The regular meeting for the Annapolis City Council on Monday, October 13th, 2025, will be called to order at 7 04.

At this time, please join us for the remote invocation given by Alderman Chandelmeyer, followed by the Pledge of Allegiance.

Did you speaker?

Can we hear me?

Yes.

Okay, thank you.

So I just want to say that today I'm tuning in remote from Maine.

It is my grandmother's 90th birthday.

And I just want to give thanks for the opportunity to connect with so much wonderful family here.

And let us all bow our hands if we choose to.

Today let us do our work for so many people in this great city of ours, knowing that we are coming together to try and do our best, working for the people of Annapolis, and that we need to do what we can to further the city that we love.

Thank you.

Yes, sir.

Mayor Buckley.

Alderman Huntley.

Here.

Alderwoman O'Neill.

Present.

Alderwoman Pindal Charles.

Alderwoman.

Present.

Alderman Sandemeyer.

Present.

Alderman Gay.

Present.

Alderman Savage.

Present.

Alderman Arnett.

Present.

Mr.

City Attorney, please present the first time on the agenda.

Yes, sir.

The first one of the general agenda is approval of the agenda.

Could I get a motion to approve the agenda to remove the scaredy cats?

The annual Eastport Declaration of War charity events.

Maybe a little rain or something scared them away.

So can I get a motion on that?

All right.

All those in favor, please say aye.

Opposed?

Thank you.

Mr.

City Attorney, please present the next time agenda.

Sir, the next item of the agenda is ceremonial items, beginning with ID one thirty-three twenty-five.

City council member recognition.

All right.

Matt, can you come up with your people?

Want to just say this is uh one of our favorite people.

Nope, not this one.

This is the order we got.

Um if you just come up to the upfront table there.

So many of you are familiar.

So Speedy, um Matt has retired.

Uh they've been an institution for so many of us on West Street, someone we can count on, and um, we certainly miss you already.

So on behalf of the residents of the city of Annapolis, we're we present this City Council citation in recognition of Matthew Franco, uh, owner and operator of Sir Speedy Printing on West Street on the occasion of his retirement and the closing of his shop after decades of dedicated service to our community.

Uh Sir Speedy has long been a trusted partner for residents, businesses, and government alike, providing high quality printing, notary service, and unmatched customer service.

Uh, known for quick turnaround and attention to detail, Matt and his team set the standard for excellence.

Uh from major community events to official communications, Sir Speedy's work has touched nearly every corner of Annapolis.

Indeed, most printed materials from the mayor's office originated from this shop.

Uh, we extend our appreciation and thanks to Matt for many years of commitment and his amazing team that he had around him.

We miss you all, and we wish you well in retirement.

Congratulations.

Cheers.

If you want to say anything, Matt, I'll hold this for you.

I I just can't imagine uh doing business for decades in a better community.

The people, the customers, the the uh growth in the community over these 30 years has been amazing.

It's like night and day.

You know, I've seen it all and um worked for many administrations over the years through a lot of problems, um, you know, issues that uh the community faced, and and uh we work through it, and um just really really proud of to have served you all and um have a have a great uh rest of your administration and uh just keep the momentum going.

Thank you.

Cheers, buddy, uh thank you.

I need a motion to the add something to the agenda that was left off.

Yes, thank you, Mr.

Mayor.

I'd like to add resolution forty-four twenty-five.

Okay, good.

Okay, all those in favor say aye.

Aye.

Aye, opposed.

And a quick um summary, yeah.

It's just something on first reader.

We can discuss whether or not we want to pursue, but it um it's just basically a resolution calling for uh in light of some of the protests we have on West Street for pedestrian safety, just uh basically asking um the state for some uh partnership on addressing some of those issues uh in lieu of just expanding our roadways.

Thank you for bringing that forward.

Thank you.

The next yes, sir, Mr.

Mayor, the next item on the agenda is ID one three nine twenty-five citation, Shelley Rowe, board chair of the Annapolis Symphony.

Uh if any of you were lucky enough to go to the Symphony uh out in Quiet Waters um a little while ago.

There was a line all the way down Forest uh Drive to get to this amazing performance, and um uh it's all because of your leadership and uh the appreciation for what you do for this city.

So we wanted to recognize that, Shelley.

Thank you for everything you've given back to Annapolis.

Uh so on behalf of the residents of the city of Annapolis, we are proud to confer upon you this city council citation uh in honor of your invaluable contribution to our community as chair of the Board of Trustees for the Annapolis Symphony Orchestra.

From July 2023 until June this year, your leadership helped strengthen and elevate both the ASO and the Youth Academy during a time of dynamic growth.

You work tirelessly to expand services and engagement to Annapolis and the surrounding region.

Uh, your outreach and diplomacy built relationships and connections across our community insured the ASO was positioned for future success.

Uh, we particularly thank you for your partnership with the city, uh including your role uh in the City Dock Action Committee and your support for community events such as the five-year remembrance ceremony for the victims of the Capitol Gazette shooting.

Uh, we wish you and your family every success, and as you go forward into a new phase of your life, we extend our deepest gratitude for your dedicated service and outstanding contributions and look forward to the symphony being the first orchester to play on the new City Dock Park.

Thank you.

I'll hold this if you'd like to say, first of all, I'm very honored by this is so nice of you.

Uh, it was a great honor to serve as the chair of the board for the Annapolis Symphony.

Probably many of you are not aware of the symphony.

It's an amazing resource right here in our community.

So you're all invited.

It's not the stuffy old fashioned thing you might think.

So all come.

Uh we had opening weekend uh this past weekend, and you all are all invited too.

Yes, you come to the symphony.

Thank you so much for this.

Thank you.

Yes, Mr.

Mayor, the ID 15325 citation for Joe Toulon.

Joe, please come forward.

If you are here.

Yep, we'll go to the next one.

Okay, um, we are gonna read a citation to recognize Joe Toolin from Annapolis Pride.

Um, and then after that, we'll move through to Hispanic Heritage Month.

Uh, on behalf of the residents of the city of Annapolis, we are pleased to confer upon you, Joe Toulin, uh, the City Council citation in recognition of your contributions to uh building a more inclusive, vibrant, and equitable community.

As board chair of the Annapolis Pride, you have helped grow the festival into one of the city's most celebrated events, drawing thousands of residents and visitors together in a joyful affirmation of visibility, acceptance, and pride.

Your leadership has expanded opportunities for education, advocacy, and celebration, strengthening Annapolis as a place where all are welcome.

Beyond the city, you serve as the chair of the State Maryland Commission on LGBTQ plus affairs that ensures that voices are heard and needs are addressed at the highest level of state government.

Uh, through this work, you advance a more compassionate future for all.

Uh, we commend you for your tireless dedication and lasting impact.

And I'm looking forward to giving you this at the Pride Parade on the 18th, 10 a.m.

on the 18th.

You need to all be out on West Street for an amazing Pride Parade and then festival at Maryland Hall afterwards.

Thank you, Joe.

Big round of applause for your service.

Mr.

City Attorney, please present the next on the agenda.

Yes, sir.

The next item of the agenda is ID 15425 citation, Hispanic Heritage Month.

Thank you all for being here during Hispanic Heritage Month where um Hispanically program had uh different programs running, all of them part of the Fuerza Latina and Dia de los Muertos.

Um, a lot of the people that helped they contributed to that are here today, and they're gonna receive citations in groups.

Uh, gracias a todos for starting the hoy.

Durante el Metternes Hispana, varios ofestas and ayudado a que differentis programas de Fuerza Latinas y de El Dia Los Mortos Se again realidad.

Gracias por estar aquí.

Los vamos a jamar in groups.

Those standards donde están in sus groupes.

It's uh Alison Flores.

How are you?

Good.

Um, we have your citation coming up, I think.

All right, let me hold that and I'll read it from here.

And Julian will be mad because I didn't say that into the microphone, sorry.

Uh, on behalf of the residents of the city of Annapolis, uh, we uh we extend our deepest gratitude uh for inviting us to co-host and participate in the Latino Business Alliance meetings expertly organized by the Office of Multicultural Affairs at the County Executive's office.

Your tireless efforts to support and connect business owners are truly appreciated and have a lasting impact on our community.

Your dedication has enriched our city uh and we are honored to recognize your commitment and passion for empowering our community.

Uh, as we celebrate National Hispanic Heritage Month, we take pride in acknowledging you as a valued and integral member of our vibrant community.

I could have said that in Spanish, but I don't want to show off, you know.

So uh we know you didn't.

Thank you so much, Mayor.

You have a phenomenal team here with Rocío and Isimenia, and it's such an honor to do work on behalf of the county and with the city in partnership for our Latino and multicultural community here in Aronto.

So thank you so much.

Thank you.

On behalf of the residents of the city of Annapolis and the Annapolis City Council, uh, we extend our sincerest gratitude.

We spend our sincerest gratitude for your participation in the Latino Business Alliance meeting in September 11, 2025.

Your willingness to share your expect expertise and experience with fellow business owners was invaluable, and we are confident it will have a lasting impact on our community.

So appreciate you guys.

Thank you.

As we celebrate National Heritage Month, we are proud to have you as valued members of our vibrant community.

Your participation, commitment, willingness to learn, and enthusiasm have enriched our city.

You embody the spirit of Fuerza Latinas mission.

Thank you so much.

Karen Gomez, Carla Moya, Scarlet Cruz, Natalie Menhibar, Victoria Serga, Estela Serga, Valeria Cruz, Sofia Serga, Emmy Lopez, Jamil Espinoza, Melanie Aldana, Paulette Parajona.

Some of you guys want to get on this side and we'll take a picture.

Yeah, jump over here.

We so appreciate all your talent.

So on behalf of the residents of the city of Annapolis, the Annapolis City Council, we thank you for participating in our 2025 Latin Art Gallery, a project proudly organized by Fresa Latina.

This initiative celebrates the dedication and passion of Latinas who strive to make a meaningful impact on our community.

As we celebrate National Hispanic Heritage Month, we're proud to have you as valued members of our vibrant community.

Your talent, art, dedication is hereby recognized and appreciated.

So we call it Fuerza Latina, the nominees.

And they are Laura Gutierrez.

Laura Gutiérrez was also the person who created the program Fuerza Latina when she was a Hispanic listen here in the city.

Tomasa Gomez, Glory Paredes, Ana Recinos.

Let's invite a poraca, performanos, Roxana Rodriguez, Jacqueline, Jasmine Ramirez, Sara Y Hernandez, Natalia Carrasco, Alexandria Garcia Rodriguez, Liliana Mijia, Natalie Landa Verde, Claudia Lopez, Susana Cruz, Ethel Leon, Chris Elfunes, y Tatiana Klein.

Thank you.

Everybody looks so beautiful.

Thank you so much.

While we hand these out, I will say on behalf of the residents of the city of Annapolis and the Annapolis City Council, we're honored to recognize and congratulate your nominations for Fuerza Latina.

This program was created to celebrate Latinas who have made proud, profound impacts on our community, and through their tireless advocacy and dedication.

As we observe National Hispanic Heritage Month, we take pride in having you as part of our vibrant community.

Your selfless efforts have uplifted our city and you embody the spirit of Fuerza Latina.

Thank you all.

Oh, I will give it the money.

Sorry.

Thank you.

And last but not least, last but not least it was our day of the dead event, Nestra de los Muertos que pass in esteem on Saturday.

It was a success for its seventh year, and it couldn't have been possible without our volunteers that we recognize today.

And we have Sergio Polanco, Edward Johansson, Tomasa Gomez, Carlos Quiroz, Deborah Wood, Gabriele Nunez, Gabriela Sierra Padilla, Brenda Galvez Sierra.

If you want to start walking here, seeing Peter Caminaraka, Mitsi Torres y Berenice Schneider.

On behalf of the residents of the city of Annapolis and the City Council, uh these citations honor you for your work on the 2025 day of the dead festival.

Uh, in the design district was an amazing event, tons of people there.

Uh, events like this wouldn't be possible without the dedication and hard work of extraordinary individuals like you.

Uh, you year after year, our festival has grown in popularity thanks to the unwavering support of volunteers who share a passion for celebrating Hispanic culture.

Uh festival brings together residents and visitors to enjoy traditional foods, captivating dances and performances, vibrant crafts, and more, all while honoring and cherishing memories of loved ones.

Your contributions have been invaluable, and we're deeply grateful for your commitment as we celebrate National Hispanic Heritage Month.

We're proud to recognize you as a vital and vibrant part of our community.

Thank you so much.

But also I used to spoke on behalf of my community, and behalf of those who they cannot attend the Dia de los Muertos event, and behalf of those who are live right now in con really hard situation.

So please don't forget about them, and thank you so much for all you do for our community.

But visiting Casas Mobile can in the survey, los que están al norte del condado, los que están aquí innapolis.

I threes families, quattro families viviendo bajo un techo.

I familias que están luchando for salida delante.

Mr.

City Attorney, please present the next item on the agenda.

Yes, sir.

The next item on the agenda is ID one five nine twenty-five proclamation.

Recognizing fire prevention month.

Thank you so much.

And whereas the Annapolis Fire Department, the ISO class one rated agency, provides professional, high quality trained fire and emergency response services to our residents and businesses working daily to prevent fires and protect lives and property.

And whereas this year's National Fire Prevention Month campaign, charge into fire safety, lithium ion batteries in your home reminds us that most of the devices we use every day, such as phones, laptops, e-bikes, and power tools are powered with lithium iron batteries, which can pose a fire risk if damaged, overcharged, or improperly disposed of.

And whereas the National Fire Protection Association, NFPA, provides important guidance to reduce these risks by only certified products.

Charge safely using the manufacturer's approved equipment and proper services and recycled batteries responsibly through approved collection programs.

And whereas the Annapolis Fire Department joins fire departments across the country in observing fire prevention week, October 5th through October 11th, 2025, by sharing education and resources to help residents prevent battery-related fires and other home fire hazards.

Whereas the vigilance and preparedness of Annapolis residents combined with the dedication of our fire service professionals plays a vital role in preventing tragedies and ensuring that our city remains a safe place to live, work, and play.

And whereas it is fitting for all residents to recognize the importance of fire safety awareness and take proactive steps to reduce fires in their homes and workplaces throughout the month of October.

And one whereas the city of Annapolis has the best fire department in America.

The next item of the agenda is petitions, reports, and communications, beginning with update from the mayor.

And then other people can take empty seats.

Monster.

Okay, Mr.

City Attorney, please let's uh get on with the meeting.

Sir, the next item is petitions, reports and communications beginning with update from the mayor.

Thank you.

Uh good evening.

Uh today is Indigenous People's Day, and I would like to begin by acknowledging that we meet on land long stewarded by the Piscataway, Patuxen, Akiko, Yaakamiku, Sasquannick and related communities who cared for these lands and waters uh long before colonists arrived.

Uh, we recognize and acknowledge the First Nations people and the history that disrupted and displaced them, while affirming that these communities are still here alive, resilient, and preserving their culture for future generations.

Uh, we've just concluded Hispanic Heritage Month, uh, or Hispanic Heritage Hour.

Um, and of course, we just handed out citations to the many partners who helped us make it a success.

Thank you to all throughout the month.

We had little of something for everyone, including art exhibits, poetry, books, and Latino business events.

I want to give a shout out to Rosia Smith and our Hispanic outreach coordinator for her work on all these, as well as the hugely successful day of the Dead Festival held this past weekend, where the food was amazing, the performance exhilarating, and the margaritas smooth.

Uh, thank you, Rosia, and thank you to all of your team.

Uh, I also want to acknowledge acknowledge uh Aatola Ajahi and all of his team for their work on the summer program of pop-up community resource fairs that finished last Thursday.

Uh each week since July, the No Harm team have coordinated with community partners to go into underserved neighborhoods, including Bloomsbury Square, Annapolis Gardens, Morris Blum, Robin Wood, Bay Ridge Gardens to name just a few.

They visited 14 underserved communities in total, bringing resources and staff directly to residents where they live.

By the end, they collected 325 collector community uh completed community surveys to help us understand residents' needs and feedback.

They distributed over 80 gun locks and served over 1,000 residents with a range of health, education, and pantry resources as well as information.

We'd like to say huge thanks to the residents who turned out to all of our city and county and to all of our city and counterpartners who were there and made these events possible.

Over the past weekend, residents and visitors have enjoyed the Annapolis fall boat show series.

On Friday, the line got to get into the show went all the way across the Spa Creek Esport Bridge.

Thank you to our boatshow organizers and all who came downtown and helped make this iconic Annapolis event such a huge success.

Boat show organisms like to say uh they don't mind a little rain from the sailboat show, but because sailors because sailors will still come, they just show up in all weather gear.

I want to thank the boat show because I bought a 12-foot dinghy.

Um and let's have a round of applause for those guys.

Great show this year.

Uh I want to recognize David Bugeman and his team from the Moore Group.

Uh, that's mid-Atlantic off-road enthusiasts and uh enthusiasts, the guys that cut in 14 miles of trails uh in Waterworks Park for free.

Uh I want to thank them for their new mountain bike park, which is world class.

It opened two weeks ago at Waterworks Park.

It is an all uh is good for all experienced levels, but the riders we saw at the park on opening day were making the most of the jumps and features and showing off some real skills.

This project is a great example of how partnerships between the city and local organizations can create new healthy and fun opportunities for residents to enjoy our parks and open spaces.

Speaking of local organizations uh creating opportunities, uh the National Lutheran broke round at Providence Point last week.

This project has been more than two decades in the making.

I want to thank Loner landowner Janet Pearson and former Senator Gerald Weingrat and our director of planning and zoning, Chris Jacobiac for their work to arrive at a compromise that requires a little give and take for all involved.

The great news is that they begin construction of the senior housing on the 66 acres of land.

An additional 123 acres will be put into a conservancy easement, never to be developed.

I'd like to acknowledge Josh Falk and the Scenic Rivers Land Trust for managing that easement in perpetuity.

Our general election is little over two weeks away.

Uh the ballots for the November 4th election are being uh readied right now.

Uh if you ask for a mail-in ballot for the primary, you will automatically get one for the general election.

Please note the Board of Elections will not be sending additional ballot request forms to all voters.

If you if you'd like a mail in ballot, you can visit the city website and use the keyword election 2025.

Voters have until October 31 to request ballots and until November 4th to return by either drop box or U.S.

mail.

Drop boxes are available at each of the eight wards.

For those who want to vote in person, polls will be open from 7 a.m.

to 8 p.m.

on Tuesday, November 4th.

Please note there is no same-day voter registration and there is no early voting in municipal elections.

So please come out and make your voices heard.

Please vote.

And finally, up this weekend is Annapolis Pride, which we get a new date, which got a new date after bad weather cancel the parade and festival planned in June.

The 2025 Annapolis Pride Parade steps off at 10 a.m.

on Saturday from Calvert Street at Bladen with Parade participants lining up along St.

John's and College Avenue.

Please follow Annapolis Police Directions downtown.

From the starting point at State Garage, the parade goes down Calvert Street to West Street, then along West Street to Amos Garrett.

From there, the parade participants and spectators can make their way to Maryland Hall and Batesfield for a festival which will run from 11 a.m.

to 4 p.m.

Happy Pride Annapolis.

Thank you, everybody.

Now let us get on with the meeting.

Mr.

City Attorney.

Um thank you, Mr.

Mayor.

So I wanted to.

So first of all, uh the last environmental matters committee meeting we had did jointly with rules, city government, and I want to thank uh chair of rules and city government.

I felt like we did uh we got through a lot of legislation, made some good medicine changes to it.

Um so I can certainly go through our recommendations later.

Um what else?

Oh, we also tweaked the water access plan recommendations by adding some additional language regarding the Chesapeake Region Accessible Voting.

Um so you'll see that at the next meeting.

But also just wanted to thank um my two colleagues.

That was our last environmental matters committee meeting together.

I think we've really gone through quite a bit of legislation on that committee together.

Um made some different viewpoints, made a lot of changes, and uh just think it was very valuable, and I want to thank you both for your collaboration on that committee.

I'm very proud of what we've been able to accomplish on there.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Excuse me.

Thank you, Mr.

Mayor.

The rules and city government committee met on October 3rd.

Uh we addressed discuss several pieces of legislation.

Uh the first being uh 014 implementation of the Annapolis ahead comprehensive plan.

We gave it a favorable recommendation with amendment.

Uh 015 accessory dwelling unit requirements also received a favorable recommendation with amendments.

Never fails.

Allowing historic duplexes in our two zoning districts, we gave a favorable recommendation.

Uh the Tyler Avenue Complete Community Overlay District received a favorable recommendation.

The business revitalization district regulation change received a favorable recommendation, and changes in the exempt service job classifications received favorable recommendations.

We took no action on uh the lease of the city property, the market house, and on the compensation commission.

We felt that there was still not adequate information to give a recommendation.

Uh that was the last meeting of the rules committee.

And so it's been my pleasure to chair it.

The rules committee really receives the lion's share of all the legislation that comes through this body.

So I want to thank my colleagues, uh Alderman Arnett and Alderman Chandelmeyer uh for being good team players and Alderman Savage, who attended almost all of our meetings.

So we could have done a lot of joint committees together, but it truly has been uh a pleasure, and we were extremely successful, I believe, in all of our recommendations to this body.

So thank you.

Thank you, Alderman Channelmeyer.

Thank you, Mr.

Mayor.

Um I gave the report for economic matters during our last meeting.

So this one is just going to be a reminder.

Uh, economic matters will be meeting this Wednesday at 6 p.m.

So earlier than our usual 6:30 time.

Uh we have a lot on the agenda and looking forward to it.

Uh screen, uh uh Alderman O'Neil, then Alderman Gay.

Thank you very much, Mr.

Mayor.

We did not have a transportation committee meeting um in October because the transportation team was actually at a conference.

One of the main contractors um is on paternity leave, and um we would not have been able to be getting any updated information on parking.

Um, one thing I would like to point out though is communication is key, and over the weekend there was a huge lapse in communication um that probably falls under transportation.

Um, whereas new parking signs were placed on Clay Street um all of all the way along Clay Street as a surprise to everybody, including me.

And I really um want to work as hard as we can on increasing that communication so that we don't have residents feeling like um they're getting surprised.

So I'm gonna work with the transportation team and the resident outreach team and the parking teams to ensure that this something like that never happens again.

But thank you.

Thank you.

On the go.

Thank you so much, Mr.

Mayor.

The Housing Human Welfare Committee will be meeting October the 20th.

Uh uh will be our final uh meeting.

Uh, but look forward to uh thinking the staff that we've worked with as well as our our partners on the housing community equity and development commission.

Uh appreciate it very much.

Thank you.

Woman Huntley.

Thank you.

The finance committee had a fairly light meeting.

We um postponed action on the market house lease.

We sent that back to staff to negotiate on a couple of areas, and uh we'll be excited to hear about that on Monday.

And then we did favorably recommend the increase in uh speed monitoring system fines based on how fast you're going.

So if you're going a crazy amount over the speed limit, you should have to pay a big fat fine for trying to kill people.

So um favorably recommended that.

And then we sorted out everything with the military bull parade resolution, which is not cover the football game.

So we're uh favorably recommending that with an amendment.

This Wednesday, we'll have a couple of exciting things.

The market house lease will be hearing about that again.

We'll also maybe be dealing with market space and the uh outdoor dining area there, although that might end up solely being economic matter.

But we'll have a good final meeting.

Thank you, Mr.

City Attorney.

Please present the next on the agenda.

So the next item of the agenda is comments by the general public.

If anybody is here to speak on uh the duplex legislation uh or the accessory dwelling legislation that has been withdrawn, uh so that will be uh for the next council to deal with.

So uh you don't have to come up, but you're quite welcome to come up if you want.

So we will not be voting on that today.

Uh it will be the next mayor's problem.

Uh but anything else?

Uh please come forward.

I'm first person to speak on that.

That's the speak and sign up to speak as Will Scott.

Good evening.

Will Scott, uh, 308 Carriage Run Road, Annapolis.

Uh first, I'd like to just speak uh momentarily uh as a private citizen and thank the mayor and the council for creating such a welcoming community, uh, respecting all the diversity of that community.

And secondly, thank all of you for your service.

Um, I serve in a minor position.

You serve in very important condition uh positions and have to do a lot of hard work, and especially those of you who are not going to be returning for the next council.

I personally thank you.

I just have one brief request to make uh representing the historic preservation commission.

Uh, we're all aware that there's been a great deal of discussion about the ordinance that would affect the city dock area.

Uh and uh we had a special administrative meeting as a commission and voted unanimously to request that the mayor and council refer that uh to this uh uh historic preservation commission for review, even though it's not statutorily required.

Uh and we uh can do that at our next administrative meeting later this month.

And uh I hope and uh promise that we will be expeditious and give you our best uh advice and counsel that we can offer.

I think this is especially important now that there have been some substantive amendments introduced by Alderman Savage, and uh we will certainly give those uh our attention and make the recommendations that we hope will be helpful to uh you and the community in uh making a final decision.

Thank you for your time.

If there are any questions, I'll do my best to answer them.

But I am only speaking now for the commission.

Thank you very much.

Thank you, Will.

Appreciate it.

Thank you for all your service.

Thank you.

Uh next up, Craig Harrison.

Mr.

Mayor, I'm just curious.

When is the when is the HBC meeting?

When is their next meeting?

We just have a few.

Last Thursday of the month.

Last Thursday of the month.

Thank you.

Good evening, council.

I'm Craig Harrison, 264 King George Street.

And I'm also the president of the Ward 1 Residence Association.

And another board is members with me tonight, Lisa Hillman.

We had a meeting just on the 30th of September in discussion about 01425.

I would like to introduce our comments to you.

Lisa will take care of that.

Good evening, Mr.

Mayor and Alderman.

Um, nice to see you all.

Thank you all very much for being here.

It's a pleasure to be here in a new capacity.

I'm a newly elected member of the Ward 1 Residence Association, member of the board.

And it's in that capacity um, well, for Randall Court, Annapolis, Maryland, if that's needed, but it's in that capacity that I'm here this evening.

Craig and I are here to ask you to consider um very thoughtfully the actions you take tonight.

And with all due respect to a woman I respect, Alderin Finlays and the results of her committee's approval, there is one aspect at least of 01425.

We would ask you to pause and think about.

And I think I have eyes on me.

I'm gonna make sure that the people on the screen are hearing me as well.

We refer to the section in 01425 that allows for the increase of heights of buildings at City Dock.

Why would anyone knowingly change an ordinance that has protected Annapolis for nearly 50 years?

I'm watching you all type, and I'm assuming you're taking comments, notes on my comments because I can't see your faces.

So I'm assuming you're you're hearing me.

Okay.

I know the people on the screen are listening.

When the height and bulk ordinance was passed in these chambers in 1978, the goal was simple.

Three comments, three three parts.

Number one, preserve the historic character of our very unique American city.

Number two, protect the views and the sight lines, and number three, control development.

And that was to prevent large-scale buildings from dominating our historic core.

Are these reasons still valid today?

It's not just allowing one developer to build one building a few feet higher.

That's not it.

It's the truly awful precedent this legislation would set.

The truly awful precedent this legislation would set.

So we ask again, why would this council want its legacy to be the potential destruction of what makes Annapolis Annapolis?

Please eliminate the height and bulk amendment from this legislation.

Protect our future.

Thank you.

Next up, Jacqueline Green.

Hello.

It's Mr.

Okay, so I am here because as was mentioned briefly, um, there was an issue on Clay Street with parking signs going up.

Jacqueline, just give your address and then for the record, thank you.

I'm sorry, I couldn't hear you.

Give you your address for the record, please.

Oh, 70 Clay Street.

Thank you so much.

Um, so uh on Friday evening after four, signs went up stating that starting Sunday, we would not be allowed to park on the entirety of the street for five months.

Um, from uh, I believe it was like 7 a.m.

to 5 p.m.

or five months.

Um being a Friday evening, everything was closed.

There was no way to contact anyone to find out what was going on, how to make sure we weren't gonna get towed.

Um we had to, you know, reach out every way we could to get some information to find out how to protect ourselves because we already have very limited parking.

Um there are 14 streets designated as district four parking.

Uh 10 of them are within our neighborhoods, I mean, are within our neighborhood.

And actually, of the 10, uh, three or four of them actually aren't district four parking.

One of them is listed as uh West Street.

There's no part of West Street where we can park with our parking permits.

That's all meter parking.

Um, also is listed is Monument Street.

Again, that is private parking, although on the city map is listed as district four parking.

Uh, again, and as well as part of Pleasant Street.

So even with the limited parking we have available, you know, shown as available, we have even less than what is listed.

Um, in the higher social economic area, that is District 4.

They have parking uh permit permitted hours from 8 a.m.

to midnight.

Our area fluctuates from 8 a.m.

to 4 or 6 p.m., depending on what part of the street you're on.

In addition to that, we also have to push air parking with different events.

If there's an event at the church on West Washington Street, they get the entirety of the street, including funerals or big events or anything like that, as long as when they have uh Sunday night out, I mean on first Sunday, um, Friday nights outs, Saturday nights out, whatever nights they do that.

All of that impacts our ability to park at our homes.

Um, in addition to that, we were finally told on Saturday evening.

We found out through social media, a lot of the residents older.

They don't have a Facebook account.

They had no way of knowing, and also no way of nowhere to park or any way to walk far enough to be able to get back to the house that they just had to risk it and leave their cars there and hope in the morning that their cars were still there.

Um we are finally told that maybe uh that it probably is a mistake and that the it's just the bottom half of the street that is not going to be allowed for parking.

Um, but that's an issue as well because that is the part of the street where our children have to go to catch the bus stop at Adams Park.

There's no longer a bus stop directly in the neighborhood.

You have to catch the bus on West Washington.

This is what the elementary kids you have to catch the bus on West Washington Street or down to Adams Park, and now there'll be a major construction project there that they have to walk past just to get to their bus stop.

So, you know, it is a a big impact on our neighborhood.

Part of our neighborhood was taken to build a garage, and we still have no parking.

It it just doesn't make sense.

Um in addition to that, we have no enforcement for the hours listed.

So we're also sharing our space with the perflua of Airbnbs in our neighborhood.

There's literally three on my block, one being built right now directly next to me.

And I have to share parking with them because nobody's required to get a permit in our neighborhood, but they are required in some of the other neighborhoods that are still in our district.

Again, with larger enforcement hours.

Um, so I guess that's the majority of you know what I wanted to talk about.

You know, none of none of this was communicated to us.

The only way we found out is because I was outside at 4 30 when the sign went up.

Other than that, we would know nothing.

Thanks, Jacqueline.

I think someone had the hand up on the screen.

So Jacqueline, clearly it was a mistake.

We apologize.

Yeah, yeah.

We corrected us right away.

There's a lot of infrastructure happening here.

You can see it all over the city with tearing up roads and replacing aging infrastructure.

So we have to work out a plan before we do that.

So we promise you we will.

Um, who had the hand up?

I believe it was Kyle.

Yes.

Old one and eal.

Thank you very much, Mr.

Mayor.

I was going to respond that understandably that a lot of the information was going on social media.

Yeah.

Um, I made it a huge point to reach out to community leaders, including Pastor Wayne Wright's, Custer Vineyards, uh, Renitra, Anderson, um, Katie Sharps, people that I know that are in the neighborhood and speaking with people to try to get the word out about it and let them know that we are working on it.

We will have a solution very, very quickly.

That it was not an intentional slight.

Um, there seems to be a miscommunication, and I'm trying to figure out where that miscommunication happened.

But we're working really, really hard to make sure that all residents are aware going forward of any of the inconveniences that they're going to be experiencing with this renovation.

Thank you, Jacqueline.

Thank you.

Next up, spin storm.

Posible está mejor para me hablar in Espanol as the notion.

Then go on a casa in El Salvador, from Sarah de Honduras.

We need your redress.

Uh 120 dock stream.

Thank you.

In English own español.

Cercame.

Alcaldia.

Yeah.

El escucha, you responded a la gente.

I'll go ahead and continue in English, even though it hasn't done any good for the last three years.

I've come before you about the condition of the sidewalks downtown and the fact that we'd have a pump system that is failed for three years and that you failed to repair.

What I have just told you is I have a home in El Salvador.

Next door to me, I I live next door.

My mission and my home there is right next to the Alcalde, the mayor and the mayor's office.

The grand differencia, big difference there is that when I go and speak to them, or when the people in El Salvador come in and they talk to the mayor, escucha.

He listens.

Aqui nunca nunca nunca.

This is a conversation I had with Harry, verbatim on the 28th.

We wrote back and forth to one another.

I said most downtown business owners won't attend city council meetings because they consider it a waste of time.

They tease me all the time about my appearances.

They say that I'm clear evidence that the mayor and city council don't give a damn.

Perhaps you could be a little more vocal about.

Yes, I said to Harry, perhaps you could be a little more vocal about our existing flood remediation system that hasn't functioned in three years.

I guarantee if I were in your shoes running for office, I would be stating loudly and repeatedly how utterly shameful it is that we don't use a simple pump system that worked perfectly for three years.

Most people laugh when they hear the mayor and council members say they care about imp the impact flooding has had on the downtown businesses.

I've repeatedly offered to pay for all of the equipment and its installation, and yet my offer is refused.

The problem persists.

First three years it was in existence.

The city dock parking lot only had to be barricaded once.

That's correct.

One time.

To say that we're addressing flooding comprehensively is disingenuous at best and could be more accurately described as pure.

I'll abbreviate the S.

I will repeat my question.

What possible reasons could you all have for not addressing this issue when it wouldn't cost you a cent, and it would make a world of difference to the rest of us.

My final response to Harry was I or Harry's response to me was I feel like this has been answered repeatedly.

I replied, tell me what that answer was.

That's what I'd like to hear tonight.

I've never heard the answer.

No one's ever given the answer.

Dead air.

Your silence speaks volume.

Next up, Penny McDemot.

Katie McDermott, 50 Franklin Street.

Good evening, Mayor Buckley and members of the city council.

I'd like to speak on the short-term rental legislation that I believe is still live for this session or for this vote tonight.

I want to uh note for the record the May 21, 2025 staff report on this bill written by our acting city manager.

This is not a limitation on short-term rentals, it's a balloon of short-term rentals.

This staff report talking about the 10% said the city may need to clarify why it's choosing 10% as the limit.

That's a question I've asked for months, in addition to a moratorium.

The number of STRs in this report, this is the only staff report on this bill.

There's four amendments, no staff report.

This is the only staff report.

This is the only information available to the public.

And it says the estimate of allowable STRs given 10% per block face is 3,177.

What do we have right now?

287.

If anyone thinks this is a cap or a limit, they can't read.

If you don't believe that, you haven't said so.

You haven't developed no contradiction of this report exists anywhere, anywhere.

This is what the public has.

It's not misinformation, it's not disinformation.

It's what our city manager has told us about this bill, the public.

And it's why we're here tonight.

And it's why we're concerned.

It's why we want this bill to be deferred.

Because it needs more work.

And you're thoughtful, and you're really really experienced enough to know that.

Because here's this report that says so, too.

So I encourage you really to pull back this bill and work harder.

We asked for a moratorium months ago, our alderman said impossible.

We've heard that it's impossible today to get that.

It'll probably be impossible in January to get it.

I don't know.

But what I do know is our neighborhoods are under siege.

And this bill does not meet the moment.

And in fact, it's misleading to the public and suggesting it's a cap.

3,177 STRs allowable by law is not progress in protecting our neighborhoods.

And if there's anything that contradicts this, I haven't been provided it.

Thank you very much.

Next up, Cara Brown.

Good evening, Mayor Buckley and City Council.

I'm Karen Brown, President and CEO of Historic Annapolis, 18 Pinckney Street.

I want to first thank Alderman Arnett for his informative newsletters.

They've been really helpful.

And in particular, the one that you issued this past weekend that spoke to the power of public involvement.

I also wanted to thank Alderman Savage for his attempts to clarify 01425 with thoughtful and important amendments and his commitment to a better consequence to better this consequential legislation.

There are three primary reasons that this is bad policy and should be stricken from the proposed legislation.

And this largely echoes the comments that we've already heard from Ward One.

Number one, it establishes a horrible precedent that will inevitably open the door for more piecemeal zoning changes.

The existing height ordinance has been in place for decades and has been effective in protecting the scale, the sense of openness, and the historic character at City Doc.

This legislation aims to benefit a select few parcels and will open a way for a ripple effect ringing around all of City Doc.

A change of this magnitude should be considered thoughtfully and holistically by the next administration.

Number two, this change has not been vetted by the HPC, the mayoral appointed city commission charged to safeguard the cultural heritage of the historic district.

The degree of preservation in Annapolis today would not exist without the diligent attention of the HPC to its preservation mandate, which fuels our economy as a world-class heritage tourism destination.

There's no valid reason why the HPC has not been given an opportunity to provide input on this significant change, which directly affects the built environment that they're responsible for protecting.

And we heard from the chair of the HPC today requesting their review.

HPC involvement should be mandatory.

And number three, this proposal does not have the support of the sitting ward one alderman, Mr.

Huntley, who actively advocates on behalf of his constituents.

He has been responsive to their concerns, and many are opposed to this measure.

I respectfully request the council to defer to the standing alderman when considering legislation that has significant and exclusive implications for their ward.

This legislation is about the future of Annapolis, about the legacy that you will leave for the next generation.

Historic Annapolis welcomes the opportunity to work with the city to ensure that the legislative changes affecting this nationally recognized colonial Annapolis Historic District to serve to protect our historic character.

What is proposed does not safeguard our historic character.

It threatens it.

Thank you.

Next up, Dan Clements.

Dan Clements, 17 Southgate Avenue.

Aside from what everybody else has said, O 1425 violates the state constitution, as I've told you three times.

I'm not sure anybody's listening.

I wrote you a 14-page brief, which you have, and I'm aware that at least the city attorney has read.

Let me explain why.

There's six factors of special legislation, primarily because it relates to only one individual or a couple of individuals.

The first issue is whether the purpose of the legislation enactment actually intended to benefit benefit or burden a particular member or members of a class instead of an entire class.

This is only one class.

It's latitude 138, Harvey Blonde's building hotel, but that he wants to build a hotel there.

It could not possibly affect the other buildings because they're not big enough to put a rooftop on.

They're not big enough to have a green roof.

So those buildings in that small area are not affected, cannot be affected by this legislation, and that's why it's a special law.

Two, whether the particular individual or entities are identified in the statute.

In fact, the statute does not mention this one because it has four buildings or five buildings.

It doesn't matter.

Mr.

Fallatt, who is a partner of Harvey Blonde, indicated in his testimony before the commission, the planning commission on June 25th, that they requested it.

They've asked for it.

They started asking for it 10 years ago.

And the only one of those buildings, and you can correct me if I'm wrong, the only one of those building owners who has asked for this is Mr.

Blonder and 138 or latitude 138.

That makes it legislation for one individual, and it violates the constitution of the state of Maryland.

It's a special law.

Three, what's the practical effect of the enactment?

Practical effect of the enactment, it only relates to that building.

The other buildings aren't big enough for them to take and put down, put a roof.

So they couldn't possibly apply.

It certainly doesn't apply to Sophies, and it can't apply to the other buildings, although I gather Mr.

Blonder owns at least one of the other buildings as well.

So maybe he wants to tear that one down, but if he does, it still only relates to him and for his value.

If a particular number four, if a particular individual business sought or received special advantage from the legislature, Mr.

Pilat admitted in his testimony that this was sought by him, sought by Mr.

Blonder, and they're the only ones anybody's talking about.

Anybody talking about anything other than the hotel?

No.

Anybody talking about anything else?

No.

Does this statute reply or relate to the rest of Doc Street?

No.

It's a single building.

Number five, and I have two more quick points.

The public need and public interest.

When I was here last time, Mr.

Jakubia said there's great public importance to this legislation.

Well, I don't deny that it might be nice to have a successful hotel there.

However, what the law says and the case law says, it has to be a change of law because the general lawyers are inadequate.

The law at the moment allows you to build a hotel there, just doesn't allow you to build one with a rooftop dining area.

So public interest, you can cover that today.

Unfortunately, the city, the mayor, have not sought to find out if you can build a building there without it that could be viable.

You haven't.

You haven't asked anybody.

You haven't even asked the owner.

Can we build this without needing the top?

Can you still make a profit?

Yes, you can.

You know you can.

That's what makes this special legislation.

You're doing it to help one builder build a hotel and make more money.

Lastly, whether the legislative enactment is arbitrary and without any reasonable basis.

It is not.

Keep going, keep going.

Okay.

It is not because it is arbitrary.

There's no reasonable basis to only include that part of Doc Street.

There's none.

My time is up.

I want to point out and ask one thing of you, all of you.

When I was here, I gave you a 14 page brief last time.

I thought it would become part of the public record.

I gather it is not.

It's not available online to read, even though I gave it to all of you.

And I understand from Madam Clerk that the council has to ask for it to be put in the record, even though I submitted it.

It has to, you have to ask for it to be submitted in the record and put online.

Alderman Savage, would you please do that for me?

I emailed it to you.

I did already.

Pardon?

I did already.

Good.

So now everybody can read the brief.

Realize you are buying a lawsuit for the next mayor.

There will be a lawsuit you pass this.

I can assure you, I'll be a plaintiff, and you will lose.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Next up.

Uh Sophie Rahindi.

Mr.

Mayor, I missed the last gentleman's uh written testimony.

I also missed in the beginning.

He made me have mentioned occupation.

Is it the gentleman attorney?

I missed that.

Dan Clement.

Yes, I am.

Alderman Gay.

Alderman, I am an attorney.

I've been a member of the Maryland Bar for 53 years.

I'm a former assistant United States attorney.

I've written dozens of pieces of legislation before the Maryland legislature that have been passed, which is where I learned what special legislation is and why you can't have and he has an opinion and is entitled to that opinion.

Thank you.

The law is on my side, Mr.

Mayor, Mr.

Gay.

Yep.

Thank you.

Thank you, Mr.

Mayor.

My apologies.

Thank you.

Thank you, Dan.

Hello, my name is Sophia Rahindi.

I live on 37 Bates Street.

And I'm here about the parking that recently came up, um, mainly on Clay Street.

The problem that we have off of Bates and Bartina, Alderman O'Neal had already came through and I seen her.

We met, she told me that they were planning on putting parking signs on our street, because I've known I've been living there for seven years, and I just recently got my car in the last three years that there's literally no parking.

Um, about 2021, 2022, they put um re-established uh lines on our side on our streets from Bartina and Bait Street, but that was from our maintenance guy.

He's no longer there.

When I asked them about repainting it, they told me that they have nothing to do with it, that it's the city's problem.

And so I said, okay, well, then that's fine.

After I met with Alderman O'Neill while she was doing her walkthrough, there was a second walkthrough done.

The second walkthrough, I was told from my neighbor that I was possibly gonna get a $300 ticket because of where I parked directly in front of my house.

There's no handicap spot of saying that no parking right there.

There's no lines on our street on Bertina or um Bates Street.

Um, there's a problem with the Airbnbs from off of Clay Street parking in our side.

Um, business trucks parking on the back of Bertina.

So there's no parking.

So if they were planning on doing construction on Clay Street, then where would the people that live mainly on Penrose off of Clay and Bates park when there's no parking right now?

If you come through, you see that people are parking on the wrong side of the street.

The fire fire department had came plenty of times trying to get through.

They gave out tickets and then they stopped.

And the people are still parking there, but yet we have no parking.

No proper parking, no signs being established.

She said they were going to create something so that they can make sure that people with low income can get a waiver to get permits.

But when is that gonna happen and how are we gonna be affected when this new construction goes on?

Thanks, Sophia.

We are gonna work on that and get it solved.

Okay.

Thank you.

Thank you for coming.

Next up, Terra Stutt.

Guess when I was applying, apparently I was right on target.

Tarra Stout 1174 Bay Highlands Drive.

Uh I came tonight just to ask for the support of 030 25 as amended.

I want to thank Alderman O'Neill and Brooks for and Alderman for Layson for taking it at the rules committee and approving those amendments or recommending those amendments because they're really crucial to having any chance at the legislation working.

And on a lighter note, uh, since I was here so much, I think I should tell everybody that an email went out to all the prospects for the willows today that they'll be taking applications later this month.

So we're getting closer to delivering those 58 units.

So all my trips here to council were apparently worth it because the community is very happy.

So thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you for the opportunity to speak to you tonight.

First, I want to thank you for withdrawing the alternative dwelling unit and the um uh duplex proposals, but I'd like to talk about short-term rentals.

I recognize the proposed 10% cap and the lottery amendment are well-intentioned efforts to address the growth of STRs, but we all share the same goal protecting our neighborhoods and restoring balance between visitors and residents.

But I'm here tonight.

I'm somebody who's never been before you before.

You don't know me, but I'm here because I'm very, very concerned as a citizen that this legislation is written, will not solve the problem we're experiencing in our neighborhoods.

First, the 10% cap doesn't actually reduce the oversaturation that we have today.

It locks it in.

The neighborhoods like Charles Street or short-term rentals already make up far more than 10% of homes.

This would simply freeze those blocks in their current condition.

Residents there will continue to live next door to a revolving door of short-term visitors with no clear path to a stable long-term housing arrangement.

Second, the enforcement and the data must come first.

Right now, the city doesn't have an accurate count of how many STRs exist or how many are operating illegally.

Many of those unlicensed rentals are also avoiding local lodging taxes, meaning they're profiting from our city while contributing nothing back.

That's unfair to compliant property owners and to taxpayers who fund the very services those rentals rely on.

Before settling a permanent cap, we need a clear and enforceable baseline of who's operating legally and who isn't.

Third, SDRs bring real physical pressures on our neighborhoods, especially parking and density.

And this is coming from somebody who has to wonder every day when I get home if I'm going to have a parking space or not.

Streets that were designed for a handful of residents now face constant turnover of guests and vehicles.

Visitors often arrive with multiple cars, taking up limited street parking, and create daily confusion for those of us who actually live here.

Increased density also strains our trash collection, noise enforcement, and basic public safety.

These quality of life impacts are immediate and visible, and they need to be part of any solution.

A temporary citywide moratorium would give Annapolis the breathing room it needs to conduct a proper audit, strengthen enforcement, and design a fair system grounded in real data, one that also accounts for the capacity of our infrastructure and neighborhoods to absorb additional density.

Without that, we risk rewarding those who have already skirted the rules while burning burdening residents who are simply trying to live normal lives in their communities.

A moratorium is not a delay, it's a reset.

And I respectfully ask you to consider that option.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Mr.

Mayor.

Just I wanted to state for the public uh we can't get into a direct dialogue during public testimony, but I want to point out that there's a lot of misinformation and incorrect interpretation of 017 in the short-term rental legislation.

If you're able to stay for the dialogue, the deliberation, I would encourage you to do so where we can have an opportunity to make those corrections.

Next up, uh Rachel Robinson.

Good evening, Mr.

Mayor and members of the city council.

Uh I'm Rachel Robinson, Vice President of Preservation at Historic Annapolis, 18 Pinkney Street, and also a resident of the historic district.

In response to the suite of zoning changes before you tonight for second reader, uh, which is now reduced by two, I wish to provide some clarification.

Preservationists know better than most that cities are the product of change and the layering of the built environment that happens over centuries.

Change is inevitable, but it can also be managed appropriately in order to preserve and protect the character of Annapolis that is attractive to residents and visitors alike.

We appreciate the withdrawal of the ADU and duplex legislation, and we support this for the sake of improving the legislation and garnering support from the community.

For the same reasons, we recommend withdrawal of the SDR and comp plan implementation legislation or striking the height, as uh Karen Brown suggested, as well, so that we it can be improved and not cause further complications within the zoning code or unfair and unintended consequences.

It is true that these proposed zoning changes have gone through the prescribed channels for review, including staff reports, impact reports, and referral to the city council standing committees and planning commission.

The one notable exception here is the glaring lack of HPC advisory review of 01425 that's been covered by others.

There are many in this community, however, including some members of the city council who believe that this is too much zoning legislation and it's too complicated, flawed, and consequential to come through at one time in the fourth quarter of this term.

Getting zoning legislation right for the future, land use of Annapolis, and for the residents of the city is worth the time required for further study, vetting, and revision.

Getting it passed in the next two weeks for the sake of expediency is not.

Thank you for your time and consideration and a special note of congratulations to the two retiring uh alder persons.

Thank you.

Next up, Antonia Barry.

Good evening.

My name is Antonia Barry of 100 South Cherry Grove Avenue, Annapolis.

I'm here to talk about several different items that are on the agenda.

The first one is CA125, City Council Compensation Commission.

I request that the Charter Amendment regarding how expenses are handled for the mayor, aldermen, and alder women to include that the amounts for such reimbursements will be limited by ordinance.

The current, the current language in effect says the mayor aldermen and alder women shall be allowed such amounts for expenses as established by ordinance.

The charter amendment states the mayor and aldermen or alder women shall be entitled to reimbursements for expenses, leaving an open-ended item.

The expenses in the revision set no limits by ordinance.

And I believe at a time when the public is asking for the council to find savings to lower taxes and provide a homestead exemption to match the county's homestead exemption.

That this is not a time to leave council member expense spending open-ended.

This eliminates some element of transparency to the residents of Annapolis and would and will undoubtedly have some fiscal impacts which were not noted on the fiscal impact note.

This is also not a way to build trust with the community.

Limits need to be set so there is no runaway expensing, and so that each member of the council is treated equally and with equal limits.

With regard to short-term rentals, please withdraw this proposal and put a moratorium on any future short-term rental licenses, meet with neighborhood community associations, and come up with a proper proposal that is not labor-intensive, does not leave 90% of the residents stuck with the impacts caused by 10% of the block base of short-term rentals.

We know short-term rentals are often problematic for neighbors and neighbors for neighborhoods and neighbors adjacent to the property with a short-term rental.

Let's not rush to create an ordinance that overburdens or overburdens licensing and planning offices, which already have processing time complaints.

Also, um, in looking at amendment three, I was not able to pull that up online, so I'm not sure if that was really available for the public to review, and therefore maybe it shouldn't be voted on.

As previously stated, please withdraw this ordinance.

And I ask that any further zoning changes and proposals be vetted out at the neighborhood levels with planning and zoning meetings before they become proposed ordinances, as proposing these ordinances without the appropriate communication with the neighborhoods that are affected, are degrading trust between residents and city council.

With regard to the election report deadlines, which is oh 2425, I don't see the problem with the current reporting.

And frankly, I don't understand why we've removed the deadline four weeks prior to the general election to report.

That's when most people care.

They don't care about 26 seven weeks before the primary.

We care four weeks before the election.

Something doesn't smell right with this one.

I don't know what it is.

I don't understand politics enough, but it just doesn't seem right.

With regarding this R 3325 speed monitoring systems, as I recall when the original speed monitoring devices were initially proposed long ago, the public did not trust them and felt they were too much government oversight and a means for the city to collect more fees from the general public rather than to address public safety.

To pass the use of these machines, a deal was made that these machines would only be allowed in school zones during school hours with fines of only 40 dollars.

Since there wasn't a police officer there to provide a warning for a driver with no prior citations.

Do these machines actually slow down vehicles?

Antonio, that's three minutes plus one extra minute.

Thank you.

Can you wrap up?

Can I continue?

Okay.

Thank you.

Do these machines actually slow down, slow vehicles down?

That didn't seem to be the case at the speed monitoring system near Parole Elementary School, where the number of tickets actually went up from 2023 to 2024.

Thank you.

Thank you, Antonia.

That's well over four minutes.

So you're over you get three minutes plus an extra minute, not another whole page.

Sorry.

Thank you.

I just one last thing.

The market space interest waiver.

I don't understand it.

Okay.

Why?

Thank you.

Next up, Isaac Vinyard.

Good evening, Isaac Vineyard, 92 Clay Street.

Um, it's good to be with you.

Um I came originally to talk about parking.

We've already talked about um the bad communication that resulted in parking catastrophes on Clay Street.

So I won't talk about that so much, although I will mention that there is still apparently a plan to block off a bunch of parking with no parking spots, as has been mentioned earlier, and children walking through a construction site because apparently the street is too dangerous for a bus to drive on.

But anyways, that's I don't think maybe that's not even in your control.

But apparently Clay Street's too dangerous for the county schools to drive a bus on.

So we might want to think about that.

Um, but I will talk about two other things.

One um being short-term rentals.

Um, so Clay Street as well is overwhelmed with short-term rentals.

Um Pleasant Street, I don't even know if there are people who actually own their homes on Pleasant Street anymore.

Um, so I I guess I'm thankful to know that this is happening all over the city, that it's not targeted towards minority communities.

Um, however, it's happening um horrifyingly in our community.

And um Alderman Savage has told me that I don't understand it.

So um maybe I don't.

Here's what I do understand is that right now there are unlicensed Airbnbs that I've reported that are still operating as an unlicensed Airbnb.

I understand that.

And so I really don't know that it matters what you do.

Moratorium, no moratorium, block them, don't block them, doesn't matter because we're not enforcing the laws.

I've reported them, sign shows up, sign gets taken down, people move in, and it's back to business.

And no one seems to care.

I report them again, same thing over and over and over again.

When are we going to actually address the issues?

When I was getting yelled at by an Airbnb guest that lives that was saying two doors down from me the other day, the thought that ran through my mind when she was yelling, what do you have to say for yourself?

Because I was trying to park in the parking spot in front of my house.

Um, the thing that I wanted to say, but I didn't say is when you go downtown and you see a person downtown who doesn't have a home, and you look at them and you look at them with disgust.

Just remember your staying in their house.

That could have been provided for them.

But unfortunately, an investor who has illegally reported their investment, by the way, because they say it's their principal residence, even though it's not.

They say that they live in the city of Annapolis because it's their principal residence, even though it's not, which means that they have a license, even though they can't, according to our current laws, because that person has decided that it's more important to them to make money on that property than to let someone actually live there that needs a house.

And the council doesn't care, as far as I can tell, because I've reported it, and nothing has happened.

One more thing that I'll say, I know I heard the first buzzer.

Um, the third thing I wanted to talk about is speed cameras.

Um, I actually love that we're doing speed cameras because I know for a fact, Mr.

Mayor and um our counsel knows that we have requested a speed camera in our community, which we didn't see on the list of where speed cameras were going.

Mr.

Mayor told us at the last public meeting that it's because rich people don't like them, so poor people won't like them.

So, as far as I can tell, um, that's why we don't have speed cameras going in on Clay Street, even though we have requested them because it is so dangerous because our kids have to walk across those roads to avoid construction to get to a safe place where a school bus can pick them up.

Thank you.

Uh Oldman Huntley.

Uh Oldman Hudley, I I just want to uh say how much I appreciate your last point and encourage everyone to email police at Annapolis.gov with where you think we ought to be putting in speed cameras.

Thank you.

Next up, Tom Creek.

Tom Creek, 14 Murray Avenue, Annapolis.

Um, good evening, Mr.

Mayor and Council members.

Before I go start, I want to commend um Alderman Savage for this lengthy and really well thought out responses throughout the weekend.

I think it was very important to have an exchange in email to not just to me, but to other people.

And I thank you for that, although I disagree with you.

I do thank you for it.

Um tonight I come before you because I'm opposed to 01725.

Now, I come from I come from both sides of the equation.

I've been transparent with that.

Uh it's not because I deny that there's a problem with STRs, but because I think this is fundamentally a management issue and execution problem, not one that's going to be fixed by adding another layer of an ordinance on top of what problem we have now.

We already have tools in place to regulate noise, occupancy, trash, parking, licensing, neighborhood disruption.

They're there.

The obstacle is not the absence of rules.

We have 17 pages of ordinance.

17 pages.

Okay.

The problem, rather lock, the problem is a timely and effective administration informed enforcement and accountability of those rules.

Now illustrate my own experience.

This is my own experience.

I applied for my SDR license on August 4th, 2025, just like I have, just as I have over the last four years.

I submitted a renewed application for the short-term license.

I've sent follow-ups.

I've asked for updates.

Um, I went to City Hall last week because I'm not on a list of being approved.

I went to City Hall last week, and I was able to establish that we're all good to go.

We're fine.

Problem is that the inspection process is two to three months behind.

So we're gonna have to wait for that to come through.

Yet I can still rent right now, which is fine.

Yet today the city council is preparing to add new regulations and penalties tied to licensing and compliance into a system that's already failing.

Now, one feature of the proposed bill deeply concerns me, and that's the plan to institute a lottery onto the SDR.

The city would resort to a lottery system to allocate licenses in two years rather than addressing the root causes right now, backlog and processing delays and enforcement.

Now, that approach risk arbitrarily denying licenses to those who seek compliance, pushing forward property owners towards informal and underground operations like Stazi, Priceline, Craigslist, Mid Rentals, middle, it's a that's a um Annapolis site.

Um and various Facebook pages.

We have more than 287 approved.

We have a lot more.

Let's just come to that agreement.

Let's enforce and find them out they are where they are first.

Now, we've been given quoting New Orleans as the model.

Well, I went back to some research on New Orleans.

Um, and it's a cautionary model.

The city adopted the same block, but at 20%, not 10%.

And they adopted the lottery system.

Um city officials recently reported that approximately 75% of STRs are now operating illegally or operating without city approval.

The enforcement was weakened and regulatory uncertainty, excuse me.

Many listings went underground.

One article described the lottery regime as quote unquote a mess.

If New Orleans is the example that teaches us anything, it is that when you layer restrictive mechanisms on top of administrative failures, compliance is gonna collapse.

So here's what I'm suggesting.

First thing is let's get a moratorium in right now.

Now, the exchange of emails through the weekend, you can do that by suspending the rules.

I know the difficulty is, but you could do that.

You've heard the conversations about Clay Street.

That's an economic issue, why they're expanding there.

Let's put the moratorium in right now, tonight.

Let's go back and fix the process.

Let's fix the administrative process.

Let's strengthen the enforcement.

Let's implement a data-driven oversight.

Figure out who is and who isn't.

Let's put placards on the front windows of people who own STRs so we can quickly identify who is and who isn't.

And then finally, let's pilot.

Two minutes.

I'll be right there.

No, two minutes, one thirty seconds.

I apologize.

Um, let's pilot a limited cap and a lottery system once we have the administrative process in place.

To sum up, I'm not denying STRs are an issue, but I'm simply saying that we have to get our house in order in order to move forward.

Thank you for the extended time.

I appreciate it.

Thank you.

Next up, Lori Sullivan.

Good evening.

Thank you so much.

I'm Laurie Sullivan at 25 Wagner Street.

Um, I'm speaking in opposition to ordinance 01425.

Uh, first, regarding the proposed increase in density for mixed use developments.

This ordinance would allow up to 150% increase in density in new mixed-use developments across much of Annapolis.

Yet, as with the ADU and duplex legislation, there's been no meaningful analysis of how such change would affect affordability, infrastructure, traffic, parking, emergency services, broadband performance, or school capacity.

This is another case of ready fire aim legislation.

Acting before we understand the consequences.

Annapolis deserves data-driven, coordinated policy making, not piecemeal experiments.

And there's been no meaningful public engagement about what kind of growth residents actually want.

Just like the ADU and Duplex bills, which I am very grateful that you are withdrawing for this evening.

This bill should be withdrawn and revisited by the next city council with a comprehensive housing plan that connects growth to infrastructure, city services, and quality of life.

Second, I want to address the dock street block.

Let's be candid.

This is spot zoning.

There may be more than one property owner on that block, but only one is requesting this zoning change.

And only that owner stands to profit from it.

That by definition is spot zoning.

Legislation crafted to benefit a single private interest, not the public.

We can call it a height adjustment for an elevator shaft or HBAC, but in truth, it's about enabling a highly profitable rooftop bar for one developer.

And this particular developer has a long and well-known record of neglecting downtown properties, allowing them to deteriorate under until they're beyond repair.

And in some cases, the buildings become so run down that the cost to fix them is prohibitive.

And he simply sells them off without ever restoring them.

This is a clear pattern of poor stewardship, not the behavior of someone who deserves a special treatment of zoning favors.

With a continuous focus on the height and bulk changes and with so much attention on the roof structure, combined with the comments of the project's architect throughout the process, it has become increasingly clear that the real goal of this project is not to develop a hotel.

Instead, the goal of this is a rooftop bar with the possibility of a restaurant that happens to be above a hotel.

Even worse, the planning and zoning staff claims that construction of the new park would harm this property owner because the park's elevation would rise about four feet, supposedly diminishing his view.

But that argument simply doesn't hold up.

Any future development that that property will be required under the federal sea level rise regulations to be raised to the same four foot level.

So even without any change to height or bulk restrictions, any new building will stand at the same elevation as the park, so there is no injury whatsoever.

And let's not forget the hospitality group that recently opened boutique hotels in State Circle, West Street, Randall Street, and has proven that you don't need taller or bulkier buildings to succeed in the hospitality business.

They've shown that profitability and preservation can go hand in hand when development respect uh respects the character of historic Annapolis.

So finally, at the time when we're really struggling with traffic congestion and limited parking, why would we consider reducing parking requirements for large developments?

It's the opposite of what our city needs.

There's no data, no studies, no demonstrated public benefit, only a pattern of policymaking that favors developers over residents, and that's just not good governance and not in the public interest.

The one last thing uh that the public cares about is preserving the very special character of our historic city.

Uh, there's a way to develop that respects and enhances that character, but this is not it.

I would close by saying this.

I know that this meaning you, this is a thankless job.

And I truly appreciate your time, your service, and your willingness to listen to residents whose passion and sometimes frustration may be directed at you.

Please remember that your loyalty is to the residents of Annapolis, even those who can be impatient, blunt, and angry.

That passion comes from caring deeply about this city, the same reason that you have been called to serve, and we're very grateful for it.

And for the two of you who are retiring, thank you very, very much for your service.

Thank you.

No one else uh who'd like to come up and speak next.

Please come forward, Cal.

You're up first.

Go for it.

My name is Carl Larkin at 154 Prince George Street.

I think you know me.

I've been here before.

And for those of you who are believing the council, thank you for your service.

It's not an easy job to sit here and listen to all these uh suggestions.

I have one.

We've all been taught a code that guides our decisions of right and wrong decisions.

And I asked that your vote what you know to be the right thing tonight.

The majority of residents in your ward have selected you to represent them.

And the majority of them have expressed preferences on the proposals before you tonight.

And you've heard those preferences.

The residents of the city do not want rezoning of the neighborhoods through AB ADUs, duplexes, short-term rentals, or increased density legislation on new developments that may not include significant public input.

And we've heard about the lack of public input this evening.

Rigorous analysis or infrastructure emergency services, school capacity, or impact on affordability, property taxes, traffic, and parking.

Those bills are not for a vote tonight.

Those bills are up for a vote tonight.

Public outcry against them, you've heard tonight.

I haven't heard anyone speak on behalf of them.

So the public outcry is against them, and it has been substantial.

I ask that you do the right thing, and both the wishes of your your uh res majority of your residents and your ward, that would be the right thing to do, and we would appreciate it.

Thank you very much.

Do you have any props?

Bub, no guitar, no moment of silence.

Come on.

No silence tonight, I promise.

Uh thank you, Mayor.

Thank you, City Council, for letting us all speak tonight.

We appreciate it.

Um, just a question that I think needs to be addressed tonight.

And dress again real quickly.

Sorry.

Thank you.

Bobby O'Shea, 129 Granville Avenue, Annapolis, Mallaryl.

Thank you.

Murray Hill.

A question I think that needs to be addressed tonight is why were all the scheduled proposals removed at this time?

To protect those who support the proposals from potentially being voted out of office by the citizens of our beautiful city.

All proposals need to be fully understood and accepted by the communities that are affected by these proposals.

The proposals that have been presented and are being presented are ones that are neighborhood character changing events.

The perfect example of a city out of control was eloquently spoken by two women in ward four tonight.

When they asked questions about the parking restrictions that were placed in their community.

A city council that does not understand cause and effect of their actions.

So you know where I stand, which I know you guys do.

I oppose the removed proposals from tonight's agenda.

Everyone who is running for office needs to state where they stand on these issues.

Residents of Annapolis, you have a chance to make a difference soon.

Thank you.

But in closing, Ross Arnett, Sheila, Duan, and Ronda, who's not here.

Thank you so much.

Oh, come on.

Well, no, you're last.

Hold on.

You're there.

You guys thanks for your constant support.

And why did I save Mayor Gavin for last?

Because as many of you see, sometimes get Mayor Gavin and I go at it at these events.

But when Gavin and I, and I say it that way, are in public or we're just alone and we talk to each other.

We have good conversation.

And what I like about it is when we have that conversation.

I think it's honest and sincere.

And I appreciate what you've also done.

You've changed our city, and I wish you all the best of luck moving forward.

Thank you very much.

Thank you.

Anybody else like to come forward and speak.

Good evening.

Winchip Wheatley, 159 Monticello Avenue, Annapolis.

Um I'm going to be very brief tonight.

And maybe not quite so passionate as I was last time.

Um after listening to the to my fellow citizens speak, I don't know that there's too much to add.

I think you know what the right thing to do is with the matters before you.

But I did have the opportunity today to listen to the October 3rd um rules and city government committee uh online.

And one thing really caught my attention is when Alderman Arnett made the terrific comment.

Really caught my eye, my ear.

After listening to so many inconclusive comments from staff and other members about some of the zoning proposals before you now.

He said seeing what happens, I'll paraphrase seeing what happens as a result of these measures is not what you would call planning.

Thank you very much.

Would you else like to come forward and speak?

Going to us.

I declare the public hearing closed.

Mr.

City Attorney, please present the next item on the agenda.

Yes, sir.

The next item on the agenda is consent calendar.

Would I get a motion to the consent calendar?

Second.

Let him roll call.

Yes, sir.

Mayor Buckley.

Aye.

Alderman Shannelmeyer.

Aye.

Alderman Gay.

Aye.

Alderman Thavitt.

Aye.

Alderman Arnett.

Aye.

Alderman Holly.

Aye.

Alderwoman O'Neil.

I think.

Thank you.

Mr.

City Attorney, please present the next item on the agenda.

Yes, sir.

The next item of agenda is business miscellaneous, an action item.

ID 15125, requiring a vote to correct the technical uh typographical error on O 1325.

Compensation of Mayor Alderperson City Manager.

So did I get a motion on?

Thank you.

Second.

Second.

Okay.

Thank you.

All those in favor, please say aye.

Aye.

Opposed.

Thank you, Mr.

City Attorney.

Please present the next on the agenda.

Yes, sir.

The next item on the agenda is legislative actions beginning with first readers.

First one is R 4325, annual media and tourism industry reception fee waiver.

Second.

Thank you.

All those in favor, please say aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Opposed.

Thank you.

Let's refer uh 4325 to the finance committee.

Mr.

City Attorney, please present the next on the agenda.

Yes, sir.

Next item is second readers under the legislative action beginning with Charter Amendment CA125.

City Council Compensation Commission.

Your motion to adopt CA125 on second reader.

Second.

I think this is the one.

Let me bring it up here.

Somebody testified regarding the reimbursement language.

And I actually had the same question when I was reading through it.

Or is it the other one I'm thinking of?

Trying to find it in the uh it's it's line 21 here.

Page three.

Page three, line 21.

Uh the law office.

Take a look at that and let us know if we need to put some kind of limit on that, or is that implied?

Because we have to set the reimbursement limits in the budget, right?

Ask me with more definitive questions.

So your current language says the mayor and alderman for alder woman shall be entitled to reimbursement for expenses.

I guess my question is are there limitations placed on that?

It doesn't have any limitations stated, but are there limitations elsewhere?

The city manager can answer that.

Yeah, there um sorry, um Victoria Buckland, acting city manager.

There are limits that are contained within the budget.

So they're they're there it's not like a separate, it's not a separate piece of standalone legislation, it's part of the the limit that everyone gets every year as part of the budget process.

Okay, that's what I thought because in the past we did we have increased our training budget, and that was an amendment to the budget.

It's not something we have to address in the charter.

That's correct.

Okay, just clarifying that for the public.

Yeah, you already voted for it in the budget, yes.

Okay, all right.

Um all those in favor, please say aye.

All right, aye, opposed.

I think you're gonna get a motion on third reader, please.

So move some move second, Madam City Clerk, please call the roll.

Yes, sir, mayor Bogley.

Aye.

Alderman Lason.

Aye.

Alderman Sandemeyer.

Aye.

Alderman Gay.

Aye.

Alderman Savage.

Aye.

Alderman Arnett.

Aye.

Alderman Huntley.

Aye.

Alderwoman O'Neill.

Aye.

Aye.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Mr.

City Attorney, please present the next on the agenda.

Yes, sir.

The next item on the agenda legislative access for second reader is Charter Amendment C A 225.

City Council Pay and Benefits deadline.

Can I get a motion to adopt CA2-25 on second reader?

So moved.

Second.

All those in favor, please say aye.

Aye.

Opposed.

Oh, yeah.

No, I was the next.

No, sorry.

Uh could I get a motion on third reader, please?

So Mr.

Mayor, if I could make one comment.

Yep, Alderman Gay.

Thank you so much.

I um uh am pleased that this is uh first of all.

Let me first off think the work of the staff and the commission.

Uh in both of these chart amendments, uh, you know, obviously one being technical one, uh being uh having an enforcement aspect.

I'm happy that this is passed.

I think you know it makes sure that we have people that um are able to be committed uh to the roles and responsibility of being an older person.

Um I think in general, when I talk to people in the public, they are always saying, Oh my gosh, you guys are so underpaid, or I could never work the job, you know, for the amount of hours and time that you do.

So uh I wish that I could uh reap the benefits in this.

I will not, but uh I I think is great for the next council and mayor.

Thank you so much.

Madam City Clerk, please call the roll.

Yes, Mayor Bunkley.

Alderworth.

Aye, Alderman Sadamayer, Alderman Gay, aye Alderman Savage, aye, Alderman Arnett.

Aye, Alderman Huntley, ayewoman O'Neill.

Aye, thank you.

You, Mr.

City Attorney, please present the next on the agenda.

Yes, sir.

The next item on the agenda is ordinance 01425, implementation of annapolis ahead comprehensive plan 2040.

Get a motion on 1425.

So moved second.

Thank you.

We'll start off with some amendments.

Number amendment number one, Alderman Huntley.

Could move that.

So moved.

Um, or yeah, move for approval of amendment one.

Second, second.

Any discussion.

Okay.

All those in favor, please say aye.

Aye.

Opposed.

Thank you.

Uh Alderman.

I'm gonna move someone to move by amendment, or I'll move my amendment if we get a second, please.

Second, technical amendment, amendment number two.

Second.

Thank you.

Any questions?

All those in favor, please say aye.

All right, aye.

Opposed.

Thank you.

Uh amendment number three, Alderman Savage.

Uh so moved.

Second.

Okay.

All those in favor, please say aye.

Aye.

Amendment number three.

Amendment number four, Alderman Arnett.

I move amendment number four.

Second.

Second.

Primary thrust of this is to address the purpose of the comprehensive plan.

And I'm offering that the primary purpose of the comprehensive plan are many fold.

One of the first of which is promoting mix of land use types within the development projects.

Second, promoting the installation use of infrastructure, such as sidewalks, bicycles, trails, and so forth.

Third is promoting the supply of affordable housing.

D is promoting physical connections to waterways.

And in each of those, and then there's a few more promoting linking of open space, but also fostering improvements to the environment.

In some of these earlier subsections, I've added uh embellishments to include things that approve community benefits, such as mobility, um food, grocery store, dock in the box, and those sorts of things as examples.

This has been vetted with the planning staff and at the committees, and uh I asked for a favorable vote.

Yeah.

Is this one?

Did you need to do something on the enclosure?

Is that you or not?

No.

Yeah, it's not coming up.

Okay.

All those in favor, please say aye.

Hold on.

So before we vote, Alderman Gay's hand up.

Sorry, I'm gonna go ahead.

No problem.

No, I I appreciate you acknowledging me.

Uh just have a quick question for the all before I vote.

Um on number C, uh, it says uh promoting the supply of affordable housing, especially multi-family housing types and it you know, has it parentheses missing middle housing, uh which can be developed at a lower cost.

Is that defined at all in the city code missing middle housing?

Um how is that to be uh uh interpreted by uh potential developers?

Uh well uh I'm assuming that they will follow all of the uh um coutrement in the comprehensive plan, and there's quite an extensive amount of those sorts of things um uh throughout the plan, opportunity areas, uh the part of the legislation that talks about the density, those sorts of things.

I uh do you mind no okay?

Thank you.

Uh another quick question.

I is there acknowledgement at all, obviously, because the important focus of this for me outside of the you know the the downtown aspect is the overall development of housing along the four quarter again when it says affordable housing, is there mention at all?

And I've looked and I've just done shift offset search to see uh the uh uh medium housing income requirements to do, you know, because otherwise if it just says affordable housing, that's left up again to the interpretation of um whomever's reading it.

Um is there at some point in this um you know a definite definition of what affordable housing means would be, and particularly based off of income, I I take your point, and uh actually for me, and you're right, it's not defined.

Um portable housing is that sociodemic cohort that falls above all of those who are eligible for subsidized housing, but below those that can afford market rate housing, so it's a very specific cohort.

Um the state uses it both ways.

The state uses affordable that includes public housing, section eight housing, and housing for people below market rate.

I really think that in the comp plan, and I think in all the discussions we've had with the council, we are focusing on a specific uh socialemic cohort.

In terms of public housing, section eight housing, uh, I think the city has no shame.

We we have more than the average amount of that kind of housing than anywhere else in the state, and really largely many places throughout the country, but it is this particular cohort of people that can't get subsidies and can't afford to buy in by either rent or purchase because of the market rate, and that I think a lot of the comp plan is meant to address.

Um if you want to uh encourage a future definition in Title 2172, where definitions are included that is more specific about affordable housing.

I think that's a good idea.

That's not in this proposal.

Okay, I appreciate that.

I I do think that is uh worthwhile.

Obviously, it cannot be done tonight, but uh um uh something that I I think is important.

Um just to clear up uh any interpretation issues in the future.

Um I also appreciate you clarifying for me the um I didn't realize there were uh definitions based off the cohort uh uh meaning subsidized housing, affordable housing, and then um so forth.

I do like the term that the argument from board five uh uses often in um and I've actually changed my language based off of housing affordability.

Um I think you often say Alderman Chandlemai should be housing affordability because rich people need to uh be able to afford their housing too.

Um the only difference is they pay for property taxes opposed to rent.

Um so uh across the board.

I I'd like to focus on affordable housing there.

I will not hold up this amendment tonight uh with any definitions concerned.

That was just something that keeps my interesting channel, no further questions.

Alderman O'Neill.

I thought I had a hand up there.

No, okay.

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

Opposed.

Uh next amendment, uh amendment number five, Alderman Savage.

Uh so moved.

Second.

Second.

So may I so just to clarify this amendment is actually the new one that came from the joint rules in government and environmental matters.

Um this committee's made a few tweaks, and that is included, uh, even though it's I think it was labeled as as just me.

Um just as a summary, what it does is attempt to address some of the concerns raised by the planning commission, uh, and it provides a definition for accessory structures, expands the green roof definition and code requirements, and clarifies that such accessory struct structures uh prohibits having enclosed space for habitable uses and bar and dining.

It would still allow those uses, but they just can't be completely enclosed, so they could still have canopy.

Um it's just not enclosed.

Um, that was a uh recommended language from the uh director plan and zoning.

And so again, um it also includes some tweaks to the um increasing the setbacks so that the view shed is protected, as we have heard that from the public.

Um let's see, that's basically it in a nutshell.

Um closed.

And so I wanted to be clear that we make it make it stated in this legislation that we're prohibiting the use of habitable space, prohibit the use of room, because that is not our intention.

I think we all agree on that.

Thank you.

Any other questions?

Uh ultimate on that.

So, Mr.

Mayor, uh a specific issue which has to do with um section 2156 105 rooftop accessory structure design guidelines was discussed at the rules committee.

In that provision, there are three new uh sections talking about the materials and finish and the visibility of the minimum as Alderman Savage just mentioned.

Uh prohibited features is in there, and as currently offered in the amendment, it reads no covered accessory structure shall include space for dining bar use or other habitable uses except for an elevator line.

And the committee made uh agreed to an amendment that said no increased enclosed accessory structure shall include.

Um where we are exactly in the language of when you look at the amendment online.

Yeah, no, it says no enclosed.

Um enclosed structure for that for dining um bar use and other things, uh and except for the elevator lobby.

Now there are other mechanical structures, most notably stairwells that need to be enclosed, and they may be left out by omission here, which would be fine, but uh uh and put it on the floor for consideration by the by the council on with Savage.

Um I don't quite follow it.

What are you proposing?

Well, the way we've changed it to be no enclosed accessory structures, that means a stairwell couldn't be it's it's it says here except for elevator lobby, but it does it means that if you had a stairwell in addition to an elevator, is this it couldn't be closed, which would allow whether are you proposing to add at the end of that sentence except for an elevator lobby and stairwell stairwell?

Okay, I'm good with that as everybody okay with that.

Yeah, clarification in our joint committee meeting, we did change the terminology to no enclosed.

This doesn't show what it was previously.

That's what I was asking, Miss Jack said cover.

So what is here is what we changed it to correct so I said what is covered, and we had discussions about would that mean pergolas and things like that, and um we took the thrust of the government savage amendment to mean it was a closed structure, and it well that can be an enclosed structures can't be enclosed structures that can be by this amendment are elevators, it does not allow share crap and savage just another um clarification of as far as what else the committee's included.

If you look at page 10, it includes a new section.

So basically, in order to get the proposed allowances for extra height on accessory structures, the applicant would need to demonstrate three things.

One would be they would have to demonstrate that the extra height is necessary and minimal, and two, they would have to demonstrate that the visual impacts are reduced through greater setbacks, appropriate screening materials, colors, and three, that they would have to demonstrate that all other overlay standards, including green roofs, coverage, maintenance, historic district requirements are satisfied.

Thank you.

So we have that amendment added on the enclosure.

Did we add that okay?

Okay, thank you.

Um all those in favor, please say aye.

Aye opposed.

Thank you.

Amendment number six.

Uh an old savage, I'm gonna bring um uh Christopher Kubiac forward on this.

Uh and um Eric Leshinski, the people that have been working on this um uh to sort of some of the council have asked to be able to ask questions of them.

So if you guys could please come forward.

Okay, um, can I move amendment number six?

Yep, thank you.

And provide some background for staff.

And I just want to say I'm very respectfully appreciate um, Rob, that you're on a Netherlands high and that you want us to be Sweden, and I want that too.

You know, so I support lots of those ideas.

I just want to make sure we can implement them and and make sure this is the right vehicle for that.

So that's all I'm okay.

And appreciate that.

And so, yeah, just a quick summary that um so the underlying legislation would uh double the allowable density for special mixed planting and developments and increase by 50 percent, not 150 percent as was alleged in the testimony, it's 50 percent increase of the liable density for residential planned unit developments.

Not 150%, as was alleged in the testimony, it's 50% increase of the liable density for residential planned unit developments.

Commitments that we've made to addressing um you know multimodal uh options and um and uh you know embracing active transportation, um that um I feel like we should not be authorizing growth that does not at the same time address these concerns we so often hear about, such as the parking and traffic transportation.

Um, you know, I started out years ago on the council eight years ago as basically against any kind of growth and density impact.

I like to feel like I've come a long way, uh, thanks to uh large part to you, Mr.

Mayor.

Um and so I you know, I'm actually proposing uh even so I'm proposing to reduce the amount of density increase, but also raise it even higher if they meet certain requirements, and um so one of the requirements is that um it would uh require a community benefit agreement, and these are things that I learned about in Portland, and uh if they use them to require the developers to agree to certain commitments, and so out there they do it so the developers have to build their affordable housing first because they see that as a very urgent need, especially in uh for Portland, who has a lot of homeless.

Um but also as I included in this legislation that could include things like the requiring community grocery store.

You know, we have goals to address uh food desert.

Uh it could include other environmental, it could include local hiring requirements, uh could include include other transit bike amenities.

And so that it would also um so it would also grant a 30% reduction of the parking requirement if they agreed to some of these other improvements as far as transit.

So the trigger is developments to proceed, but the city would have to have some kind of plan in place to address the transportation issues, traffic issues.

And you know, again, the reason one of the reasons why I was pushing so hard in the last budget to get some of these studies done for Forest Drive West Street is to make sure we have a path forward for residents, uh light at the end of the tunnel to address some of the the infrastructure impact.

And so I think um many of the developments along these corridors will be able to proceed even with this um in light of those studies that we have in place to look towards high value transit in the city.

Uh lastly, it establishes it would also require that the city put in place tax incremental financing district.

We've done this on parole.

I'm sorry, um, park place.

Um to pay for the garage, it means that feature tax revenue from the future density that you're giving these developers goes towards that and paying off that infrastructure that helps to ensure the tax burden is focused on that property as opposed to being um given to the the entire rest of the city.

Uh again, this is something utilized in uh Portland and other cities.

Um and I really think it's important to you know, it's worked.

Um, the whole idea of community benefit agreements.

It's if you look at the developments that have worked in the city, we have Crystal Spring.

Uh we have in my ward, um what was the name of it next to the CVS.

I'm blanking on the name right now.

Um Bay Village.

That one said we sat down with Naples Neck Peninsula Federation, usually opponents to everything.

Um, but because the developer was willing to listen, they made changes for the community.

Um it was a successful development.

Um, and that's what I want to try to ensure we do on every development is requiring the sit down with the community to establish benefits.

Um, so I know it's I know these amendments are not perfect, but I think it sets a very strong foundation that we can adjust as needed uh in the next session.

Um the best I could do with the math time we had.

That's all for now, Mr.

Mayor.

On we go thank you so much, Mr.

Mayor.

Um first and foremost, all the Ms.

Sandwich, I greatly appreciate all the time and effort that you've put into this as a 15-page amendment.

It's something I'm supportive of.

And what would I what I consider to be at this point, you know, like trigger where it's like Sweden and Portland are used because people immediately go to the uh most extreme left and think of you know the smart city bad thing, all of that.

But this is actually really good, and this is what we all want, you know, proper transit in the city of Annapolis.

Um I do just have a couple of quick questions, and particularly uh page 11 um bullet C, I'll start there.

Um developer contributions.

Uh this is you know, this is a binding agreement.

But um bullet C.

I'm wondering if you're open to amendments.

I mean, I hate to amend a 15-page amendment.

Uh so I don't know how we do these you know, friendly amendments, but uh for example it says you know the developer development requirements uh would be on the bullet two, contribute financial resources, income services or other uh these contributions may include the file transit pass incentives, residents, bicycle lockers, public rest risk for bicycle users, and a rebate for residents to purchase a bicycle.

Are you open to removing some of those requirements?

Obviously, these are recommendations.

Um because it says these contributions may include uh but I'm can I'm concerned some of that uh you know language uh may deter uh development.

What are your thoughts on that?

Oh Mr.

Thank you, Mr.

Mayor.

Um well I mean for me, like you kind of hit the nail in the head as far as they are maybe.

I I really just wanted to include um ideas uh and like you said, recommendations that staff can look to as far as things that they can um work with the developer to include.

Uh you know, because some communities may not need all the things listed, you know, like for example, some of them may not need um um you know community grocery store, um things like that, but others may, right?

And we know others certainly do.

Um so you know, if you if you're worried about it deterring investment, I I again I would just point out the discretion involved with those items.

Um for example, if it's this if it's a senior complex, um yeah, it may not make sense to have some of the bicycle requirements, at least found as robust.

Um, but no offense to my fellow seniors.

Um that's kind of where I am, Alderman.

Um that same page, and and I appreciate that.

Uh I guess the uh obviously the key words there uh give flexibility to the developers.

Uh I'd be curious to hear from our staff at some point on how they uh believe that could be impacted.

Um that same page, um, you have affordable housing conditions, and that would just ask the same question that I asked if the Alderman for War 8.

It says the percentage of below market rate housing provided on the property shall be at least 25% of the total units.

Um I think it is fantastic that you've included um in the uh uh the i in in the immediately following bullets that at least half of the uh units have to be complete and ready before issuing any certificates of occupancy and failure to meet these, you know, show obviously pull back any credits.

I think that's important.

I do just again where are we what definition or what metrics are you using for below market rate housing?

Um and is that something that I don't see included uh at the end uh for um insert the file in terms in alphabetical order.

Yeah, this it's a good question.

Um I think this came up in the past with some other legislation we were considering.

Um, but there is a please correct if I'm wrong plan and zoning, but uh there is a state definition uh for below market rate housing.

And I believe we also mentioned that in some parts of the comp plan.

Um and uh the exact percentage I think is I think it's like between 60 and 110 percent the market value, if I'm not mistaken.

Yeah, Eric Lishanski chief of comprehensive planning.

The the moderately priced dwelling units um I believe are either 80% or 100% of the area median income.

I think it's 80% of the area median income.

But to yeah, we already have 15% in the code.

So you know, my proposal would be to increase that 10% to 25% with the thought process that uh we would be granting the developer even more density bonus, so they would be able to make more money from the additional above market rate housing.

And so the idea is again that they would be able to afford to increase the amount of affordable housing.

Yeah I I appreciate that as well.

Um Mr.

Mayor, do I have time for maybe two quick more questions?

And then uh I'll pass it on, but I do have questions for the staff.

Um on page 12, bullet uh two.

Um I'm just trying to make sure I pull this up again.

Uh the mandatory elements, the uh transportation uh demand management plan shall include that minimum, all of the following.

I guess you've kind of hit this on the head.

Uh well, no, this is how to say shall include.

So this has to be uh done.

Can there be some explanation here?

Um again, just on additional costs that the developer developer may uh incur based off of the you know these requirements.

Sorry, could you repeat the one?

Is that for direct to Jacobia, or is that for um ultimate service?

I I guess at this point it could be for either or uh the the sponsor could you know respond to that uh uh or the director, whichever you know.

I miss I missed the last part of his can you repeat the question?

Yeah, no problem.

It says mandatory elements on page 12, uh bullet number two.

And uh my question was just uh could there be an explanation of you know possible uh uh additional costs that could be incurred from just these requirements.

Um thank you.

Yeah, so just at least my take, and happy to hear from staff.

Um so the the idea is that in order to have a functioning multimodal system as far as getting people out of their cars and taking buses, taking bikes, especially in this country, we have to achieve behavior change.

So if you look around the country at the most successful transit systems, or those that have the most bike usage, it's often accompanied with a very robust outreach program.

Um because again, we have to Americans have gotten so out of the habit of biking and doing anything but driving their cars, we have to do that.

And so this would basically say again incorporate some of these things.

So parking pricing, uh, I don't think is an impact to the um uh developer bicycle infrastructure would be, but it's pretty minor um as far as having secure bicycle parking.

That's um again a minor thing.

Car share ride share integration, that just means having certain zones painted on the pavement again, not expensive.

Transit pass subsidy.

This could be, but it's the idea with this is it's for a minimum of one year, and again, the idea is that we want to get people used to taking buses in transit, and so you provide them a subsidy, assuming our transit still costs money.

If it doesn't cost money, it's a moot point, right?

But if it costs money, we give them a discount just to get them used to it.

And that's why it's only one year.

Um, the mobility coordinator, that might be the most expensive, but I think in the big picture, it's not that much because most of these large developments would probably have some kind of um you know community fee.

Um, and uh this would really be a quite minor expense when you look at the other um expenses they'll have you know, as a part of a larger development.

That's at least that's my opinion.

Staff may differ.

Yeah, I would be much more comfortable ultimately were removed um in their entirety.

Um and I am not sure uh what it would do to um your legislation, but I'd also be much more comfortable if uh bullet D monitoring reporting and enforcement was removed.

Uh in its entirety.

My problem with I I I it is hard enough to find quality developers to construct affordable housing.

We we we recognize the challenges that we've had with this in the city of Annapolis.

Um, even with some of our uh newer development development ongoing in the city.

And so when I look at things like you know, transit past subsidies, and then essentially bringing on additional staff in the form of a mobility coordinator, I get very, very worried about there being pushback from uh developers.

Um it just makes me think of uh the continued complaints that we've had from both residents and developers alike coming before the council expressing um how difficult it is to work with the city of Annapolis.

Um and I think this um adds to that.

Um I think along with that, obviously monitoring reporting and enforcing I don't know how you how the property even if it's in the first year, um, you know, does this entire report without bringing on new staff?

I mean can monitor the the uh the car share trips by you know all of that.

He just it requires um it requires a lot, and I'm just curious if that is something that I that is necessary.

Um at least removing C and D.

I'm sorry, uh yeah, D and E under mandatory elements.

Um I'm certainly I'm certainly open to it.

Um how our other colleagues feel um you know, my and maybe it's something a cost that the city should shoulder in some regard.

I mean, my my hesitation would just be that um you know, some of these if we do have an affordable housing component, um you know the residents of affordable housing would certainly benefit from having um a subsidized pass.

Uh and and maybe hopefully by that point we'll have free transit anyway, and this will be a move point.

Um but I'd you know because I you know we've said a I've said it before, but you know, it's that's I guess I'll just leave it there, Alderman.

I I I'm certainly open to it.

I I I appreciate that.

I will uh leave it open for discussion before I make a motion just to remove uh um um uh bullish D and E in uh section two on page 12.

Thank you.

Um bin Lyson next, the thing.

Thank you, Mr.

Mayor.

Um, I would like to hear from uh director Kubiak and his colleague.

I'm sorry, Eric.

Um you know this this is a monumental amendment that really I think could be uh a standalone piece of legislation.

Uh because we're putting and let me before I make my comment, I'd like to hear how the staff would um impose this as part of this uh ordin.

Um I I want to hear about implementation, how you would actually put it in place, staffing that's required, and maybe the practical piece of it, you know.

The uh staff would have a number of additional requirements uh that would run along uh the review and approval processes.

Ultimately, the planning commission wouldn't have to make a decision of approval or denial, but now they would uh also have to have a staged approval process whereby um uh there would be a community development agreement approval, a separate legal document that would have to be structured.

Um presumably coordinated with staff but reviewed and approved by the the law office and then submitted to the city council.

So the mayor and city council would uh be engaged in the review of the development plan.

The vague language that was discussed by Ottoman um gay would be up to you to determine and to sort out uh as a city council.

Uh you'd have to determine about the community benefits and what it is that any given development project would be offering to you.

And once you work that out, the planning commission could then uh give an approval.

Of course, you wouldn't take action until the planning commission made a recommendation to you, but there would be a stage and a step for you in the review and approval of plan developments.

Um that's one new uh requirement.

Um there would be an ongoing engagement with the property at a after it was constructed in a way that doesn't exist today.

Um someone would have to administer the monitoring, reporting, and enforcement uh provisions.

Um someone would have to verify that there is in fact a mobility coordinator on site.

Um and track that who it would track the modal split data annually.

Um there would be a reporting mechanism that uh is not yet incorporated here, so the staff would have to develop an approach to administering that.

Um there's a another aspect about uh transit oriented development tax incremental financing district being established.

Uh this ordinance would create a TIFF district, doesn't say where it would create it, but it would create a TIFF district, and then the the revenues generated as a result of increased density would be earmarked for financing future high value transit.

Um I'm not quite sure how we would implement that in light of the fact that there's not a TIFF yet administered.

Um but uh the possibility exists that the city council in the future may establish or may draw the boundaries of a TIFF district.

And if that were the case, there that would be a relevant factor in the review of development projects.

Um and of course, we our current MPDU program is uh is in place, so we could handle and absorb that administrative task because we have a person that does the affordability housing affordability um for the city.

So that wouldn't necessarily impose a burden on staff.

Um that the current ratio is 15% of total units have to be devoted to um affordable units, and we would presumably interpret this as saying, in essence, the MPDU program has been expanded to 25% of all units for those planned developments that seek a higher density.

Um that's how we would implement it under the the way it's drafted.

Um I think it's it's just a matter of a little more detailed analysis that would have to be taken.

The developer would have a lot more things to do in terms of getting approval uh and would have to maintain a long-term relationship with the project.

Uh, and the staff would, as the city's enforcement division also have to engage on the long-term basis with the properties to ensure that the mobility uh long um aspects of the project are you know uh continue and consistent with the code.

One thing this does is it sets forth standards but also introduces enforcement and monitoring all in one bundle.

And it sounds like it would change our role from strictly policy to weighing in on implementation of development project.

Yeah, it's um you know it's it requires a community development um excuse me, a community benefit agreement.

Um, and it's an agreement that's structured during the development process, the review process.

The planning commission would presumably make a recommendation.

That recommendation would go to the city council as a separate stage in the process.

If you approved it, it would go back to planning commission for approval.

Uh so it it does seem like that the city council would be involved on some level in doing development plan review because you can't really review this standards and the uh benefits without getting a recommendation from the planning commission about the project itself.

Mr.

Lyshensky I don't have too much more to add.

Um you know um I think the piece of the legislation that has the most you know has merit is the transportation demand management component because that is something that we're really trying to create a different development paradigm in the city, and you know, that um tries to emphasize that there are other ways to get around the city other than do personal vehicles and to to the extent that projects can um encourage that they're gonna be a benefit to the city, but um so you know, and that too would require additional effort, but I think that's something that has merit.

You know, my first concern about the this amendment is the fact that it attempts to force our residents out of their car, which I know ultimately is what we want, but I don't believe forcing it is the way to get there.

I don't believe that putting a process in place that requires a transit system before we can have development is going to get us to where we need to be.

Um this puts in place um the TIFF program.

I mean, we did that at Park Place, and maybe it wouldn't take a lot of maneuvering to create another similar process, but I don't know.

And and who does know?

But anyway, I think for myself, this is taking it into another realm on so many different levels.

I'm not prepared to support that.

I'm prepared to support the legislation aside from uh amendment six, but amendment six just convolutes things for me.

So I would encourage everybody to look closely at the requirements or the suggestions, and particularly as it relates to our role at being the elective policy.

So thank you, gentlemen.

Thank you, Mr.

Mayor.

So aside from a lot of input dealing with building above ridge hot line, primary thoughts of this ordinance is to further the comprehensive plan 2040 Annapolis ahead, and uh I support this amendment because it takes us out of just looking at increasing housing to considering the thing the impacts of increasing housing, and it argues that we need to be paying attention to transit amongst other things.

Now, having said that, I do admit this is um fairly detailed, fairly complicated.

I have had conversations with the planning staff.

Uh I'm sure that this can eventually be implemented.

Um and so I will support this amendment as I did in one of the subcommittees.

Uh and I think the this kind of detail is exactly the kind of detail that we need in order to assure our residents that we are doing more than just building more houses.

We're building the things that need to complement them.

I I'm not even sure this goes far enough.

I don't think it addresses housing deserts or things like that, but at least this is focusing on the transit aspect of any increase in housing and uh Alderman Gay, you're correct.

I mean, it does put some of the onus back on the developer.

They don't get to just come into town, erect some buildings, and then leave.

We want them while they're doing that to take care of other needs of our current and future residents.

So I certainly agree with the philosophy of this amendment, and as I've gone through it detail by detail, um I I think the detail is important and necessary.

Anyone else?

Thank you very much.

Um the claim for the elderly board for I think uh the more I listen to you the more I just agree with with all the mistakes a little bit.

Um because I actually and and the Alderman from Ward A.

You made me kind of reverse my opinion.

I think it is the this is actually the tough work that we should be doing is setting forth the requirements for the developers to take care of our community.

As passionate as the individuals that come to our meetings uh consistently are about the historic district, I think that's how you know passionate as passionate the uh members of other parts of our our city are and they spoke passionately about transportation and the need to get down for forest round corridor and by extension hilltop lane uh in an efficient and effective way, and that's just not being done.

Uh and I don't think the city to be quite honest, has the uh money to finance that.

So we would need help from uh said developers.

I don't know if this is the the extent to which we should go, but I'm gonna support it anyway because I understand the uh the importance of just making this this first step.

My amendment would read um if appropriate.

Can I introduce this now in all time in Mr.

Mayor?

Um, which is why to see if there's any other comments.

Um I'd like to make a comment as well.

So Alman Huntley.

So I I found a lot of what Alderman Arnett just said very compelling, and um I think there's uh an argument to be made about how important it is to set out standards for how someone coming into our community will contribute to our community.

My worry though is the if we want people to invest, the number one thing that kills investment is uncertainty.

And um, so if we have very clear do this, do that, do this, therefore you're good.

That's good for investment.

When we have things in here that like if you can't get 20% of people to get out of their cars, then you're not allowed the bonus that we gave you on density.

Like that's that's a huge problem.

If I'm a bank trying to lend to somebody, that's a gigantic red flag.

The other there, and that's not the only one in there like that.

I mean, there's the failure to meet any condition of the section voids of bonus on page 11.

There's just there's too many things in here that to me create that uncertainty that makes it hard for people to make any investment, even when we we know there's an opportunity for them to make good investments.

I think we need to um, and and I've actually heard mayoral candidates talk about this, say we need to make it very clear what your requirements are, and if you meet those requirements, like go on ahead.

We don't want a situation where you we're gonna put a bunch of requirements on you, and if you can't change 20% of people's behavior, we're gonna take it away.

That that people just people just aren't gonna make investments here.

Thank you.

Uh Neil, did you have your hand up Otterman Neil?

No, Alderman Huntley.

Um I think we only need to look at Riva Road to see it's not hard to get people to come in and put up a whole bunch of housing boxes, but the county does not have moderately priced units.

When I talked to the county executive about any potential changes to Riva Road, he expressed to me he didn't think there was a need to.

Yeah, I think he's wrong.

I like the county executive very much, but I see the traffic on Riva Road as it was before these developments.

And so for me, unless we as the policymakers put in the explicit expectations that we don't want just more boxes, we want other community services and particularly address transit.

What do we hear as Alderman all the time?

Traffic parking potholes, uh, and the this speaks specifically to I think the things that we continually hear about.

So zip you, Alderman O'Neil.

Thank you very much, Mr.

Mayor.

One of the things that I have been grappling with for the past two months has been this.

Um, in many, many cases throughout the last four years.

We have had legislation, and when we get past two or three amendments, we've said if there are so many amendments, why are we still going forward with the original legislation?

And I believe that although when Alderman Gay has said that on numerous times and talked about it.

Um frustrated that there are so many elements to this.

Um the major public focus of this particular piece of legislation has been on the height limits on one section of the city.

There's so many parts to this.

Um I just get frustrated that it is such a huge huge bill.

And we're sitting here talking about it.

We've been talking about it for close to 45 minutes.

Um probably longer than we've ever spent in a council meeting talking about a piece of legislation.

And I don't know that we're all going to come to a consensus on everything.

I know we've passed the prior five amendments, you know, to move forward.

But I just think that due to all of the public testimony, all of the people that have reached out to us individually or as a group.

We really owe it to them to really take a look at this legislation and where are we going with it?

Each part has merit.

Um, and I've said that to many people over the weekend.

Each part has merit.

Um it's it's hard to digest all of this.

I just wanted to say that.

There's not really a question in my uh in my hand raised at this moment, but I just think that all of this needs to come down to are we ready to pass this one piece of legislation with so many intricate parts.

Thank you, Odon Finlayson.

Um, just to clarify, I am not opposed to the elements in this amendment.

I am opposed to us trying to do it all.

Uh, you know how hard I argue every year for funding of transit, and that has always been a commitment that we will fund trans.

I have tried to bring housing developers into the city for the last 15 years, and the barriers have been great.

And as you can see, we don't have uh a wealth of affordable housing, and you know, there's the discussion about what affordable housing, you know, what was defined earlier is not my definition of affordable housing.

You know, I talk about workforce housing, which is the housing for teachers, police officers, our firefighters.

That's not low-income housing, it is affordable housing, it's part of that missing middle that we hear about.

So we're not even clear, we're not even in agreement as to what that means.

So I just wanted to be clear.

I'm not opposed to some of the elements or any of the elements, but to try to do it all in this piece of legislation, I think the thing.

Thank you.

Thank you, Alderman Savage.

Thank you, Mr.

Mayor.

And uh a couple points here.

Um there absolutely are a lot of amendments to this, and I think it's certainly legitimate argument to say we should you know just not move forward this forward with the entire piece of legislation.

However, we are in a we're at the 11th hour.

Uh, I think we have to just realize that it's it's not gonna be perfect.

Um, ideally, I would have liked to have sent these amendments back to the planning commission.

I think we should still send um this legislation back to HBC.

Um, but you know, we have to do what we can.

Um, as far as securing certainty and securing investments, you know, I I want to point out like this is not this is not an unusual idea.

Like we see this in cities that somehow successful secure investments, right?

Uh so for big cities, you know, with Los Angeles, San Francisco, Seattle, Chicago, Detroit, Minneapolis, New York City, DC, Boston, uh, New Jersey has uh some statewide um initiatives or TIFS and CBAs, Texas, Florida.

Uh, if you look at smaller jurisdictions, we've Evanston, Illinois, Oak Park, Illinois, New Rochelle, New York, Somerville, Massachusetts, PG County, Arlington, Virginia, Chapel Hill, North Carolina, Greenville, South Carolina, Boulder, Santa Monica, et cetera, et cetera, et cetera.

This is just unusual for an app.

That's the point I'm trying to make here.

Um if these other cities can do it, so can we.

Uh, so for us, this is monumental.

This would be the first time we actually set a solid framework for transit underneath this administration that has been championing this for two terms.

This would be the opportunity to set a framework.

It's not going to be perfect, I admit.

And again, what do we pass that's the perfect that we haven't how many times we've revisited short-term rentals over the eight years?

Or MPDUs.

We've probably done four or five on MPDs.

We this is not a once and you know done thing.

We will come back, but this is a solid framework.

I commit I 100% since I'm the only one who 100%'s going to be back if I get one vote.

100% commit to sit down with staff and developers and figure out refinements, but this will be an incredible legacy for us to leave.

We look at the comp plan, um, which I know this legislation's called comp plan, but it it leaves out a lot.

All it focuses on is the growth.

And so I think this would be more in spirit with comp plan by inserting some of these transit um items.

And so um, you know, I also just want to reiterate um, you know, if we don't if we don't do this now, it's going to be probably another 14-18 months until the next council might get around to it because it would have to go to planning commission uh and spend up to 120 days or is 180.

I'm blanking to the planning commission, 180 days.

Um, so it's gonna take a lot of time, and again, we're gonna have developments go through or try to go through in the meantime.

One of them is gonna be Robinwood, I believe.

And so I want to point that out because you know, we make the effort to require infrastructure at downtown in park place for the wealthy.

Yet why are we not requiring the people who actually need transit?

There are the 80% of people who use transit in the city, don't have cars.

A lot of the folks in Robinwood are not gonna have cars, yet we're not willing to take the steps to coordinate and partner with the developers um to get that.

Um I don't think that's right.

And you know, as um for me, I think this is really potentially gonna impact my ward.

I think all the wards along Forest Drive quite significantly.

We have how many you know, just as far as public safety, we also have safe streets goals.

Um all the kids that walk up and down that road.

Uh again, the most dangerous road in the county, yet we are gonna.

I'm afraid we're gonna pass on an opportunity to try to address that.

Um I just can't personally uh accept that after hearing time after time from my constituents that they prioritize safety.

Um so anyway, that's where I am.

I ask you to please at least join me in creating this foundation for uh a very visionary, I admit, um effort.

Thank you, Mr.

Mayor.

Um we do need to set forward on some type of guaranteed transit funding for planned developments.

They tend to be larger in size, less gradual, and I think the plan development code opens up a good opportunity.

But something that was brought forward in conversations of planning and zoning is the amendment as written could jeopardize some short incoming projects that we have in the short term, uh the redevelopment of Robinwood being one of them.

Um they offered frustratingly at the last minute.

Uh, and uh Alderman Savage and I and Director Jacobia connected on this a more scoped in version of this amendment.

Um to paraphrase it essentially one maintains the goal statements of requiring developers of uh the goal statements of saying that we want planned developments to be built around connecting to transits and non-automobile mobility and reducing the need for large asphalt parking lots.

The second is to uh set up a when we approve and when the city approves uh plan developments that they need to develop a transportation management plan, and then finally that the city can in the future create uh a tax incentive district to help encourage these densities.

Um I don't know if this is too at the last minute to try and get that brought forward.

Um I think it potentially threats the needle, but unfortunately the name of the game is timing at this point.

Um I look forward to hearing what the directors or my colleagues have to say to my suggestion with that scoped it version.

A modification of the scope version is that of you saying Mr.

Mayor, it would essentially be a more tailored version of what Alderman Savage has proposed.

Um it gives a little more certainty for what we expect from developers while still maintaining a lot of the spirit of saying we are not going to be approving large planned developments unless they start ponying up towards a transit fund.

While also addressing the concern of giving the certainty that we will be creating tax incentive districts for these types of builds.

Um I know that this was Alderman Savage's uh initiative.

I I don't want to be disrespectful if he is firmly against this.

So I would like to hear his thoughts on it first, if possible.

Uh well, uh Alderman Huntley's not gonna like me to say this, but I I'm not sure how to get that done with the process right now.

Um it would be, I think, a steep ask to uh get that to us to review tonight.

Um but you know, I think um, you know, I I as I've told some of you I fully intend to make a motion that these are substantive amendments, so I think there would be another meeting potentially to um introduce a new or a newer correcting amendment.

Um I mean that I know we're we're kind of we're limited on options, and neither's ideal, but I just think with the other legislation we have on the agenda tonight, I think it might be difficult to do.

Thank you, Alderman Gay.

Well, thank you so much, Mr.

Mayor.

But uh I I wish you would have told me that at the beginning of the meeting, Alderman Savage.

Uh I think that changes things significantly.

If you're going to vote these amendments are um um substantive amendments, that means that we will have another meeting to discuss this.

And so there could be amendments to amendment six, and there could be amendments to 0145 in this entire year.

I was not I'm I'm this puts it so first of all, just to be also for a point of order.

Does the there is an amendment coming from Alderman Schandelmeyer?

Um, and then there are amendments coming from myself.

Um nothing has been proposed by me.

I have just given a general vibe.

Um I'm curious as to thoughts, but nothing has been motioned or seconded.

Okay, yeah.

Sorry for interrupting.

No, no, you're totally fine.

I just uh uh I'm also curious is what is the best way to move forward at this point.

Uh considering the comments that the alderman just made, do we even take action on this?

Well, if you want what happened tonight to happen on our last meeting, we surely can do that.

So uh that's up to this body to decide on that Alderman Gay.

Clearly, we know everybody's position here, and I would say that the amendment six, and I support everything else, but amendment six went to the planning commission and was rejected and wasn't approved or they passed on it.

What did they do, Alderman Savage?

I mean, they they basically just they said it's well intentioned, but they didn't have the details at the time.

I was asking for their input before drafting the amendments, same thing to staff, and in July, and nobody got me comments until September.

So I mean, I blame the planning commission as well.

They should have.

I told them I was gonna do this, they decide not to do anything, so I'd had to do it on my own.

And and I would just say that if we trust uh directors, they say they're telling us it's well intentioned, but it's gonna add cost to housing and potentially derail the work we've been doing in Robinwood for the last year.

So for people that are not familiar with that part of the this legislation allows density in Robinwood that could lead to home ownership for the perimeter of the property, it leads to mixed use at the seafood site.

It brings in a lot of positive things outside of uh uh of this, and so the transportation piece is is a noble thing, right?

And like many of us say, it's not easy to do business here.

And this is another layer that will, I believe, keep it harder.

And I I'd like you to lean into it a bit more, Director, please, or either of you guys, you know.

I think the the principal um issue apart from the complexity that you know we can work through it.

I think um Sheila Fenlayson has indicated uh is Ray brought those is encouraged us to speak to those issues, but we can work through a lot of the complexities.

But the foundational issue that we have to struggle with and think about is um is the essential condition of these regulations, and that is that um high value transit is provided or initiated by the city or a designated transit authority before a development can achieve the density that's articulated in this ordinance.

Um that is a vague way of saying what you might want.

Typically, if we were going to say that you can only achieve density uh if transit is provided, we'd say is the transit there, yes or no.

And if it's no, then obviously the developer doesn't develop.

If it's the alternative is to say, is the transit proposed on an adopted city plan?

Is it planned?

Is it programmed?

There's this is there a capital improvements budget financing the expansion of high value transit.

Um we don't have those in the city of Annapolis, not yet.

And I don't know that the ridership would support that level of high value transit in the near term in the reasonable long term too.

So that is a foundational uh standard that is uh that calls into questions someone's ability to invest in a complicated project.

Ultimately, I think a developer would opt for uh not doing a project or doing something.

And remember, what we're talking about generally is the redeveloping of uh kind of obsolete commercial properties in our commercial corridors to introduce housing.

Sometimes that means ground floor retail and five or six apartments, because they've taken advantage of the density and able to get six apartments.

We're not always talking about massive development projects, and to have a small project like that deliver a mobility coordinator or meet all these difficult standards is just beyond reason.

Um and to hold up something that we'd really like to see, and that the people are clamoring for because we don't have the the ability to build the transit system in the short term, uh, would mean that we would delay uh the transformation of the corridors that the comprehensive plan calls for.

So that that's I mean, that's the fundamental issue.

If we could deal with that question, and that's the question, the chicken and egg that the planning commission discussed.

They we like your spirit, we like where this is going.

It needs study because we fear we would be holding back reasonable property improvement and development um to achieve a goal that we we're not sure we can attain right now.

Thank you, Alderman Savage.

Uh look, just to so I'm gonna start with two words.

Empty promises, or you could say empty commitments, right?

What is the comp plan worth that we spend all this time passing?

It is the most the longest comp plan.

It is right, is I would say the best we have, but it's meaningless.

If we're not willing to implement it, it is meaningless.

Why are we prioritizing housing over everything else?

If we go and approve, so okay, we'll give Robinwood new homeownership.

That's great, but you know what?

They're still going to be isolated, an enclave, which is the problem when they got pushed out to the edge of the city to begin with.

That is going to be perpetuated because so many of them don't have transportation options, right?

We're not invested in that community.

We're building the houses in a vacuum.

That is not helping them.

It's not helping us.

Again, why are we doing transit for the rich but not poor who actually need it?

They're the only ones who use our bus system in an app.

I just don't get it, Mr.

Mayor.

You've been spending so long teaching us for two terms here, eight years about the importance of multimodal transportation, biking transit.

But when it comes down to it, you're framing it as a barrier to development.

I mean, are you are you really committed to what you've been talking to us about or not?

Because I tried to explain that there's a way, there's uh clearly if even if we pass this, we can very easily if we find there is an immediate barrier that's holding up Robinwood, we can introduce a resolution that gives them a waiver to certain requirements while we fix the law.

We do this so many, we were doing it, we're waiving a fee for Maryland Hall, I think tonight.

Um, you know, we've waived fees for crab, we're almost all their groups.

It's not uh and it's not beyond the pale um at all.

So I just there's been again.

I've been here for for 26 years now.

I've never seen the city lead by planning for anything else besides housing.

There's no planning for transportation.

I'm sorry, I should correct that.

We have done quite a bit for planning for the environment lately, but that's why I'm kind of moving on to some of the transportation options.

But I just I don't get it.

Um I don't get it, and it's just very disheartening when I see staff not even stand behind the comprehensive plan that they spent so much work and they've seen us.

This is such an important document, and now it's just thrown out the window.

Um at least probably time.

Um, anybody else can we probably call the question, right?

That's Mr.

Mayor, I have legitimate questions.

The amendment.

Um thank you.

Uh Director Kubiak, uh so thank you for your explanations.

So am I correct in my understanding?

Uh your primary uh hitch, I guess would be the correct word.

I don't know, it's 1020 at night.

Uh is the high value transit portion in this amendment.

Is that a is that the primary hitch here?

Uh vagueness of that statement or the strictness of us making it the condition for approving uh plan developments, yes.

Now, if we were to take out high value and just make that coordination with transit, which we currently have in the city, while still guaranteeing that when we approve plan development code that with the new plan development code that this legislation would pass, this amendment would still be putting in funding and lockboxing it for non-automobile transportation.

Would that in your mind be a hindrance to what we want to see with our targets for affordable housing development in the city?

Um I think the answer is yes.

Uh, this would add a lot of cost to projects, uh planned developments up front.

If we're talking about scale projects of you know 100 units or more, uh, those types of projects can handle the added cost of some of these uh requirements that can manage it through the smaller projects, wouldn't be able to so even with like a smaller project, we could as this is written if we change high value transit to just transit.

I feel like we could scale them a project of six, we could just go chip in some money for a bike lane or fix the sidewalk, or am I missing something and you're saying like that would still have to be throwing in large sums of money to funding uh a light bride or bus rapid transit?

I'm trying to find a way to get to yes for everyone because I think everyone's goal here is noble.

We have such a fantastic comprehensive plan legislation here in front of us, and I share alderman savages passion.

I spend more time on a bus than I am confident to say the rest of the room combined here, uh going into work.

I know what it's like when you don't have effective transit funding, but also you do need a certain minimum of density to get good comp good projects going, and the housing crisis is so bad in our city because of the fundamental lack of housing.

And I'm trying to find a way to thread this needle here because I know all of us are on the same team, and we're all just trying to find a way to get our city the wonderful place that we know it can be here.

So do you think that if we changed high value transit to transit, which we already have in the code, and that this would still let us get funding for that source, we could still make these things work.

Based on what you just said, um, is it safe for me to assume that some of the other pieces of language in here that talks about like the coordinator and some things like that that that sort of scaling in some sense of that requirement?

Uh is it safe to assume that what you're thinking is that kind of all of those requirements um could be scaled to the size of the project.

That's how I was interpreting his amendment.

Um if we were to just change high value transit, the the sorry, it's at the stage of the evening where my stutter comes out.

Um if we were to change in the amendment where he puts in high value where Alderman Savage puts in high value transit, and we just scratch out high value, and then we remove the definition of high value transit.

I think we have reached a pretty good compromise for getting clear definitions to not scare off builders.

We get guaranteed funding for multimodal mobility, multimodal mobility, and that lets us pass a fantastic piece of legislation to one tackle our housing crisis, and two greatly improve our transportation system.

I think that's a good idea.

Um maybe that's the 1030 talking, but you can make we have um there's there's bus service along West Street and Forest Drive.

There's transit service, okay.

And if this simply says the property is or will become served by transit service, that would in principle mean that those properties along transit lines would continue to operate, or would continue to operate, presumably, but would become eligible for this density bonuses.

Fair enough.

That's good.

And and if I might suggest too that the most substantial part of these requirements apply to larger developments, uh, for instance, the monitoring reporting enforcement, if you intend to keep that to say for for plant developments over 100 dwelling units.

Okay, and make it applicable to that.

Um that's just a suggestion for the council to consider.

Alderman Savage, what do you think?

Have we have we reached a dealage?

I mean, I I see where you're going to be able to do that.

It's no pressure.

It's going to cause the whole thing to unravel.

Um there's really no reason to award extra density to the developers unless that extra profit and extra tax revenue is going to go towards a high value infrastructure improvement.

Because transit alone, I went with high value transit because transit alone is as easy as just throwing up another bus stop.

That is not going to drive the change in behavior or the alternatives to car travel that we need uh in this city that we need to make Forest Drive safer, that we need to make our meet our climate targets.

Um, you know, if you wanted to change that, I'd have to re-evaluate all the other conditions because you know, again, there's similarly, there's no reason to put a TIFF on a property unless you have a high value infrastructure to pay for, like a park places because of the high value parking garage.

Um, you know, I would be it would backfire if that frankly, if if you propose that, because again, I my whole point is not to award density unless that density helps to support improving you know the the infrastructure for the entire city and actually going towards paying for these these high value um improvements.

I I just don't think we're gonna work at this cage okay uh what about the director's suggestion of just adding for a hundred units so we don't put box out to small projects where would you add it?

Um I don't know director do you got an idea um well firstly I would add it to the monitoring reporting and enforcement sections uh page five I'd yes um I'd add it to this section that required a um a um mobility coordinator I realize I have a slightly modified version older version a printed version the the code the language so I'm not gonna point of order Mr.

Matt or point of information the enforcement section is actually on page 13 uh page five is the um section just letting us know where we could look for uh that subsection just for clarity for those following thank you okay so page 13 and mobility coordinator is on page 12 are you proposing something Alderman Shannemeyer or not?

We need to get subscribed remember we're in 15 minutes we're gonna have to call for a vote to extend um I think we should just call the question your guys all right let's just call the question um that's the 1030 talking you seconding call the question or will you sick enough to your question ultimately well I actually I still want to put my amendment on the floor um just in case and it's very simple um on page uh twelve um section two under mandatory elements remove subsections D transit pass subsidy and subsections E mobility coordinator second and on page two add page two I'm sorry on page thirteen add every two years as opposed to the developer or property owner shall see an annual transit transportation uh demand management report second okay that's an amendment we'll vote on that clarify what the vote is the vote on the it's a gay amendment friendly amendment yeah you have to vote on that or is it a friendly amendment I mean so let's vote on it could you repeat it of course on page 12 I'm sorry Mr.

Mayor were you did I cut you up uh no no go for it sorry um uh on page 12 section two uh which is mandatory elements remove subsection D transit pass subsidy and subsection E mobility coordinator and on page 13 remove under uh bullet one annual reporting uh submit an annual uh report and change that language to every two years uh the property owner shall submit a report uh for the trans transportation demand uh management report I had so moved and seconded discussion any discussion gonna support it just to get it out there uh we might do a roll poll for the for the Duana uh gay amendment or for the gay amendment for the gay amendment yeah this gonna be close maybe no gay uh it's just a message Alderman Arnett hipp

No.

Aye.

Alderman Gay.

Uh-huh.

It's just a mess.

Alderman Savage.

Aye.

Alderman Arnett.

Hi.

Alderman Huntley.

Hi.

Alderman O'Neil.

Okay.

So now we can vote on it as amended.

I'm gonna be it.

Six as an end, right?

Yeah.

Six as amended.

I'm gonna be a no because I'm gonna trust in uh director's advice here.

Nothing personal against Alderman Savage.

I support everything else, but I truly believe what they're telling me and how it applies to Robinwood is gonna be a real issue for us.

They're very limited site.

So please think about the volume of people that live on the Annapolis Neck Peninsula.

We do not have the density to support a bus going to Washington DC.

How are we gonna have the density to support a transit system going to the broadneck peninsula?

And who would get on it in the broadneck peninsula?

That's that's how I feel.

Um, but that's just my opinion, and I'm supportive of transportation, but I think it's the wrong solution.

So on a roll call, I'm no um Aldo Philason.

No Alderman Sandemeyer.

I couldn't hear you.

Yes, affirmative.

Thank you.

Um Alderman Gay.

Yes, Alderman Savage.

Uh well, since the mayor opined on the roll call, let me just say that um I uh we do have the density to support high value transit.

We went through this ad nauseum in transportation committee with our transportation professionals.

I am an eye.

Alderman Arnett.

Hi Alderman Huntley.

Alderman Savage, I appreciate your work on this.

I'd be happy to work with you on a bill about it to get it the same goal, but uh for now I'm a nooman O'Neill.

Thank you.

It is defeated only four, eight of you, four or four, zero defeated Rhonda gave me her proxy.

Okay, so we got five amendments that went through.

Uh, can I get a motion on the bill as amended, please?

So moved.

Almond Savage.

Well, don't we have to make when do we make the motion?

We have to approve it on second.

With five minutes.

So that's what we're getting ready to do.

We need a motion to second on the five approved ones as amended.

It will be a roll call again.

Alderman Gay.

Uh just quickly.

Uh so uh this is obviously being voted on as amended.

Second reading, then we'll do it to third before we get there.

I just have one quick question um for the office of law.

Is this are these gentlemen's concerns uh um I listen?

I I I support the legislation, obviously, because there are things in it that are uh beneficial to my war, my community specifically.

Uh the Robin Wood project.

Um but they've made this about the hotel.

And they've now come up with obviously what we've just received.

I've got it tonight from Altimus.

14 page potential lawsuits.

I need to hear from my office of law.

Um that this is a no employee, you know, that that that what we what I am voting on in second reader, and then what I will be voting on in third reader.

Uh obviously nothing is protected from lawsuit.

You can sue for anything, but it is legally sufficient.

Yes.

Thank you very much.

Okay.

This is second reader vote.

All right, second reader votes.

Can we have discussion?

Yeah.

Okay.

So I I just want to talk about the change to the height limits.

I think it's important for us to recognize what this really is, right?

This is not a let's put six stories into the historic district.

We're not doing that.

But we are making our code more complicated when in so many other ways we're trying to make it less complicated.

We are nibbling at the fabric of the historic district that's been very well preserved.

And so I just think that that alone is reason not to support it.

And um I I question the the public good.

And I can't say it much better than so many of my constituents.

But so that's I'll leave it at that.

But uh I really do think that's not what we should be doing here.

Thank you.

Okay, Alderman on net, then ultimately savage.

Thank you, Mr.

Mayor.

So um I really do think the important part of this legislation is that that has to do with the comprehensive plan.

But I do want to speak to the the this whole ridge height issue.

First of all, the legislation does not raise the ridge height.

Uh and so contrary to what number of people testified, it doesn't do that, but it does allow for up to 25% of mechanical structures above the ridge height, and I'm okay with that because this just allows for an applicant to come in with an application to do X amount above the ridge height, it still has to go through the planning staff, it still has to go through HPC.

We still have to consider the cultural landscape so the site and how it's going to be seen.

So passage of this legislation on that aspect does not trouble me.

And I think there are plenty of ongoing safeguards, but we'll see how we vote on the whole ordinance.

Alderman Savage.

Thank you, Mr.

Mayor.

Yeah, just on both pieces, but first again, my well, maybe last comment on the um on the um unplanned growth.

I think you know, number of my colleagues on the council.

Um we've worked on over the years again to to address the impacts of growth that we've heard from our residents.

Um, and I think some of my colleagues have also used that same rationale as far as unplanned growth.

Uh, as far as again, growth that doesn't address our our infrastructure impacts to oppose the ADU and duplex legislation.

So I think it would be consistent uh to say that on this 014 legislation, which would have much more of a growth impact on the community.

Um as far as the height part of the legislation, you know, I think so my amendment was killed because the experts on staff raised concerns.

We've not heard from our experts on the historic preservation commission.

We've not heard from our expert on the historic the staff or historic preservationists who last I ran into him had some concerns.

All right, so why are we picking and choosing with our arguments here?

Why is it good for transit to kill that, but it's not good enough to kill this proposal on historic preservation?

That's my big question.

Anyone else?

Okay, can we call the roll?

Mayor Buckley.

Hi Aldwin for Lyson.

Hi Alderman Sandemeyer, Alderman Gay.

Uh Alderman Savage.

No net.

No.

Alderman Hatley.

Aldwoman O'Neil.

It's defeat.

I'd like to move move to reconsider.

And see if we can't get part of this through without with an amendment.

Alderman gay.

Thank you so much, Mr.

Mayor.

Uh I'm trying to follow protocol as best as possible here.

So this uh anonymous, so wait, they so the planning, our planning department has created a comprehensive plan, the annapolis 2040 ahead.

And my understanding now correctly that because of this vote, and and we're also taking the vote on that where we're missing uh an uh a council person, so it obviously immediately uh chose the bill.

Is this now there's no implementation at all of the comprehensive plan?

And that will now be left.

I mean, the next time that this has an opportunity could be next year at this same time, probably December at the end of the year, because it does have to go to all the committees.

It does have to be published in the Capitol Gazette uh for a specific amount of days.

What's going on here now?

And have we just completely ruined um at least?

So I'm second.

Okay, thank you.

Alderman motion to reconsider from Alderman Hunt.

Consider what?

Reconsider the vote.

The vote.

And now on one what?

On second reader as amended, or what?

On second reader as amended, right?

Uh and I want to thank my team here that I've worked with for eight years.

Thank you.

Alderman Gay.

I I've seconded the uh vote for reconsideration.

I I I just I can't imagine walking out of walking.

We put too much time into this.

The mayor's administration staff, uh, my colleagues.

I mean, what there's no annapolis 2040 if we don't vote on this.

I have a question.

So I was just wanting some clarification for you, Alderman Gay from director Jacobiac.

But can you repeat your question to him, please?

Thank you very much, and I appreciate the clarity on this.

If 01425 is not passed in any shape, way or form tonight, amended or unamended, there will be no enforcement of the uh uh an implementation of the Annapolis comprehensive plan 2040, the Annapolis Ahead 2040 comprehensive plan.

Is that correct?

Which means that we would have gone uh from the last plan introduction, which was I believe 2004, through now with two comprehensive plans with very, very minimal if no implementation from them.

This would have been the um most extensive um to connect the comprehensive plan to zoning code that the city ever adopted and uh would have linked specifically the mixed use recommendations, the housing recommendations and the performance recommendations for development specifically into code in code.

Your comprehensive plan would have been clearly implemented through the code um if this were adopted.

It's not to say that a future council can't take it up again, but this did follow through a planning process uh and through the planning commission, uh, through many months of work uh on their behalf before it arrived with you.

So there's a motion to reconsider the amended thing, yeah.

So we gonna do another vote, another road poll and uh proposed amendment, or believe there might be a proposed amendment.

Right.

So we're just talking about putting it back on the table.

All the no, I'm gonna have to call it.

I mean it's gonna have to be a roll call.

Mayor Buckley.

Alderman Penn Lace aye.

Alderman Sandemeyer.

Aye Alderman Gay, uh Alderman Savage.

No Alderman Arnett, no man O'Neal.

So it's back on the floor on second reader and Alderman Chandelmeyer hasn't or did you have well?

I I just think there's there's gotta be something in here that we can agree on.

There's still so many parts.

I don't support the high limit part.

Some other folks support do support that, but don't support the other parts.

There's gotta be something in here, if nothing else.

We all agree on this part about fixing the 3250 rule.

I just think I think it's a waste to vote this down in its entirety when there are parts that we want to see happen.

So I I'm not gonna vote for it with the height limits, but I'd rather amend that out and vote for it without that, or we amend both parts out and still pass the 3250 part, but I think there is a I think there is an opportunity to get something done here tonight rather than to have this build that we all agree at least on that 3250 rule part.

Uh I would like to make a sorry here, you finished my I was just gonna say we all agree that there are opportunities to get something good done here tonight, and I think just having a uh straight down vote is not the solution here.

So make a move point of information.

No amend it though.

The bills, the amendments no longer reconsider it from the beginning because when you move to adopt it as amended, you just start it all over.

So it would be appropriate for the Alderman to make a motion say to remove the thirty the uh bridge light portion and leave in the other two and see how or anyone else point of information.

May I yes hold them?

My question is I'd like to know what the votes were.

I think we voted on five amendments.

I think it was what six to one or six to nine one group.

Okay, so we already voted on the five amendments.

Not when you reconsider.

We reconsidered then I'd like to provide a motion right now that we have I think I still have more.

All right.

They were voiced and they care.

One amendment number one through amendment number five were voted on.

Okay, so that's what I want to reiterate.

The fact that we voted on five amendments.

Yes.

That passed.

Okay, so that's that's what I want to be clear about.

Thank you.

We don't need to vote on them.

Yeah.

Yes, you do.

Okay.

That's what I think is not being made clear.

Regina says we do need to vote on them again.

I'm yeah, I wasn't questioning that.

Okay.

I wasn't questioning.

And Alderman Hell, are you gonna move the five?

Yeah, so I'd just motion for amendments one through five to be readopted.

Okay, can I get a second on that?

Okay, we're gonna go.

So the five amendments are on the floor.

Point of order, Mr.

May.

Hold on, go, yes.

Thank you so much.

I am just bringing up the fact that in the seven years that I have been on the council.

We are coming up on 11 o'clock.

This has never happened before for uh ever.

So I think now when do we call for a motion to reconvene?

Because as long as it's before 11, we're okay.

So we might get a vote off before that, and then I'm gonna have to take a vote to extend the council date.

Okay, you guys might need to go get to dinner.

Okay, I'm for sure.

You can extend it looks like uh okay.

Okay.

You have been he got a second, but you didn't five.

Yeah, we did we all voice, yeah.

We didn't vote.

Two voted no.

Okay.

Right.

So is there another amendment?

Oh, okay.

Well, uh I want to go back to what would it take to get either of of your votes.

Uh I'm saying here well, I actually I'll turn it around.

What would it take to get your vote?

Yeah, yes.

What it would take to get my vote is is to just strike out the height limits for make that vote.

But I think so.

Let's do an amendment then on page 11, one through 26, strike it.

Motion page 11 of the ordinance itself.

Correct.

I'm sorry, but it's late.

We gotta get this done.

Could you remember?

Wouldn't you just make yeah?

So oh, I'm sorry.

Alderman Standemar, would you please um repeat your amendment?

Page 11.

Uh strike lines one through 26.

Second 11 through what?

26.

Page page 11, strike lines one through 26.

Okay, so that second discussion.

Alderman Savage.

So this it's really if it works for you, that's all.

But no, because I still want amendment number six.

My underlying issue is even as it's removed, it's just gonna be the planned unit development proposal and that 3250.

3250.

Yeah, I mean, my issues are still there for the for the transportation.

I mean, right again, this is not impact the plan development does not impact your ward.

It impacts us most of all.

So why are you like where's automatic courtesy here?

There's no respect here as far as trying to get some kind of talking about.

Yeah, it is a motion, and that's what we should be debating now.

Is this particular motion?

You can go back and make a motion to put six back in and see where we go with there.

But right now, we're dealing with this.

I did, yeah.

Okay, let's let's get this done.

I'm an aye.

We'll do a roll call.

Thank you.

Would you repeat the motion, please?

Um Alderman Shandemar's motion is on page 11.

Strike line one through 20 lines one through 26.

Don't have lines.

Uh Alderman Savage.

The event can have no there was there was just a motion previously to amend the legislation with amendments one through five.

Number five adds a loss.

I'm not clear on what in five will carry over or not.

Or does this strike the entirety of amendment five?

Like the amendment, like the text on the green roofs and the the other conditions we that was passed.

Let that all pass.

Yeah, we all voted on that.

That would be through.

I know, but the proposed amend the the motion is to strike text from the original legislation, and I'm not clear on what that means as far as as amended.

What does it look like now if this passes?

I don't understand what's in it still, what's not.

How can we explain to the public when I don't know exactly what this is gonna look like?

I don't even know what it's gonna be in.

But it would be referring, it would be referring to this, which I don't think it should be.

It should be more generic.

We really can't do this without seeing it as it looks amended with one through five.

I think I think Alderman Savage, what we could do is slightly reword Alderman Chandelmeyer's amendment, my amendment alderman channel's amendment, whatever you want to call it, to leave in what your well, I mean we could we could make the amendment so that it would not take amendment five out.

Um but I think that becomes amendment five becomes unnecessary.

Well, yeah, it's a move point, I guess, because you don't need the green roof language, you don't need the accessory structure unit because they won't be allowed.

It's but that's my so I think we need to be clear.

Everything from amendment five is I'm gonna call it question.

We we have an motion on the floor to strike seconded to strike these lines so can you repeat it again, please.

Alderman Shannon will vote on it and then well we'll vote against it.

Uh I do think we don't all have line numbers.

So if he could give us the portions of the legislation, Rannicus does not have line numbers.

It's page 11 lines one through 26 striking and everything that's in red, yeah.

Uh uh question whenever she's thank you.

I'm gonna have to uh sort of extend the button send the movement.

Oh yeah.

Um you just said we need to make a motion to go to continue, yeah, continue beyond we want to take a recess.

No.

All right.

I'm just gonna need before we move forward on the legislation that's on the floor.

I need a motion to extend the meeting past eleven.

Could I get a motion, please?

Yeah, no.

No.

I think we should.

Okay, everybody, please.

Can I get a motion to extend the meeting past eleven?

You got moved.

And I've got that, and so we're gonna take a roll call, and not a roll call, uh voice vote on that.

All those in favor, please say aye.

No, no.

Uh two people opposed, beautiful.

The eyes have it.

Back to where we were, Alderman Huntley.

Can I move that we recessed for ten minutes?

Take a quick break.

Yeah.

I mean, I can.

I'm I'm making that motion.

Is there a second?

Second.

Okay, let's recess.

Yeah, never mind.

All those in favor, please say aye.

Let's recess till ten minutes past.

Thank you.

Mr.

Mayor, uh for us out of chambers.

Uh eleven ten uh for clarity, right?

Eleven ten, yeah.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Continue uh second last meeting.

Um can I get the counselors up who are remote.

Right, so we have a motion on the floor from Alderman Chandelmeyer.

I've seconded it.

It's been seconded.

Um, so we're gonna go and take a vote on that.

I think we'll have to do a roll call as well.

Uh I'm an aye.

You are Alderman Shannonier.

Aye.

Alderman Gay.

I I'm so sorry.

I know the attorney, city attorney's gonna be disappointed in clarity.

This is voting on removing page eleven, lines one through twenty-six.

Yeah, yes.

Okay, it was there.

I I did not hear the discussion on this.

I'm sorry.

Because it never got sent to HPC, and I was increasingly frustrated by that.

I'm abstaining from this, I'm sorry.

Could you can you summarize it for us, Alderman Chandemai, please?

Height limits.

No.

No.

Okay.

Umderman Savage.

This is on the motion to strike on page eleven, lines one through twenty-six.

Uh aye.

Alderman Arnett.

Aye.

Alderman Huntley.

Aye.

All the women o' kneel.

Aye.

Okay.

And then I'll move that.

We also uh this is just related to what we just said.

Strike amendments one and five.

Second.

Because they're now redundant.

Yeah.

Second on that.

I did.

Yeah, roll call.

I will do a roll call.

Okay, Mayor Buckley.

No.

Alderman Lyson.

Okay.

Alderman Sandemeyer.

Aye.

Alderman Gay.

No.

Alderman said.

This is to remove one and five.

Amendment number one and five.

We have no choice.

I next.

I don't even know what they are.

Alderman Huntley.

I all the women o' neal.

I oh did you want to move and finally?

Aldo and Finalization.

I'm sorry.

May I ask a question?

Yes.

So what we're voting on is removing one and five because of the amendment that we previously voted on.

Correct.

Okay.

Then I will.

And then I move that we vote on uh O 1425 as amended.

Well no, that's right.

You want to do yeah.

Go ahead.

Okay.

Amendment six.

Second.

Have we already I thought we voted all ready voted for amendment six before?

And now we're back to reconsidering the whole legislation.

So can we is it not a good thing?

So you're removing your original amendment number six.

You're moving.

Yeah, moving amendment six.

Okay.

So and I received a second.

I second it.

Um can we reconfirm Alderman Gay's amendment, which passed.

Oh, yeah.

Can I move it as amended by Alderman Gay?

Thank you.

Okay, I'd like to move an amendment.

Okay, oh, sorry.

Hold on a second.

Hold on second, please.

So we have Alderman Savage move his amendment as amended with Alderman Gay's length.

I second.

And and Alderman next second.

Are we having discussion?

This is to everybody, this is substantive, so we will be bringing it back to you.

Is there discussion?

Are we moving to vote?

Yeah.

So we've got a first motion and a second, right?

Yes.

Okay.

Alderman Huntley.

Okay.

So I do have an amendment to the amendment six to address one of my biggest concerns, which is um.

Uh it's the the part that I was talking about earlier.

Now I can't get the amendment to come out.

Uh I apologize.

You want to change the heart.

No.

To amendment six.

It was the uh the latter two parts of that enforcement section.

Do you know which part I'm talking about?

It was parts uh B and C of that section that to do with enforcement.

The one about 20% being cars or not cars.

What page are you on?

I apologize.

I'm trying to pull it back up.

So page, I think page 13 line.

Oh, I don't have a line.

Page 13 number three.

D three.

I think is that what you're talking about?

The penalties.

Sorry, give me one moment.

It's no, it was um page five.

No, no, get in.

Go back to the go back to the legislation redraft.

So it was the same thing.

Okay.

Who was page five?

If it's page five, that's also page 13.

Page 13.

Yeah.

Can you summarize it for you?

Yes.

So my amendment to Alderman Savage's amendment is to strike this uh section labeled performance security, which says a performance bond or letter of credit equal to 10% of the estimated cost of on-site transportation demand management, blah blah blah blah.

And then three, which says penalties, failure to achieve or maintain 20% non-single occupant vehicle mode share within two years, blah blah blah blah blah.

That two and three there on page 15.

And you're moving to strike the penalties.

I am moving to strike the performance security and the penalties portion, sir.

Yeah.

It's on page five of the of amendment six.

So it I accepted as a friendly amendment.

Um it's moved and second yes, ultimately correct.

No.

Just two and three of D included that to repeat.

My question is um, was there not an amendment that would change the reporting period from every year annually to every two years?

Is that in the previous amendment?

That was included in the Alderman companies motion to include the gay amendment clear as much.

Well, all right.

All right.

Um I'm not even gonna do a roll call because I don't know where I am.

Uh Alderman Gay.

Thank you.

Uh Mr.

Mayor.

Um as it relates to the uh amendment uh to direct your cobian.

Uh can there your is your preference uh that there be language added in this right now that would exempt or exclude affordable housing projects aka Robinhood um or is that something that you believe could be uh handled with uh the incoming council uh no I don't I don't want to propose exempting one project okay I should and and um there so I know okay um I'm worried about that uh ultimate savage um because while I well I said I obviously I supported you because I supported this first around what are the security measures in place to make sure that that that rob line can move over let me let me really security measures to make sure that affordable housing projects could potentially be exempt uh or uh could be protected uh from this ultimate savage I mean that one way we could accomplish that would be uh just via a resolution for if there is an affordable project that comes forward and you sit down with staff and identify some concern or constraint with the legislation or sorry with the code then they we could very well just introduce a resolution to um waive that um particular requirement so that I mean I think that's I mean if you have uh an example in mind but I think that's probably the best way to handle any kind of issues and do you agree with that director to cube or not I think it incentivizes the lowest income housing being developed because you this will make it more expensive to develop market rate housing and it would further our um uh uh likelihood of adding more um the lowest income housing uh in our area set aside for planned developments and I that's not what the comprehensive plan says comprehensive plan promotes workforce housing a median household income of eighty to a hundred twenty percent of the you know median household income um so I I I think this is good intention but I think it does uh incentivize uh uh housing that does that uses income tax credits and the like um over

Comprehensive plan promotes workforce housing, a median household income of 80 to 120% of the you know median household income.

So I I think this is good intention, but I think it does uh incentivize uh uh housing that does that uses income tax credits and the like um over regular market rate housing.

And and I would just ask uh Alderman Savage when we have to pass something for any support from Alderman Savage, he feels like with Alderman Huntley in the next administration that they can work through these problems, you know.

I I've been nervous on that, but can we resolution our way out of problems like is being suggested?

There is a motion on the floor for an amendment, right?

Yeah, so can we can we vote on my amendment to Alderman Savage's amendment?

You're a member of engage amendment that uh we have a discussion on it now, right?

Correct.

Exactly.

And I think I have the floor um because it is it is important, um obviously to this discussion.

Nobody at least I uh I don't want to be a part of uh something that could that could potentially um what could what will be a positive um a positive project and impact on the community with the redevelopment of uh of Robin and so now I'm in I'm incredibly conflicted.

I've realized we've reopened this bill and at this point neither the uh rooftop nor the transit piece looks like it will be added.

And is there is there an appetite to have this postpone?

I don't know, uh because I just don't know.

I I don't know right now.

Um that kind of really really conflicts me, Alderman uh uh savage.

I uh I'm hearing directly from um uh our planning director that uh we could put ourselves in the same circumstance, something that you've just warned against.

Um yeah, I'd just like to vote on this amendment to the amendment, which is I brought up so that just striking these two relatively small pieces, and then we can go back to discussing if there are other changes needed to get amendment six third.

So I had an amendment we got seconded.

Can we vote on my amendment to Alderman Savage's amendment?

Trust you and vote on for your amendment.

Okay, we'll do a roll call.

Mayor Buckley.

Alderman for license.

Alderman Savage.

Aye.

Alderman Arnett.

Aye.

Alderman Huntley.

Alderwomen O'Neil.

If that so is it appropriate for me now to move 014 number 25 as amended?

We still voted on amendment six.

No, that's no, it's we just did my motion was for an amendment to Alderman Savage's amendment.

Your motion was a friendly amendment to his amendment number six, and so was Alderman Gay, and that just oh okay.

We haven't we haven't passed amendment six.

No, no, we haven't passed amendment six.

Yes, we have.

We just did we just didn't have a amendment six as amendment.

Yes.

The motion that I made, no, the motion that I made was to amend amendment six.

It was not to pass amendment six as amendment.

That was the motion that I made that was second.

We still have to vote on amendment six as amended, yeah.

As amended okay it's the same.

All right.

Okay, let's just vote on it, please, just to get it done as amended.

All those in favor, please say aye.

I opposed.

Thank you.

So it is now six amendments, yeah.

So we took two off.

Complicated.

Oh, we I want to join.

Yeah, one four amendments because we won't go rid of two.

And um move passage of 01425 as amended.

As amended.

I move make that motion.

Thank you.

It fails for second.

Oh, good.

Aye.

Okay, Mayor Buckley.

Point of order.

We're voting on 1425 with amendments one through four.

Correct.

Well.

You're voting on um 014 as amended on second read.

Oh.

Okay, and now so amendment.

Obviously, amendment six is not included.

But we've also taken out what was it, Page the Falk of So the hotel thing is out right now.

Is that is that how this reads?

Correct.

I'm just trying to get thank you.

Okay.

Okay.

Yeah, we are the hotel is out.

Uh the communicate the transportation stuff is in.

Uh and uh there's a lot going on.

So I'm uh I'm a no one for the left alderman Shannon.

Aye.

Alderman Gay.

I I I genuinely have I I have to I I I don't want to vote on it.

I have to take my I I can't.

I don't even know what is going on right now.

No, I'm being serious because without the without the language of the hotel and adding this, what are we voting on?

I mean so it's just oh 14 with additions to forge drive.

Is that I I have to make sure I'm I'm reading this correctly and and and passing this correctly it's 014 with the density amendments and 3250 and an amended addition to do the transportation stuff, yeah.

So why were you voting Alderman?

Uh I'm going to stink okay, okay.

Okay, thank you.

Okay.

Um Alderman's that aye alderman H.

Aye.

Alderwoman O'Neil.

It's four.

Yes.

Four yes.

Three no's and no.

All right.

Yes.

Can I get a motion on third reader?

So moved.

Second.

Roll call.

Mayor Buckley.

No.

Nathan Lace.

Alderman, down to my aye.

Okay.

Alderman gay.

Abstain.

Okay.

Um.

Aye.

Alderman.

Aye.

Aldie.

Aye.

Aldwoman O'Neil.

Nay.

Motion passes.

Okay.

Mr.

City Attorney, please present the next on the agenda.

We're not done.

Yes, sir.

The next item of the agenda is 01525.

Accessible dwelling unit requirements.

Mayor would like to withdraw the legislation.

Second.

All those in favor, please say aye.

Mr.

City Attorney, please present the next on the agenda.

Next time on the agenda is 01725, limiting short-term rentals per block phase.

So move.

Second.

So this legislation is uh really important because it says it on blocks that are more than 10%.

Short-term rentals.

We are not issuing any new licenses.

Uh we know there's dozens of short of uh block faces to qualify for that in uh in ward one.

I have in front of me from Alderman Arnett, there's 17,549 housing units in the city under our current code, potentially every single one of those could be a short-term rental.

And so by making it clear that there are limits on the density, we can move this forward and just protect some of our really important places.

Um there are a handful of amendments.

Move amendment one second.

All those in favor, please say aye.

All right.

Aye closed.

Thank you.

Yeah, more.

I just have one.

Second.

Okay, move amendment two, please.

Sorry.

So moved.

This is a paragraph that says that it only applies to non-owner occupied, however, that is correct.

So the uh reason for amendment two is because this is about um short-term rentals taking over our communities in certain areas and people losing neighbors, and if you have someone living there full-time, we don't have to worry about that, right?

Carl's still coming to our our city council meetings, even if uh he has uh a room that somebody can rent.

So hope you don't mind me.

But yeah, then I think we want to make sure those things uh those uh those people doing that are not caught up in in this bill that's all about protecting our neighborhoods.

And as a project of clarification, if I may, this still only applies for new applicants for short-term rent, not renewals, new applications.

Sure, yeah.

I mean I kind of both.

I think that's yeah, this is yeah, all right.

Moving right along.

Is there okay?

All those in favor, please say aye.

Aye, aye, aye, opposed, no, okay.

Amendment number three, moved, second.

So Alderman Savage.

So this would implement a uh lottery system similar to what New Orleans utilized.

Um, and I will admit New Orleans their lottery was challenged in court, but it did survive the first legal challenge, but it is being appealed.

Um but you know the the point the point of the lottery is to, and I commend my colleague from Ward One for introducing this legislation because uh contrary to what's been alleged in the public testimony.

Um this proposal would absolutely even the base ordinance would absolutely result in a reduction of short-term rentals over time.

That's why it's a it's a cap.

It would prevent any additional ones from being added or approved if the blocks are over 10 percent.

However, the way that the underlying ordinance gets to 10 percent is through kind of natural attrition.

As people as property changes hands, they will not be able to transfer their short-term rental license.

And um, so what I'm proposing with this is something much more aggressive.

It would get us to that 10% um at within two years or after two years.

Um because that is when the lottery would trigger.

So there'd still be no new permits in that interim two years, but after that period, um it would all be reset, but they would be prioritized first.

The first round of prioritization would be city and county residents who own short-term rental properties in the city or renewal for renewal who are in good standing.

So they've gone through the process to get licensed properly licensed.

Second phase would be those in city county who own properties in the city who want to get new licenses.

And then the last round would be those outside the city and county who want to get renewals or new licenses.

And so after that initial lottery, it's that it's done, and it just reverts to first come first serve as far as applications.

So I I appreciate the the merits of this.

So I can't personally support this.

I think if you brought it forward as a standalone bill, I'd I'd vote for it, but I don't think it's appropriate for it to be an amendment to this.

So I'll be voting no.

So places like Fleet Street and other places in the city where there's high concentrations.

And that those will take care of themselves with the passage of the legislation as amended.

So I do support it.

Thank you very much, Mr.

Mayor.

Well, I support reducing the number of short-term rentals in our city.

I don't think that this actually goes far enough.

And I think that our biggest in our city is enforcement.

Um we've already been told that there are far more short-term rentals out there that are unlicensed than are licensed, and whether we're limiting the license to 10% of a block face.