of the development, and we talked not only about the benefit of transportation, but other kinds of things we got into daycare and stock in the box, many marks.

What I admit is complicated, even for me to sort out uh the um amendments is we're backing back on the amount you can vary from the underlying zoning, particularly with special mix, but then offering back the bonus if you do actually do these transit transportation developments.

So suppose we said in special mix, instead of being able to vary by 75 percent, you can vary by 40 percent or 50 percent.

However, if you do certain things and we'll have a list of transportation enhancements, you can get all the way up to 75 percent.

That felt to me like a good carrot and stick, mostly carrot kind of approach, but my real underlying question is do we have time in this term to actually work that out?

I I know older woman Finlays and I talked about rules.

Um we want to get something done.

We want to move more towards the implementation, and we don't want to do things that are actually going to make us miss the boat in this term, right?

So the real thrust of the question is, and we're I think we're planning on a joint meeting of rules and uh environment on the 22nd.

Is there enough time to really work on uh coming up with the amendments?

I think you said you're working on seven amendments or some kind of an additional amendment, maybe not.

Is there enough time to come up with amendments that could be considered on the 22nd in order for it to go to the council on the 29th, which is the personally the date I feel comfortable bringing this to the council for a final vote?

We don't we don't know what's gonna happen on the 29th, but we need to give ourselves rooms for at least two more council meetings before the term ends.

So I know it's a complicated question.

I hope it came through.

I don't think we well, we want to prejudge what we can get to over the next week or so.

Um but when you start talking about the conditions and creating incentives to get to higher densities, um it gets complicated, and we have to really thoughtfully evaluate them.

Typically, you would evaluate it by checking with the the public or stakeholders, developers, people in the business saying does that does that create the incentive that would actually trigger the the added density, or would that just be a cost on the on the project that would prevent its realization?

Um I don't know that we have time to do all that, and we're gonna have to use our judgment.

Um, but what I would prefer to do fundamentally is create the structure or framework within by it that there that is embedded in these amendments, get that into the the ordinance so that these things can be developed and articulated later on uh in the next cycle of comprehensive zoning amendments.

So and and also as we know more about the corridor in our plans for transit, and those studies are forthcoming, we will have the basis in code to to develop it.

So we may not figure out all the details, but we can at least create the framework in code to build you know, build that uh ladder.

That's what I'm thinking.

So do you think we're gonna mic the two things that came out of rules were this brief discussion about APF, but also about bar.

Um that's not in full area ratio value.

Uh that's the amendment that rules adopted to allow the fluoria ratio, not ignore fluoride ratio essentially, and allow the full development of the parcel on multiple floors.

So I think that that's that's through rules, it has to get through environmental matters or through the um, and then I guess my sense is whatever anything we can do to get this notion of it's it's not just building cheaper small boxes, it's transportation, it's other infrastructure kinds of things like daycare, dock in the box, and right um mini marts, the kinds of things that uh and that may not be in you know exhaustive list, but the kinds of things that build a community kinds of things you would want to see in a community benefit agreement, right?

Right, right.

Well, I concur.

Um, and I fully support what the director um is saying about time to do everything.

You know, there should be a public component to changes that are being proposed here.

Um, and so I say, and you know, I mentioned this to the chair when I came in.

Let's find the things that are complementary to this legislative that will kind of lay a foundation for what is um we can't outline transit as we would like to see it as it impacts new development.

I mean, that's taking us, you know, talking about the carpet or the horse in my mind.

Um, so let's put that aside and let's look at the things that really will help to move this along without without, but sending the message to the future council that these are the things that you should be looking at that will accommodate new development and address transit and any other amenities that will support so and all that to say this city is since I've lived here 25 years, never done a good job with keeping pace with improving our infrastructure to keep pace with new development.

Well, I spent over a decade buddy and Mr.

Hyatt just knee-jerk against new growth, new development because it was impacting the environment, which I think we've largely addressed, but it was also just impacting people's you know, traffic and and you know, uh mobility around town, right?

So we went in these big trips elsewhere, other jurisdictions overseas, but also in Portland, and we see cities that do lead with their planning, they don't lead with growth, they leave with planning, right?

And that provided me a way forward.

It was like uh, you know, uh a huge epiphany for me as far as I don't need to fight Mr.

Hyde all the time.

I'm gonna fight for getting these infrastructure things improved so we can have the growth, not to pick on Mr.

Hyde, but we could have the growth that folks you know want to see along with the infrastructure improvements people want to see, right?

And have it be a partnership, and that's why I think it's worth pushing for.

We have all these grand ideas in the comp we had so passionate about talking about and discussing and adopting.

Yeah, here we are with a density proposal that is so disconnected from it.

And I know it mentions the comp plan, but it's so disconnected from those actual improvements we identify on the comp plan.

So what I don't understand is why it why this growth is worth rushing it through at the ascend of the term, you know, and risking not doing it right.

Why is it worth that risk instead of just taking the time and doing it right, for example, next term, or even I mean, I'm trying, I've spent five hours the other night working on these amendments.

I'm trying to do what I can.

I'm not trying to slow down anything, I'm trying to get it right so that I can get on board and support it.

And my I can tell my constituents you're being heard, we have a solid plan to address these concerns, but I just yeah, I'm trying to see a way forward, but I just don't if this passes as is, I just don't see how that gets to our goals.

Except for housing goals, but that's so separate.

Well, um, if I may one of the things to keep in mind, I mean I think of transportation mobility as kind of a layered system of of improvements where um we have today, if you look at Forest Drive, we have a corridor that is very one-dimensional, you know, it's um very much just focused on moving cars as efficiently as possible.

We have some limited sections of shared use path for pedestrians and cyclists.

We we don't even have a dedicated uh bus line that goes outside of the city that goes to Riva Road, where we have a park and ride station and a high school and county offices.

You know, our division within planning and zoning attended all of the transit development plan meetings this last year with the exclusive intent, number one mission of getting a dedicated bus line on that corridor that we could do tomorrow, you know, that it doesn't require a redeveloped corridor, just involves a uh realignment of our priorities really and budget realities for sure.

But um, so I mentioned that because you know, to Director Chukubiak's point that there are things that developments can do that are coming along in the near future that could be transit ready, that could be sort of a partner in um facilitating the new bus line that's on the same roadway tomorrow that is um you know more open to connecting to that, that it's not an afterthought that maybe there's a setback area of the site is dedicated to where the bus is gonna pull in and and you know pick up riders.

Um it could be a hub for people coming, you know, who live down Tyler Avenue and you know want to come to a location.

Um so you know, I think there are ways to put things into the legislation that would be more doable in the short term for it, you know, that don't necessarily have to look 10 years out to when we can really sort of fully design that roadway, which I'll be the first one to say I would love to see Forest Drive completely redesigned, you know, and I might uh counting parts of the county may be hard to hear that, but I do think that um that's something we need to see.

I just think that any sort of density we can create in the short term will benefit the future success of transit.

You know, I think another thing that Director Chukubiak says this kind of sites that we're seeing along our major corridors are not um they're not parkplace, you know, they're not um that scale.

Um they will add have the potential, add some additional density, but they're um they're infill projects, and I think none of them on their own will really um break the system or you know, change things dramatically to a point where you know it's gonna, you know, so it's it's but it's a paradigm shift in how we have to think about development really.

Um that's I mean, it's the wrong way to think about it.

I mean, uh Mr.

Hyatt knows very well.

People will complain about any addition of new density in the city.

It could be five, it could be ten, it could be an office complex, it could be 200, it could be cursed spring.

It doesn't matter.

People, it's in their head, and I think a certain degree, rightfully so.

Yeah, individually they're small, but if you're talking about these on all of our major corridors, adding a little bit of density here and there, it adds up, right?

And so what I'm trying to do is provide a framework for them to pay into, right?

We had you know, 2009, we had a study for West Street.

Unfortunately, that was never really incorporated into too much of our planning processes.

We did incorporate, we did build out part of that, which is recommending the circulator shuttle.

But if we have more of those studies, why can't we set up a system where we get the developers to help pay into a fund supporting the studies or supporting what comes out of them, right?

And that's what I'm trying to do.

We have RFP ready to go out very soon to look at the next recommendation for West Street, which was upgrading to some kind of high value transit potential rail that was called for in 2009 as a long-term goal.

We're finally getting around to it, right?

We have another hundred thousand dollars looking at forest drive transit improvements, and then not to mention another 50 or 100 or so, I forget for Bay Ridge Road, the intersection but the city and the county.

We have money set aside to look at putting in a circulator in Eastport.

Those are actual transit improvements that we could get developers to pay into, contribute, right?

And hopefully some of them as they get moving, we'll actually be able to contribute to actual infrastructure improvements.

But those are the kind of solutions we can help point residents to.

And I think I'd rather have them pay into that work as opposed to what we're seeing on Tyler Ave, which is not really you know exactly what we're looking for as far as adding expand, they're making that road wider.

I mean, that's not what we want, right?

So I think setting up these funds for them to pay into would be a good thing.

I think that type of structure is what we're talking about, getting that framework into the code.

It just may be that we can't figure out all the details in the limited time that we have to make it right, but getting that structure to to link land use and transit improvements closer together and is is what we're talking about.

And and so, which really operationalizes some of the the elements of this.

This talks about transit.

Plant developments don't happen now unless they support transit.

This gets adopted, and there's specific uh standards for what a mixed-use center is now, it's directly tied to the comprehensive plan.

Totally new.

And uh, I would just let you encourage everybody to realize that we're not stopping after we adopt this.

Work will continue.

We will continue to build on this.

Uh, this is a first set of comprehensive rezoning text amendments, but there are other sets that were will be forthcoming.

And you've set before us the task of integrating transit into our zoning.

And we're saying allow us to create the framework for that, the the place setting for that in the context, so then we can spend the time that's necessary.

Eric went through a comprehensive, thoughtful, uh deliberate planning study in Tyler Road with the community, got buy-in.

It resulted in a set of recommendations that has broad consensus now.

It wasn't the first uh cut that we realized.

We began our work, we had imagined something quite different.

Um, and it was it changed the public process.

So we benefited from hearing from the public.

You're talking about substance substantive, like meaningful text amendments, and we think it could be improved by a public process.

And um, and that's what we'd like to advise you on.

We're always wanting to take these things through public process.

And those ideas you're talking about weren't really detailed in the comprehensive plan.

They help implement the broader vision of the comp plan, but they weren't in that level of detail.

Um lastly, I would say that getting land use right is really important.

And uh, and what we're we've been on a continued evolution in the city, um, you know, inner West Street, Upper West Street, the BCE zone, mixed use zoning, uh, and and we were left with the the the sort of the problem the policy of of how to facilitate and encourage housing so we can increase the housing supply and begin to moderate price increases for for families, and so this is a direct response to that.

It's fundamentally important to that it take place, and it's not gonna open the lid on development.

Um, you know, it's it the the zoning or the the transit elements of this can still come in later in the new year.

We can still have time to do that.

Okay.

Yeah, I understand.

I mean, I guess it's just I I mean I get that my perception.

I mean, you're leading with housing, but in my mind, I think maybe we just have disagreement as far as what our top power is.

My most important issue in the city for me is not housing.

It's important.

It's not the most important.

The most important for me is safety.

People can be able to get around safely.

Um without having to have a car, um, and just walk where they need to be mobility-wise, right?

So related to that is is all climate as well.

That is very important for me.

Yeah, we're not leading with this existential threat of climate change.

We're leading with housing.

Um, that's so that that's kind of where I'm coming from.

Like those I'm trying to make sure we find a way for our priorities to mesh a little more.

So that's a perfect segue to what I wanted to do.

I'd like to back up to page three.

Um, because you mentioned the word framework, and you mentioned this is setting the context for future changes.

So I'm on page three at the bottom.

It's number six, which I'm not sure is the right priority under purposes to promote development, which substantially advances the goals of the comprehensive plan, particularly the following.

And this is where I would like to propose and will propose for the meeting on the 22nd, significant changes.

I would make the first item B, promoting mixed use of land types with development projects, mixed use.

I would have the current C either A or B, but promoting the installation and use of infrastructure, such as sidewalks, trails, bikeways, parks.

I would then say mobility and services, because under me, for me, under mobility, it would be things like transit, but also bicycles and um and I think sidewalks and so forth.

And then the services, I think is an important thing to get in there.

And uh for me, services includes things like daycare, health care, shopping, dining, entertainment.

And my concept here is services that are within reach of this new development.

It doesn't have to necessarily be in the development itself, although I think that would be good.

And as I mentioned that rules the other day, anything we do to enhance these new developments, the adjoining neighbors get to benefit from too.

So I would really change the priority of these things in establishing the framework.

Here's what I as soon as I read on the top of page four, promoting affordable housing, that whole development density thing just comes blanking red lights.

And as Alderman Savage said, I don't think that is our number one priority in the comp plan.

I think our number one priority is improving our land use.

I think land use improvements that take into account the environment.

So I would somehow want to get climate in is one of the things in this thing.

But this to me, at the top of page four, is the guideline, the framework for all of the future implementation to accomplish the complan.

So I'll work on the amendments for the 22nd, but I I do like what's in the Savage proposals here, and I do think the transportation has to be done at least concurrently, but I also think some of these other infrastructure things need to be done concurrently.

But for me, recognizing the time constraint, working on this set this list on page four that is the list that we use the next council uses going forward, is something that I could be satisfied.

Altman Savage, you you had mentioned that it seemed clear that or you were suggesting that uh your priorities don't match up with our priorities.

I want to assure you that our priorities are your collective priorities, the city council.

It's up to you as a our board of directors to set those priorities.

Uh so this is a draft that has gotten some you know sponsor support, but ultimately has to be adopted by the council.

So um we took the best stab at it to implement the comprehensive plan, but ultimately prioritizing priorities is for you to advise us on.

Uh so we're here to support that.

And like I said, we are happy to work uh and set things aside to turn our attention to this over the next week or so that when you come again on the 22nd and heard you say earlier, uh, we could um we could have a meaningful discussion about real text amendments to this.

Okay.

Thank you.

And and the last thing I'll say is I I as far as housing um density.

I so maybe help one you understand where I'm coming from.

Yeah, I when I support density, I see that as a way to allow us to achieve our other goals, be it again the climate, the mobility, the infrastructure.

That's how we and that's why I'm trying to put in here the community benefit agreement, uh, right, is to help make that and same thing with affordable housing, right?

That's that development is the way that we can achieve our goals together, and that's why I'm what that's what I'm trying to emphasize with this.

Um, and right now I just I don't see that partnership idea built into this.

Um, so maybe if we can build some of that framework out, I'll feel more comfortable.

But we've talked a lot about transit.

Do we want to the other parts of the the amendment draft had to do with uh the planning commission recommended adding definitions for green roof as well as the accessory roof structures?

I tried to do that.

Um so I don't know if Ms.

maybe I should include Ms.

God on some of this because um if you have comments on the green roof language, uh I'd like to get that worked in to honor, and I think they raised some good points about getting that clarified, which may go help help address some of the concerns we've heard from historic um the historic present the pre preservation is out there on some of the testimony.

Um so are there any comments, thoughts on the green roof aspect or the height accessory changes?

Because what I'm basically proposing uh again, we don't have to get into super amount of detail, but I'm proposing to scale back, scale down some of the height limits to address some of the public concern we've heard.

Yeah, I understand that.

And uh at last night's um healthy human services committee meeting uh we attended that and uh uh they voted to approve or to recommend out in a positive way, but they also said uh it would be nice to work on those definitions uh of these two terms that you mentioned, and I said that in fact you had drafted those already, and uh we kind of like them.

So um we and we again we can add the time to talk about that and work with Jackie, of course, uh, to to get the right language as necessary.

Okay.

Uh I I concur that I think any time we can add definitions is a good thing to do.

So I liked all the definitions on the first page of the all and savage amendments, and then um I do think that uh green roofs are something that's coming up elsewhere, like the roofs over the bus stops and so forth.

Green roofs, we've got mixed success in the city about maintaining them.

Um, and so I think it's something we need to pay more attention to.

But also in the Savage Amendments, there's this concept on the second page of overlay boundaries.

Um which I think is something that is more debatable.

That would be instead of just having this confined or redefining it as an overlay rather than the Craig Street area, Craig to the water area.

And I don't know what your views are on that, and there's a lot of detail in their applicability procedure review pilot.

Uh, then we get into the green roof uh kinds of things.

And uh again, I just don't know how much we can accomplish there's a lot on green roofs, which I don't think is wrong, but I think is detailed and complicated.

And then we get into some things on starting on page five of the amendments that start to get into rooftop dining.

And I mentioned to the chair at the beginning of this meeting, we already have a very successful section of city code on rooftop dining.

And um, from my perspective, the the first one was black hall with yeah uh black wall pitch.

It has been working very successfully.

I've had no complaints.

Uh I think that it's a good model.

This changes some of those things, or maybe further enhances them.

Not sure there's enough time to really think that through.

Um, if we can do it, we can do it.

But um so there's a lot an awful lot of meat and awful lot of effort that went into these um changes.

Um there's there's more definitions on page six about high value transit and transportation on demand, which I think are good definitions.

Um and maybe can get into the uh 2172 just as changes to definitions if if they're acceptable definitions, but um in any event, uh again, I go back to the the overall question what's feasible over essentially the next couple of weeks uh in this term, and I guess I'm inclined with the comments I made on the framework on page four.

Let's frame out the big picture stuff and leave the spaces for the development.

Some of the things on page four as I reordered it and recommend embellishing it would fit perfectly into the benefit agreements, um, and I as guidelines there for that.

So again, I'm really torn because I like these ideas, and I kind of agree with a lot of the detail rooftop dining, something I need to think about more in terms of what it does to what we already have, and that old adage if it ain't broke, don't fix it uh kind of thing.

But and I'm not sure that rooftop dining rules should be different on Craig Street than on Compromise Street, 6th Street.

So um yeah, a lot you worked too hard.

Uh are there any other I don't want to spin our wheels too much on this since it's not ready for uh we're not gonna take final action today anyway.

There are any other things we should know as we move forward to the next meeting.

Well, I would ask that staff um not hesitate to let us know what's doable with this, um, because we can be having the same discussion again on the 22nd, and I think that's quite necessary.

Um, so really tell us what's doable uh and hopefully the ultimate will understand the things that we can't get.

He's gonna be here after December.

So there will be opportunities for him to bring back further legislation and fill in what uh was might be missing, so uh but I trust you to decide what will work for you and I invite Alderman to bring his amendment to the rules committee on the 22nd.

All right, well, thank thank you to everybody for offering your thoughts.

Do you have anything else before we thank you both for your work on this um legislation?

All right, um so need a motion for action.

Okay, so here's hearing no motion, right?

So we're gonna postpone okay.

We need a motion to postpone it, or just no act okay.

Okay, so I'll move to postpone action on a 1425 until our uh meeting on the 22nd.

On Marnet proposed that good, yeah.

Can you second that?

All those in favor, please say aye.

Aye.

Thank you.

Oh 14 postponing until the next meeting.

All right, next up on the agenda.

Okay, Mr.

Lushinski's still not well.

We have I'm trying to be respectful of people's time, but it's gonna be hard to do.

All right, so move to R 4025, Equitable Public Water Access.

Mr.

Leshinsky, if you could, I know you've to out of here soon too.

You could join us again for this.

I would like to postpone this as well.

Um I didn't realize this was going to be on our Monday council agenda, and uh so I wanted it to come to committee.

Um I've not had time to work on uh any kind of proposed changes, but I just to be up front, I did receive fun some feedback.

What my goal is to try to get some improvements in the plan as far as uh some commentary on the importance of water access to um yeah, a disabled and uh seniors, which I think it does touch on, but I wanted to take a closer look at that provision and uh and also include some more comments regarding Crab's role in that.

Um, but that's so do we want um a presentation from Mr.

Lushinski in the future or just a briefing?

Um committee holding our network nice.

Well, let me ask, isn't this just a um you know we already have a equitable water plant?

Do we not?

Right here.

Okay, so is this just an update on the existing was never adopted, it was never adopted, so we're talking about adopting that in entirety.

That's right.

Yeah, so I would ask for simply uh overview of the highlights of that report.

It looks like uh healthy document.

Um, but I don't want to put more uh it's a healthy document with some significant changes in red.

Um it is a lot thinner than the comprehensive plan.

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

Um that's what I was gonna ask.

So what is in red?

So those are changes from the original draft.

It's quite a bit.

I mean, uh we we did um uh we did a lot of community outreach on this plan, and um we actually put together a memo during the winter that listed out all of the changes.

We actually added some more to that.

Um, but um it's it's substantial in the sense that um we added new sections to the plan.

There was a lot of feedback about kind of an implementation section that would help folks know how we were gonna prioritize there's something like 120 recommendations in here.

They're not all physical improvements, some are policy related or programs, but we made an effort to really summarize all of those in an implementation section and put together some um text that explains what brings certain recommendations to the top, you know, what what's what's the emphasis?

And so that's towards the end of the document, a whole new implementation section.

We tried to clarify misconceptions about um you know, when you improve or add a street end park, uh tends to be um well, not tens.

We heard opinions from residents that fears of traffic or crime or things, you know, of that nature, and we really had to um try to set the record on that.

But you know, we're fortunate we have a whole generation behind us of having many street end parks, you know, from the Ellen Moyer years in Murray Hill and Eastport.

We have probably 30 street end parks in just those two neighborhoods, and so we've been living with them and we've seen their impact on neighborhoods, and they've been overwhelmingly positive.

You know, people adopt them, they add to property values.

Um, you know, many of them are not well known.

Um so we really wanted to be somewhat um clear about more clear about the benefits of the and just say, hey, this is a benefit to the whole city here to improve these street end parks.

So is this time sensitive?

It is in the sense that we would love to see this adopted under this council, because that's really when it's happened, but yeah, but I could give a brief presentation if needed.

Um, you know, it wouldn't I could keep it limited, you know, it's hard sometimes for me.

Um, but if that would be helpful.

So we had public testimony at the last council meeting.

I don't know whether you were here for that.

I think you came in after was just one person.

Right.

And she made two comments.

One she felt this was not connected to um quiet waters, the water there.

I don't profess to have I read the original version, skim the original version.

I don't know whether it is or not.

I'm not even sure how we in our comprehensive plan connect to the county facility, but it doesn't seem like a bad idea.

But the other complaint she raised, I think is a more serious consideration and had to do with the quality of water and um that things that the vendor who did the study said were not accurate in terms of encouraging people to go into water with the E.

coli and so forth.

Okay, right.

So I don't know whether you have not familiar with those comments.

Yeah, I I was here to hear the um the residents' testimony uh that on Monday night, and in fact, I've corresponded with her directly.

So um to the point about access to quiet waters, we agree that is a huge benefit to see residents that happens to be outside of the city, it's a county park.

We actually included a new map in these updated draft plan that shows all of the county parks that are in close proximity to the city and private public spaces like the Smithsonian, Greenbury Point.

Well, that's not private, but um ones that are outside of uh city county or state uh management.

Um so that I think addresses some of that concern, and then you know, um the resident came to all of our public meetings with some of her neighbors, and they have very specific concerns about the um recommendations for the um proposed public water access at the foot of Pump House Road behind the pool facility, where we have a structure that is known as the boat house, but hasn't been used in that fashion for many years.

Um we actually corrected the recommendation based on their input to be clear that um this um recommendation really has to be consistent with other things happening.

Um there's um there are a number of constraints to implementing that recommendation.

Um you know, the bridge that's in that location, the footbridge, the so-called wobbly bridge needs to be rehabilitated.

There's a wastewater line that goes under that bridge.

I mean, there's it's it's gonna be um a capital project, it is a capital project, but there are a number of things that have to happen before that public water access can be implemented.

Um and you know, we're gonna follow all of that um guidance.

So to the time sensitivity.

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

Yeah, that's well, yeah, that's what I was thinking.

Um I mean it's a resolution, so we can get it passed a lot more quickly than an ordinance.

Um, because we can have the public hearing and the final vote in the same night, if I'm not mistaken.

Is it scheduled for a public hearing on the 29th?

So nothing.

It's out of committee.

So it would be a public hearing in the first meeting in October.

Oh, yeah, that's right.

They don't have a public hearing unless it's requested.

So I would I think we have enough time.

Uh I would like to postpone it till next meeting.

What I would suggest from Mr.

Lashinsky would be because I well, first of all, I think you're completely right.

It's a really important point that just you know, we do get turns from people.

I've heard it, oh, it's gonna increase traffic and parking in the neighborhood.

Uh, we've all heard it, but to your point, um, once they're installed, communities see them as benefits, and they don't see those negative impacts.

Um with the exception maybe of Tucker Street, which been a little more controversial at times.

Um, but you're not really talking about those big access points or heavy boats, so to speak, right?

Um, for the most part.

So my suggestion would be perhaps I think we could benefit from just a presentation on the executive summary, and then my colleagues, but for me, I think it'd be good to see some of the maybe like the summary of some of the short-term actions we can keep those in mind for the future, right?

Um is there anything else that you want to get a summary on?

No, thank you.

You think that would be doable?

No, I think it I'd I would say at the next meeting.

I don't think Mr.

Koshinski's quite ready to, I'm sure he could wing it, but sure.

I would just say before we move to postpone it that clearly is water access is a high priority for the city council, pleasantly has been for a while.

It certainly started with Mayor Moyer and all their initiatives, and I think this report is responsive to that set of priority.

And by the way, our priorities come from our constituents.

So this is clearly water access is a priority for our constituents, and amazingly for a city that has as much shoreline as it has, water access is relatively limited.

The street and parks being the best access point, and they're not as good as we would like in terms of access, and we really need to work on the repair.

I was looking at the water access at the end of Burnside on Spa Creek.

That is a real danger.

Um there's bolts and things sticking up, the wood is all rotting.

So I think the report is timely, and um by and large, I subscribe to what is recommending.

So we want to thank you for the effort.

I mean, if nothing else, Mr.

Leshinski, you can produce volume.

But I think this is a pretty good report.

Well, I I also just want to acknowledge the council uh should be noted that the last two years have seen the most historic increase in funding for public water access.

I mean, I think there's 26 projects in the CIP right now that are all they're all concurrent with this plan.

So um we haven't seen that kind of investment of some time.

Sure.

All right.

Uh oh, yeah, I'll make the motion to postpone.

All those in favor, please say aye.

I motion carries.

All right, thank you, Mr.

Blushinsky.

Next up, we have 02125 harbor lines.

Um I don't know if Alterman Arnett or Beput City Manager want to speak to this, but I'll turn the floor to whoever wants to.

Let me start by um discussing some of the background why I made this proposal.

First of all, it is the tradition that harbor line adjustments be made by the alder person of the ward in which the water facility is located, the marina's located.

And uh I put this in because of some background things that are going on.

We're improving our water access at the end of six feet on Back Creek by building an ADA compliant uh access, which requires some ramps and then a floating uh dock.

And in the process that impacts at least five slips at the adjoining marina, was Mir's is now safe harbor.

And I felt that um uh first order, a second order priority for me is to increase the number of slips and other facilities, mooring balls for recreational voting in the city, and so if we could do something that would replace those impacted slips elsewhere in the marina, that would be a good idea.

So that's the genesis for this ordinance.

Um, however, I've said all along in any of the public statements that I've made that um navigational safety, life safety is priority one, and um this was has been discussed at the Maritime Advisory Board at least twice, once at the mayor, the Port Wardens.

Um, and it has been uh the opinion of both the MAB, but both of them have postponed decisions on this, but um strongest sense of all of them is that this could have adverse impacts on navigational safety.

That is also the opinion rendered by the uh our harbormaster's office.

There is some confusion about what this ordinance is really about.

It is only about extending the harbor line, and there is in the legislation an illustration of what that is along Safe Harbor.

It's not about number of slips, it's not about sizes of boats, it's an extension of the harbor line.

Other things have gotten confused.

But uh navigational safety has to be preeminent uh for the city, and um there are a number of concerns of navigational safety.

So when it's appropriate, which would be the next council meeting, my intention is to ask to withdraw this uh piece of legislation.

Um I also would point out that I think that um it's not very likely it's questionable whether the council will approve this ordinance, but it is not questionable about the attitude to date of both the maritime advisory board and the port wardens, in that they are very concerned about navigation safety.

So that's what I would have to say about by way of introduction.

I don't know whether the deputy city manager has something to say or not.

Yes, did I just hear the alderman say he's going to withdraw this legislation?

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

Right.

I'm gonna ask the council to support withdrawing it at the meeting on the 29th.

Okay, so and that's what I thought I heard you say.

So I'm not sure why we're gonna continue the discussion on it if his intent is to withdraw it.

We've got other folks.

We do have someone here that wants to speak to it.

I thought we were gonna I agree, but I but go ahead.

Do we have someone here to anybody from the public would like to speak?

I'll give you three minutes.

Please come up to the microphone.

Whatever.

You can go wherever they want.

Oh, thank you for allowing me to be heard.

I'm Alan Hyatt.

I represent Safe Harbor Marina.

Uh Alderman Arnett generally summarized the the background.

And let me just elaborate just a bit.

The city had submitted a project at the end of 6th Street to do this ADA compliant uh access to the water.

The port wardens approved that, but I think they did so irresponsibly because it blocked in slips.

If if you look at the uh at the bottom of the document that's is showed showing us proposed harbor line that shows all these boat slips, that's sixth street, and it shows a lateral line.

It would prevent the use of those slips.

And the port wardens, you know, it was surprising to me that they approve this, and we appealed it, and it's pending in the circuit court.

I can't guarantee what a judge is going to do, but I think given the record, the judge that will ultimately hear this case, there's a good chance that they will set aside the decision of the port wardens.

Now I don't feel great about that because that gives public access to the water.

I think that's a great thing.

But you can't deny the property rights of safe harbor.

So really, as sort of an equitable exercise, the idea was to expand the harbor line on behalf of Safe Harbor.

And the the second drawing shows the uh that that blue line where the that's where the harbor line would be expanded.

And as Alderman Arnett said, that this doesn't mean there's going to be boat slips there.

That has to, that's a process that we we would have to go through with the port wardens.

What it does allow is maybe there can be an expansion up to that harbor line.

Now Back Creek, whether you're a boater or an or non-boaters, this is pretty darn congested.

There isn't any argument that Back Creek is loaded with boat slips.

But the expansion of this harbor line doesn't exacerbate the problem.

There's width of 202 feet, 26 feet, and 222 feet.

That's what would be those would be the areas of the channel, the width of the channel in between both sides of the creek.

And that doesn't really change.

I mean, it is it's more or less the same.

So I I'm you know, I'll say that it's disappointing that Alderman Arnett might withdraw this, and and I'm asking him to reconsider because I think the harbor master's wrong.

I think the the port wardens were really wrong, and this is this is a uh this is a matter of fairness, and I don't think it interferes with navigation because back creek's already congested.

This doesn't make it worse.

It's consistent, and I'd like a reconsideration by the alderman and let it go to the council for a vote.

If they turn it down, then they turn it down.

But I uh strongly urge the committee and the alderman to continue to move forward.

Are there any questions for Mr.

Hyatt?

Um not a question, I want to make a couple of comments.

Uh first of all, um it is the case that the marina by previous owners are egregiously in violation of the city's lateral lines, but more importantly, I think there is a means of relief for the marina by simply running the access of the dock out from 6th Street and opening those slips to the interior of the harbor.

So there are some ways to recover the use of those slips.

They've already put smaller boats in there that will be able to negotiate in and out of there, but um I think there is relief again.

I think uh those those slips were impinging on the re the repairing rights and the lateral rights of the city, and the marina should have been configured differently.

What happened really to change the circumstances?

There'd always been a floating dock at the end of six, it fell into disrepair, and the harbor master at the time, rather than getting it repaired and replaced, took it away.

The new harbormaster recognized that there are ADA requirements for water access, and that changed the whole game.

You can't have a floating dock with a six-foot drop down and a ladder and have ADA accessibility.

So the new plans do in fact impinge on the marina.

That's why, and I thought as an argument of fairness, that's why I was willing to try to find relief elsewhere.

But there is other relief for the marina, and water access, as I pointed out in earlier testimony on the uh equitable water access is surprisingly scarce in the city of Annapolis.

Public water access.

And that has to be paramount.

It is our right to do that.

I think there are other forms of relief for the marina.

Uh I still personally as a second-order priority, would like to see more slips in Annapolis, not fewer.

So I think that is another goal, but preeminent is navigational safety.

Now, whether or not I feel or Mr.

Hyatt feels that this would have an adverse impact on, by the way, these pictures don't show you mooring borrow balls and anchored boats.

Whether I feel that way or not, to me is not relevant.

It's what our professional staff feel and have opined and have consistently opined and have testified before the Maritime Advisory Board and the Port Wardens about the impact on navigation.

So you know, I am really really wanted to make this work, and I really do have the sense of the fairness issues, and there's obviously the right of anybody to question the decision of the port wardens.

Um that'll have to proceed as it's gonna proceed, but I cannot in conscience offer something that our staff are in their professional opinion are telling us as well.

So I just can't do that.

So that's why I will withdraw it.

Somebody else can possibly submit it if they want to.

Um I will argue that that's not a good idea, but nevertheless, I do think it was also appropriate to let Mr.

Hyatt present the uh input from Ms.

Clint.

So I think if giving him time, I think we have one other speaker as well.

Is there anything anything else?

Any other brief uh remarks, Mr.

Hyatt with that, uh is there anybody else who wants to offer testimony?

And does somebody uh I believe the next speaker might be representing the maritime advisory board?

Okay, and and state your name for the record.

When you say boater, I think you're a little bit more than just a boater.

You see, trains the Naval Academy sailing team and has a long long history of boating.

Yeah.

Turn your mic on, please.

And we okay, is that better?

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you for allowing me to restate your name and everything.

Yeah.

Rita Wilde, 403, Chesapeake Avenue, Annapolis and Eastport 21403.

And thank you, Alderman Arnett, for considering withdrawing this legislation.

Um, I like I said, I'm not speaking on behalf of the maritime advisory board at all, but I'm a boater and and my friends are paddle boarders, and I think that this uh legislation would be very detrimental to Back Creek and reduce the navigable waters there.

And um also uh I want to point out that the housing and human welfare committee unfavorably reported this legislation as well before the year August break.

So several groups have said this is not this is not a good legislation.

Yeah, the housing and human human welfare uh committee.

So this would benefit only a commercial entity on Back Creek and harm voters and all those that use this waterway by reducing the transit area and potentially negatively affecting visibility when entering or leaving Back Creek.

I hope you've reviewed our recent maritime advisory board meeting discussion on this legislation plus read the staff report produced by the Harbormaster's office.

This would set a bad precedent for the city to provide benefits to commercial entities when the city needs to take action on its shorelines.

And I think this would only benefit Blackstone and Safe Harbor and would not benefit any residents of Eastport.

And if any residents came to you and said, would you do this?

Well, sure, I could see you considering it, but it just benefits a commercial entity.

So thank you.

Any questions.

But uh the navigational issue is paramount for me.

Exactly.

It's a safety issue, I think.

Thank thank you.

And I and I see I see Mr.

Hyde's point that even with the proposed change, it's not narrower than the narrow points in the area.

But I also see the point that out of borders and smaller craft that can still be important.

Um, personally, I'm first I'm very hesitant to prove changes to the harbor line.

Um just over the years I kind of feel like I've kind of seen them being adjusted piecemeal, and then you end up with a narrower navigable channel.

Um I guess we don't need um Alderman Savage.

We could just say something.

Oh, yes, sorry.

Um Jackie Gyle, Deputy City Manager for Resilience and Sustainability.

First of all, I have a question for Mr.

Hyatt.

Um during the last port wardens meeting, they mentioned they um part of their difficulty in assessing the navigability and the harbor line question was the fact that the um the photo you provided did not show the entire harbor, um, which was necessary in order to adequately measure the harbor line and to make um decisions about that.

Is that the same photo that you provided before, or is that a revised one?

Yes, they want it to come to the point.

Well, I wouldn't remember if I looked at that, but he's Mr.

Umatt says that it's a revised copy that shows the entire harbor.

Okay, this shows both sides.

Yep, got it.

Okay, thank you.

Um I just want to point out that and Mr.

Hyatt, I believe will agree with me that his argument is one based in equity, and in fact, the city has an uh right to exercise its um its riparian rights here and to make improvements to the dock and to expand it if if they wished whether or not it has an impact on any nearby marina when Safe Harbor or its predecessor put in those um slips on the side, they knew about this riparian rights, but they you know they took advantage of the fact the city was at that time not doing anything, but could in the future, however, with that said, um I want Mr.

Um Hyatt to be aware that the city does try to do equity with regard to its residents and its businesses as much as possible.

We do want to um increase slips and assist marinas in doing that.

Um we want to help our residents with access to the water and to marinas.

Um, and so when this legislation came up, we are trying to figure out with the harbor master how we could accommodate that request, whether or not it meant a change to the harbor line, because that is a very serious issue to take up, as you've said, and as others have said, this area of back creek is very congested.

Navigation is tough here, larger boats make it even more so changing slips to accommodate larger boats.

We understand that is a trend in marinas, we understand why.

Um is a trend to larger boats now.

Um so we are trying to work with Alderman Arnett or on this legislation, and the administration was in support of that, trying to find a way to accommodate this request and this legislation.

Um I think it's just a it is it just comes down to a navigable navigability issue and safe navigation and whether that harbor line should be moved or not.

And if there's a way to change the marina so that without impacting the harbor line, if that really cannot be changed, you know, that's something the city would work with Mr.

Hyatt and his client on.

Um if it's possible to move the harbor line without impacting navigation, you know, we also would consider that.

But at this point, I mean when we do have the staff report from the harbor master.

Um I don't think that will change.

Um, but if there is a way to, you know, make keep it things safe and accommodate safe harbors requests.

We would try to do that.

I don't know if that's possible.

Um and I agree with all of you know the things that um Alderman Arnett has said about all the goals of the city, you know, we agree with that.

More marinas, more slips for our residents for better water access, but we have we're balancing needs here and safety.

Thank you.

Okay.

Um thinking I'm hearing no action.

Okay.

So we will suspense of this as far as the committee is concerned.

Just send it back to the council.

No action.

Is that what I'm hearing?

Uh no.

Um thank you.

I mean, I do have questions at this point, so he's bringing them up.

Um so the next item.

So did you something else?

I thought there was a motion.

There should be a motion to take no action.

We don't need a motion for it.

Oh, okay.

All right.

Unless somebody has a motion to do something in particular.

Um that being said, we are now at 0325, lease of city property, the fall boat shows.

Um is there anybody from the public who wants to speak to this?

Um you can wait if you uh need to.

But in any case, is there anything from the committee?

I don't have any questions, but I think I do have a I have a question for the city attorney.

Um, and it's a generic question, and it's coming up because this isn't the only lease that we have under consideration right now, and that is what are the rights of both the um tenant and the city to terminate this lease agreement, and is it termination with cause?

I I'm going through you're the expert on contracts, not me.

I'm going through trying to read the lease, and I'm not sure where that would be.

Is it under remedies under Article 10?

And what does it say?

Um, so hold on.

All right, so it would be Article 12 termination default.

Um, which is on page 16, and it would probably be the same section for um both the fall and the boat shows lease again, Ashley Leonard, assistant city attorney.

Um, so this is a termination for default or for cause.

It's not a termination for convenience.

So we would have to, there would have to be a reason to terminate.

Um generally it didn't conclude things like not paying rent, violating one of the obligations they have to make, um not following any of the requirements of the lease, things of that nature.

So the just a general comment, thank you for that answer, and that does answer my question.

The general comment I would make is that um and it's ironic this is a discussion, the topic that came up in discussion at a lunch I was having, and we asked a business person from the city if you were asking you were starting a new business and you wanted a lease.

How long a lease would you want?

And the answer without any prompting or background was 25 years, and that person actually had a lease for one of their properties for 50.

One of the reasons for wanting a long lease is because you're doing business and you're making investments, and you want to be sure that you're still gonna be there doing business.

So I'm making these as a general comment.

I'm totally supportive of both of these leases.

I think the length and extending these, uh, and particularly with changes.

I I've been following the boat shows over the years.

There's huge capital investment, not only in docks, but transformers and all the wiring and those things need maintenance and improvement.

So if we want a viable business here or at the Annapolis City Marina or the Annapolis City Market, um, we need to give the vendor assurance that they can safely make an investment and recoup the vendor.

So um thank you for the answer to my question, and I see the terms and they are with cause, not just convenience, and that seems right to me as well.

Do you have any comments?

Uh my comment will be that I will propose we give a favorable recommendation 3225.

Okay, yeah, and I'll just say I've after support the boat show, um, and after years of looking at Miss Leonard's leases.

Um, I've learned that's uh a futile cause and not needed.

She does an excellent job with these leases.

So thank you.

Thank you for your work on that.

Um we'll need a second.

I did.

I think you did.

Okay, all those in favor of favorable recommendation on 0325 and 03625.

Aye.

We say I aye.

I just have one question.

Do you have more respect for the city council having to sit through a meeting like this?

You've sat through a lot this this week.

Oh no.

All right.

This would be on for council, presumably it must economic matters might be here next.

Okay.

Um, Mr.

Chair, I thought you said oh thirty-five, the 36.

032 and 036.

Yeah.

Yeah.

No, I just thought he said 35.

I just wanted it to be clear for the record.

Perfect.

Uh so last item on the agenda.

ID 2125 resilience and sustainability update.

I know we have a few things to discuss.

Um I know you sent it.

Yeah.

He said it's getting to be a larger port here.

Your chat first time to react on this.

Um I just I know we're we're past time, so I just want to highlight a couple big changes that happened recently.

As you know, the electric ferry grant was paused by the Trump administration for reconsideration.

Um and we received word in August that we could request a change in propulsion.

Um after looking at some of the letters addressed to some of the federal secretaries, um, it was clear that this was could be a request, but if you didn't do it, your grant was not going to be reissued.

Um it was if you did not, um the grant would be pulled and looked at whether it was in line with Trump administration priorities and goals.

So um after consideration, the city decided to make a request for a change in propulsion to hybrid diesel electric.

Um this had some other advantages as far as range and reliability um and some different hole designs that we fit the Harbormaster's office felt would make the um ferry more stable, could go in the Severn River so we could access Cars Beach and other points safely and more often not be limited by you know even a light chop.

Um so we made that decision to make that request to the Federal Transit Administration.

It was just approved in the last week.

We have to tweak the RFP.

What was approved?

The request for a change in propulsion to hybrid diesel electric for the ferries.

So the Harbormaster made some changes to our RFP because we have to resubmit an RFP to the public.

Um we had to change the propulsion part of that.

The RFP now needs to go back to the Maryland Transit Administration for approval and then to FTA for final approval.

So we're waiting for the last step in going forward with a revised RFP is execution of the new grant agreement by the Department of Labor.

We're just waiting on that before we um send the RFP over to the department to the Maryland Transit Administration.

So then that's the news.

Yes, we can go forward with an elect with an electric ferry, a hybrid diesel electric ferry, two ferries actually, and send out a new RFP.

So it'll be several months before we select a contractor for design build.

Meanwhile, we also have to send the ferry landing site in Eastport over to the Maryland Transit Administration for proposal um for approval of their RFP before that can go out on the street as well.

But this project is now moving forward where it was paused in February.

So two it'd be two hybrid ferries.

Yes.

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

It is the federal government.

It's disappointing that we're having to adopt federal government's low standards.

I mean, I'm certainly not as excited about this project.

I don't know if we should be spending all the money on it.

If it's not gonna really work towards some of our other larger goals and targets, but we can operate on electric, you know, because of the short route across Spock Creek.

That's gonna be electric.

I mean can you so can you just specify that yeah?

So you can turn it on and off so it'll be diesel if we absolutely need to.

Yeah, actually range, but otherwise it'll be electric.

It's diesel backup.

So we can work we're gonna work in the RFP um on our options and then before we send it out, and then it will be up to the designer to help us with those options.

Um the county also made the same decision.

They were going to be all electric with their ferries, and they also made the same request for a hybrid diesel electric system.

Yeah, well, I hadn't thought about the it was clear the grants were not going to be issued without those changes.

Yeah, well, if it's just a backup, I think that's a nice way to get around the federal requirements.

Yeah, which this was your worst disappointment with the federal government.

Um, I have an update on gas pirate leaf blower um ban as well.

Um, we have finally reached an agreement with the Chesapeake Bay Trust to administer the rebate program.

Yeah.

Um, we have a meeting with the the resilience and sustainability staff have a meeting with the trust on Monday to kick it off and get an idea of when we can actually start offering the rebates.

Um, once that is program is ready to go, there um will be a mailer citywide to residents and businesses regarding the availability of the rebates.

Um, as far as enforcement goes, I know that Alderman Savage wanted an update on that.

There's been one citation.

Well, actually, two, one was reconsidered um early on, but on in June, there was another citation issued to a contractor on Franklin Street.

Um, there have been 27 complaints total that Department of Planning and Zoning has considered.

We are um the city manager um agreed that we could hire two um temporary employees for enforcement purposes for a period of three months.

I have put together a job description, which is being considered by Department of Planning and Zoning and HR to hire those two temporary positions.

So these people would work um two because we were trying to cover seven days a week and outside of regular business hours.

So we want to definitely include the weekends for enforcement purposes.

Um just uh personal note on this.

Um you should know that I recently hired a lawn service person.

Uh was freaking when I heard the gas-powered leaf blower going, told them that I could no longer use their services if they were doing gas blowing, it would be particularly embarrassing as alderman and uh earlier this week.

They showed me their new electric leaf blower.

Okay, great.

Nice.

Um what's the timing on the CBT?

That's what we're meeting about on Monday.

Okay, I don't even know how quickly they can get this up and running.

It's just to me, it's a simple program.

It doesn't seem like you know, we've we've laid out it all out for them already and discussed it with them at length.

I think it's just a matter of getting the agreement signed signed.

Okay.

What's the timing on the staff?

Yeah, sorry, I guess.

What's the timing on the staffing uh enhancements?

Staff the temporary staff.

Oh, the separate staff.

Um, I do not I need um feedback from planning and zoning on the job description.

As soon as I can get that done and get it over to HR to advertise.

I wanted to hire someone by September, but that's so does that mean planning zoning is still having.

I know they had a number of three out of four inspectors or something out.

They had a number of inspectors that are out on medical leave.

Yes.

Um, it's that's still the case.

I believe so.

Um, that's been pretty safe.

That's been one of the big things that we didn't realize, and I think the public doesn't realize because we don't want to talk to them about stuff, but there are personal reasons, health reasons why plan zoning staff and enforcement staff is very um impacted.

So they're working at full capacity, and um director Jacobia feels that they're overworked at this point.

Well, if we could fast track um some of the um yeah, the the supplemental temporary staff, that'd be great, you know, because leaves are gonna start dropping here next month.

But I think what I mentioned before is I really do think if if we just have some staff focusing on this for a short period, it'll they'll get the message, and I know residents are slowly getting the message with the notifications.

Um hopefully that'll trickle down to the contractors.

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

Yeah, yeah.

And I think we do need the proactive inspection because my perception is some of the public starting to get a little, I don't know the right word would be, but um, I think it's a little hopeless.

A little frustrated submitting that many complaints anymore.

Right.

I did include in this report on page four um uh something from an excerpt from the Department of Transportation on EV charging functionality in Hillman Garage because we had a number of complaints.

Um so I this was an email that was shared with I believe Alderman um Savage and and Alderwoman O'Neill.

I don't know if the rest of council received it, but I thought to include it in here because I thought of some very good additional information about the charging uptime and downtime.

The L2 chargers are up 100% of the time in Hillman Garage, but the it's the fast chargers, the DC threes.

Um they must be because of the strong current.

I'm not exactly sure.

I mean, on an engineer, but they seem to go down more often.

And premium is slow to fix them.

They have like a four to eight week period in order to fix them.

Um the Department of Transportation is working with premium parking to decrease that repair time, that repair lag.

Um we haven't experienced the same types of problems with the BG, BG and E installed chargers that are in Gott's garage and at Pitmoyer um at the public libraries, uh, different companies.

Yeah.

Different company manufacturers, that is, of um charging infrastructure.

Yeah, and Miss Lynn, didn't you just email me something about the charger contracts?

I don't know if I I emailed you, Jessica in my office.

Correct, she was asking me, and so I provided um the document that we have with BGE for what they install.

That only applies to some.

Yeah, it only applies to some, not yeah, not all.

Hillman was the one.

Just so you're and the committee are aware.

Yeah, Hillman has this other company, but it's in, but it seems to be enforced by premium, even though the charging company is has a I think a contract with us, not premium.

Is that true?

Well, we have the the agreement that I forwarded to my colleague was just BG's right to enter and to install their own their own devices.

I don't know about the other contract with the private one.

That would have been done, I think more through premium.

Yeah, ABB eMobility is the manufacturer.

I'm not I don't know if they do the maintenance as well, but we are we took Department of Transportation or anyone in the city contacts premium when one of the chargers is down.

Um Marcus did note just recently that the content there's no contact number on the chargers in it, and I asked him, and he said he would do put a contact number on there, and he said he was the contact that we had before was not direct to repair.

So they're rectifying that as well.

So Department of Transportation is going to provide on the chargers a more direct line for anyone who notices the chargers are down.

The problem is you don't know they're down until you try to use them.

Yeah.

And there's so there's no way for us to know if they're down, you know, if no one's on using them at the moment.

Oh sorry.

Can I ask, is there a number when someone goes to use it and it's down?

Do they know is there a way for them to notify?

Not the right number.

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

Okay, so there'll be a ticker that says call transportation.

Well, call this number in for repair because it won't go to our department of transportation.

It will go to the company that's supposed to repair them.

But then we still won't know about it.

I believe that there's a reciprocal relationship with the department of transportation.

I can verify that because there they have the data, so they must know.

Yeah.

I just would think that we should know about it.

Oh, make sure.

Yeah.

What are the updates on AMRI and East buds?

AMRI, which is the Annapolis Maritime Resilience Initiative.

That is the nature-based solutions to build um climate resilience within the Eastport and Spa Creek um areas.

I mean that the back creek at Spa Creek Peninsulas, mostly in Eastport.

They've selected their top 10 priority projects from all the listening sessions with the public, the um stakeholder sessions and other field analyses.

Um, I can't tell they've asked us not to reveal the top 10.

Um that will be coming out within the next week.

There'll be a joint press release by um the city and the resilience authority in council fire, which is their communications consultant.

So these are um things like living shorelines, step pool conveyance systems.

In addition, um, there's 250,000 is going to be put towards um monitoring.

No, sorry, that's a different one.

Um, let me back up there.

Um the Department of Public Works has identified with their Eastport mitigation study um that the best solution for the street end flooding is to put in backflow preventers at the street ends.

Currently, they're definitely going to address the core area of Eastport with backflow preventers.

A lot of activity.

So yes, Alderman Arnett.

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

Oh there's and they actually have signs on the street saying monitored by cameras.

And I didn't think for uh Portugal was a very high crime area, but uh you know, I wish we had taken advantage years ago when we could have put the cameras in all the BG and E lights.

Maybe someday we'll do it.

Um Dylan just update you on our lighting study that we did, which concerns BGE real quickly.

Uh yeah, this is a great segue into a study that we just had completed by Tanco Lighting.

Um this was funded uh through our operational uh budget.

Uh we have seen that different municipalities have transitioned from a utility-owned uh light or street lighting approach, uh taking advantage of state legislation to actually obligate those utilities to sell those lights to municipalities.

Um this has yielded a lot of savings for different municipalities, and this study has had an initial estimate.

You know, if we were to fully adopt uh, you know, this transition to city owned uh lights and city maintained lights of about $8.5 million over 20 years.

Um and coupled with that, you know, those substantial savings, uh, we actually have improved flexibility to what we can do with our street lights.

Um so that would of course include you know upgrades like cameras and would increase our capacity to put on those Wi-Fi luminaires uh that we'll be you know testing for that six-month period with uh broadband luminaires, which provide public Wi-Fi zones.

Uh and that's what we're piloting with that six-month program through US Ignite.

Um, so we're really excited about that study.

We obviously have some internal discussions that we need to have with TPW, um, among others.

Um, like I said, that would be an estimate for total adoption or total conversion from BG ⁇ E to city owned.

Um but you know, this is really promising, and uh we're definitely along uh with you in in terms of trying to upgrade our you know, our public infrastructure in that way.

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

Good, thank you.

Thank you for welcome board.

Yes, all right.

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

Thank you.

Uh don't see anything else on the agenda, so move that we adjourn.

Second.

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

Aye.

Motion carries meeting is adjourned.

Thank you.