And you can put that back and pass the task.

Oh, look at the most important thing.

Okay, we had uh no items removed from the consent agenda.

Uh so do we have a motion?

Move to approve.

Right.

Uh all in favor of the motion, aye.

Aye.

All opposed, nay.

All right, so that passes.

And next uh we have public comment.

And we had a lot of folks sign up today, so because we only have an hour, we have a minute per speaker.

And uh I believe your names will be up on this board, so if you want to kind of line up and uh you know, kind of get ready to come forth, but we'll start with Elizabeth Scott.

Good afternoon, everyone.

I'm Elizabeth Scott and I live in the Anderson Forest neighborhood.

Uh this Greenway Connector project has not been a fifty-year city priority.

The nineteen seventy-six and eighty-nine Greenway master plans don't mention it.

If anyone claims otherwise, I challenge you to read these documents.

Had this trail been a tr had the Anderson Forest Trail been a a priority in nineteen eighty-six, the city would have never accepted an easement that expressly forbids greenway trail construction through Anderson Forests.

Violating legal is easements and bending environmental rules to build a ten foot wide asphalt trail through a thirty-foot riparian buffer is not leading by example and could jeopardize a vital natural resource in a rapidly growing city.

Natalie Brown.

And finally, I want to wish Jonathan Nevermothan a happy 40th birthday.

All right.

All right, thank you.

Uh Jane Hubbins.

Big Branch near Six Works Road does not have a wide floodplain.

Houses lie on the west side on a hill with a bluff on the opposite bank, creating a narrow channel for the water which drains much of North Hills to pass through, making swift and powerful floodwaters rise quickly.

They carry locks, trees, other debris that funnel into a car culvert under Six Horts Road.

Backyards can flood in ten minutes, and sometimes from heavy range just upstream.

A downward ramp leading into rising floodwaters is dangerous for trail users and puts them at risk in being pulled under Six Works Road.

When Crabtree Creek rises, stream flows here slow and stop, creating a re in our backyard a lake that lasts for hours and sometimes days.

Receding waters leaves slippery mud and debris that would require a higher level of online maintenance.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Monica Sanders not seeing her.

Uh Nikki W.

She's not Graham Whitehead.

Good afternoon.

I'm a student here.

I live just off of Hillsborough Street, directly across campus from the Hill Library.

Um I just wanted to talk about the increasing homeless population that's overrun Hillsborough Street in that area.

Uh recently, my girlfriend was harassed by a homeless man.

She even had to like run away from him because he was chasing her on foot.

My roommate's girlfriend has mentioned instances of similar things happening to her.

Um and even the other day when I was walking my dog, I noticed a homeless man who was defecating in the bushes.

Um I've just I've noticed the increasing trend of you know them just you know not caring as much about the area and and even you know making it a pain for other people to walk up and down that street.

And I you know, my girlfriend has told me that she feels unsafe even walking in the daytime.

Um so I just wanted to come address that to y'all and hopefully something you know motion moves forward to clean up that area and find a safer place for them and ensure the safety of our students.

Um could you just name the street you're referring to?

Hillsborough Street, particularly between Logan Court and Brooks on on Hillsborough.

Okay, thank you.

Thank you.

Matthew Bush.

Yeah.

Good afternoon.

My name is Matt Bush.

I live in the Now Point neighborhood near Carter Finley.

My concern is the lack of infrastructure and planning around large concert events during the recent Chris Brown show.

Traffic was so bad that residents couldn't get home for hours.

Some even had to throw out groceries that had spoiled in their cars.

It took me two and a half hours to make a 10-minute drive from Wake Forest Drive.

Sorry, from Wake Forest Road.

If emergency vehicles needed access, it wouldn't have been possible.

What's frustrating is that the neighborhood has asked for simple sidewalks for years, a basic safety improvement, yet the city keeps on approving approving massive events that bring gridlock without proper traffic control or the consideration of its residents.

Many of us have kids and want to walk safely, but crossing now a road is dangerous, and we can't constantly worry about the tragedy waiting to happen.

I'm asking the city of Raleigh to do better balance and its priorities and invest in the safety and accessibility for people who live here before expanding entertainment that puts families at risk.

Thank you.

Octavia Rainey.

And I learned so much from that experience.

And it reaffirmed my civil rights movement and my struggles.

I participate in No Kings Day on Capitol Boulevard because it was the right thing to do.

And John Lewis was a great friend of mine.

He would appreciate that.

What I'm asking you is for the African American bullet, please reinstate that as a fool bull, not under the Human Relations Commission.

Denial.

Delay is discrimination.

Thank you.

Mesa Sotari.

Okay, not seeing her.

Kim Hovind.

Long ago the city recognized that Anderson Forest backyards were not appropriate for trail development, and council accepted a scenic and conservation easement.

For almost 40 years, homeowners have abided by easement terms.

We are happy to continue to do so.

We believe the city should honor its part of this contract.

Condemnation of a nonviolated scenic and conservation easement sets a disturbing and chilling precedent, not only for Raleigh, but around North Carolina.

There are many local land trusts and statewide conservation groups that rely on protecting natural resources with similar land restrictions.

Permanence is very important.

In addition, almost all of the proposed backyard trail violates riparian water quality protection rules that allow exemptions only when there is no practical alternative.

Clearly, practical alternatives exist.

These are just two of the many reasons your advisory board voted nine to five not to support.

Thank you.

Carrie Bennington.

I'm here to raise concern about the lack of clarity and consistency in the big branch greenway budget.

At the September 8th Greenway Committee meeting, Parks and Rec staff claimed there were no current estimates, but assured the public the project would stay within the $4.5 million parks bond.

Yet public records show they already had a $4.73 million estimate for just one segment, Section 1B, the Anderson Forest Route, which doesn't even include the $785,000 Kenley Horn contract.

On October 16th, Parkson Reich presented an entirely new $5.76 million budget, including $1.2 million from stormwater.

The numbers simply do not add up.

When you include sections 1 and 4, total costs are already pushing $7.3 million at a minimum, already making it $1.5 million over budget.

And that does not include design geotech maintenance, required land acquisition costs, and likely imminent domain litigation.

If the city values transparency and fiscal responsibility, this project demands and taxpayers deserve a full and honest accounting.

Thank you.

Taylor Stewart.

Good afternoon.

When the city began public engagement 16 months ago for the big branch greenway project, it presented three segment 1B routes through Anderson Forest backyards in a way that misled the public.

The city's first survey described our backyards as wooded areas when they are not.

And it falsely claimed to have a greenway construction easement that does not exist.

Our neighbors asked for these errors to be corrected, but the city refused.

Even with these flaws, 49% of respondents supported a street side route along Plantation Road and Belvin Drive.

The most supported Anderson Forest route received only 24%.

Rather than accept the outcome, the city declared segment 1B undecided and launched a second survey.

That survey was just as biased as the first as another neighbor will explain.

I urge you to dismiss this public engagement by the Andrew Bennington.

Good afternoon.

I spoke to some of you last week and I'm here again at the risk of wearing out my welcome.

I wanted to talk briefly about the elephant of elephants in the room on this Greenway project, and that is the fact that the city doesn't have a right to do what it's proposing to do.

In order to make this project go forward, what's going to have to happen is the city is going to have to exercise the extreme power of eminent domain, that is to take private property for what is supposed to be the benefit of the public good.

Under our statutes, the Bill of Rights of the Federal Constitution and the North Carolina Constitution, the city is going to have to show one that this is a necessary benefit to the public, and two, that property are going to receive just compensation.

As to the first issue, there are many other alternative routes that have been explored.

And simply put, this is a amenity, not a necessity.

And as to the budget, I think you'll hear this again and again.

This is taking private property of nine homeowners and their families, and it simply is too much for the budget.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Caroline Bennington.

That's my daughter.

She's in high school and wanted to speak to the case.

Okay.

All right.

All right, so then uh Caroline Plummer.

Uh huh.

I'm here expressing concern that the city is using results from the phase two survey to justify the big branch segment 1B, streamside greenway route.

But in reality, the survey was so flawed, and the results are truly meaningless.

Yes, the description streamside sounded appealing to the people taking the survey, but no one shared the fact the greenway would run through private backyards and very close to the big branch creek that is prone to dangerous flash flooding.

Someone even went to the extreme of photoshopping the image use with the survey, showing a serene path, but left out all the images of fencing and safety routes and all the trees that would have to be removed.

In reality, this greenway would feel like a sidewalk bordered by fencing and large sewer manholes.

Participants completing the survey were not given accurate information, and I urge you to please disregard these results from the inaccurate biased survey in your decision.

Thank you.

Mr.

Greenways.

Good day, Mayor.

And members of the honorable city council.

I am Mr.

Greenways, who travels the galaxy looking to appreciate and celebrate Greenways.

And I must say, Mayor, I have not seen a greenway system so great from Mercury to Mars.

But I must apologize for these citizens.

For they not realize the true value of what the city is offering and willing to pay for.

To stroll, to bike along an amazing coppet of green, a window of nature, to even allow these four-legged furry creatures that you citizens and humans have such an affinity for.

But do not wear wordy, mayor, for I have a monocle that can see into the future.

And these citizens will be returning to thank you for what you have done.

So, Mayo, I hope to see you again.

But for now, I bid you ado.

Thank you.

All right.

Athena Wallin gets to follow that.

I am Athena Wallin.

I cannot follow that.

Um the big branch Greenway Connector would bring neighborhood that neighborhood assured stormwater improvements and long-term environmental stability and to the property owners by reducing flooding risk over time.

Properties along this branch are built upon a flood-prone soil in a regulatory floodway with steep upslopes and lower lying banks.

The city of Raleigh owns a few parcels already along the big branch downstream of Anderson Street homers.

Homeowners, these sites are specifically addressing the neighborhood special flood hazard area, indicating long-term investment toward mitigating and managing this waterway.

Sixty percent of our stormwater creeks are already experiencing severe stream bank erosion and impaired water quality conditions.

Easements and riparian buffers must be established, maintained, and connected as part of the city's greater need for strategic planning around these waterways and wildlife corridors.

We must keep evolving and collaborating, please.

Also, the roundabout on Brookside Drive and Automotive Way has been postponed, therefore delaying the sidewalk that I've been asking the city to focus on.

Thank you for your time.

Thank you.

Sorry, I have to clean up my anxiety.

Excuse me.

Right, Joseph Duncan.

Good afternoon, Mayor and Council.

I'm Joe Duncan, and we all love Greenways.

We all really do.

But 100% of Anderson Forest asks that you vote no on November 4th to the proposed taking of our yards, safety, and privacy.

There's no mandate for the streamside plan.

Claims of overwhelming support rest on the parks bond and the flawed surveys you've heard about.

The parks bond reflected broad support for Greenways.

We all do, not this alignment.

And the survey results are invalid.

Only 1,600 responses, less than 0.2% of our of Raleigh's population, with no sampling controls and including duplicates and non-resident uh votes.

It misrepresents facts, presumes easements that don't exist, alters images to make the corridor appear as open city land, and omits key details such as unbudgeted imminent domain takings and environmental violations.

There's no mandate.

Vote no on November 4th.

Thank you for your service.

Thanks.

She wanna come on down.

Yep.

Thank you.

I appreciate that.

Good afternoon.

It's another amazing day in paradise.

Thank you for all the work and service you do.

Even though it's been a while since I addressed that All American City Award, everything I've spoken on leads it back to my leads back to it in my mind.

And recently I realized that my excitement for it is founded in this idea that we all thrive in 2025.

So today I'm going to share four resources that to me that are supporting me achieving this lofty goal.

One of them is this book, Emotional Intelligence 2.0.

It contains the assessments in um training, like I mentioned.

This one is called Love Where You Live, and our esteemed um Councilmember Silver is actually quoted in this.

The other one is if you would look into it, the brainstory curriculum by Alberta Family Wellness.

It's a foundational piece of the Decade of the Child Initiative.

And the final one is simply a song.

It's called Another Day in Paradise by Phil Collins.

Thank you.

Thank you.

All right.

We will go back to the uh regularly scheduled list here.

Kwan Yu Chun.

Kwan Yu here.

Okay.

Rashawn King.

Good afternoon, Council.

I'm Mike Provoznick, advocate advocacy chair of Oaks and Spokes here to speak on behalf of Rashawn since he is out of town.

I urge you to follow staff's recommendation on the West Streamside alignment for the Big Branch Greenway.

Recently, someone opposed to the Greenway shared that he taught his grandkids to ride bikes in the very area where the greenway would go.

That's a beautiful image.

But it's also a power powerful argument for the Greenway.

Right now, thousands of children in Raleigh don't have a safe place to learn to ride.

Their options are busy streets like Six Works Road, roads that are dangerous and unwelcoming to young riders.

This is about equity in the grand scheme of things.

A parks and greenways board member mentioned imminent domain and property condemnation has been coming to Southeast Raleigh for decades.

But now that the neighbors look different, the argument looks different.

So I urge you, greenways are not just an amenity, as mentioned.

They are a necessity to make sure we maintain Mayor Cowell's pledge to build a city that works for everyone.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Alex Bursette.

Hello, Council members.

Uh I'm Alex Brissett.

I have a few topics I'd like to cover.

First, the new Brookside bike lanes still need bollards.

I hope they can be installed as soon as possible.

Second, please move forward with the big branch greenway.

This new addition to our greenway system will be a tremendous step forward, and the city's goal is to increase alternative transportation by opening access to the greenway to a huge number of residents and to new destinations.

Third, I want to echo my wife, Athena's pleas for increased attention to stormwater creek systems.

You've heard from her many times over the last couple of years.

Stormwater creeks are not only vulnerable wildlife habitats, they're critical infrastructure assets in the city's efforts to prevent flooding.

Our existing development guidelines and permitting rules are not doing enough to protect these assets, and it's going to cost residents and the city in the long run.

I don't have the answer to these problems, but I know Athena does, along with our stormwater department and other dedicated environmental groups, and I ask that you please prioritize the recommendations.

Thank you.

Thank you.

James Anthony.

Good afternoon, and thank you for uh your time, all of the time that you've spent on uh this matter.

We greatly appreciate it.

My wife and I purchased our home eight years ago, subject to a conservation easement, expressedly prohibiting a public greenway through our backyards.

Contrary to what some of the self-proclaimed greenway experts are stating here, it's absolutely false that there is no crime on our greenway system.

In fact, as recent as this past summer, there were multiple indecent exposure incidents on the greenway.

It would be uh awful for my kids, toddler ages two and four to be in the backyard when a nefarious character were to come through uh with bad intentions.

And um those aren't the only examples of uh crime that that has taken place on our greenway.

Um most importantly, we need to emphasize the fact that the parks board voted five, or excuse me, nine to five against this route for segment one B.

Again for your time.

Thank you.

Kara Lewis.

Hi, I'm Carrie.

Uh I'm Carrie.

I'm Kara and I live in Kerry.

So why am I here in Raleigh?

Because for more than two decades, I rented or owned homes that back to a paved greenway.

Uh once in Bond Park in Kerry, later in Maynard Oaks, using the Henshaw Greenway that backs to a stream.

Um, these were some of the best years for me and my family.

Uh I have very fond memories of waving to neighbors as well as all the recreational bikers and joggers that came from all over.

Uh I taught my kids to ride bikes on that greenway.

I got to walk them to elementary school.

I taught them to roller skate, and I certainly walked my dogs on those greenways.

Fast forward to still live in Kerry.

My teenager rides an e-bike from Kerry to Midtown and to Crabtree Valley using as many greenways as possible.

I can't advocate for greenways enough.

I've lived it.

I think it's wonderful, and it makes the city more livable.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Lauren Anthony.

Hello.

I live in Anderson Forest, and I'm here in opposition of the streamside route for segment 1B.

City staff claim that by building a greenway in the 30-foot riparian buffer, they're making environmental investments.

But if that's true, why is the city violating its own policies and state DEQ rules to push this project forward?

Capital Area Greenway policy says open space corridors should protect stream buffers and flood-prone areas.

Yet this plan would put an impervious greenway within as little as seven feet of the stream bank, removing trees and vegetation that currently stabilize it.

That will worsen stormwater runoff and flooding, problems that are already getting worse in our neighborhood with upstream development.

This city's the city's own guidelines and state rules prohibit building greenways in the 30-foot buffer unless there are no practical alternatives, which there clearly are.

Aside from this being a maintenance nightmare for the city, there are many other reasons that the streamside option is a non viable one.

The most obvious being the existing deed of dedication that prohibits a city from putting a greenway through our backyards in the first place.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Mary Ivy Stewart.

Good afternoon.

My name is Mary Ivy Stewart, and I grew up in Anderson Forest, where the city is proposing the streamside route.

The city claims that this route is the safest option for users, but that does leave out key facts.

To reach the trail, users must cross a dangerous stretch of Six Forks Road, where crash rates, according to the city's own data, are 35% higher than on any other comparable five-lane road in North Carolina.

They must also cross a daycare entrance and plantation road where descending ramp would go into our backyards.

In its September 8th presentation, the city staff used traffic and crash data to dismiss other routes, yet provided none for the streamside route.

They noted that 8,000 cars a day use Waketown Drive, but failed to mention the 23,500 cars on six forks in Selby each day, right where this greenway crossing would be.

The city isn't giving the full truth about the safety, and I urge you to please look closely at the facts.

Thank you.

David Levine.

I'm here to recommend that the City Council approve the recommendation of the city staff for the new big branch greenway.

I don't believe there's any doubt that Raleigh has an amazing opportunity to add to its already great greenway system.

The issue is how to route the greenway.

In this regard, the city staff conducted what I view as a thorough review of multiple options, all of their pluses and minuses, but the staff concluded that Streamside West was best.

We have a very competent parks department, and I believe we should accept the recommendation.

What we cannot let happen is we cannot let this opportunity slip by.

And therefore I recommend that the City Council accept the staff's recommendation and move forward with its implementation.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Shelley Fleming.

Hi.

I live in Anderson Forest, and I'm here to express deep concerns about the proposed greenway, specifically regarding safety and privacy.

I have three small children like many families on Anderson Drive.

And are yards the only flat safe place to play is in the backyards exactly where the greenway is proposed.

Despite claims from Adam Foreman, Parks Assistant Director that greenways reduce crimes, there is well documented evidence linking them to increase incidents of violent crime.

I have also found articles citing the unease of some to use the greenways because of these crimes.

If they're so safe, why does the city suggest that we use them in pairs?

We already see elevated foot traffic and crime due to our proximity to six forks.

Our backyards are private, taxed, and paid for, and are only real retreat.

Allowing public access there would destroy that privacy and put our families at risk.

Please hear these concerns from someone who would be affected, not from an external group lobbying for this without facts or full context.

Vote no on the streamside option.

Remember that the parks board could not even recommend it as they voted 9 to 5 against it last week.

Thank you.

Harry Johnson.

Is Harry here?

Okay.

And then Sarah Colton.

Sarah.

Nope.

Okay.

Well, that concludes the folks who had signed up for public comment.

And did we have any voicemail?

Okay.

All right.

Well, the next uh item on the agenda at the conclusion of that is report and recommendation of the Planning Commission.

Good morning, Mayor and Council.

Uh Matthew Clem, Raleigh Planning and Development, joined by Nicole Bennett, Chair of the Planning Commission.

Just a quick look at upcoming holidays in October and November for your consideration when making scheduling decisions.

We have upcoming public hearings scheduled for November 4th.

They are listed on the screen.

There are two historic landmark designation cases, two text changes, two rezoning cases.

And currently no meetings are scheduled for November 18th.

There are three rezoning requests coming out of the Planning Commission for your consideration today.

Each are recommended for a public hearing on November 18th, and I will run through them now.

The first is Z925 on Western Boulevard.

This is the Kmart site at the intersection of Blue Ridge Road and Western Boulevard.

The request is consistent with the comprehensive plan of the future land use map, and your planning commission recommends approval 7 to 0.

This is along a bus rapid transit route with a plan station at the intersection of Blue Ridge Road and Western Boulevard.

The next case is Z 2325 on Gorman Street.

This is a request to rezone 0.77 acres from residential 10 to RX4 with zoning conditions.

Again, consistent with a comprehensive plan, future land use map.

Planning commission recommends approval 7 to 1.

The last case for your consideration today is Z 2525 at the intersection of Eatington Street and North Blood Street.

This is a request to go from R10 with the Oakwood HOD and the Newburn Engine NCOD to neighborhood mixed use three stories with a detached frontage and zoning conditions, maintaining both overlay districts.

So this case is really about allowing different uses as the Oakwood Historic Overlay District and the NCOD would be providing controls to changes to the exterior of the building.

So the Raleigh Historic Development Commission recommends approval 9 to 2.

Great.

Thank you.

Questions for Mr.

Clem or Ms.

Bennett.

Yes.

Hi.

Can you go to the Kmart site?

Yep.

Thanks.

Can you just refresh my memory on how the TOD interacts with conditions?

Like there's a height bonus for affordability on the overbuild, so this could go up to 30 stories, if I'm remembering correctly, but then there's like height and unit count limitations in the conditions.

So how do those talk to one another?

That's right.

So zoning conditions limit height left of the line that I've drawn here to 12 stories, I believe.

The balance of the site is up to 20.

So where height is limited in zoning condition, those areas cannot uh increase the building height by taking advantage of the bonus.

The balance of the site, however, could.

And then in terms of the relationship of what can be built overall in terms of units and residential retail and office entitlement, the zoning conditions would control.

So if there were a scenario where more units could be built by taking advantage of the TOD overlay and the affordable housing bonus, um there would be an overall cap based on the zoning conditions offered.

Got it.

Okay.

Well then less for you and more to the applicant who I am sure is listening somewhere.

It sounds like there's um might be a lot to discuss related to to that interaction and public benefits and stuff.

Other questions?

Yes, Councilman.

Yeah, I just wanted to note on this case.

Um I haven't spoken to the land use attorney on this one.

I reached out, so I'm hopeful that we'll have a meeting soon.

So I'd like to hold it and set it hopefully for the first meeting in December for the 7 p.m.

meeting.

So that would mean holding it until we can set it for next, I guess the November 4th meeting.

That's when we would set it.

Um because I do have questions about the TOD and just the potential height of the 30 stories.

Do you know what is allowed, you know, in terms of our land use, future land use maps, the highest heights there.

So the future land use map designation for the site is uh community mixed use, I believe.

Uh it's also identified as an emerging urban center in the um transit station area height map, which would recommend uh heights consistent with what is requested.

And so upwards of 20, 30 stories.

Is 30 the max?

I believe it is off the top of my head, but yeah, it it would be up there.

That's uh it's just a big change for the area, so I just want to make sure we have that full conversation, because they could go up to 30 stories with this.

Other questions?

All right, somebody want to make a motion for the various items.

Also on Gorman Street, I have not talked to the land use attorney on that one.

I have reached out to her, and so we're gonna meet this Friday.

That would be another one I would want to hold until we have that meeting.

So I'm hoping that we can have that first public hearing beginning of December.

So that would be for the next meeting to set it.

Um there are seven units of naturally occurring affordable housing that uh would be removed if this case moves forward and there's redevelopment.

And um I don't know if you can speak to what uh I don't it was Commissioner Omakaye who was opposed to this.

Um anything that came up, Chair Bennett, in your all's conversations on this one.

Good afternoon, Mayor and Council.

Um Commissioner Omakaye was concerned about a couple things about this one.

First, with how it um fit in with the existing neighborhood.

And she also mentioned that um she had concerns about students being able to afford this housing.

I believe it's proposed for student housing, and she had some affordability concerns.

She did note that she wasn't opposed to the development, but she had those two concerns.

Okay.

Thank you very much.

So the motion, I guess, is to hold both the item 1602 Gorman Street and then the Western Boulevard case for our next meeting to set the public hearing.

And just to be clear so I understand.

Well, you've made a motion as our second.

Okay.

Because you want to just talk to the applicant and you haven't said the applicants have not reached out and set a meeting.

I was able to get one for Gorman Street, though, for this Friday.

Coming Friday.

And also once we set the hearing, they cannot make any changes.

Okay.

All right.

So uh we've had a motion and a second.

All in favor of the motion, aye.

Aye.

All opposed, nay.

Okay.

Uh three no's on that.

Um then we had the remaining item.

Move.

Move to say public hearing for November 18th.

Yep.

Second.

Right.

All in favor of that motion, aye.

All opposed, nay.

All right, so that one's unanimous.

Okay.

Thank you.

Special items we have uh rezoning Z 1125.

Good afternoon, Hannah Rackow planning and development.

So this is a rezoning Z 1125 on South New Hope Road.

As you may remember, this was on your last report of Planning Commission on October 7th.

And then at the request of the applicant, you deferred setting that hearing so they could make some changes to the conditions, which they have done.

Specifically, they have made an edit to an existing condition on stormwater and added a number of other conditions that pertain to stormwater management that touch on flood elevations, no buildings or vehicle service areas within the floodplain, as well as double silt fencing, additional post-construction practices, and then additional storm events that the peak stormwater runoff would be treated for.

So again, you have the opportunity to set the public hearing today of a suggested date of November 4th, which you have as a reminder, six items scheduled on that date.

As I understand the applicant is interested in in a different date, December 2nd, which as of right now there are no items scheduled for.

Yeah.

Madam Mayor actually spoke with the attorney for this case, and um he will like to speak to some of the council members and everything.

So we ask for a date set for December 2nd.

Okay.

Motion and a second.

All in favor of that.

Aye.

Aye.

All opposed, nay.

Right.

So that's unanimous.

Thank you.

All right.

Then we had uh this is coming back to us, the seasonal pool at Lake Johnson Park with Wolfpack Elite license agreement.

Good afternoon, Mayor and Council, Ken Hessler Assistant Director with Raleigh Parks.

Uh was here with you earlier this month on a proposal for a partnership uh with a local group on the investment in a 40-year pool at Lake Johnson Park.

So I have a couple slides to bring you some additional information that was requested uh seeking uh authorization to uh for the city manager to execute the partnership agreement.

So uh just a reminder the partnership is the the other group will bring uh a $2 million investment to invest in our 40-year-old pool that will include upgrade of the existing pool shell, upgrade of pool systems and infrastructure.

The term of that agreement is set at nine years.

And the part that I reminded you was that during their time of use, they will staff the operations.

We will not be provided required to provide lifeguards as they will be required to provide those certified lifeguards during their access to that space.

Uh Raleigh Parks will be investing in the bathhouse during that period of time as we prepare for the partnership.

We will still manage the pool when we have public use.

So we'll still guard and have people at the front desk when we have it open for public use, and we'll have our continued stewardship of the facility as well.

Uh I was asked to evaluate this uh partnership against the adopted P3 policy, and it is eligibility is met in two areas.

It aligns with the Raleigh system plan that was recently adopted, uh which the plan specifies physical well-being and the access to play exercise and a healthy lifestyle.

Secondly, was unlocking and able to monetize an existing asset by providing more access to the public, as we'll talk about very quickly.

Right now it's open about 760 hours uh through its 13 weeks.

We would be able to add an additional 1,400 hours through this partnership opportunity.

Again, as I spoke about that right now, there's about a 13-week period that we go from when school around that Memorial Day to Labor Day period.

It ramps up as the schools go out of session and then it ramps back down as the schools are going back in.

A lot of our staff are tied to college age and high school.

But in total, that's about 7760 hours of seasonal operation.

Of those, and one of the questions asked was 68 hours of those are dedicated to lap swimming.

So that is currently last year was 8 o'clock to 9.30 in the morning.

What the partner is asking for is access Monday through Saturday from 6 a.m.

to 10 a.m.

And that's during the summer hours.

Between the period from uh Memorial Day to Labor Day, they would use it in the morning from 6 to 9, and then again in the afternoon, they would use it on Saturdays.

I apologize.

I should have reminded everyone that the return of this opportunity is to create a year-round heated pool.

Um so that's where we gain that access.

Coming back from the public had asked for more summer lap swimming, which uh our partner has agreed to from 9 to 10 a.m.

to provide two additional lanes for the public to use during that time.

Obviously, Brawley staff would come in to be able to uh guard those during because that that would be our responsibility when the public was in using the pool.

Just to give you some math on what that would look like.

Also, I wanted to draw attention.

This is kind of what you would be looking at as the new concept.

It's the new pool coming in.

These are drawings that have come in uh from the consultant that the partner is working with.

That 36 hours is 40 hours a week.

It'll it applies for a three-week maintenance closure, which is pretty typical at Raleigh Aquatics operations.

Middle of the day, we do recognize that people in the public may not be very excited about swimming in December through February, but it does provide what is that maximum opportunity if we want kind of went in those hours of operation where Wolfpack Elite was not using it, and then a couple hours um Saturday and Sunday during those warmer periods of time.

Another one that we would have is to also work with third-party groups who were also looking for space during that time.

So all that just a quick table to kind of give you an idea of what you're looking at.

It identifies the pool was built in 1984, the investment from the partnership and what that's going to invest in infrastructure replacing of the pool, the operating weeks, how we would go from 13 to 36, the additional hours of operation that are gained.

So we're really only losing about 13 hours of lap swimming.

The other part is lap swimming is always available at the pool whenever it is open for recreational purposes.

So it's not like that access ends when we switch into our recreational use times.

And then staffing has talked about we always have responsibility when the public is in there, when the third-party group would be in there, they would be required for providing that staffing and access.

So gaining your approval, our next steps would be to execute the agreement.

We would then we're working with our engineering services department right now on the uh scope for the bathhouse improvements, already have the gas line as to the end of Jaguar Park Drive.

The next step would be to bring that over to the pool, and then we would expect construction to occur uh over the rest of this calendar year.

As we've talked to the partners, we can't have it done in advance of the summer operating season.

We would operate as normal for the summer and we would begin construction uh post post-Labor Day.

So with that, I will pause and take any questions.

Great.

Council.

Ken and to the city manager, thank you for the additional information and the benefits table that you provided.

Uh you answered all of my questions, and so if there's a motion on the table, uh I will uh support uh the city manager executing this agreement.

Is that a motion?

It was please go ahead and take it.

Uh I move uh that we authorize the city manager to execute an agreement for the Lake Johnson pool.

Yep.

And I would just second I this is very uh helpful, thorough, appreciate that.

Any other commentary or I just appreciate your work on this, Ken.

I know there's going to be a lot of extra public hours of use, which is exciting.

Um I know there's a few folks that would still like to see more public lap lanes during the summer.

So if there's any opportunity into the future to get those in, I'm gonna advocate for that.

Thank you.

All right.

Uh all in favor of the motion.

Aye.

Aye.

All opposed, nay.

That is unanimous.

Thank you.

Thank you, Mayor and Council.

All right.

Uh and then we have the proposed noise ordinance, and we have Whitney Schoenfeld and Karen McDonald uh presenting.

Good afternoon, Mayor, members of council.

I do have Whitney here as backup.

But um, as you'll recall, you received uh October 7th meeting, a proposed noise ordinance.

Revisions to a proposed noise ordinance.

This is your second reading.

I'm happy to run through really quickly uh the presentation that you received.

Next slide.

The proposed the proposed ordinance recommendation uh standards are now more objective, measurable, and enforceable.

It replaces the subjective rules for commercial amplified sound with decibel-based standards for clarity and consistency.

What you have?

What you have uh is a proposal for a citywide standard.

Uh this is not this is not for areas in Glenwood South, but you have a proposed uh standard uh that applies citywide, and then you have a standard that individuals could request a permit that would allow them to exceed the proposed citywide standard.

As a part of applying for that permit again, and we're talking about businesses that are outside the Glenwood South area, they would uh request a permit, and as a part of that permit, uh there would be a number of things that they need to do.

One of those things, and um had the opportunity to meet with some individuals earlier today.

One of those things is a part of that application, they would have to include a noise mitigation plan that's designed to mitigate the impact of the additional sound.

There are other criteria that would be considered as a part of issuing that permit, which includes the proximity to residences, hours during which the additional sound will be provided, the orientation of the sound and the sound generating equipment, the sound system details, topography, venue capacity, sound mitigated, sound mitigating design features, as well as the intensity of the applic of the amplification.

There's also a fee for that, which would be $500.

As I indicated earlier, these are parts of uh the standards that would need to be adhered to in order to receive that permit for additional sound level.

That permit would only be good for one year.

And uh a business could not apply for a permit if they had a verified noise violation within the previous 12 months.

This is the proposed boundaries for the Glenwood South area.

And then moving to what the standard would be for Glenwood South District.

As you'll see, uh there is a uh level during the weekday, which is considered from Sunday through Thursday, as well as a level for Friday and Saturday.

There's also what we call a step down.

So Sunday through Thursday, that step down would begin at 10 p.m.

And on the weekends or what we consider Friday and Saturday, that step down would be at midnight.

Then finally, just to summarize some of the uh proposed changes, as we said, we were we have strengthened the definition of plainly audible.

The measurement is from the property line or any point beyond the property line.

The other thing that uh we heard and we have incorporated into this ordinance is that we the business must identify a manager.

Uh and the city must have that uh manager's name and contact information.

Um then finally, want to talk about the penalties.

Uh one of the things again that uh we tried to address that we've heard is that you have to call the currently you have to call the police to enforce this ordinance.

And as a part of this proposal, the city manager may designate any city employee to issue civil citations, not just RPD.

Uh it can be enforced uh as a misdemeanor or as a civil penalty.

That civil penalty increases after the third violation to $1,500 and after the fourth violation, is not only the $1,500 penalty, but it's also a revocation of the permit, and no outdoor sound can be outdoor sound is prohibited for 18 months.

With that, I'll take any questions.

Okay.

Thank you.

Questions for our city attorney.

Yes, Council.

Not really a question for the city attorney.

Um, just a couple of statements, and I do have a request.

Um, earlier today, um, the city attorney as well as myself, counselor Jones, um, another representative from Attorney Walton from the City Attorney's Office, as well as assistant city manager um Nikki Jones, met at Bo Shring, and we met with the owner and we met with residents, and we discussed the issues that that location is having and how it is impacted with the noise ordinance.

Um at the conclusion of our probably hour and 15 long minute meeting, um, I think we've landed to a point where in order to ensure that we move in an appropriate manner overall, um, so that businesses can operate and residents can live with with a sense of peace and dignity.

Um, having a sound engineer work with Bowstring as well as help because we all receive emails where the residents want us to add a feature of distance.

And as I share with them, I don't know what distance works.

Um we could add a distance that may help them, a configuration that the location can change and it impacts other residents, but they're within the distance limitation, so they're not in violation.

So with this site, which I call a unicorn, um, having the issues that we have, I'm ready to support us moving forward with our current noise ordinance, but before we do that, I would definitely ask that we ask staff to um get us a license certified sound engineer to work with the residents and the owners of Bowstring to figure out some mitigations and things and collect some data.

But before we do that, I would definitely ask that we ask staff to get us a license certified sound engineer to work with the residents and the owners of Bowstring to figure out some mitigations and things and collect some data.

Um I think one of the challenges that we're gonna have, even with this, and I think a conversation we're gonna have and us putting out this ordinance is we want a time to help bring people up to speed.

But we need some data specifically for this site that can help other locations in the future as they move forward, as their interacting where we have residential and commercial colliding as our city grows.

Um my ask and my request is that we have a city engineer engage, and I'm saying engaged because I don't know if we have to do a contract, if we what what the process needs to be.

But I would like for a licensed engineer to be engaged to work with the residents as well as Bowstring to look at mitigation matters that can help with this location, particularly, as well as possibly overall the city.

Okay.

So uh I guess just to clarify that.

So you're not suggesting a change to the ordinance text, you're suggesting a second action, and I guess I'm asking for clarity from the city attorney or city manager.

Do we need a motion on that?

I mean, is there an expense related to that?

Or I would say yes, since there will obviously be an expense that we get authorization to do so by the majority of the board.

Okay.

So uh was my motion.

Okay.

Is there a second to that motion?

Second.

Okay.

Um is there a motion to approve the ordinance?

But not yet.

This is a separate item.

For both the council member and the attorney, what is the effective date after this reading?

When would it go into effect?

Is it immediately?

Because I'm just wondering the time for an engineer to work with either bowstring and any other vendor.

What is the effective date should this we can determine that effective date?

I'm just trying to find out from the council member, is it helpful just to uh move forward and not move the effect or set the effective date with enough time for an engineer to work with this vendor and any other vendor?

That's the first question.

Yeah, I believe so.

And that's actually the conversation we had with the residents as well as the owner, um, what time frame is needed, but also and take into consideration that our ordinances for the entire city.

And there may be some things in particular with this site that may go a little past whatever our effective date is.

But I think as long as we're continue to work with the residents and work with the owner, um if we need to make any type of modifications to our ordinance, that's something working with the city attorney's office that we can address and bring it back before council.

Right.

But true.

Just to clarify, I I apologize.

Just to clarify, the engineer would be working to try to identify the or add a distance requirement consistent with or not necessarily a distance requirement.

It may be something where we're looking at how to mitigate um the issues in particular with this location so that we don't have to add necessarily a distance requirement.

Well, they would already be required to do that as a part of getting a permit.

That that is I understand that.

Um that's required to get a permit, but I also understand um speaking to your distance requirement piece, it's it's like or and or maybe the distance requirement, the sound engineer may come back to us with a recommendation that says you should do a sound distance of a quarter of a mile.

Or a sound engineer may say you need to do 300 feet.

Having that information based on the the unique challenges from Bowstring can help us determine what impacts and what modifications maybe that need to be made.

But also I take into consideration that Bowstring is not the only location within the city of Raleigh that we're having issues with, and it's important that we do put down an ordinance to address the city overall.

And if we need to find some way to make some changes, I don't know what they are.

I'm electrical engineer and it is networking, I don't do sound engineering.

Well, I just want us to be careful when we start talking about a particular business versus as you pointed out, this is the ordinance is overall.

Correct.

So if I might recommend that we amend that to have the sound engineer look at whether there needs to be a distance component added to the ordinance so that it's not just for this particular location, but in general.

Well, now I need to clarify.

So are you suggesting a change to the current ordinance, or you want to pass this ordinance and then see how it goes, and then potentially in the future add a sound ordinance.

And a distance.

And I want to pass this ordinance.

Okay.

And I want us to make work with the sound engineer to see with this ordinance how many do we need to make a distance addition to this.

Because right now, all we have are emails saying, please add a distance.

Please add a distance.

Yeah.

And we don't have the data or the information to make that decision, but we do have issues.

Okay.

So I I just need clarification.

So we had a consultant, don't know what his background is, whether he is in sound engineer that helped shape the current ordinance that we're about to vote on.

My question is: should the sound engineer be borne by the taxpayers, or should the sound engineer be born at the expense of the vendors?

That's the part I'm trying to figure out.

I certainly agree.

If Mr.

Block is not a sound engineer, it makes sense to procure one, or not procure one, hire one, but the question is should it be the city or the vendor not knowing the scope of what a city hired engineer would do because a lot can pop up.

And you know, I'm hopeful in that discussion, distance would be part of the but they should be hired to mitigate the sound coming out of a premises.

That certainly is a role of the vendor hiring an engineer.

So I just wanted clarification why the city hiring one versus the vendor hiring one to mitigate their sound.

Well, I I was gonna say I know I asked two meetings ago that a city get a sound engineer.

Okay.

Period.

So I think we've worked with the consultant to bring back some recommendations as to what shaped and formulated the proposed ordinance that you have before you.

I think what I'm hearing is a concern that I also have.

I don't think it is the city's responsibility to expend money to figure out the logistics for one location.

However, I think if we um if you will just roll with me for a minute, I think if uh council, it is the wish of council to adopt the ordinance today with an effective date of I think we have a recommendation of January 1.

Um and then at that point we'll run this like a pilot.

And if we see problem areas in the city that we need to put some further attention to, then we would solicit the help of someone else.

If a business is having a hard time complying with the ordinance, I don't think it's the city's responsibility to bear the cost of that sound engineer.

It is the business's responsibility to get within compliance of the ordinance that you all pass that was proposed by a paid consultant that does this.

Okay.

Um we've got uh Mayor Pro Tem and then Counselor Lambert Melton.

Probably not a good idea to have a lawyer sitting together on the table.

Um but I guess my question is would it be cleaner to add the language as opposed to as relates to the sound engineer as opposed to passing the ordinance and then sort of having like this um I'm not sure how to really describe it, but not necessarily have like a sound plan as it relates to dealing with the the engineering portion of it.

So who bears the cost and all this stuff is not really it's not really clear.

I mean, we're talking about it now, but there's not a clear directive.

And so should we have some guidance, guidance as a part part of the ordinance so the public, uh business owners, residents all have a clear idea of who's responsible, time frames, and some other issues, because it's really vague at this point, in my opinion.

So very good question, and that's why we're recommending that it be January 1st.

And so that would give us an additional opportunity of roughly a month and a half to two months to go out and re-educate and to council member branches request for the sound engineer.

That would be part of our paletting to determine whether or not it's working, where we have problem areas, because I think we need to level sell the expectations.

This is not going to solve it, but I think it would be way better than what it currently is, and we'll just have to figure it out as we um as we continue to grow and go through this process.

But if we were to make a change to the ordinance today, let me remind you that recalibrates and starts the clock all over, and we'd have to come back.

It had to be two readings if we make an adjustment today.

Okay, Counselor Lambert Melton.

My thoughts are all over the place.

I'm going to say a few things.

One, one of the biggest takeaways I heard from that public hearing on the noise ordinance, which I'm glad that we did, even though I voted against it, I am happy to be wrong.

I think it was very helpful.

One of the biggest takeaways I heard is this whiplash feeling that residents are having and the business owners are having that you keep changing these rules, we're down here again, and trust me, I hear you, we don't want to be doing this again.

And so I'm really uncomfortable with this idea that we'll enact an ordinance.

I've heard mentioned now we'll consider it a pilot, we'll get more data.

I think we need to be clear that this is the ordinance we're passing, we have confidence in it, and we're going to stick with it.

We brought an expert in, did a great deal of work and engagement.

He's from Austin, Texas, which has a great nightlife scene, but has managed to find a balance.

I I don't want this to get muddy or messy.

My my personal opinion is we should pass this ordinance today, uh, with the understanding that if there are changes that need to be made in the future, that those would be thoughtful and deliberate, but not signaling that we're intending to make any changes.

If the body feels like the changes need to be made, then we need to hold this.

My opinion is not to hold it, I want to pass it.

I'm also very uncomfortable with this idea that we have one particular case that we're trying to contort an ordinance around.

I don't think the city or the taxpayers should be paying for a sound engineer for one bar or restaurant.

I think they should be paying for it if they want to negotiate something with the neighbors.

But I don't know a great deal of work has gone into this ordinance.

I'm prepared to pass it today.

And then of course, if issues persist, we can look to address them.

But I don't want to signal that we think that somehow this is a temporary measure because that whiplash feeling isn't fair to the residents.

It's not fair to the business owners.

It's really not fair to anybody in this room.

And so I'm ready to pass it and be done with it.

And so let just to clarify when I said pilot, I mean as a data collection, this will be the ordinance.

We will enforce it to the fullest extent of the law, which is what an ordinance is.

And we've already taken the necessary steps to get the positions reclassified so that we can get them on the street so that we can get those positions hired so that they will be civilians with an RPD to actually enforce, which is a uh extra element that we don't currently have a um better control zone.

And so, yes, absolutely it will be an ordinance that we will out of the gate on January 1 start to enforce.

We will follow the data and see where we are in a year's time, we'll come back to you and say, hey, we have some trouble areas that we probably need to make some adjustments to.

Um and you all can make adjustments to the ordinance if necessary at that time.

Okay.

Um Council, I think we've got do you want to do that?

I don't go and then I go.

Okay, Counselor Harrison and Counselor Jones.

Yeah, just a few comments.

I do want to say that having objective decibel standards is an important improvement in this updated noise ordinance, as well as the plan for four dedicated personnel for enforcement.

That is huge.

I support the proposal today as it represents a compromise between making sure we continue the vitality of our city nightlife and ensure quality of life for residents.

That's what I want to do today.

I also do appreciate everything we learned at the public hearing and the request for council to experience nightlife noise for ourselves.

I'm committed to doing that with RPD.

I also recognize we may still need to calibrate our decibel standards moving forward to ensure we get this right.

And I support council member branch's request for a sound engineer, but I would like to make sure the request is broad enough, broader than one business, and we may need more discussion on that request for clarification before moving it forward.

Counselor Jones.

Thank you.

Um I've gone through the ringer on this one.

I know that we have done this is to be the third one in three years uh updates to this noise earn.

And so I do understand that residents, to your point, Counselor Melton, have feel this whiplash as well as businesses.

And I was sitting in the meeting with uh uh counselor branch this morning.

And so I'm wondering, is there an opportunity to um when we listen to Brian Bloch come and speak?

He said in Austin they did this 20 times within a certain amount of uh I think it was a 10-year period amendment.

20 amendments to do that.

So to think that this is going to be the last one is is I think naive of us.

And so I wonder is there an opportunity for us to say that on a yearly basis we will check back for X amount of years so that the public has an assurance of, okay, we're gonna hear back again.

I don't need to panic, because when we just make an ordinance and they think that it's forever, then they feel like they have to lobby and lobby to get this redone.

But if we give them an assurance that we are going to look at it again officially, and if there's no complaints in a year, then we can just go, okay, it's good, it's passed.

But I I worry about residents feeling like they're not heard and then feeling they have to petition counsel to get it redone when we know that this probably we're just the beginning of trying to figure this out.

So my question is to counsel one.

I know there is a motion on the floor, and mayor let you address that part.

But what do we do to the residents that yet the business is within compliance from a decibel standpoint?

But yet they're still an issue.

Who do they call it?

If the resident has an issue with the approved ordinance, the levels they can call and report it to the enforcement um team.

But the reality is if it falls within the decibels that is approved in the ordinance, there isn't any type of citation or violation to that proprietor for the noise levels.

I think what we heard um at the public hearing and um after speaking with Ms.

McDonnell, what we heard from um the business, I hate to call businesses out this morning.

But the reality is everybody wants to maintain being able to have amplified entertainment.

So everybody is going to try their very best to remain in compliance.

And so hopefully everybody will do what they're supposed to do.

But if it is within the ordinance, we don't have any real enforcement outside of what the ordinance allows us to do.

But follow-up education information will be part of the success of this ordinance anyway.

So we already plan to have a sound engineer to help us in those problem areas as well as to alleviate or address any concerns or questions that are raised along the way.

Okay.

Um Mayor, that there's a motion on the first.

Well, and so yeah, for that motion.

So we're not talking about the ordinance right now.

We're talking about this secondary issue.

And I just want to be really clear.

So at part of the ordinance, we have four hired people that we will proceed that will enforce and be proactive.

This is about should we have a another resource available to the city, which is a sound engineer.

And my question is back to the city.

We hired Brian Block, who was a sound engineer.

No.

No?

No.

Okay.

So I was going to ask, if he was on retainer for future kind of tweaks and amendments and monitoring, or we're now going to go to a second contract, which is specifically with the sound engineer to assist us in this first year of uh implementation of this ordinance to have on call to work with us as we implement it.

So we have plans for future contracting with Mr.

Block as he will be helping us with the training of the four enforcement officers that we put um on the street.

And in addition to that, he will be able to avail us um the services of a sound engineer to help in those areas where we have repeated issues.

Okay.

Okay.

So that is what we're voting on right now is do we want to have a this additional contract for a sound engineer?

I will call the question all in favor of that.

Aye.

Aye.

Aye.

All right, all oppose nay.

Which one is what?

This is for the sound engineer on contract with the city for the entire city, not one specific business.

Correct.

Okay.

So we have a seven-one vote to have that resource available to the city.

Okay.

So now we have the second uh which is about the ordinance itself.

And uh, approval.

Okay, so we have a motion.

The proposed effective date?

With effective date um recommended by the state of manager January 1st.

Second.

Okay.

Uh commentary.

Yep.

Yeah, just comments.

Um Yeah, I I resonate with the idea that we need to have a professional sound engineer involved in particularly the custom crafting of these like custom permits that we're going to apply, not just to bowstring, which does seem to be the highlighted one, but all across these different venues.

You know, I have them in my district too.

And I think if we are going to provide these people with a list that says here's what you have to do to mitigate your sound, and then if they do all those things and then someone can hear it because of the wind when we yank their permit, uh, we need to make sure there has been like a a fully qualified professional helping craft that list.

Um I just don't think that's something we have a skill set for on our professional staff at this time.

So I do think that has merit creating some kind of like master services agreement.

But on the broader ordinance, I I'm gonna be a real a reluctant yes on this.

I there are a lot of things that I think are a lot better, uh are positioning us better than we have been before.

I think the four dedicated noise enforcement staff put us in a better position.

I do think the decibel reading is more uh objective as has been stated before.

I appreciate that the penalties are higher, the fines are higher.

Um where I think it falls short, as I do think we have miscalibrated that uh the people who have the most severe uh consequences applied to them are the people that we have thus far seen trying to be neighborly businesses.

Where I think it falls short, as I do think we have miscalibrated that uh the people who have the most severe uh consequences applied to them are the people that we have thus far seen trying to be neighborly businesses.

And the places where we're being more delient are places where we've seen um businesses not not be interested in complying with our rules.

Uh so I think we're kind of miscalibrated there.

If it was up to me, we would make that penalty higher than $1,500.

Um those are some of the things I think are the limitations.

And I would I agree with Councilmember Jones that we should not be telling the public that this is it, and we have solved it.

And we should absolutely be coming back in a year's time with data on the effectiveness of this.

Um there's all that.

And then I would say as we begin to operationalize this, like some of these businesses have been operating in this way.

And we're about to dull out a list, a to-do list for them that could be quite costly.

And if they do all those things and then the wind blows the wrong way, I I think there should be some kind of I I'm not proposing a change to the ordinance, but I I think we miss the mark that we don't have any sort of like relief vow for them to like to redo their mitigation plan mid mid-permitting.

Um, I think it's better than where we are.

I don't want the perfect to be the enemy of the good, but I do think there's some limitations to this ordinance.

So thank you.

Um, you have a clerk, yes.

Um you're welcome to take a vote on this first to kind of close out the conversation.

And then we did uh want Councilmember Branch to reread his motion that you guys already voted on about the sound engineer.

Please thank you.

Go ahead and do this first because I have a motion on a back and reread.

Uh, we state it.

There are other commentary?

Well, I will say I I appreciate all the work on this issue.

I think it's I wasn't anticipating that when I ran for mayor, it has become one of the biggest and most important issues we voted on in this first year.

Um I do feel like uh Councilor Silver and I do not have all the shared history uh of some of the other counselors and and obviously the public, but uh I feel like this is a great step forward in that these are back to objective rules.

We have hired an expert to help us craft this, and that doesn't mean it's perfect, but it does mean that we have tried to hire, you know, uh a city that has done this well and an expert in it, and we were hiring dedicated staff.

That is what is so fundamentally different about this, and um so I uh will be supporting it and I will call the question.

All in favor, aye.

Aye.

All opposed.

Okay.

So that is unanimous.

And uh now we will go back to uh council branches.

So as for the city to hire a sound engineer to help with citywide um sound and distance matters and make recommended adjustments as needed.

Okay.

And the second, and then everybody's still on board with that.

Okay.

We had opposed silver, right?

Yes.

Okay.

Thank you.

Okay.

Thank you, council.

Can I just uh go ahead and formally make that a motion to have a check back within a year so that we can check back at least for the first um few years so that we have a semblance of metrics being met?

A year, I want six months.

We'll probably do a mid-year check in.

We'll probably do mid-year.

Um mid year just um which would be at the conclusion of the fiscal year.

We'll just give you an update on where we are, and we will have made it through one full spring and early summer at that point to kind of see if it's really working.

Um the next uh item on our agenda is the proposed text amended amendment uh for digital billboards, and we have Justin Rametta.

Good afternoon, Mayor and Council Justin Remetta with planning and development uh here to present to you some follow-up to previous discussions on what would be a potential UDO amendment that would permit digital billboards in the city's zoning jurisdiction.

Um as you may recall, this is discussion that's been going on for about two years now.

Uh most recently there was a conversation in August at the State Fiber and Healthy Community Committee that ultimately culminated in a recommendation from council to move forward, uh or from the committee, excuse me, with some considerations that we'll go over shortly.

This is just uh an update or some new information.

I think we had previously estimated about 85 to 100 existing billboards throughout the city.

So after further research and some field verification, we feel pretty confident about the 94 number.

So just wanted to bring that to council's attention as well.

Just as a refresher, here's kind of a basic comparison between current regulations for off-premise signage versus the industry proposal that would permit digital billboards.

You can see the major differences there highlighted in yellow.

Clearly, digital technology for billboards would be permitted, whereas it's prohibited today.

Height would be increased from 30 to 40, and then obviously some changeable copy would be permitted where the advertisements could cycle or change every every eight seconds.

So based on those criteria, here is a kind of maximum potential build-out.

You can see the light blue dots there represent 82 digital billboards that would be one mile from apart from each other, 1,000 feet from existing billboards, 200 feet from residential zoning districts.

So those were the criteria that the uh industry laid out in their proposal.

Um obviously this is uh again a kind of a uh a maximum build-out potential.

Um the ultimately the locations would be highly dependent on the ability of a sign owner to acquire the property rights to put up a sign, et cetera.

But um as written, the ordinance would would permit um this this ultimate build out.

The red dots, there's no legend, the red dots are existing billboards.

Yes, sir.

So as a refresher, this uh was the kind of recommendation that came out of the committee was to kind of move forward with exploring an ordinance but to potentially modify uh some of the uh standards in terms of size, location, separation, brightness, et cetera.

Um and the last one here that would be to require the removal of existing signs as a as a prerequisite for uh digital signage.

We have since, through um extensive consultation with our city attorney's office, um, learned that the city has very limited um legal authority to uh require what would be kind of the redistribution or removal of those red dots in exchange for the ability to put up a new digital billboard.

Um, given that new information, um, staff is here seeking your guidance as to you know whether there is still a desire to move forward with this text change, if so, um, what guidance you might have as to as to what that would consist of.

Right.

Uh thank you.

Are there questions for Mr.

Rametta?

Uh we got questions all the way down the line.

We'll start with Councilor uh uh Harrison.

Yeah, I just want to say I'm prepared to not move forward with the text change.

I think because of this last um concern that was raised by our legal expertise that we cannot limit you know the current signs, then we're not able to achieve the initial goal, I think that was set out.

Um I really do appreciate all of the input from our residents.

We have received many, many emails and messages on this one.

I just have to say I don't have any residents that are asking for this.

I only have residents that are concerned.

Um I would definitely say the original intent when I know I was contacted was how do we declutter our city?

Um I was hoping this was a path that we could do that where we can remove maybe eight signs and maybe one new digital.

Um I think that would do a lot to make our city look better.

But because we don't have the authority to do it by our our good other elected officials in the state of North Carolina.

Um at this time I couldn't support moving forward um with this proposal.

Um as much as you know, I've seen, I know we've received we have received those emails.

I have read them.

Um I know there's been questions about the change in turn.

I'm constantly on the interstate driving back and forth.

I may see two or two and a half signs while I'm driving.

Um it hasn't been a distraction.

Um I haven't seen someone stop or swerve because of a sign change.

But at this time, I'm willing to um vote this um down moving forward.

Okay.

Um Counselor Jones.

Um I do want to thank uh the industry for taking this extra step in meeting with uh so many different residents you guys have outreached to the uh to a level that you didn't do before, and I do appreciate that.

Uh, but I do understand exactly what Councillor Um Harrison and Councillor Branch have said, and this is not currently reflective of what the community has um said in all of those meetings or in our emails.

So I concur.

Okay.

Counselor Silver.

My comments are one that uh I will not be supporting the motion to deny, uh, mostly because I want to make sure the industry understands the goal that was presented to us was to declutter and make sure there were no concentrations in certain parts of the city.

Uh I don't know if they have a reaction, knowing the last point that Mr.

Remetta shared that we have limited authority, so I don't know if they have other alternatives.

Wanted to keep the conversation going.

Don't know ultimately my vote would be.

Uh put this one right now.

Um I just want to make sure there's continued conversation.

If they have creative ways of meet meeting the goal they initially shared with us, I would be open to those conversations, but it seems that that conversation may be ending today.

So that would be the reason for my vote on this item.

Well, that might uh Councilmember Silver.

We do have uh planned discussion with them uh later this week.

And so the conversation will continue uh with an explanation of our conclusion.

And then as you said, if they have some creative or different ideas, then perhaps we'll be back here.

Well, then I may change my phone knowing this may reopen for further conversation.

So thank you, attorney, for that clarification.

Yeah, Councilor Powell.

Yeah.

I'll just say I'm I have some of the billboards in my district.

I've never received a resident request to have them removed or have that be the source of their pain on Capitol Boulevard.

Um, there certainly are times when I wish for our staff to work on things that are might have a shared public and private benefit, right?

Private developers build most of the housing that we all live in.

Grocery store CEO made a profit when I brought my food for the week, right?

Um but in this case, I don't see the public benefit.

And so I would not like for our staff to work on it.

So I'll just in case it hasn't been totally clear that there is a motion, I'm gonna motion to deny the authorization to proceed with the text change.

Second.

Okay.

So your motion is to deny.

Right?

So if you vote yes, you're denying to stop the process.

Okay.

Um anybody else down here?

All right.

And I will just say uh I also I think that the city attorney's interpretation of our limitations because of General Assembly actions made this a very difficult to move forward um with that interpretation.

So we will be meeting with industry uh uh later this week uh just to talk about that.

But um, we have a motion and a second on the table.

So all in favor of denying the tax change, aye.

And then all in favor of moving forward, nay.

Okay.

So that is a unanimous vote.

All right.

Uh we now have the report and recommendation of the city manager.

Thank you, Mayor.

Good afternoon, Mayor and Council.

We only have one item under the manager's report today.

We have Matthew Klim from Planning and Development here to bring back to the table a follow-up from the work session on growth and annexation.

Uh thank you.

And hello again.

Um council Matthew Klim Raleigh Planning and Development.

Uh, happy to continue our work here uh at managing the growth at the city's edge.

Um the purpose of today's meeting is to respond to council interest on annexation and growth, provide a quick refresher on our last discussion on current annexation practice and deliver a resolution uh for your adoption.

Today we'll recap our previous council engagement on the matter, provide uh the background and basis for the work, uh, explain the framework of the new resolution.

Uh again, staff has worked with each of our service delivery departments uh regarding our current annexation practice uh and how we'll work together uh in upcoming analysis on growth and annexation.

Uh and of course, while we're getting started on some of this work, now uh the work of reflecting Raleigh will consider new policy guidance for annexation and growth in the city's next comprehensive plan.

Um I'll also note um that at uh our previous engagement uh there were some questions asked about um some growth and annexation related matters.

There's a backup memo uh and the agenda item um with responses from Raleigh Water and FIRE.

Um in there here if there are specific questions about them as well.

So uh in the last year and a half, there have been several council touch points on annexation, uh including a presentation at your January retreat, an update uh in the city manager's weekly report, um, some council action related to public utilities policies, adoption of a fire master plan, um, our detailed discussion on September 16th, uh, and of course, many of these themes uh were discussed at the September retreat um during our reflecting rally presentation.

So a quick recap uh how we got here.

Um since 1792, the city has consistently grown outward from our original 1,000-acre William Christmas plan to the 96,000 acre corporate limits that we have today.

Uh this map shows uh intervals of growth uh and and annexation over the last 233 years.

Uh each color corresponds uh with a period of time uh shown on the key on the left.

So we started with 1,000 acres in 1792, uh, and we are at 96,000 acres now.

Uh there was a significant shift in annexation practice that occurred in 2011 following action from the State Legislature.

So in 2011, North Carolina towns and cities lost the ability to conduct involuntary annexation.

Uh and this map highlights the tracks that had been annexed since 2011, um, which shows a pattern of smaller one-off uh annexation actions uh distributed around the city, but really um far from the city center and at the fringes.

So comparing this map to the previous map tells a really important story.

The greatest impact of losing involuntary annexation authority is that the risk and cost of service for growth were shifted from the private sector to the public sector.

Um before 2011, private services were built to city standards and were provided as properties outside of the city were developed.

Private streets, utilities, trash collection collection, et cetera.

Um this is the historic purpose of the extraterritorial jurisdiction tool, having zoning control just at the city's edge so that properties develop there under city standards, and when the city is ready to bring them in to our corporate limits to provide services, it's built to city standards and we can take them over.

Um yeah, now under the 2011 legal structure, properties that are brought into the city are less likely to have high tax generating uses and are much more likely to have lower levels of service on day one, but we're still responsible for providing our full suite of services.

So early cost obligations, uh a checker border service area, um, and without large contiguous areas that impacts our cost and ability to provide high level of service.

Um our current annexation practice, uh we have several resolutions uh that structure your decisions today.

Um we can go through them in detail if you like.

But uh just as last time, we would like to show you this map, uh, which basically is the representation of those resolutions.

So this map shows in dark green what is currently eligible for your consideration for annexation.

So when you get an annexation petition before you uh and you schedule a public hearing for it, it's already determined by staff that those properties are eligible for annexation.

If a property is ineligible for annexation, it never makes it to you.

So every property you see and consider is eligible based on the resolutions and what is shown on this map.

Um some key takeaways, and I'll cover a little bit from what we discussed last time is uh there are currently 23,000 acres uh of land eligible for annexation today.

So to put that in perspective, that's roughly three nightdale's worth of land.

Uh current eligibility does not represent a significant expansion uh to our service area, as most of the land uh currently eligible has been in our extraterritorial jurisdiction for a very long time, meaning we have been planning to serve them.

Um based on our current trends uh of annexing roughly a thousand acres a year.

If that trend persists, we have 20 years runway based on existing eligibility.

So the final thing I'll say is additional revenue in existing service areas, these infill areas, areas that are service committed, surrounded by city services and facilities, uh provide a benefit to apply, excuse me, improve our ability to provide higher quality services by increasing tax revenue in these donut holes.

Again, uh ample land for annexation in the near term.

Um we're not by by acting on the existing eligibility, we do not create new service challenges.

Um really most importantly, conducting the cost of growth analysis that we'll be conducting during the 12-month period for the temporary resolution will give you better information to make decisions about growth at the city's edge and really around the city as a whole.

So we've shown you this map several times.

This map shows uh the total assessed value per acre around the city.

We talked about the importance of downtown and our high activity centers uh at North Hills in the Blue Ridge corridor that have very high revenue per acre and relatively um less cost per acre to serve.

And they're really important in offsetting the cost for providing service elsewhere in the city.

Our cost of growth analysis is going to give us an idea of the disparity in cost providing services across the city.

So we're looking for the Stranger Things upside down version of this uh image, um, which will be a part of the upcoming work of reflecting Raleigh with some the cost of growth study, which will include um a capital needs assessment, a fee study for all city fees, uh, and development of marginal analysis for annexation um revenue.

So the resolution that we um have brought forward for you to consider.

Uh the purpose of the resolution is to define a 12-month time limited boundary where annexation petitions will be accepted.

So this boundary includes areas inside and outside of our ETJ, and we have a map that I'll show you in just a minute.

Um the resolution works to establish a boundary generally around existing eligibility within the boundary within the black line on the map.

I'll show you.

Our annexation practice is business as usual.

Um no property within that boundary is automatically eligible.

Properties within that boundary gain eligibility through the existing structure.

Um is different is that uh if annexation actions are taken and eligibility and annexations actions come up to the edge of this black boundary, that annexation actions do not make new eligible property outside of the boundary uh for a period of 12 months.

Um have a diagrammatic representation of what that looks like.

So in the center of your screen uh is a representation of our corporate limits in dark blue and light blue, we have property that is currently eligible for annexation, and in green, we have the city's long-range urban service areas or the largest extent to the city can ever grow based on our uh shared annexation agreements with our neighbors.

So uh staff receives an annexation petition, we determine that it's eligible uh for annexation, we process it, bring it before the city council, city council schedules a public hearing.

If you choose, um you always have the choice.

If you choose to approve the annexation, then the city's corporate limits grow.

That action creates new eligibility outside of our corporate limits.

Um the process repeats.

Staff gets a call, we determine that a property is eligible for annexation, you schedule a public hearing, if you approve, we have newly annexed land, the corporate limits grow, as does our eligibility.

So the 12-month resolution um would stop that creep for a period of 12 months.

Staff receives a petition, council holds a public hearing.

If it is annexed, no new property outside of the 12-month boundary uh is eligible for annexation.

Um that is how the resolution works.

Um important notes for you to consider as well is uh the resolution itself does not grant eligibility to any parcels.

Eligibility is gained under the existing framework of our resolutions.

Um being on the map does not make any property eligible, nor does it make any property ineligible.

Um properties within the boundary, again, gain the same uh eligibility for your consideration.

Properties outside of the boundary are not eligible today, right?

So that does not change.

Um we are not altering the structure of our um operation within North Carolina state law.

Uh the property um again will still gain eligibility based on our regulatory framework and emergency utility connections um for the uh connecting to all water and sewer are still um uh a potential.

They're not affected by the resolution.

So your recommended action today would be to adopt the uh time-limited uh 12-month annexation resolution.

And I can take any questions.

Okay.

Questions, uh Council Branch and then Kelvin.

So first of all, thank you.

And in the map part is the most helpful for me.

Um I get the words, but when you drew it out and I can see it, that makes it clear of what we're targeting.

My question is, month 13.

If if we've extended some areas that are now on the edges on month 13, do those other areas that would have become eligible, say four months prior, will they automatically become eligible?

Yes.

They would be contiguous with the corporate limits of the city.

Okay.

All right.

Thank you.

Counselor Silver.

So Matt, thank you for the presentation.

So you had one map that said current eligibility.

And forgive me if I missed this when I look at our existing annexation petitions.

Is that note of eligibility in our staff report now?

Because I see some that say uh contiguous inside, contiguous outside.

So uh I'm seeing that current eligibility because I look very carefully at the inside versus outside and where it is located.

Is there a note in a staff report?

And if it is, I apologize for missing it, but I look for that.

Yeah, great question.

Any application for annexation, any petition that you see is eligible.

If a property owner calls us and asks to petition for annexation, and we determine that they're not green on this map, they don't get to submit an application.

Understood.

So oh, I see what you're saying.

So if they are not eligible, we will not even see it.

You never see it.

Got it.

Thank you.

Okay.

Other questions, Councilor Patt.

Um maybe building off of Councilmember Branch's point.

Um maybe I guess you'll bring us a cost of growth analysis before the 12 months are up, so we have enough time to react.

But uh like I have this instinct that we're gonna pass that hard black line, and then you're gonna say actually this is as big as Raleigh should be if we're gonna continue to support infrastructure.

And then will we have the legal authority to keep that hard black line as such for going forward?

Yeah, I think I would rely on our city attorney's office, but I think what I would say first is annexation petitions are approvals are at your discretion always.

And that the cost of growth analysis is going to give you another layer um of information to consider when making those decisions outside of our our current policies.

Got it.

Okay.

Understood.

Um then I would just ask as a sort of a more of a clerical matter.

We are getting a lot of annexation requests out here in the fringes, and you know, poor poor land use attorneys.

Um every time they have reached out to me, I'm like, go check and see if you're gonna be inside the future black line.

Uh so if you I don't know if there's a way to just clerically denote that on the annexation petitions as they continue to come forward.

Like we checked it.

It it complies with your new resolution.

That would be helpful.

Sure.

But I do think this is good work, and I'm going to be happy to support it at the appropriate time.

Okay.

Other questions?

All right.

Well, do you want to go ahead and make a motion, Council Town?

Uh move to adopt the resolution.

Second.

I do have one question.

Okay.

Twelve months from when is it when will it start upon adoption?

Uh I have to look.

Five five days from today.

Okay.

So basically from November of this year until October of next year.

Yeah.

Twelve months from five days.

Perfect time.

That's the question.

All right.

All in favor of the motion.

Aye.

Aye.

All opposed a and that's unanimous.

Thank you.

And that concludes my report today, Mayor.

Okay.

So uh parks, recreation, and greenway.

Are we going to have a report?

Okay.

So we are not having a report.

I thought Mr.

Jones was coming down to speak to it, but I think both of those items have been for two weeks.

I knew that one had.

Okay, so no report on that.

Okay.

So then we have matters scheduled for public hearing.

Uh and we have Bryce Abernathy.

Good afternoon, Mayor, City Council.

Bryce Abernathy Housing and Community Development.

I have seven properties today.

Please note that the last one on the list, 614 Tower Street.

That abatement was paid this morning.

First one you have here is 605 Bragg Street.

Again, this was just high grass.

This is the 14th abatement that we've done at this property over the years.

So hopefully this is coming to an end as far as maintaining that property.

It just went straight to his voicemail box when set up.

But again, it was just a large pile of household items.

We gave him three months to resolve those issues, and that did not happen.

5836 Forest Point Road, again high grass and some trash on the front on the front porch.

And 2511 Garner Road, again high grass, a lot of debris stuff going on at that property.

And the last one is 2537 National Drive, which was just a vacant lot beside some homes.

High grass.

Okay.

Any questions?

Oh, you have to go ahead and uh open the public hearing for 605 Bragg Street and close the public hearing.

Move for approval.

Is that for all of them or just that Bragg Street one?

Do we do that?

This Bragg.

I was just doing because I have some signed up.

Got it.

Okay.

Second.

Okay.

All in all in favor of the motion.

Aye.

Aye.

All opposed, nay.

All right.

So that one.

Then we have uh open the public hearing for 5912 Brushwood Court and District A.

I have no one signed up for or against.

So close that hearing.

Move for approval.

Second.

Okay.

All in favor of that motion.

Aye.

All opposed, nay.

All right.

So that one.

I will open the public hearing for 5808 Coretta Court.

I did have Rashawn King signed up in support.

He's not here.

I know.

He didn't come earlier.

So and no one in opposition, I will close that hearing.

Move for approval.

Second.

All in favor of that motion.

Aye.

All opposed, nay.

Okay, so that's unanimous.

I will say I do not have anyone else because Rashawn King is gone up until Z05 25.

So if you want to move for the remainder, can we do can I mean I'll have to open the hearings, but just open a hearing for all of them.

Can I do that?

Yes.

Okay.

So I will open the hearing for 5311 Diller Drive, 5836 Forest Point Road, 2511 Garner Road, and 2537 National Avenue.

And then I will close the hearing for all of those.

Move for approval.

Second.

All in favor of the motion.

Aye.

Aye.

Aye.

All opposed, nay.

All right, so that is unanimous.

Okay.

Next we have unfit for human habitation 90 days.

Repair, demolish.

825 East Martin.

Yes.

Property to 825 East Martin Street.

Dates back to 2018-2019.

The property owner did complete some initial repairs by painting and replacing some siding and putting in new windows.

And it's kind of remained remained in this vacant enclosed, vacant and open kind of status.

It's completely gutted on the inside, down to the studs.

The property continues to be kind of a really bad spot for loitering.

There's unauthorized entry getting into the home.

And some work has taken place with that.

So again, I am asking council to uh go ahead and adopt the 90-day repair demolish ordinance if she needs more time, if the owner needs more time on the back end of that.

Uh we can certainly work with her on that.

But we would like to see work kind of continuing to bring this property online as a viable rental property.

Okay.

I will open the public hearing on 825 East Martin.

I have no one signed up for or against, and I will close it.

Move for approval.

Second.

All right.

All in favor of the motion, aye.

Aye.

All opposed, nay.

That's unanimous.

Um next we have petition annexation AX 2325.

Christopher Golden.

Good afternoon, Mayor and Council.

Christopher Golden with planning and development.

Um this annexation is at 7703 Ray Road.

Um, it is inside the ETJ and contiguous to city limits.

It sits at about 1.08 acres.

It was a subject of an approved subdivision plan back in July of 2024.

Um the proposed use on this property is for uh three single unit detached dwellings, so three single family homes on this property as it's subdivided.

Uh they're looking to hook up to water and sewer and ray road.

Um, and there is sewer that goes through the site, which you'll just see in a moment.

You can see the site location there.

Uh closes the gap between two different areas of the city, which will create an unincorporated county pocket, which would eventually fill in over time.

You can see the site location on a zoom out, and you can see uh where that connects those two incorporated areas of the city of Raleigh, uh closing out that unincorporated area.

And um this map looks familiar.

You saw this a little earlier in the growth and annexation item that you voted on previously.

That gold star shows where it is in relation to that map within those boundaries.

Um you can see the utility location for that site.

The green line shows sewer running through that site, and you can see the blue lines in Ray Road, that represents your water.

Um the current zoning on that property is R4.

The future land use map shows this is moderate scale residential, surrounded by low-scale residential.

The proposed use for these properties are three single family homes.

Site and topography on the site, fairly level.

There's no floodplain present.

You can see the site location there, currently treed, and the site uh for the street view is right there.

So you can see the trees there from that intersection where if annexed construction would begin.

If it's brought into the uh city limits today, it will be brought into the boundaries of Council District A.

And um if you have any questions, I'm here to answer them.

Okay.

Questions for Mr.

Golden.

We'll open the hearing for AX 2325.

I have signed up for more against close the hearing.

I move that we approve the annexation by adopting the audience ordinance annexing the property, uh effective October 21, 2025, uh as well as adopt the resolution placing the property in the appropriate electoral district.

Second.

All right.

All in favor of the motion, aye.

All opposed, nay.

All right.

So that is unanimous.

Thank you.

And next we have AX 3025, Jones Franklin Road.

Thank you.

So AX 3025, 2101 Jones Franklin Road.

Uh if it is annexed today, it will be brought into the boundaries of District D.

The zoning on this is residential four.

Uh it's just shy of an acre, about three-quarters of an acre.

Uh there is a pre-existing single unit detached home on this site.

Uh there is no development plan associated with it.

NCDOT is doing some road work on Jones Franklin, doing some widening there.

And what that has done is it will be impacting the septic uh field of this property and the well of this property.

Uh there's water and sewer to the site.

You can see the location there.

It sits right on the boundary.

Uh the extreme western boundary of Raleigh, right up against Town of Kerry limits.

Uh it sits in an unincorporated county pocket surrounded by uh town of Kerry on the west and um City of Raleigh everywhere else.

You can see the zoom out there, it gives a little more clear, clear of a picture of where that sits.

Um you can see there on that annexation eligibility map that it is on the western edge, uh, but within those boundaries.

Um you can see the utility location with a green sewer line to the southeast of that site, the southeast corner, and there's water available in Jones Franklin Road and Dillard Drive, so pretty well infrastructured.

Um current zoning on that property is R4.

Again, there is a pre-existing single family home on that site, currently occupied by the owner who is applying for this annexation.

And you can see that the future land use map on that is low-scale residential.

Site plane and topography shows gently sloping property, but no floodplain present.

And you can see the uh site location, zoom out in a 3D format where you can see the house sitting directly in the center of the property, and that's the view from Jones Franklin Road.

Um are there any questions I can answer for you today?

Questions.

All right.

I will open the public hearing.

No one is signed up for against close.

Uh do we have a motion?

Yeah, I'll motion to approve the annexation with the effective date October 21st, 2025.

Second.

All right.

All in favor of the motion, aye.

Aye.

All opposed, nay.

That is unanimous.

Thank you.

All right.

Next we have Z1324 South New Hope Road.

Good afternoon.

Hannah Requell, planning and development.

Yes.

This is rezoning Z1324 at 1811 South New Hope Road.

This hearing was opened at your last meeting on October 7th.

The applicant asked uh for some time to continue working on the zoning conditions, and they have um added to them.

The uh uh existing six conditions that you saw last time remain unchanged, and then there's three new conditions that they've added that all relate to stormwater.

So the peak stormwater runoff for the two, 10, 25 year, 24 hour storms uh shall be no greater for post-development conditions than pre-development conditions.

There's a requirement for double silt fencing uh along the southern limits of um the disturbance uh during construction, and then um a requirement for at least two uh uses of green stormwater infrastructure techniques and it offers some um idea of what those those options might be.

So that's the update to the case.

Um happy to answer any questions you have, and as I understand that the applicant is also here to answer questions.

Okay.

So that is still open.

Uh any questions regarding the change conditions or I will close that hearing.

Um Madam Mayor and Council, I definitely want to thank the applicant um for the changes they've made to address the stormwater.

Also the improvements that I can see happening um with the traffic in this area with the addict traffic light um to address.

So with that being said, I move to adopt the proposed consistency statement dated October 21st, 2025, containing the agenda materials, and to approve the zoning amendment with the adoption and the effect of dates described in the agenda items under recommended action.

This approval is also deemed an amendment to the future land use map to the assets described in the adopted consistency statement.

Second.

All right.

All in favor of the motion, aye.

Aye.

All opposed, nay.

That is unanimous.

And next we have Z0525 Rock Quarry Road.

Hello again.

All right.

Uh Z525.

Uh this is a request to rezone uh about 17 and a half acres from residential six with a special highway uh overlay district to residential 10 uh with zoning conditions and the special highway overlay district.

The request is consistent with the 2030 plan overall, but inconsistent with the future land use map.

And your planning commission recommends uh approval.

Um this is the site here, it's located along Rock Quarry Road.

Um it is developed with uh a house at the front of the property.

Uh and you can see it's between at the intersection of uh Rockway Road and I-40.

There's one zoning condition uh for the case, um, and that is uh affordable housing condition that requires all dwelling units uh to be affordable to households making no more than 80 percent of the AMI, uh the regional area meeting income for a period of 30 years.

Uh there is uh increase of zoning entitlement here from 170 to 230 units and the uh minor changes to setbacks as you can see on the table here.

Again, uh consistent with the plan overall, inconsistent with the future land use map, um low-scale residential in a context uh like this would not necessarily support uh R 10 zoning.

Um but again with the affordable housing conditions and these policies, uh capitalizing on transit access, uh zoning for housing, um, and zoning for housing opportunity and choice, uh, make the credit request consistent overall again um transit infill and accessibility with planned improvements uh on Rockway Road, uh inconsistent with the future land use map.

Um the planning commission uh again recommends approval.

Um that's it.

Uh the applicant is here to speak.

They uh missed the deadline to sign up, um but I know they are here to answer your questions.

Um I can answer your questions as well.

Yep.

Uh questions for Mr.

Clem, uh Counselor Silver.

You said the applicant is here.

Yes.

Okay, I do have a question.

Hello.

Good afternoon.

Uh not seeking a condition, but you probably heard as you were sitting here a whole conversation about noise.

It is not required.

I just strongly encourage as you speak to your applicant, the location of these apartment buildings, even though it is affordable, do whatever.

Sound mitigation is possible when you're next near 40.

So whether there's materials in the building, other type of bufferings, we're very happy that affordable housing is coming on board.

But at the same time, uh living next to a highway that is a 24-hour highway.

We just want to make sure that those that live there have a great quality of life and not the ongoing hum of cars and tractor trailers.

So again, I'm not asking for a condition, just appealing to the applicant when this does get built to please keep that in consideration.

Yes.

Um my client is is here uh listening to you.

Um and I will tell you that they go to considerable effort to make um attractive, uh, have some pictures for you, uh, attractive units, um, and I know that they will keep in mind um concerns of of potential future residents with regard to the highway.

Um of course we're keeping the SHOD, so there is that setback that is is required.

Um so we we think this fits in well with the neighborhood, and we would ask for your support.

All right, thank you.

And and if I may, speaking of sound, um you are in the direction of in which the stage at Wanna Create Amplitheater points.

Uh-huh.

So just want to make sure residents and the owners know in the the amplified theater precedes the development of this project.

Sure.

Absolutely.

Okay.

Uh we will open the hearing and close the hearing.

Do we have a motion?

I just want to thank the applicant for you know bringing in some really work well I consider workforce housing when you are talking around no 80 percent range and below and below it.

Um with that being said, I move to adopt the proposed consistency statement dated October 21st, 2025, contained in the agenda materials, and to approve the zoning amendment with the adoption and effective dates described in the agenda items under recommended action.

This approval is also being an amendment to the future land use map to the extent described in the adopted consistency statement.

Second.

Right.

Any other discussion?

All in favor of the motion.

Aye.

Aye.

All opposed, nay.

That is unanimous.

Thank you.

All right.

Next we have Z0825 1011 crosslink road.

District C.

Yes, ma'am.

This is uh rezoning Z 825.

Uh one property uh 1011 crosslink road.

It is about 0.6 acres in size, currently zoned R4.

They are requesting R 10 as a general use district.

So there are no proposed conditions with this request.

So we'll situate ourselves.

This is in in South Raleigh, just to point out Hammond Road and Garner Road, uh off to the west.

Um the site is at the corner of Crosslink Road and Crown Crossing Lane and is adjacent to the Biltmore Hills Park.

So as I said, they currently have uh the site is currently zoned residential four.

They are requesting residential 10 as a general use district.

So this is another residential district, uh smaller lot sizes, smaller setbacks, additional building types that are allowed, and therefore um a few more units that could be um located on the site.

The request is consistent with the comprehensive plan, including the future land use map, the designation of low-scale residential.

You can see some consistent policies here.

Uh these are a lot of these are touching on missing middle housing, housing variety, housing supply, uh inconsistent policies.

Um these these two are appointing to fire service considerations for the area.

The Planning Commission uh voted 8 to 1 uh to approve the request.

There was one commissioner who opposed that vote who uh noted uh some notes about um uh community concern at the neighborhood meeting uh uh as well as other issues you see here.

So happy to answer any questions you have.

Questions for Mr.

Rackell?

Just a question as far as um the community and were they at the no from the planning commission.

Any comments or statements or requests from the community for this project?

No, there were no community members at the Planning Commission meeting.

I believe the commissioner is referencing the notes from the required neighborhood meeting.

Okay.

Thank you.

Okay.

If there's no other questions, I will uh open the hearing and we had Cindy Hassini signed up.

Good afternoon, counselors.

Madam Mayor.

Thank you for your time.

I'm Cindy Hosseini.

Um along with Oshkon Hosseini and Mike Way.

We're the owners of the property.

Just a little bit about us.

We are Raleigh natives and Enlow High School alumni.

You might want to speak a little closer to the mic.

Can you hear me now?

Yes.

I'm Cindy Hosseini along with Ashkon Hosseini and Mike Wei.

We're the owners of the property.

We are Raleigh natives and Enlow High School alumni that have been building in downtown and Southeast Raleigh since about the 2010s.

We specialize in just single family and ADUs now that ADUs are allowed.

So ranging from around 500 square feet to up to 3,000, but we really hover in the 1500 to 2500 square foot range.

Here's some samples of the work that we've done.

You'll see the yellow and gray house is a double ADU.

We were the first one to build in double ADU.

And in the top right, we have a 300 square foot ADU.

And the other projects are single family homes and renovations that we've done in this kind of district C Southeast Raleigh area.

And just to highlight the city's summary, it's the properties adjacent to Biltmore Hills Park, so access to ample green space.

And then on the other side, on the crosslink road side, there is a bus stop.

So it has connectivity to a bus line and ample green space.

So we thought it was a great candidate for denser development.

Under the frequent transit development option, the lot depth uh for R 10, the maximum minimum required lot depth is 60 feet.

Um whereas for R4 and R6, it's 100 or 80 feet respectively.

Um and we would like the houses to have frontage on Crown Crossing Lane, which is the less busy road.

So with that minimum lot depth, R 10 is the only one that would allow us this Crown Crossing frontage because it has the 60-foot minimum lot depth.

And our lot depth is about 72 feet facing this direction.

So this is what it would look like for nine single family homes under the R 10 option.

And then under the city's definition of tiny houses, um, which would be up to 1200 square foot homes, we could fit 12 to 13 or so.

Um we did meet with the neighbors and uh I did want to correct Hannah.

There were neighbors at the planning commission meeting.

We've been an active conversation with them since the neighborhood meeting.

So I've highlighted a couple of their concerns.

Um mainly traffic and sidewalk.

So crosslink or crown crossing, excuse me, uh connects directly to Biltmore Hills Park, and it's a straight road right into the park.

So they can get speeding issues when the park is busy with festivals or the pool.

So we helped initiate a new traffic calming study.

They've had several in the past five years, but it never hits the mark for traffic calming measures, because I guess you have to hit certain city specifications.

Uh that was completed in August by the city, and it still did not hit any traffic calming requirements.

And then their other concern was sidewalks on the um cross line or the crown crossing side of the road, and I'll show the map again.

Um away from the park.

There's partial sidewalks but not contiguous to the park from the bus stop.

Um the city did confirm with our development we would have to have sidewalks in front of our development, but it would not be contiguous to the park because that green space that starts is like forested green space.

So we did get on the city's active mobility plan with um Carter Riverson from Transportation, and so that connectivity from the park um to our lot is now listed in that active mobility plan as one of the sidewalk priorities.

So that was one of the big takeaways um that we've worked on with the neighbors.

And then the last thing that came up is the neighbors across the street on um Crown Crossing have brick homes that were developed in the 2020s, 2010s, um, and they're concerned actually about more smaller homes bringing down their property value.

Um so they wanted to make sure quality product was being built.

Planning commission said that zoning options in that regard would be putting in materials restrictions.

Um, but in the whole Bilt Memorials area, there's a variety of materials that are used, ranging from vinyl siding to EFS to brick.

Um we don't use vinyl siding or FESS in any of our buildings.

But even across the street, there is vinyl siding.

So we did not want to put that in as a material restriction because future homeowners might have issues, you know, adding a shed or doing modifications.

So we did not add any um restrictions in the zoning or zoning conditions to our proposal.

And um we're here to answer any questions if you guys have any questions.

Thank you so much.

Thank you.

Questions.

Okay.

I will uh we have no one in opposition, so I'll close the public hearing.

Is there a motion?

Yeah, I definitely want to say thank you for your work.

And you know one thing that uh appreciate about today is that we've done some affordable, we also have done some workforce, and we've done some market rate, and that's what the community needs in that variety, but your market rate is still at a price point that I think will have a positive impact on the community and not price people out and help people transition.

Um I do know the neighbors across the street from you, um, and they have not called me, um, which is interesting.

Um with all of that being said, I move to adopt the proposed consistency statement dated October 21st, 2025, contained in the agenda materials, and to approve the zoning amendment with the adoption and effective dates described and the agenda item under recommended action.

Second.

Okay.

Any other discussion?

If not, all in favor, aye.

Aye.

All opposed, nay.

And that is unanimous.

Thank you.

Uh next we have rezoning Z1625, 6100 Creedmoor Road in District A.

All right.

Uh Matthew Clem, planning and development.

So this is a request to rezone uh 0.67 acres from residential floor to office mixed use uh with a five-story height limit.

This is a general use rezoning request as there are no zoning conditions.

Uh your planning commission recommends approval uh eight to zero.

Uh so here we are uh on Creamore Road on the east side.

Uh you can see the area uh is largely composed of uh low-scale residential.

There's some office and residential mixed use uh across the school, excuse me, across the street from school uh and some neighborhood mixed use um just to the north.

Um the change in zoning uh would increase uh residential entitlement from two to seventeen uh units, and uh of course office and retail um are newly unlocked uh by the zoning district.

Um consistent with the uh comprehensive plan and future land use map.

Um consistent with these policies, um removing single family lots from uh major streets, um, increasing some housing variety through the OX district, um, density transitions.

Uh the site is uh the mixed use district will be adjacent to our residential district, so the code required uh neighborhood transitions would apply.

Um there are no inconsistent policies identified uh in your planning commission again recommends approval uh eight to zero.

Umilarly as uh my last case, the applicants are here um but did not sign up uh to speak, but I know that they are here for questions.

Great, thank you.

Questions for Mr.

Clem and or the applicants.

Okay, I will go ahead and open the public hearing and close the public hearing.

All right, I move I move to adopt the proposed consistency statement dated October 21st, 2025, contained in the agenda materials and to approve the zoning amendment with the adoption and effective dates described in the agenda uh item under recommended action.

Second.

All right, any other discussion?

If not, all in favor of the motion, aye.

Aye.

All opposed, nay.

And that concludes that one.

Uh next we have petition annexation AX2125, 3101 Watkinstown Road and District B.

Yeah, so your next two items on the agenda are for the same site.

It's an annexation AX21, 25 and rezoning, Z22, 25.

Like we typically do, I'll give a joint presentation and then you can proceed with each of the hearings separately.

So I'll start with uh annexation.

This is uh contiguous uh outside the ETJ uh located at 3101 Watkins Town Road.

You can see it's uh contiguous to the uh west and south uh with corporate city limits, um, parceled just under one acre in size.

So that there's a pre-existing uh single unit detached home on the site, and the owner is looking to connect to water and sewer to serve that that existing structure.

So just another view of where uh corporate limits are.

That's the darker gray.

There's some ETJ up north, but this is um a little pocket that's outside of the uh ETJ.

Um put this in context to this other map you you saw earlier in the meeting, start showing where the site is, um, where this falls within annexation eligibility.

Utility location, uh public water and sewer are available uh in the Riverport Road uh right of way to the north.

Current zoning is Wake County zoning.

So um R 30, surrounded by Raleigh zoning a mix of R6 and R4.

Future land use map of low-scale residential.

Um and then there's no floodplain in this area.

You can see some of the site topography as it slips down from Watkinstown Road.

Um and just an aerial view of that existing structure and then some views from the street of what that looks like.

So the rezoning Z 2225, uh as I said, this is just under one acre in size, currently has Wake County R 30 zoning, they're requesting R6 zoning.

So another uh general use district with no proposed zoning conditions.

Um a larger view of this context.

Um you can see existing low-scale residential in this area, some that's um recently and ongoingly being built uh in the area, and then um just a comparison of the existing county zoning with the proposed Raleigh zoning, also a residential district, uh modest increase in the number of units that could be built on the site.

Uh it is consistent with the comprehensive plan, consistent with the future land use map designation.

Again, that's slow scale residential.

Um with a handful of policies.

Um you can see here future land use map, uh zoning of annexed land.

Uh no inconsistent policies were identified.

And then the planning commission uh voted unanimously to recommend approval.

Happy to answer any questions you have.

All right.

Questions for Ms.

Requell.

Okay.

And that was the joint.

That was everything that you have.

Okay.

So then we have um the public hearing, we have collar, call your marsh uh here for the um annexation and the rezoning if you'd like to come up.

Good evening, Madam Mayor and members of council or guess afternoon still.

Um call your marsh with Parker Poe uh on behalf of Lenar through the homeowners.

So Lenar developed the project immediately to the south.

Um just a little bit of context here.

Um there were two property owners on this northern side, a mother and a daughter when the property was originally rezoned.

Um the daughter elected to be rezoned, connect to utilities.

Now mother is seeing the benefit of that, and so it's just asking to have her home connected, uh, but happy to answer any questions that you may have.

Okay.

So I will go ahead and any close the public hearing for the annexation case.

Um go ahead.

Actually, sorry, calling I did have a question.

Um no plans to redevelop the property.

They they're only seeking to hook up to water and sewer, and then the rezoning is just required because they're outside the ETJ.

That's correct.

Okay.

Um I mean we can go ahead and vote on the annexation if you want to make a motion.

Sure.

Yeah, move to adopt the annexation.

Second.

All right.

Uh all in favor of the annexation.

Aye.

Aye.

All opposed, nay.

All right.

And then I will open the hearing for the rezoning Z2225.

Um, assuming we know what Mr.

Marsh already has to say.

We close it.

And is there another motion?

I move to adopt the proposed consistency statement, dated October 21st, 2025, contained in the agenda materials and to approve the zoning amendment with the adoption and effective dates described in the agenda item under recommended action.

Second.

Okay.

All in favor of the motion, aye.

Aye.

All opposed, nay.

And that is unanimous.

Thank you.

And that brings us to a conclusion of the public hearings.

Um next, we had a report and recommendation of economic development and innovation committee.

No report.

We're meeting next Tuesday, 1.30 in the city council chambers to resume our work on the Faithful Street streetscape plan updates.

Great.

Uh growth and natural resources.

No report, no meeting planned.

Okay.

Safe, vibrant, healthy community.

No report meeting next week here at 1130 to discuss commercial trash pickup.

Great.

And then uh transportation and transit.

Uh no items pending in transportation and transit.

So we will not meet this month.

And then because of how the holidays fall, we will also people can forecast that we will not uh meet in November or December.

I am going to make a motion to the council to send a new item to committee to be heard in uh in January, likely.

Um related to the topic of street closures.

I think the conversation at the table one like a month ago.

Question mark on the time, month ago, roughly, um, revealed that some greater clarity is needed around that policy, and so uh we'll work with staff to give them the direction that's needed.

And so uh we'll work with staff to give them the direction that's needed.

Great.

So moved.

Second.

All in favor of that motion.

Aye.

Aye.

All opposed, nay.

All right.

So that is unanimous.

Uh next we have the report of the mayor and city council.

I'll start uh Mayor Pro Tem with you.

No report.

Okay.

No report.

Um I've got some stuff.

Um, some good things we did through the consent agenda today.

We accepted a property donation that will aid further expansion of our greenway network.

Um, and we added an always stop at Gresham Lake and Rainwater Court.

Um, also want to remind folks that I have a town hall November 6th from 6 to 8 at Marsh Creek Community Center.

Um I wanted to make two formal requests.

I believe these will be passed throughs to third-party vendors that we operate with, but I'll leave it to y'all to uh soften the edges.

One is related to Granicus, which supports our boards and commissions applications.

It's my understanding that their software does not have full accessibility features uh that can make it difficult for some of our um disabled app uh commission applicants to fill out their forms online without seeking additional support.

So if we have a rep from Granicus to whom we can make a formal request for that additional feature, I'd appreciate that.

Um then also had a resident report that um they called in their missed pickup on their trash, it was a yard waste uh miss pickup, and they were told by it by customer care that they could only report their own home and that all their neighbors on their street would need to call separately.

And it sound uh I I acknowledge something might be lost in the game of telephone here, but it sounded from the residents statement that this was more of a platforming issue rather than a other kind of issue that it was like a limitation in the software.

And so if if that is true, then can we please make a request to that rep to create such a feature that would allow us to report more than one address at a time.

Great.

Just want to remind everyone that on uh October 29th, I have a community meeting at the Ann Gordon Center.

Uh and my second point, I don't know if everyone heard the news, but sadly, uh Dee Freeman, who was the former executive director of T Date TJ Cog uh passed away.

And just want to send my condolences to his family and our prayers and thoughts are with them uh at this very difficult time.

So tomorrow night here at City Hall, we'll have the block gallery exhibition and city council collection unveiling.

Uh for those of you who have been uh in City Hall, you'll see a beautiful set of photography by Alexandra Williams as well as artwork by the Triangle Native American Society uh called Visible History.

And so that is going to be 5.30 to 7:30.

Um I am also expanding that.

Um I had uh City of Raleigh Museum had put an exhibit together for my office, and then also the city art has worked on the council office's uh mayor's office with um hanging some of our existing collections.

So that'll be open as well.

That is 5.30 to 7.30, and the uh live entertainment will be the watchmen.

Um and they will uh be set up tomorrow.

So uh please join us uh if you are able tomorrow evening.

All right.

Our next uh district E community meeting will be held on November 12th at La Cucina Italian restaurant from 6 to 8 p.m.

Our decoding democracy book club will meet on November 15th at Oberlin Regional Library from 9 30 to 11 30 a.m.

We'll be finishing up with Article 6 and starting Article 7.

And then lastly, I wanted to give a huge round of applause to our public safety departments, which include ECC, fire, and police for their quick response to a series of fires along 540 this past Saturday.

I was driving to a birthday party as the fires were starting and got to watch our first responders in action.

They prevented what could have been catastrophic for residents living right behind the westbound lanes.

Mutual aid from neighboring cities also played a vital role in containing the fires, and we are eternally grateful.

We hope that we will have the resources in we always hope that we hope the that we have the resources in moments of crisis, and Saturday proved that our team is phenomenal.

While the intent was malicious, I want to focus on celebrating our team members who rose to the occasion of protecting Raleigh residents.

And so with that I want to amplify the request from Mayor Pro Tem Fort in our last meeting about the possibility of a fourth shift in Raleigh Fire.

I look forward to learning more about it.

Thank you.

Just two items.

One um next district C meeting will be October 27th at Halifetts Court Community Center.

So this this coming Monday at 6.30 p.m.

Um until 8.30.

Also had the pleasure of attending along with the Mayor, Councilor Jones, Patton and Fort, the Raleigh's Commission for People with Disabilities Awards program yesterday.

Um may be able to receive them.

I'm going to forward it over to the city manager's office to follow up on.

And other than that, everyone have a safe for those who celebrate Halloween, Halloween season.

All right.

Last week I attended a number of special events.

First, I attended the Chris Brown concert for free.

I could hear the deep bass notes inside my home three miles away from Carter Finley Stadium.

Many residents reached out to us with concerns that they could also hear the concert despite not being there and were negatively impacted by heavy traffic.

Even those who wanted to attend the concert at times had trouble getting there.

And so I just want to clarify that NC State, not the City of Raleigh, managed the event, and I asked them to work with our city leadership to ensure proper management and coordination in the future.

Second, I attended the Billy Eilish concert at the Lenovo Center.

This was also the opening day of the NC State Fair.

Traffic was smooth, and I received zero messages of concern.

It was a great night.

Finally, I was inspired by and excited to participate in a peaceful and festive No Kings protests on Saturday.

I want to thank RPD and Raleigh Fire for your efforts to ensure safe demonstrations and public safety every day in our city.

Okay.

Next, we have appointments.

Good afternoon.

First is Arts Commission, one regular vacancy.

Lindsay Pullham received seven votes, so would be appointed.

The next three Board of Adjustment, one alternate vacancy, design review commission, one alternate vacancy, police advisory board, one regular vacancy for the attorney slot, no nominees, so those will be carried over.

Next center nominations, environmental advisory board, one regular vacancy.

The term of Scott Greenman is expiring.

He would like to be considered for reappointment.

Move for approval.

Okay.

All in favor of the motion.

Aye.

All opposed.

Okay, so that's passed this unanimously.

Next is Go Triangle Board of Trustees.

One regular vacancy term of Mary Ann Baldwin is expiring.

She would like to be considered for reappointment.

Okay.

Second.

Any other discussion?

If not, all in favor of the motion.

Aye.

Aye.

All opposed, nay.

And that is unanimous.

And lastly, Planning Commission, one regular vacancy term of former chair Belini Chang Miller's expiring.

She is not eligible for reappointment due to length of service.

So this is now open for nominations and will um appear on your next ballot.

I'd like to nominate Adam Walters.

All right.

Okay.

Okay.

That'll be coming back.

Did you have that?

We'll request and I acknowledge that, Councilmember Harrison.

I know that we had a list of some of the areas of expertise that Plan Commission were looking for.

Don't know where that is, but as we look for that the next time, I'd like to see what balance exists right now in the Plan Commission as we seek for a new member.

I believe and this will continue to be attached.

I'm opening it now.

I believe the yes, it is.

The uh roster that's attached to your agenda packet is a little more robust than the average board on there, and it does have skill set or profession listed on there.

And um, in addition, more detailed information on each individual is in Granicus, but it does have the high level.

I will just say I will second the Adam Walters um nomination.

And I think one of the positives there is his association with NC State University and their planning and real estate and design and architecture.

So I think his professional background and links to NC State would be a plus, uh, not knowing all the specifics.

But report and recommendation of the city attorney.

Thank you, Mayor.

Just really quickly.

At the last meeting, Councilmember Silver asked about an update for our laundering and medience ordinance, which is scheduled to go in effect November 1st.

You did receive some information in the city manager's report.

But I did want to respond to an inquiry we received about the signage.

Because the signage is a regulatory sign, and many of them are actually on DOT right away.

We are really limited in terms of what we could put on the sign.

But we do have our community partners, Acorns and other partner departments, have already begun going out and providing