Are present from the rules committee and uh Alderman Savage, would you like to take role for the environmental matters committee?

I can't hear you.

You could approve your agenda first.

Okay, I was doing a roll call first, as it says on my agenda.

So would you please uh Alderman Savage take role for your committee?

Uh I'm being told that we have to do it separately.

Okay.

All right.

Then I have uh done roll call for the rules and city government committee, and I will entertain a motion to approve the agenda.

So move for our committees.

Second.

Okay, all in favor, please say aye.

Aye.

Thank you.

Alderman Savage.

All right.

Now I'm gonna call I call to order the October 3rd meeting for environmental matters and for the record.

All the members are present.

Or at least audio.

Yeah, visual.

That means I'm present.

That's right.

Is there a motion to approve the environmental matters agenda?

So move.

Second.

All those in favor, please say aye.

Aye.

Can we make a special announcement that because there's people here that I think are here for the three o'clock rules committee?

And I Jody is one of them.

I don't want them to sit through this, which is 014 only when you're coming at the end of the agenda for the three o'clock meeting for the market house lease.

So we don't want to abuse your time.

Uh thank you, Alderman Arnett, uh, for making that announcement.

And um you're absolutely correct.

So anyone that's here strictly for rules and the agenda as it's been presented, uh, that meeting starts at three.

So we will be uh addressing only 01425, uh the annual comprehensive plan for 2040 in this meeting at one o'clock.

Uh Alderman Shannemeyer.

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Uh point of order question.

So uh I doubt we'll be this efficient, but hypothetical, if we knock out 014 in 15 minutes, we'll be taking a break.

Uh that got audible laughter from Alderman Savage.

Uh will we be taking a break all the way until three o'clock for the formal rules and city government meeting, or would we just roll into that normally?

Um just trying to do this out here.

Well, I would I would yield to the city attorney, but I think because the rules and city government committee meeting has been announced publicly for three o'clock that we may have to stick to that schedule.

Okay, thank you.

They're also just pointing information.

Uh we have to give the uh staff 20 minutes to make the technology transfer for broadcasting.

There needs to be a 20-minute gap between meetings so the studio can make the transfer.

Of course, yes.

Thank you.

Okay, so we're on to uh legislation, madam chair.

Sorry, I have one other thing I need to do for environmental matters.

Uh do I have a motion to approve the minutes from 9-11?

Move to approve.

Second.

All those in favor, please say aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Motion carries, thank you.

Sorry, back to you.

Okay, then we're on to our legislative agenda.

And we're discussing 01425 implementation of Annapolis ahead comprehensive plan 2040.

Uh now this committee has already addressed, um, and there are I believe six amendments.

Uh, three of which we have already addressed in a previous meeting.

Uh Amendment one, which carried favorably, amendment two, which carried favorably, and amendment three, no action was taken.

So that takes us to amendment four.

And Alderman Arnett, that would be your amendment.

So would you um thank you, madam chair?

All right.

So this amendment um is focusing on um 20 pages on that.

Uh it's uh it's focusing on 2124 010 um purposes uh subsection a and it's uh reorganizing and embellishing what is proposed in the current legislation.

And the the reason that I think this is important to do is the way in the current legislation it's it's written, the uh purposes are promoting a supply of affordable housing.

I don't think that is the primary purpose for it is one of the purposes, but not the primary purpose for the legislation.

And then what I do is to go in after the reordering is expand on some of the sections from what's in the current legislation.

So the promoting and installation and use of infrastructure, such as sidewalks, trails, bikeways, transit, and and I'm adding here active transportation parks, neighborhood services, such as, but not limited to daycare, health care, shopping, dining, entertainment, and then um it goes on.

I'm assuming everyone has read it, but the purpose there is to make the legislation consistent with what appears elsewhere in the legislation that says that the comprehensive plan, in addition to plan development, is considering community benefits, and these are some of the community benefits that we would like consider.

I would certainly like considered when we're looking at uh new development or redevelopment.

So that's the purpose of the legislation.

Um I'm certainly open to any questions, but I would hope both committees would recommend favorable.

Uh Alderman, may I ask a question?

It seems you have deleted the new language that began on page, I guess it's page one of your amendment, and replaced it with the new language on page two.

Can you tell me what the difference is?

Um, well, I thought I had just uh uh tried to do that.

The differences are it's the reorganizing of the the uh six um items and adding a seventh, and it is embellishing rewording within each of the items things that add more detail in terms of community services and and again things like daycare health care, mentioning those specifically dining and entertainment.

So on page one is the new proposed language.

That's not the old language.

Um I'm looking at the amendment as presented, and it is what is in blue that you're proposing.

Am I correct?

What is it in red is what has a strike through.

That's correct.

I don't have anything in blue.

That's correct.

So that's why I asked you to reiterate.

Oh, let's see.

Oh, yes, so yes, you're referring to a change in um item five, where it currently reads to promote uh the design, and that was taken out, and the word development was put in, and I'm proposing to put the word design, which I think is more comprehensive than development.

So it's to promote design that takes into account the natural characteristics of the site and the placement of structure.

So I'm I'm actually proposing to return to the original language as opposed to the red language that strikes uh design and puts in development.

Well, thank you for clarifying that.

My question had to do with the number six, however, and the items, subsets of number six, but clearly you you've stated in more detail uh the specifics in those items and adding a six item under uh number.

So it's a reorganization of the items under six uh subsections A through F, uh to put promoting a mix of land use types within development projects, mixed use uh as the first priority, and and supporting the comprehensive plan as the first priority.

And then I moved up promoting an installation and use of infrastructure such as sidewalks, trails, bikeways, and transit, meaning active transportation parks, neighborhood services, such as, but not limited to, etc.

I think that's a very important thing, uh, and promoting and linking open spaces for environment and then fostering improvements to the environment, which is new, but it's something Alderman Savage and I have been working on and agree that when we're doing these developments, we need to also take into account the environment.

We'll get into some discussion about things like that later on in rules when we talk about duplexes and expanding the non-impervious pervious space.

But this is and we and we did talk about this at rules, and and I did coordinate it with the director and the director of current planning.

I mean long-term planning.

I I'd certainly welcome any input from them about their comfort level on this reorganization and embellishment.

Well, let me ask is Mr.

Uh Jakubiac or Mr.

Leshinsky in um council chambers?

And I see Mr.

Madam Chair, we're both here.

Uh Chris Kubiak speaking now, and Eric Lishinski, uh Chief of Comprehensive Planning.

Uh we think these uh this amendment is is uh nicely worded and uh consistent with the intent of the ordinance uh as drafted, and um we have nothing more to add.

It's it's fine, it's a reordering of priorities and um uh congratulations.

It's it's well stated.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Um is there other discussion, further discussion from Alderman Savage?

Uh thank you, Madam Chair.

Yeah, I don't I'm good with this.

I think it meets the original intent and expands upon it.

Um fully support what you're proposing.

Alderman Chandelmeyer.

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Uh, my only question was does changing design or development back to design have any significant impacts or is it just none whatsoever?

Yep.

Then I would entertain a motion.

So move for a favorable recommendation on behalf of rules.

Second.

Okay.

Further discussion, hearing none.

All in favor, please say aye.

Aye.

We don't do we need to do it for environment.

So I would um make a motion for favorable recommendation of amendment for in environmental matter.

Do I do have a second?

Second.

Uh all those in favor, please say aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Motion carries.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Okay, amendment five, uh, savage amendment.

Lengthy amendment.

Okay.

Can I give an introduction?

Let's see.

So amendment five is the it is lengthy.

What started this was a uh actually the planning commission findings and recommendations they recommended to adjust the language for green roof, uh, as well as the definition for that and accessory structures, and while I was at that, decided to add some language regarding rooftop dining specific rooftop dining allowances, as well as tweaks to the height limit bump that is being uh proposed.

So to take this so, madam chair, that's general overview.

I don't know how do you want to do you want me to go through this in sections?

Uh, or did you want to hear from staff?

Well, actually, I guess we should might be best just to go through in sections and then we get staff and committee input on the various sections.

I I would really like to hear the responses to the planning commission.

Can is it easy to pull out those things and address their questions first?

Or everything embedded in all of your amendments.

It's all embedded in this amendment.

Do you want me to read the Planning Commission recommendations on this?

I think we have it attached, do we not?

Yes we do.

We do.

But if if you look at the amendment the first section so let's see I'm thinking how the best way to do this if you go down to page six of the amendment because these this is I think the best way to look at it it'll show you the changes as it looks in the legislation.

Page six would be this first section green roof standards in the historic district.

And again this is the one of the the first uh specific area of improvement that the planning commission recommended we look at and so um again and purpose is just to provide more of a definition and some standards um makes it clear that this section only applies to green roofs proposed in the historic district uh the letter C design performance standards that includes things dealing with uh just saying that it needs to be designed for stormwater retention and attenuation as well as thermal performance uh structural waterproofing details um reversibility as far as being able to remove it without damage to the historic fabric um uh visibility and placement to make it clear that it should not be placed above the roof line uh from public right aways that's in number four and also it says unless explicitly approved by as compatible by the historic preservation commission uh number five details some of the drainage and irrigation requirements and then seven is maintenance which makes it clear that uh you know we need to make sure that these don't become unmaintained and covered with weeds and or dyeing plants and um we need to make sure they're maintained especially in the historic district uh and then requires that inspector sorry that staff inspects I'm sorry the property owner inspects its facilities um D just lists some ideas for some middles ultimately may I interrupt you um was there no six under uh letter C uh oh good catch yeah seven should be number six I think that's because I deleted number six what page will end now uh this so this would be page seven you'll see a number five and a number six I'm sorry number five and a number seven but number seven should be number six Cynthia could you make note thank you um so that's basic and then it just clarifies an F that the green roofs can qualify for the stormwater management credit program.

Um so that's basically quick quick run through if there are specific questions about it or if you want to hear from staff madam chair could I ask a couple of context questions before I do want to hear from staff but I wanted to ask a couple of questions to set some context please thank you so um this is rooftop I mean uh rooftop uh green roofs green roofs that's what I was searching for only for structures in this area on dock street um I actually think it's pretty good rules for rooftop structures everywhere but uh I need I'm worried that there are parts otherwise elsewhere in the code for green roofs and want to make sure that this is consistent with or not overriding or is distinctly different from what's how things are treated and the same kind of context question in the city code in title 2164540 uh general standards for restaurants to subsection B has a whole section on rooftop dining which is generic to the city one thing at a time right so okay well this was just to set context so oh no what is this sorry it's computers acting weird um sorry so that was sort of I think go ahead the context I wanted to set is there are things in here that seem to be clearly defined as specific to the dock street area that

So okay, well, this was just to set context.

So I don't know.

What is this?

Sorry.

It's computers acting weird.

Sorry.

So that was sort of go ahead.

The context I wanted to set is there are things in here that seem to be clearly defined as specific to the dock street area that parallel or may parallel broader definitions throughout the city.

So that just setting that as a context when staff make their comments.

Well, then I'd like to ask Mr.

De Kubiak and Mr.

Leshinsky for your reaction to this section on green roofs, and particularly as it relates to the historic district.

Well, um the planning commission recommended they a definition of green roofs.

And uh in fact, some public comment centered on that question too.

And this does an incredible job describing what a green roof is and what the requirements are and what the standards staff would apply in allowing green roofs are.

Uh in considering whether they're consistent with the HBC standards.

So this is uh this section of um uh the amendment is um very well put together and and I think would be very workable uh for us.

Um Eric, do you have anything to add?

Not at all.

I concur with a comment.

Very technically sound and spot on.

I think any jurisdiction would be uh envious to have standards like this for for their um for their downtown for green roofs.

Okay, and my question was gonna be if it's doable, and I think you just said that it is doable for your staff.

Yes, okay.

Thank you.

Okay, um, going on uh Alderman Savage.

Do you want to address the next section or uh yes?

Uh that's yeah, unless there are any other questions on that.

All right.

Um the next section would be on page eight.

And um you'll see the new section called rooftop accessory structured design guidelines, and do this to three different sections within that A, B, and C just details the materials and finishes, and so that's um just clarifies that accessory structures to make sure that they match or complement adjacent roof materials again, more of a visual um trying to establish some visual uh standardness there.

Uh number two speaks to some of the guardrails or screenings um that may be installed and just states they have to complement and integrate with the building architecture.

Uh B is visibility minimization, make sure that any equipment enclosures, planters, things related to the dining are designed to reduce perceived bulk and maintain the historic roof line.

Uh again, just trying to respond to some of the concerns we've heard from the public about you know preserving the historic character.

Uh C prohibitive features makes it clear that uh no covered accessory structure should be shall include space for dining and bar use or other habitable uses.

Um again, because I think the intention, I believe, is to allow rooftop dining.

Um, but we want to make sure that there aren't rooftop.

I think the original at least the intention is not to allow rooftop bar use, and I really want to make sure we don't allow rooftop habitable spaces.

Um, I think I think the architect or no one of the property owners, I think stated that they wanted to add rooftop rooms in his testimony to the planning commission, and that kind of was a flag in my head that oh, we need we should I wanted to make sure we clearly prohibit that because that's not anybody's intention, I believe.

Um so yeah, that's so that's that's the intention of that section.

Any any questions on that?

Well, may I ask you skipped uh a section on applications, submittals prior to the section.

It starts on the bottom of page seven, goes over to top of page eight.

Oh, that that's related to okay.

Yeah, that's related to the green roof.

And but I do see we need to have another editor, Cynthia.

Um that F should be on page eight, the F should be a E.

Um again.

That's I think because I deleted one of those.

But yeah, so that's related to the last section, Madam Chair.

Okay.

Um questions.

I see Alderman uh Arnett.

Yes, thank you, madam chair.

So I am having a little bit of difficulty in going back to the original legislation, which um is in part talking about uh things that can happen.

It's talking about the comprehensive plan and plan development, then it's talking about um uh things that can happen on top of roofs in a specific section of um the downtown area, the dock street section.

Um, and it seems like it's presuming the legislation is presuming that there's going to be a green roof, and presuming there's going to be dining.

Um there are buildings that can go in on Dock Street that could be infill buildings that aren't necessarily um restaurants or hotels.

They could be all kinds of buildings.

So I'm I'm finding that we're kind of in two different worlds here with this legislation.

So that's that's one comment, and I would certainly entertain the views of the planning staff.

Um the other general comment is I feels to me like these rooftop rules, why they are pertaining to dock street only.

Pretty good rules for all uh rooftop greenery or rooftop structures throughout the city.

Now I know we can't do that at this late date, but um it would be more comfortable for me if we made these more generic.

So that would be my question about clarification.

Are you referring to the amendment or the general legislation?

Well, I'm I'm mostly referring to both.

The general legislation, as I said, has three parts the the plan development, the rooftop on Dock Street, and the 3250 rule, which is fortunately back in the back, and nobody's paying a lot of attention to it because I love the rewrite.

But um on this section specifically, we seem to be jumping from a more generic redevelopment of buildings, any building within Doc Street, to presumptions about what the redevelopment would be, or maybe we're presuming if the redevelopment on Dock Street in any building would include a green roof, or would include rooftop dining.

Uh these would be the rules obtainable.

And I just want to make I want to see if I'm thinking about this correctly and make sure that that's how the staff I mean that sounds like a big picture question.

I'm sorry, I didn't understand what you said, ultimate savage.

You questioned something.

Well, I'm just I understand I'm trying to say focus because we have a lot of stuff in the amendment to go through.

This sounds like a big picture question on the ordinance, not necessarily germane to this.

Well, I think it is because this would now become part of the order.

Let's see what maybe the staff understands my question.

I would just say may I ask uh you have a question to be like Mr.

Lyshinski to uh weigh in on this section.

Sure.

We're happy to um deputy in charge of uh sustainability has a question uh real quick.

Uh thank you, Director Thubia.

Jackie Kyle director uh deputy city manager for resilience and sustainability back on page four, under number two, and then small numeral two, where it says the roof shall be a green living roof for those properties between Doc Street and Craig Street.

We back up uh what do you page four of what?

Page four of your amendment.

I want to and then it's two, and then um small numeral two where it says the roof shall be a green living roof, green roof.

There's no option not to be a green roof here, it's a shell.

First of all, and they may not want to have a green roof, but this is saying shell, so if that's your intent, then that's your intent.

But then it goes on to number three, where it says if it's used for dining during guard dining guardrails, etc.

Hold on a sec.

I'm you're losing me because I want to stick to I know, but I want to stick to the uh if you're looking at the amendment.

What's that?

You've gone forward.

He hasn't gotten to that section.

Oh, I think he had.

I want to stick to page where I'm just going to eight.

Yeah, I want to stick to page six or later because those two.

Oh, six or later.

Well, I just saw this as contradictory because you're saying I know I know, hold on.

I I want to hear you, but I'm just saying I want to for the sake of maintaining order.

I want to get focused on six or later because six is where it shows how the ordinance how the changes look in the ordinance is written.

So I do have something back there too.

Well, wait, wait, wait, wait.

Excuse me.

Alderman Savage, I I have to disagree with you.

Miss Gyle is pointing out something that may impact not only what we're talking about right now, but going forward.

Okay, so we can rectify I understand.

I want to hear I'm not uh don't misunderstand me.

I I want to hear this.

I'm just trying to stick to the right section in the legislation so we're not jumping all back and forth.

I'm sorry that we didn't call on her when we were in the previous section dealing with the green roofs, because her per her comments are pertinent.

Okay, so we're gonna have to go back and address that.

So instead of I agree I'm not arguing with you on that.

I I'm just trying to make sure we're all on the same page as far as where to look in the legislation.

So if you have a suggestion, please just point it out as far as page six or later.

Okay, I have one on page eight, then okay, so page eight.

Yeah, page eight.

Um section 21.56.115 rooftop dining area design standards under C.

Okay, hold on on that.

That's we're not at that section yet.

Okay, because you said six and later.

I know, but we're we're on section one oh five, point page eight, section 2156105 or earlier.

If you have something on an earlier section, but it's something that um Alderman Ornett already brought up.

Oh no.

So I know, but this is a lot to get through.

We need to I want to make sure we can so I you know, I I'm very concerned because we're having an opportunity to fix things going forward, and we're not wanting to address them for whatever reason.

We'll come back to well, but we're gonna run out of time before we can get to them, and maybe I hope that's not the intent.

So okay, go ahead.

We're on page.

That is not the intent.

And and point of order, I had asked for comment from the city staff to my generic question, and I'd really like to hear it.

I'll be happy to go back to these other points, but look if we got our professionals here.

I want to hear from I'm not arguing that let's hear from the professionals.

I'm just saying, are there any other comments from anybody in this on staff or the on sections on page six?

We have sections 2156, green roof scanners.

Anything else in that section before we move on to the next I think Ms.

Giles comments were appropriate for green roofs.

But is it in this section 095?

I I understand.

I can read that.

Mr.

De Kubiak, would you like to respond?

Or Mr.

Lashinsky.

Yes, uh Altaman Arnett focused on section 2156 105 rooftop accessory structure design standards, and he was asking really about how this fits into the context of the original ordinance.

Well, when the original ordinance is drafted, uh in drafting it, and the sponsors, I believe, were agnostic about what type of accessory structures would be there.

We can't tell.

We don't know.

We can't project our own uh interest in this regard.

It may be a what's been called a um mechanical penthouse, a way a way of clustering the HVAC units.

It may be a shade structure over tables for people to sit outside or uh place for tools to be maintained that are used for irrigating you know, green roofs.

It doesn't matter um from our perspective as long as there is some protection involved, and so we placed some conditions on what those structures would look like to try to minimize the effect.

This section that has been proposed by Alderman Savage improves upon that.

It actually says, irrespective of the type of structure that the cladding on this structure should match and complement the roof, that it should in other words, it'll be easier to make sure it blends in nicely that the guardrail should meet certain standards and that visualization ought to be minimized, etc.

So uh we we like this, we uh as a context, makes our job in advising the planning commission easier, and um we I have one concern though, uh, and share uh Eric and I share this, and so I'll speak for both of us here, is it says no covered accessory structure in an item E under prohibitive features?

No covered accessory structure shall include space for dining, bar use or other habitable uses.

Fair enough, but uh I think there's a distinction to be made between covered and enclosed.

Um and certainly if you were allowing outdoor dining, and it's clearly that's what this uh ordinance amendment does, uh typically some type of shade structure over outdoor tables is just necessary.

Uh so we would suggest if you keep item C that you change cover to enclosed.

Oh question.

Aldeman Arnette.

Yeah, so um I think this really I think this is a good catch, and it raises an interesting question because it's relevant to the outdoor dining that's going on elsewhere.

So no covered structure, uh, that sounds to me like it would include a tent.

It also could include a pergla, which is parcel coverage, and all of those things are really sticking up above the ridgeline, um, and are certainly potentially visible from uh various points of view.

Uh so uh when I read this, I I like the idea of no covered accessory structure, which would include tents, it could include umbrellas.

It could include so I guess we really need was that your intent that it would not be tents or umbrellas or pergolas as covering.

Uh well, I think those would be I think those would be fine.

I mean I'm my main exclusive, yeah.

I I mean I'm good with the change proposed by staff.

Um also open to any piece.

Again, my primary purpose is just to prohibit habitable uses.

So if it needs to be narrowed down just to that, I'm also fine with so would we know enclosed accessory structure?

So what are you thinking?

What are you what if you're thinking about habitable?

What what do you mean by habitable?

Do you mean livable?

Yeah, okay.

Yeah, but uh if it's like basically don't want any hotel rooms on the roof, right?

Of course.

Um but if it's a uh an enclosed um space that allows for um diners to be on the rooftop during the winter, you know, these temporary structures again.

They wouldn't project more than a certain number of feet above the roof line, but yeah, that gets tricky though, because they need potentially be running a foul of some of the other aesthetic requirements, right?

Um remember these structures uh their protections in the code about where they're set within the roof frames, so they're not as visible.

Um they're capped at a certain height.

Uh they can only take up a small percentage of the or 25% of the entire uh rooftop service.

I mean, I would I would I guess I would yeah.

So am I hearing that there would be acceptance of changing the term cover to enclose no enclosed accessory structure?

Yes, and I think we might want to strike the for dining.

And it should not in legislation be presuming any particular kind of use, like dining bars, um other thing, habitable spaces like hotel rooms.

So when we get into this, I think we're switching from general rules about redevelopment in a particular area to codifying specific types of development.

And that's where to me there needs to be an if somehow.

If there's going to be green roof, if there's going to be rooftop dining, if there's going to be a bar or what wedding ceremony, it's that's that's where I am having concerns, and I admit it's it's beyond just legislation, it's thinking about the legality of what we're doing.

Then the council might consider striking item C altogether, uh and allowing the the standards to stand on their own, and the it pro this will go through the approval process.

You're not calling out any specific use.

Uh a um the use of a rooftop depends on the principal use, because these are accessory, they have to be accessory and secondary, incidental to the primary use.

Uh so um I I think the city is protected without having this particular provision in place, uh provided the other standards are in place, like the they could only project a certain uh number of vertical feet above the existing roof line.

They have to be set back in, and and the current proposal I think is 10 feet in for dining platforms.

Um, but uh and and then the visualization minimization and the cladding and all those other types of structures.

My one concern with that though, again, is how do we ensure what because I want to include in this is a clear prohibition on allowing habitable rooms, hotel rooms on a roof?

That is what the arc the owner, one of the owners of one of the properties said they wanted to put on there, and I want to make sure 100% we're not gonna allow that.

So if that's somewhere else in the code, so be it, but I need to know where it is, if it is elsewhere in the code.

If it's not, I want to make sure something gets in here.

That's why so that's my first question.

Well, may I ask the sponsor?

Why not just change it to no inhabitable uses?

Sorry, we we had a truck go by.

What did you say?

I said, why wouldn't you change accept the language change to simply say no inhabitable uses?

That's fine with me.

Well, uh that's fine too, but the this section says rooftop accessory structures.

It's clearly about what's accessory to the main use.

Uh if it if it's a hotel on any with one of those properties, uh hotel rooms on the top or the on the roof is not accessory.

It's part and parcel of the use, and it wouldn't be allowed.

These are only accessory uses, and remember the point.

The section is the accessory structures, apparently, excuse me, and um and related structures.

Yeah, that's that's what this whole section uh is grappling with.

So, Director Jacobiac, does that mean you're comfortable with keeping C in all of its verbiage except changing covered to enclosed?

Well, I I'm comfortable with that.

I mean, I'm just trying to respond to the where the council's discussions are going, but we all are.

Yeah, right.

But but back to that's the original point that uh I made so do I need to make a motion to um change the word covered to enclosed?

Would that be for the sponsor?

Would that be a comfortable amendment?

Yes, so I move that on page aid under 2156010 rooftop accessory structure C that the word covered after no be changed to enclosed accessory structure.

Is there a second?

Second uh discussion.

Uh I clearly heard Mr.

Jakubia say that C was not needed, so I'm not sure why we're insisting upon keeping it in if it's not needed, if it's addressed elsewhere.

Uh may I address that?

I think because Alderman Savage is a concern.

If it is a hotel, that a restaurant not be developed on top of the hotel.

I mean, certainly could have outdoor dining, but not a restaurant.

Right.

Am I right about that?

Yeah.

So this adds per more protection and advances that the goal of ensuring that anything that goes there is truly accessory and secondary, incidental.

If there's a shade structure that allows people to sit out and have dining and the food service comes up through the elevator, that's one thing.

Yeah.

That's a lot different than having a restaurant on the top floor.

So by keeping it in, you've uh prevented that possibility.

Okay.

All right.

You know, we're not voting on these separately, but uh I'll take a vote on uh the amendment for uh letter C 21.56.105 C to change the term from covered to what we change it to.

And closed.

Uh all in favor, please say aye.

I motion from environmental matters, so move.

Oh you listen.

Um second.

GLU, will you second it?

I can I can't hear that.

All those in favor please say aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Aye.

All right.

Okay.

Any other comments on that section 105?

All right, hearing none.

Um, the next one to go through is bottom of page eight, section 21.56115, rooftop dining area design standards.

And uh, I know Alder Marinette's gonna have a comment on this one, but let me just say on the intent here is not to umpede the other rooftop dining legislation or requirements.

This is just to have further clarity particular unique to the uh the historic district and this part of the the part of uh dock street that'd be impacted.

Right.

Um, and so oh shoot.

Oh man Shannon, you had one other technical correction somewhere, didn't you?

Yes, sir.

Um section 21.56.115 uh subsection B height and enclosure.

Uh caught a technical issue.

The sentence as written says guardrails and parapets serving dining areas may extend 42 inches above the roof surface.

I am assuming the intention was to write guardrails and parapets serving dining areas may not extend 42 inches above the roof surface.

Is that a correct assumption on my part?

I believe so.

I think this is permissive, but may extend up to 42 inches, but no higher.

I guess that's what you're saying.

Okay.

So saying may not extend would be the correct length.

May not exceed 42 inches, perhaps.

Or may not exceed.

May not exceed.

Okay, so that would be better.

Yes.

So I would like to change it as written to guardrails and parapets serving dining areas may not exceed 42 inches above the roof surface.

Second.

Further discussion.

Hearing none, all in favor, please say aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Um motion from environmental matters.

So move.

Second.

All those in favor, please say aye.

Aye.

Thank you.

Um, so the other uh Mr.

Chair, you had brought up the uh rooftop here and the rooftop in the rest of the code.

And so my question and concern is if I'm someone thinking about developing in Annapolis and I'm thinking about rooftop, and I go to the city code and I search on rooftop.

I'm now gonna find rooftop dining defined in two different places.

And um, I'm presuming that the rooftop dining standards in 2164540 are generic, and the these are in a specific area, namely the dock street area, are in addition and specific to any kind of rooftop dining that should be proposed on the dock street.

I guess I'm really on stamp.

I think that's how we would consider them to be, and it might be worthwhile adding the statement that says that it might be under applicability the section applies to all roof to top dining areas at properties on Dock Street between Craig Street and Eastern Easternmost terminus of Dock Street and shall be in addition to those standards set forth in 2164540.

I I think that could avoid confusion in the future.

So I would make the motion to add shall be in addition to uh 2164540 subsection A subsection two, subsection D.

Is there a second?

I'll second that for the state of the committee.

Further discussion.

I apologize, madam chair.

I had seconded it, but I had my mic off, so I apologize for that not going through.

All in favor, please say aye.

Aye.

Is there a motion from environmental matters?

So move from environmental matters.

Second.

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

Aye.

Thank you.

Are we gonna go back to Jackie's question?

Uh yeah.

Um the other thing.

So just to point out are there any other questions on this section?

It also states in D that certificate of approval must be must include findings that the dining installation preserves site lines and historic roof lines.

Yeah, and then some other further setback requirements and Center we know the same section, just going over C and D page nine, eight and nine.

Any other questions on that comments?

Okay.

Um this is a question for staff.

Do we have like formal definition of preserved site lines, or is that up to the discretion of planning commission, HPC, and Board of Appeals?

Yes, it is up as a discretionary um standard.

Thank you.

Um moving on, the next change would be page 10, which I believe is what the deputy city manager was section.

You had a comment on.

So this is addition.

This is a substitute text for so if you look on page nine, um, this is number two that deals with this.

This is the original uh uh in the original legislation proposes.

This is where the proposal to extend 10 feet above beyond uh 10 feet beyond applicable loud height limit as well as the five foot overrun for um elevator shaft.

I'm proposing a rewrite, which changes that a bit.

Um you'll see on page 10.

Um what it basically does is states that it reduces that 10 to 7, however, it does allow up to 10.

If they demonstrate, you'll see the one, two, and three in parentheses.

If they do demonstrate that extra height is necessary and minimal, but the visual impacts are reduced through greater setbacks.

Um, and three that all other overlay standards such as green roofs, historic requirements are satisfied.

Um still allows up to 10, but kind of sets the new baseline at seven.

It's just a minor kind of reduction.

Um that applies to mechanical tenthouses.

Um states in there that those penthouses shall have a green living roof.

I think that's what the deputy city manager was referring to.

Um then has a couple of the requirements for uh those properties, which states that um in B talking about the aggregate footprint, and then in oh, I think we need to fix the lettering on page 11.

You'll see E and F should be C and D.

Um, but for the sake of discussion, E refers to CEPAC, and F refers to certificate of approval from uh HPC.

But for the sake of discussion, E refers to CEPAC and F refers to certificate of approval from HPC.

I'm sure there are questions on this section.

Alderman, actually, I'd like to ask Director Jacobiac to respond to the items, the three items that have to be demonstrated in order.

Well, the limitation of seven feet, unless they can meet those three um those three areas.

Well, um first the the way the ordinance was drafted originally, this section dealt with all types of accessory dwellings, or I'm sorry, accessory structures, not just mechanical penthouses.

Um it encompassed elevators and other structures.

So it was all encompassing and it set a height limit.

So all these standards would apply irrespective of the type of accessory structure.

Uh and um I and I think we need to grapple with that.

Um minimizing the visual effect of all those types of structures is important.

Um that's I won't offer recommendation just yet, but uh this that's one issue.

Um the other is that um Roman numeral two here um implies that a green roof would be placed on top of the mechanical penthouse, which effectively extends the height, the visual height of the mechanical penthouse some distance because there's gonna be planting.

Um currently the green roof standards apply just to the roof proper, not to the structures on top of it.

And uh it may be that they're allowed, but uh not required to be addressed.

Um so I would actually suggest the council reconsider Roman numeral two.

Um but uh the last thing on the issue of height, uh we think 10 feet provides more flexibility for good design.

It doesn't none of the standards in a code are given.

If something says uh you can have up to 10 feet, that doesn't mean 10 feet is guaranteed.

The planning commission or the board of appeals or HBC still has this the discretion to have it less than 10 feet if these other uh criteria are not met.

Um and for that reason we're comfortable with keeping it at 10 feet, and we also would suggest dealing with the issue of the elevator in this in this language.

Um we wanted to ensure that if elevator access were provided, that the proper design of the elevator could fit, and that typically involves an additional five feet for an override if the elevator actually goes up to the rooftop, and that's why the current language adds an additional five feet if an elevator is um installed.

Uh so the for the those reasons we would ask the council to consider going back to uh a language that encompasses all the types of accessory structures and to allow 10 feet to be the the um maximum allowed uh with an additional five feet should an elevator be uh installed be approved to be installed.

So, Mr.

Jacobiac, you're saying going back to page nine, what is currently in red is the original language that you would prefer to be kept number two V two with little ABC Yes in essence, yes okay Alderman Arnett, thank you, madam chair.

So I have uh a few questions about this.

I have no clear idea of where 10 and additional five come from, and certainly no idea where seven feet comes from.

I did do ask some questions specific to elevators, and uh there's no way you could get an elevator in seven feet.

Well, what if it was a hydraulic elevator that's pushed up from below?

And uh would that be able to be accommodated in seven feet?

And the answer was no, no, I only got two answers, so I certainly not exhaustive.

Um, but I also was told that hydraulic elevators don't tend to be used anymore.

And in this location, that hydraulic elevator would have to go below ground.

And we know from recent experience on City Dock, going one foot below ground, not very viable, and so the hydraulic elevators probably not a likely possibility.

So I don't think seven feet would make sense, at least as it has to do with elevators.

Not even clear to me that seven feet would make sense in terms of stairwells.

Um it might make sense in terms of HPAC, but I think what I just heard the directors say is the staff is recommending the original language, limiting it to no more than 10 feet with the ability with justification to go higher than that by as much as five feet.

That's 15 feet above the ridge height, and I I think that's going to be very hard to not be visible.

Uh certainly coming down main street, 15 feet above the ridge height would be pretty visible, and even standing on the dock street before the building, unless these structures are pushed to the rear of the building, and there's nothing here that requires that.

I think it could even be very visible just standing in front of the building, back a few, you know, maybe a hundred feet or something like that.

So uh I think that there's some uh considerations.

I asked questions early on about cultural landscape study, which is a study that really talks about the view shed, and this is clearly something that would be impeding uh imposing itself in to the historical view shed.

So uh I do have some um concerns on both these sets of numbers and what they're what they're allowing, but even more concerns trying to figure out where they're coming from.

Where did where did seven feet come from?

Well, as I'm hearing a lot of different questions.

Um I mean, are because that's are you asking about the seven feet or the ten feet?

Because I don't think I think we need just fish on both of them, but I agree.

The the the one of the the first pertinent question would be if the committees think that um they may want to explore going down to seven, if not, they could just stick with the 10 original.

But I guess to start off, the staff have any uh background you can provide on the 10 feet and the five feet.

The uh we have two architects in our office, uh turns out, and uh consulted with one.

Uh she confirmed your analysis of the uh hydraulic elevators and their usefulness now uh and in this application.

Um, but certainly 10 foot is necessary for the elevator to function above the floor, the the roof, uh and five foot is the typical overrides.

Just generally understood that's what you need to to make the elevator work.

Um ten foot is also a a ceiling height that allows for the various things that go into um making a space work, like sprinklers, uh code requirements for HVAC for ceiling fan, for these other elements that make any type of structure where that people sit under uh functional.

Um so that's why it's 10.

Uh in practice, it may be nine as a result of applying the standards.

But remember, you may not remember, but we did a cross-section analysis of of a building theoretical on that block.

And you have to move all the way out to Eagle Alley before you could see that 15 foot, just because the way the space is.

So you know, assuming that you comply with the standards where you you set back the um these accessory structures.

You don't place them right on the roof line or right next to the um the the cornice, of course, that are they're set back.

Um so seven feet may actually work out well for a um a mechanical room, but maybe it doesn't.

Maybe there's necessary a clearance that's that's necessary to work on the appliances that are housed there.

We don't know.

But if we see a proposal and they're showing 10 feet, and there's no justification based on the way it's designed for it to be 10 feet, our natural inclination would be say, no, the the max is 10, but we're only allowing seven or six, wherever the case may be, uh, because of what you're actually proposing there.

Uh this is intended to allow for the flexibility to be applied and getting the best design possible.

So thank you for that answer.

And and it actually enriches um, I hadn't thought about things like fire and other things.

I guess my personal inclination is to in this regard stick with the original legislation.

Um that sits a maximum, it gives the flexibility in case there's some justification of going over, but it doesn't mean that you necessarily get the maximum.

Any project that would come would have to go before the planning staff and also HPC, and we know that HBC is very sensitive to structures exceeding building heights.

So I think what we're doing is setting the general parameters of what our maximums, what are flexibilities, but that doesn't mean that's what you get.

And um, by the way, in terms of the view from the front of the building, I understand that, but that's not going to be the only view.

There's going to be quite a view of this coming down Main Street, and that's one of our really important views in the city.

It's not only coming down Main Street, it's also from the water looking up Main Street.

So I'm sure HPC and planning staff are going to be um very um thorough in their analysis of any particular application about those particular impacts that you shed all the way around the um just if I could respond as the sponsor of this.

Um I well, I'm curious what the rest of the committee, if the rest of the committees uh feel that they should go back to the original 10 10 slash five feet.

Um because that could be this.

So I guess bottom that's one question, but the other question would be some of the things that I would propose to still carry over from the amendment would be some of the things in parentheses, the one two and three, um to state to still put something in there as far as if they get because you did the director did say it's it's still even as written up to 10, but to still require some additional oversight, so to speak, uh, or demonstration that'd be required in those um as far as providing justification to staff that extra height is needed, that the visual impacts are reduced, and that the uh you know historic requirements are satisfied, that kind of thing.

Um I would I would still like to see those included.

Um so I meaner.

Thank you, madam chair.

I like the one, two, and three that you have included.

I believe that it gives some extra discretion towards approving bodies on redevelopment on this for folks' records.

That is extra height is necessary and minimal.

One, two is visual impacts are reduced through greater setbacks, appropriate screening material or colors, and number three, all over least overlay standards, including green roofs, coverage limits, maintenance, and historic district requirements are satisfied.

I think having those separate from what we originally just what we were previously discussing still makes a whole lot of sense.

So I don't know how you want to play that with uh amending your amendment, but I do think your instinct to keep those in is worthwhile.

I I would ask uh Mr.

Jakubia to respond.

How comfortable are you with those items being included?

Or do you feel they are already part of your purview in making the approvals?

I like that they're in.

I think it it puts the onus on the applicant to clearly need the 10 feet and demonstrate it, and it allows the decision makers to make a judgment based on and balance competing interest, but really make a judgment.

Is that 10 foot necessary?

Why can't it be eight?

Because if it's or seven, if it's seven, it means this corner of the building is not never seen.

Well, and that's that's good.

So I'm I'm I'm pleased with uh the way this may be shaping out, having the standards in place while establishing uh the flexibility that um on the on the Otterman Shannonier uh referred to so Alderman Shandemar, where would it go?

Going back to the original language in red on pages nine and ten to get us to a motion here.

That is a wonderful question, madam chair, and as soon as I figure that out, I will get back to maybe a new lowercase d.

Yeah.

I'm looking at Miss Reuter.

One D or two D.

Under B is what you're saying.

Oh, yeah.

Yeah, well, yeah, under I think it would be under two, and then make a new uh sorry, a new letter D after B to D is what you're saying.

That's correct.

I believe, yeah.

Ms.

Reuter, does that make sense?

And what would the wording be?

Uh the basically they would say the applicant must demonstrate that, and then it would list the one, two, and three that Alderman Shannonmeyer read out.

So the one, two, and three from my amendment.

So if I madam chair, if I may, the so I believe the I believe the motion would be to unstrike numbers two and three, first of all, right, and then in the original legislation, and then add in the new two D, which would read the applicant must demonstrate that.

Must demonstrate what it would read.

Uh I'm sorry, uh, in order to it would read in order to achieve the statue for a moment.

Yes, yeah.

Let's go back to what we're keeping.

If we're looking on page nine, and we're gonna unstrike what is in red, and we're going to add from page 10.

And this is where we really miss the line numbers.

I don't know how we got to a point where there's no line numbers, but we're gonna add what's under two little a little one.

We're gonna add one, two, three, and parentheses.

No, I don't think so.

Alderman Shandemar.

I thank you, madam chair.

What if we just add those three things after on page 11 after line 21?

So we have the ABs and C's on from lines 13 through line 21.

What if we just add extra height is necessary and minimal visual impacts are reduced through greater setbacks, appropriate screenings, materials, or colors, all other overlay standards, including green roofs, coverage limits, maintenance, and historic districts requirements are satisfied.

Why don't we add those three underneath uh subsection lowercase C as a lowercase D, lowercase E, lowercase F.

Yeah.

Would that probably be the easiest, simplest, and most efficient way to do it?

It may be, but you lost me.

I'm sorry.

I'm looking on page.

My page 11 doesn't seem to have please.

So if you look at page 11 on the original legislation 01425 first reader, you will see um starting on line 13, page 11 on 01425 as written.

Uh starting from line 13, going all the way down to line 21.

You'll see lowercase a roof is green, etc.

Uh lowercase B, aggregate foreprint of any set structures, etc.

Lowercase C, any set structure shall be positioned on the roof to minimize, etc.

So what I think may be the simplest way to incorporate what we were just discussing is after that lowercase Cd lowercase D from the Savage Amendment.

The extra height is necessary and minimal lowercase E.

Visual impacts are reduced through greater setbacks, appropriate screening materials or colors, and lowercase F.

All other overlay standards, including green roofs, coverage limits, maintenance, and historic district requirements are satisfied.

And so we're not striking anything.

We're just adding those three things under section two on page 11.

With a new D sub D.

With a new sub D and the applicant must demonstrate that, and then the one, two, and three from the savage.

I like I I would second that.

I think that gets what we were just discussing still into with those additional standards still into the legislation.

We don't have to deal with weird crossing and referencing, etc.

We can just chop it in there.

I'm good with that, Miss Reuters.

May I may I clarification?

Yes.

Uh so I I was following in the amendment.

So on page 10 in the amendment, Miss Rooter, please follow along and help me to see where that goes.

We are going to eliminate all of what's in blue on pages 10 and 11.

Is that correct?

Not yet.

And then we're going to add one, two, and three that Alderman Shannon and I just highlighted.

I know.

Some place else in the original document.

She's right.

In the original first draft.

Page, I'm sorry, I lost the page that you mentioned.

Alderman Channel Mine.

Yes, madam chair.

I actually believe what you just said is correct.

Um, so we would be deleting everything from the savage amendment in blue or savage amendment five in blue on page 10.

And the top of page 11 before Title 21 planning and zoning.

And what we would do instead is take, and what we would do is add on 01425 under uh after subsection C, or case C, we would add extra height is necessary and minimal.

Visual impacts are reduced through greater setback setbacks, appropriate screening materials or colors, and subs, and then uh all other overlay standards, including green roofs, coverage limits, maintenance, and historic districts requirements are satisfied.

Okay, so that is your motion, and I believe it was seconded by all the seconded it, yes.

Okay.

Uh Ms.

Uh Jackson, do you have that?

Yes.

Okay.

Yes.

Um thank you, ma'am.

Uh so uh I will entertain a motion to support um that amendment from Alderman Channelmeyer.

We already have the motion.

I'm just calling the question.

I'm sorry.

All in favor, please say aye.

Aye.

Okay.

Same motion from rules.

I mean environmental matters.

Second.

Well, is a favor, please say aye.

I agree.

Aye.

Motion carries.

No, this still leaves.

Um, I do have one other question.

We have one more amendment, Alderman said.

Number six.

Yeah, you're right.

I but I I have a question.

I still have a question for staff about one of the things I was was adding was in the blue on page 11, the F, which we just strip we were uh it's it was been it was just stricken, but in any case it says certificate of approval and historic district findings are required.

Is that already required anyway?

Because it's all in the yes, it would be all right.

So moving on, madam chair.

The last part of this amendment is on page the bottom of page 11 and 12.

Um, and these are the definitions for accessory structure, rooftop, elevator override, green roof, mechanical penthouse, and rooftop dining area.

So, are there any questions concerns from staff or the committee on this on these definitions?

Well, I let me ask amendment six.

Uh it's about 15 pages.

So you're going straight to page 11.

You said no, we're not on page, we're not on amendment six.

We're on amendment five.

Oh, I'm sorry, I thought we had uh dispatch with five.

We have not no.

Oh, okay.

You're right.

We only okay.

Okay, so the bottom of page 11 and top of 12 on amendment five are the actual definitions that still need to get added.

So are there any any comments from staff on this?

I think I incorporated the changes you had previously.

No comments.

No concerns.

Then I would for rules, I would make a motion that we uh recommend approval of the additional uh terms as in the savage amendment number five.

Accessory dwelling elevator override green roof, mechanical penthouse, and rooftop.

So your motion is to give a favorable recommendation to amendment five as amended by the rules committee.

And as pertaining to inserting terms, we could be right now.

I think you need motion for the entire amendment has changed.

We just make some changes to that amendment.

And that would include that would include the definitions unless there's a motion to move them.

Okay, yes, right.

Okay, so that's oh, could I uh get a second?

I I thought we already voted on it, but can we get a second on amendment five?

As amended by the rules committee.

Second, okay.

Further discussion, hearing none, all in favor, please say aye.

Aye.

All right.

Okay, now we're off to six, correct?

Oh, hold on, madam chair.

Is there a motion from environmental matters?

Yes, move.

Oh, sorry.

We um recommend favorably on amendment five with the changes made in the joint.

Is there a second?

I'll second that.

Any discussion?

All those in favor, please say aye.

Aye, aye, aye.

Motion carries, thank you.

Um six.

Similarly, I would like to start on page on let's see, page eight is where you can see the changes as they would appear in the legislation.

But um actually, sorry, before we do that, go if you could sorry go back to page one, and there's a bit of an amendment summary just to give an overview.

Uh these are the transit-oriented development amendments.

I I think I I stated last meeting as far as my rationale.

Um, yeah, just in a quick summary, you know.

I've I've certainly been won over on the importance of adding density and housing in the city, but I um still very adamant about ensuring that we mitigate that growth with um addressing the infrastructure impacts that we so often hear about from our constituents as far as um, especially as pertains to traffic um and road impacts.

Um, and so in an effort to try to get some more synergy with the comprehensive plan.

I'm trying to get those concerns of mine and my constituents addressed in this.

Um I know there's a lot in here.

Yeah, I think it's the fortunate, it's just part of the unfortunate situation we're in where it's the end of the term.

We have a lot we want to try to get through.

Normally, I think we would be able to spend time to have this go back to the planning commission, etc.

etc.

But we simply don't have that time.

Um so I know this may not be perfect.

Um, and I think even the director said before, don't let or I think the department may have said before, don't let you know perfect being any of the good.

And I I do agree, and I also think that I would ask for the same treatment on this amendment.

Um I would like to get some structure set up for transit-oriented development, and um happy to absolutely happy to work on tweaking this if it needs to get further tweaked with a new term, but it would give I think my constituents eye a lot of comfort if we could get a nice framework set up to start off with.

Um so on the so on to that end, just to read this summary on page one.

It does add this amendment, uh, would add a new purpose similar in the same section, I think at Alderman Arnett, and we can get into that that he tweaked.

Um the second thing is it would lower the baseline for the density increase, and um the rationale behind lowering the baseline density increases to uh basically you then raise the ceiling even higher to create an incentive for transit oriented development.

Um so again, the baseline gets lowered, but the the high end actually gets raised even more than what was proposed to act as an incentive.

Um the idea being they'll if they can add more density, they can um make more money on it and hopefully contribute more towards transit.

The third thing is allowing parking reductions, uh, as long as there's a transit demand management plan.

Um because uh you know again, I think we've heard even from Alderman Chandemeyer quite a bit, uh got us started on this as far as looking to reduce parking requirements, and I think if we have transit, we don't need quite as much parking, so that opens up I think a lot more uh options for us.

The fourth thing would be requiring community benefit agreements, and this is a mechanism certainly get into more detail about, but it's something I've learned about from Portland.

Um they include in their transit oriented development projects.

Uh fifth item there is establishing tax incremental financing districts.

Uh, this actually learned we we did this on uh park place to help pay for the garage, and uh uh you know what I'm seeking to do is just create some framework for that in the code.

Um, because I don't believe we have any kind of framework currently governing those kind of mechanisms.

Um, and then the last thing is just adding some definition.

So that's the general purpose, and with that, I'm gonna jump up to page uh uh eight.

Um eight and nine, nine has the first item.

So unless I hear otherwise from Madam Chair, uh the the first change proposed in this amendment again, top of page nine is a new addition to speak more towards the purpose of plan developments.

It would add an item that would say I interrupt you.

Um I'm looking at the amendment, and it seems you have significant changes starting on page two of the amendment, page seven of the legislation.

Am I reading the wrong document or are you skipping over uh what's it conditional density bonus?

Um residential planning development makes plan development.

I'm just I'm just skipping to the section that details how the changes look in the ordinance starting on page.

Starting on page eight.

You should I I see changes on every page and to the ordinance that start with page two, really.

So I'm not clear on why we're skipping all of those changes.

And I see page eight, where you have um your text in red.

Yeah.

I'm just going through it, like we did the last amendment through the how it would look in the ordinance itself, so people can understand and see the full context.

So in the legislation, madam chair.

I I think people will understand if they see the changes.

I I'm not clear on why we don't want to make that clear.

Alderman Arnett.

So page eight has already been changed with our net amendment four.

Um so I think you can ignore this page eight, and the first change from Savage Amendment Six shows up on page nine, which is the new purpose number seven, which is related to improving transportation.

I'm on page ten.

Which has you wish okay, but we we have an amendment on page nine at the top.

I see that.

Which I would like to um make a motion that we give a favorable recommendation to adding this item seven that is showing here on page nine of this legislation, but I'm would then like to hear staff comment if it's second.

W well the whole amendment I'd like to try to do what we did for the last amendment and just we go through each section of proposed changes and see if staff or the committee have comments, then the actual motions would be changes to the amendment.

Okay.

Well, I think there's been a proposal to deal with the first one, and I would rather take them one at a time, like we did with the last one, because we voted on them individually, and then we voted on them as a whole.

So on page nine.

There was a motion made, though it wasn't seconded.

Uh second.

Okay, so open for discussion on page nine.

It's uh we don't need a motion unless you're gonna change what's in the amendment.

So let's just first have a discussion about hear from staff as far as do you have any concerns?

All thoughts on this number seven.

I'm sorry.

Um I would prefer, as we did in the past, to address them and take a position on each one.

That is what I'm trying to do.

This exactly what I'm trying to do is what we did last time.

I go over what's amendment in the amendment, and then we hear from staff and the committee, and then there's a motion if there needs to be a motion, but first we need to hear from staff and the committee about the particular change.

Alderman, we will have a motion and then it will be open for discussion.

Madam Chair, that is not what we did with the last amendment.

Mr.

Chair, when you get to environmental matters, please feel free to do it that way.

I'm just I'm just saying that is not what we did with the last amendment that we just went through.

I'm trying to do the same thing which you just said you want us to do is the same thing.

That is what I'm trying to do here.

So as I did before, I read through all the changes one by one, and we heard from staff.

I would like to hear from staff before any kind of motion is made.

Alderman, there is a motion on the floor to give a favorable recommendation, and it has been seconded.

Why are you making a motion before we even heard from staff?

You do not have the floor.

I'm sorry.

Okay, the motion is to give a favorable recommendation.

It's been moved and seconded.

Now I am opening the floor for the rules committee for discussion.

Okay.

Point of vote information that is procedurally incorrect.

Well, that's fine.

Alderman Channel Meyer.

Withdraw the motion.

Why are we so I guess now that the motion's on the floor and we're in discussion stage?

Let's hear from staff.

Sorry to disappoint.

We have really nothing to add.

We we think this is wonderful.

It is a great statement, and uh it's in spirit with the way the ordinance is drafted now.

Number seven, that is.

Yep.

Thank you, Mr.

Uhobiac.

Is there further discussion?

Alderman Shannon.

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Uh I got a quick question during the question uh tax incremental financing and affordable housing conditions section.

Um so currently uh percentage of low market below market housing provided.

Can we keep we have let's take a vote on the previous one before we move on to the next one?

Uh all in favor of the first amendment on page nine, please say aye.

Aye, okay.

Now going on to page 10.

We're not on page 10 yet.

You are not, but our committee is but don't you want to know there's a change, a proposed change on page nine in blue that still needs to get discussed.

But if you want to go to 10 and jump over that.

Well, Alderman Chandelmeyer was speaking to what was on page 10.

We can come back to page nine.

I was actually on page three.

Oh my god.

Mike taking it in order.

Yeah, all right, fine.

I think it's easier to work with for me at least, showing the changes to the legislation than that really starts on page nine.

Um, but I certainly will honor the alderman's wish to go back to page three.

All right.

What page do you want now?

I'm just happy to be here.

Sooner we get this done, the sooner we'll be through.

We're almost out of time.

All right.

So I guess uh if I can move on to page the the one questions that I have around here, I think all the issues around developer contributions and trans uh developer contributions in towards uh transit funding and tax incremental financing.

I think those are all very good steps.

Uh plan developments tend to be done all at once.

Uh that does cause a bit of disruption.

Uh so I think these take a lot of great steps towards administering it.

I guess the two questions that I have both tend to be around the under the tax incremental financing portions, um, which there is one on page 11 and another on page three.

We'll go to page 11 because that's where we yeah, because that's I guess in the general direction that we're handing.

Page three is the same.

Yeah, page three is one.

Um affordable housing conditions, the percentage of below market rate housing provided on the property should be at least 25% of the total units.

Is that to qualify for tax incremental financing, or is that intended to be for all planned developments?

Uh by your intention for this amendment.

Well, so I want to provide more explanation, and that's why I'm trying to go in order um of the changes.

Uh so because I want to help people understand the amendment, like we did with the last one.

Uh, and so people understand why things are where they are.

You look at the legislation.

Uh let's see.

There are two changes proposed to the density increases right on page nine and page ten.

Page nine increases the dense.

So the legislation proposes underlying legislation proposes to increase the maximum number of dwelling units for residential plan developments up from I believe the current 100% up to 150%.

Right?

Looking at staff.

All right, so I'm proposing to change that to 125%, which is reducing that increase.

Right.

Yep.

Everybody's with me.

I am following.

Top of page 10.

The other density change.

Well, you are on page.

I'm trying to make this you were on page nine of the original.

Yeah.

No.

Page nine.

Oh, what page is they on.

We are on page nine.

What pages?

21.4 point two point four point oh five bulk and depth density standards.

B new one, I guess.

Right.

Sorry.

Again, I'm trying with this amendment.

I'm trying to reduce the increase for a new baseline.

And so you'll see I'm proposing to strike maximum allowable density standards and just keeping it named density standards.

Because I want to set the new baseline, the new density standards to be the reduced increases.

Which would be the hundred 125% instead of the 150.

And then on page 10, the other change that staff proposes in the ordinance is um basically reducing you see that 850.

That is an effort, and staff, please correct if I'm wrong, but that is an effort to allow for more density in special mixed plan development projects.

What I'm proposing to do is and staff explained to me that that I believe uh doubles essentially doubles the I think you said double the amount of density currently allowed in special mixed use.

Right.

And so what I'm trying to do by increasing it to 1400 is to um basically half that for the baseline.

Right, is that makes sense?

Yes.

So to that point staff have any comments on those particular changes for the baseline.

And I am it's connected to Alderman Shannemeyer's point as far as with the next section in C is where I offer the conditional, which is page 10 has conditional density bonus tied to high value transit improvements.

Those conditional density bonuses I'm making even higher because I want those to be the incentives.

Um but so the first question has to do with the baseline on page page nine.

Okay.

So that is to qualify for density standards, not to qualify for a planned development.

The current um draft increases the allowable density within two types of plan developments within the residential plan development, it can increase to 125% of the allowable density, which means for instance, in a R 150, excuse me.

So in a R1 zone, uh you're capped at six units per acre.

With with the way the code is the amendment is drafted, you'll go to the potential for nine units per acre.

Um Altaman Savage is suggesting essentially uh seven and a half units per acre as because that's that's that's what the math works out to.

So if it's one 125% increase to six, that leads to 7.5 units per acre.

So and um for the special mixed use districts, which currently in the proposed ordinance are allowed to bump up to a higher density if they meet certain location criteria.

For instance, they're specifically located with frontage on some of these major roadways and show up as express mixed use planned areas within the comprehensive plan.

So we've got a linkage between the comp plan and uh the added density.

If they match up with a comp plan, a developer can propose higher density, and that um what this amendment does though is to simply say irrespective of where a planned mixed use development is is allowed, its density can go um a little higher than what current code allows, but substantially lower than what uh Shinsky are suggesting.

So um, for instance, a special mixed plan development under the current draft could go to 50 units per acre.

Actually, the math works out to 51, but it's 50 units per acre.

Um it's currently 25 units per acre.

That's what things are now.

Alderman Savage would have the number set at 31 units per acre.

That's that's sort of the math real quick.

Um so again, uh, we would suggest if if these special mixed use areas meet our criteria and are located in areas embraced by the comprehensive plan, we would give more flexibility to the market to deliver housing uh uh in those areas.

So we would suggest that essentially a doubling of allowable density up to 50 percent.

And this particular amendment on amendment seven six is suggesting that that number be capped at uh essentially 31 units per acre.

So that's the new baseline.

And what Alderman Savage will tell you is that the proposal is that if these projects qualify as uh being supportive of or consistent with high value transit improvements and meet these other community benefit and tax recremental finding financing requirements, the density can go up even higher, actually higher than what our initial recommendation was.

So that is a you get this, you get more if you provide that 25% number.

It's not a you must always do the 25% it's a bonus to provide more affordable housing.

Yeah, if if they want the extra density bonus beyond what even staff is proposing, uh then yeah, if they want that, then they would have to do a number of things.

One would be 25% affordable housing, the other stuff would be a TIFF would have to be put placed on the property, and that's more of a city mechanism, and then they would have to come to a signed community benefit agreement with staff that um committing to be basically whatever we negotiate.

Okay, it that is the right way to do it.

Right.

Where I was coming from is my concern is sometimes if you come in, some people come in well-intentioned.

We're going, we must increase the amount of affordable housing they must build, but then it's too high for them to turn a profit.

So nothing gets built, and a higher percentage of zero is still zero.

So uh, but by providing these extra bonuses, like you've done, I think you've written a piece of legislation that will uh really encourage additional construction and get us there.

So I thank you for answering that.

Yeah, and thank you for allowing me to provide that in context.

Um Mr.

Chair, did we jump over on page 10 uh three this dividing the development area by 1400 as opposed to 850, which seems to me would decrease the number of units by making that number go from 850 to 1400, it seems like the number of developable units would be clean.

Maybe staff can help you uh explain this one.

Um for every 850 square feet of space, you can do one dwelling unit.

Uh and um what that's what we're suggesting.

What uh that's what you're suggesting with 850, right?

But it's either so we've we're originally suggesting 850, right?

Yeah, yeah.

So uh eight one, and what you were suggesting is 1400 that it be capped, so you need a lot more land area to get another unit.

Okay, that's what I make sure I was clear.

So that would this lower density would reduce the number of units on a particular part.

Yes, yeah.

Okay, and yeah, and again, that's with the idea of saving that 850 to be the incentive for those who developments that meet the other requirements.

I'm certainly open to changing that 1400.

I I think you alluded to in your written comments to me that you may want to see that change.

I'm happy to, but if that's the wrong way to accomplish my goal with this well, um you haven't asked what we thought about this so much, but I'm happy to help the council understand it and then spend as much time as possible.

Right because we see the value of where you're headed, but we do think that the way the ordinance is the or amended is drafted now, needs some improvement.

And uh, and I I know the perfect and good uh comparison is relevant.

Uh I think we have something that is maybe closer to perfect, uh, but still not ideal.

And I know and we shared it with you the other day, uh, and I since refined that and brought copies with me.

I wanted to get to the essence of this.

So this is a very complicated set of standards, and it does, as a matter of fact, add cost to delivering housing, which is fundamentally the issue of affordability.

I mean, so and it gets complicated.

Um we don't have all the answers yet, but if you if this set gets, I'm I'm afraid that this has not been vetted with people in the building industry that know uh the nuts and bolts of delivering affordable housing.

And if it were based on what we know and our experience actually meeting with developers as they're considering properties uh in the city my concern is the reaction would be what what's the point of making the investment uh up front.

That's why the way we've drafted it is to be more embracing of the comprehensive plans focused on housing and supply and production of housing uh with the protections that in terms of location and these other standards.

Um I could go through some details and and and the sort of terminology, but I think big picture what we've asked for is um uh willingness in the cap part of the council to embrace Ottoman Savage's concepts and uh in terms of a framework for moving forward rather than the nuts and bolts, uh the details.

Um which we're we're trying to be diplomatic and supportive of the Ottoman Savage because we really care about the direction you're headed, we're supported, and the planning commission does too, and it couldn't grapple with these complexities uh in its hearing as well.

Um we're here to support the council either way you want to go, but it's it's complicated.

So just well, may I uh address the rules committee?

Yes, um we are coming up on uh a timeline here.

Uh you have heard from staff about the complexities, especially of this amendment.

Uh I can speak from personal experience trying to bring in affordable housing to the city and the obstacles that were in the way of the success.

And so further obstacles are a concern to me.

You know, the whole discussion about tying transit to affordable housing, and we all agree that transit is extremely important, but I really believe we're putting the cart before the horse.

And so I would propose that we consider not addressing amendment six, and that we pass this on to the full council with the amendments that we have addressed and give Alderman Savage an opportunity to bring this back to a new council who will have uh that he can embrace with his vision.

Not that it's not a bad vision, but it's one that we may not be able to accomplish or codify right now as we're about to leave this council.

So that's what I propose for the rules committee.

I'd be interested interested in what my colleagues have to say.

Alderman Arnett, Alderman Shannemeyer, Alderman Arnett, your hand went up there.

Thank you, madam chair.

So I I like the first two changes we've gone through so far, but I have to and I like the sense of this very complicated remainder, but I first of all I have a hard time wrapping my head around it, but I take to heart what the staff said.

In fact, I was kind of chilled hearing that this may actually discourage development.

And I certainly don't want to do anything to do that.

So I guess my or my question to the amendment sponsor is is this something since you will be back that we can uh pick up again in the next term?

There's gonna be further amendments to the zoning code to implement the comprehensive plan.

And um I think that there's gonna need more time and I'm afraid that it would delay passage of the overall ordinance if we get bogged down in the details of this.

So I do like the first two changes, but I'm sympathetic to the chair's recommendation that we not consider a necessary Alderman Shannonier.

There are a lot of moving parts to this, but I believe this was one of your essentials to support the comprehensive plan as a whole, you had mentioned.

Um what I might recommend is we take no action on six, and the sponsor can kind of try to work out maybe something a little more streamlined before final voting on the legislation as a whole, because I do know there's a lot of good in this, and there's a lot of important things to Alderman Savage as part of amendment six, and I do think he's come up with some very creative ways to find uh funding for not just our transportation sector, but also to encourage some creative types of developments that we see in the city.

So uh I don't want to vote this down.

I understand why we may want to see a little bit more work on it on our end.

So uh what my recommendation would be is us take no action for now on amendment six, and Alderman Savage can work with planning and zoning a little bit more to come with something a little more streamlined.

Uh thank you, Alderman Chandlemaier.

I think that was exactly my recommendation to the committee, and I will entertain a motion uh to take no action from the rules committee on amendment six.

So moved back.

Okay, all in favor, please say aye.

I will take um entertain a motion now to give a um favorable or not favorable recommendation to 01425 uh as amended by the rules committee.

Did you say unfavorable?

I said favorable, and then I said or unfavorable, whatever is your pleasure.

I'm sure it's favorable.

What was the move?

Yes.

We have something from Seth.

I uh sorry, and I I do apologize to Miss Guile because I wanted to go back to her comments and I we didn't.

But is it Mr.

Jacobia that wants to comment?

Thank you.

Just very briefly before you recommend uh presumably approval or uh favorable recommendation for the ordinance in its entirety.

I I wanted to um mention that the foundational purpose of this set of amendments is to mitigate some obstacles that have slowed down prevented redevelopment of obsolete properties or uh underutilized or outmoded properties.

That comes right from the comprehensive plan, is expressly documented in the plan with uh a goal and a direction statement.

Um these amendment encompasses various subject areas within the city's growth and development framework.

Um the focus on the uh city dock area and dock street has been a subject of discussion about whether it's spot zoning.

It is clearly not spot zoning.

In fact, it's a valid use of the zoning ordinance to target specific parts of a jurisdiction if there's a clear public purpose.

Uh sections within a zoning uh classification can be addressed to address uh with co-language and standards that address their unique standards and the the uh conditions that those properties find themselves with within.

That is not beyond uh the authority of a municipality, it's quite consistent.

And the public purposes related to the code are, as I mentioned before, primarily to facilitate uh redevelopment where obstacles prevent it.

But in the case of um the city dock area, it's also to bring about economic vitality and a redevelopment on properties that are relatively underperforming, adjacent to a major investment in a public park.

And if I'll have to remind the the council members, once the public park and resilience project is implemented, the existing buildings there will be set about four feet below the surface of the park.

What is waterfront for these properties now will not be waterfront looking out the front door.

You'll be looking at a park.

You'll be stepping down onto a surface to head into the uh front of these buildings.

That's an adverse impact of a public improvement.

This uh set of standards helps mitigate that impact by allowing multiple opportunities to use property more efficiently.

And why in this area, not generally?

Because this area is at the very peninsula, the edge of the city.

There's no private property within the city behind this property.

It's just the United States Navy Naval Academy and a huge building, the biggest building in our area, the field house, what is which is the backdrop to this.

So these small projections above the established uh regulatory height, uh, aren't uh as as adverse as anywhere else in the city.

They're they're they can fit in um perfectly well against that big building that's set before there.

So there are unique aspects of this these collection of properties.

There's seven properties in all, not just one.

There are multiple property owners, not just one.

There's a public interest, uh, as I've expressed here that's tied to our comprehensive plan.

And it's important for us to always keep that in mind that the zoning uh authority that a municipality has isn't only about drawing district boundaries and saying what's allowed there is is not allowed there, and and it's about identifying what's specifically is presenting itself, challenging issues and and development.

You might remember the transit or the um the um form-based code.

Form-based code is about specific changes that reflect the public's interest uh without regard to the general uh districting uh that the city has.

So this is a technique that is uh provided for and recommended within our within our zoning ordinance.

Uh, I just wanted to share that with the the council members and also get it on the record too to give you the assurance that um this type of zoning approach is valid and useful and helpful to advance the public interest.

Thank you, Mr.

Uh Jacobia.

Uh Alderman Shannemeyer.

Thank you, madam chair.

Uh so I do want to touch on one portion of the legislation as amended as a whole.

Um as original rent, however, we want to touch it.

So both Alderman Huntley and I had requested a couple times for a presentation of some kind made to HBC.

Um I spoke with the chair again earlier this week.

He said that had not happened.

Without commenting up or down on these portions, because I do think there are some potential benefits.

And I am asking begging one more time.

I understand they can't give an up or down vote, but to just give them a little presentation.

Really asking.

That is all.

I didn't hear what you were for them to give a quick presentation to HPC.

That's all I'm asking.

The staff to present to HP on especially just with what we got it as amended.

I do think it's really good, but I think HPC needs to just hear their speech and have their say.

That's all.

Thank you.

Before it goes to city council.

Not a lot of time.

Not a lot of time left, but I was pushing for this earlier in the year.

I'm not gonna kill the whole legislation over this, but um I've said my piece on this a couple of times, including at the housing and human welfare meeting.

Okay, thank you.

And I trust that staff will make every effort to make that happen, Alderman.

Uh so is uh I think did we take a motion to approve or no?

We have don't have a motion.

I'll entertain a motion.

Make a motion to approve as recommended with the five amendments as amended by the rules committee.

Right.

Yes, as amended by the rules committee.

Okay.

Uh it's been second further discussion.

Hearing none, all in favor, please say aye.

Okay.

Thank you very much.

Uh Alderman Savage, are you gonna entertain a motion for environmental matters?

Uh no, I'm not.

Uh there's more discussion still for environmental matters.

Um there's no time deadline for Ms.

Jackson.

So yeah, I want to go back to amendment six for environmental matters.

So we have a meeting on Thursday, so is that when we're gonna take that up?

Sorry.

I said, are we planning to take that up at environmental matters on No, we're doing it right now at the joint in the joint meeting.

So what time is it there?

Isn't it three o'clock?

Yeah.

No, we're not talking, we're talking about 014 at today's environmental matters.

So going back to amendment six.

I alderman Arnett.

You know, I think people were suggesting so I tried to give a good summary of this.

Um, and I just want to go back because I don't like the idea of waiting until the next council.

Um, in particular Alderman, we've had plenty of discussions over the years.

We've worked together about impacts of growth and density.

Um I'm trying to provide a way forward.

I we both have talked about how it's irresponsible planning to call allow for growth without addressing any of the impacts, um, particularly infrastructure impacts.

And that's what I think this underlying ordinance does.

I'm trying to fix that.

Um trying to respond to my constituent concerns, um, trying to have closer adherence to the comprehensive plan, which calls for these things.

Like I because what I don't understand is why would you not include some of these some of these solutions for transit incorporate the ideas of furthering mobility options that we talk about in the comp plan.

Why would you not include that in some of the plan development code that you're proposing?

Because you're you're granting these density increases again without any kind of requirements from the developers.

Um so what I'm trying to do is get that incorporated and ideally, yeah, I would want more time to work with you on and the planning commission, but we're put in the situation of the 11th hour.

We don't have time.

Um we don't have time to go back to the planning commission.

Um but that is why I approached both you and the planning commission back in July with an outline of what I was looking for.

I never received feedbacks, uh I'm sorry, uh amendments that I requested from staff.

Planning commission decide to pick the hand down the road, even though they did say it's important to discuss, but I can't go conscious approve any density increase unless we have a solution in mind for the public and the public impact.

And I thought Arnold, you had the same idea, but I've worked probably 10 hours on this amendments in good faith.

I'm trying to get these in good form.

We've had a lot of back and forth.

I'm trying to provide a solution forward.

If people have a different way forward, please let me know.

But I think it's again irresponsible for us just to kick the can down the road on this.

I I just weighing to the next council is just it's still it's not quite fair because again, I think every every proposal to increase density should be accompanied by this type of a conversation.

And um, I don't want to gamble on the next council.

It that should be it should be done today.

It should be done even with we've talked about with the ADU and the uh duplexes all those conversations we should be having this we should have been having these conversations about transit with all of those proposals.

Um, Mr.

Chair, uh as a member of the environmental matters, I will make a motion that environmental matters accept uh the Savage Amendment number six to the uh ordinance oh 1424.

Uh is there a second?

All right, I'll second uh all those in favor, please say I or sorry, any other discussion.

Uh I'd like to make a comment, and that is simply that we heard from the director, our professional staff, and uh we do a great job hiring uh our professional staff, and we should be it would be prudent for us to follow the advice.

You know, we all can't have what we want when we want it, and it's very disappointing that uh Alderman, you will be coming back to the council in a guaranteed position, and you're not willing to further this discussion to make sure everyone is comfortable and everyone is not comfortable.

Uh, but because it's your will, you want to insist that this move forward now.

You will have lots of opportunities with future councils to convince them of your way of thinking uh and move your preferred legislation forward, but to insist now without much further discussion without the planning commission and without heeding the advice of our staff, I think is grossly inappropriate.

So and I will vote against the uh proposed amendment.

Okay.

Well, what I find discouraging is that legislation is being pushed forward at the 11th hour without allowing adequate time to have deliberation on these serious questions that are not just mine, but our constituents that is not fair to the public, and it's not fair to the planning commission, and then no, it's not fair to staff or ourselves.

This is not how we should be.

So, frankly, the whole legislation I think should go down in flames.

It's not fair for having something this substantive, because you could say the same thing.

There is no urgency.

We don't have to do this legislation this year, we don't have to do it now.

There's no urgency.

We could wait to the new council and have a deliberative discussion.

I would prefer that, in fact.

So let's vote down this entire piece of legislation.

But I don't think I have the votes to do that.

So I'm trying to move forward to come together to address my constituents' concerns, my own concerns.

I'm trying to do with the constraints we have.

I don't see any other option.

Because I'm also being told, well, um, we're not we're not changing, we're not accepting this, so you don't have time to discuss it.

We're putting I'm putting a bind.

Um so I'm doing the best I can with this.

I I don't think it's gonna slow down development.

These are proposals that come from other jurisdictions, mechanisms that are used by other jurisdictions that have a lot more growth than we do.

Um I don't think it's gonna drive a cost um because we are um allowing for an incredible density increase if this were to pass.

Um I also think that um you know I'm trying to really give respect.

Our staff worked so hard on the comprehensive plan.

Uh that is supposed to guide all of our decisions, and again, I don't it it doesn't give me good a good feeling when I see the comp plan just we're kind of cherry picking the comp plan uh taking pieces of it.

If we want to take it seriously, let's apply it as a comprehensive document to everything we do, and it has not done on this legislation.

Um so with that, I think I'll end my office of the box.

Alderman Shandermeyer.

He's not on he's still allowed to speak.

So I'm an outsider on on this.

Uh I was trying to play peacemaker on rules.

Uh, but your committee, I understand why you'd wish to put forward a vote.

There aren't many people who scream or shot about housing and how do we develop it cheaper and better?

More on this council than me.

Uh I think this was written in good faith.

I understand certain concerns, especially when there are a lot of moving parts.

Um I do think trying to maybe hair my out here or there after this meeting what the specific issue our planning adjoining director has is worth it, but shooting this whole thing down.

I think is uh I'm not this whole thing, I mean med six.

Uh I think is throwing the baby out with the bath water, especially when you consider if they meet all your standards, they get up to 200% density.

That's pretty big.

Thank you, Mr.

Aldman.

Um, with that, we still have a vote to take on environmental matters.

So all those in favor of uh recommending uh favorable to amendment six, please say aye.

Aye.

All those opposed nay motion carries.

Is there a motion from environmental matters to move uh 01425 as amended by the committee?

So move.

Is there a second?

I'll second it.

All those in favor, please say aye.

Aye.

All those opposed.

Nay.

Motion carries, thank you.

That concludes um environment matters deliberation on 01425.

Um is there a motion to um you can you can adjourn initially.

Okay, is there a motion from environmental matters to adjourn?

So move.

Is there a second?

All those in favor of adjourning environmental matters, please say aye.

Aye.

Motion carries meeting is adjourned.

Turn it over to you, madam chair for rules.

Thank you.

Uh rules committee.

Um we have to adjourn the joint meeting and give T V a minute a few minutes to switch over to the regular rules committee meeting.

Okay, I'll entertain a motion to adjourn rules.

So moved.

All in favor, please say aye.

Aye.

Okay, we'll be back in what 10 minutes.

I think 10 to 20.

Yeah, yes.