Well, we'll be able to do it.

Well, we're going to be able to do that.

Good afternoon, Mayor Cowell and members of City Council.

I am Yunera Campus with the community engagement department.

On behalf of Partnership Raleigh, I would like to express our sincere gratitude for this recognition and for your continued support of this important initiative.

Partnership Raleigh began in twenty twenty as a workforce development program for college age students divided into two pathways, the community climate internship program and the pathways to public service fellowship.

Today, Partnership Raleigh stands before you fifteen fellows and twelve interns strong.

Together, we represent more than twenty academic majors, twelve universities, and serve across thirteen different departments and divisions throughout the city of Raleigh.

Our interns and fellows bring fresh perspectives, innovative ideas, and enthusiasm to the departments they serve.

They contribute meaningful work while learning from experienced professionals.

By investing in young adults today, we are cultivating the next generation of public servants, community leaders, and skilled professionals who may one day choose to continue their careers right here in our own city.

Now let's gather for a picture.

Yeah, thank you.

Okay.

Okay, next we had the consent agenda, and we had two items pulled, one on quail hollow road, and one on the city hall, all remaining.

Do we have a motion to approve?

Motion to approve.

Second.

All in favor of the motion.

Aye.

Aye.

All opposed.

That is unanimous.

So let's go back to the other two items.

Yeah, I believe I pulled the quail hollow drive item for discussion.

We had received a lot of resident interest in this, and I've asked the transportation department just to provide a brief review of what the plan is here and for any opportunity for council to weigh in or ask questions.

Hi, Barbara.

Thanks.

Thank you.

Good afternoon, Council.

I'm Barbara Godwin with the Transportation Department.

Just going to briefly go through some background information on the Quail Hollow Drive Green Street project for you.

So just to set where we are, we're between Hardemont Road and Millbrook Road.

So this project was identified in the Midtown St.

Albans Area Plan, which was adopted back in 2020.

Quail Hollow was identified to receive stormwater improvements, traffic calming measures, as well as improvements to bike infrastructure along the corridor.

And it was identified as a high priority implementation as part of that plan.

So it was also identified through the neighborhood traffic management program to receive traffic calming treatments.

So most recently in March of 2025, City Council voted to remove Quail Hollow from the traffic calming process so that traffic calming treatments would be addressed through the Green Street project.

And then as also just more background, this segment of Quail Hollow is part of the big branch greenway alignment.

So again, looking at that section, segment five between Hardmont Road and Millbrook Road.

So when we talk about design trade-offs, the Midtown St.

Albans area plan really gave us a few different options to consider when it comes to a concept.

So some of the recommendations call staff to look at considering a shared use path on the east side of the street.

It also uh considered looking at separated bike lanes, which would allow for uh north and south bike travel on both sides of the street, and then um as sort of a compromise option between those two staff came up with a two-way cycle track option for the east side of the street, a lot of trade-offs uh that were considered when we really took a look at these three different concepts.

Um, and ultimately we decided to move forward with concept C because it allowed for a lot of flexibility at the curb that option B would not have allowed.

Um, it also prevented us from moving behind the curb with delivery of the project, which would protect a lot of mature trees.

So these uh graphics just give you an idea about what phase one of the Green Street project will really look like once delivered.

Um so again, this is really an effort of paint, striping, and signage.

Um, this uh concept on the left here represents the cycle track and what it will look like upon delivery on the east side of the street.

Uh again, two-way bike travel with a painted protected buffer, as well as parking on the west side of the street.

And then we've also included some painted curb bump outs in the design on the west side of the street.

This really allows for some of the pedestrian improvements to take place with delivery of phase one, which was a lot of feedback that we heard during the engagement process for the project.

So those painted bump outs really allow shorter pedestrian crossings as well as helping to tighten up movement of vehicles through the intersections, which creates a little more visibility for cyclists, pedestrians, and drivers as they're moving through the intersection.

So this slide just kind of encompasses all of the design and safety enhancements that were reflected upon in the last slide looking at the graphics.

So again, we'll have dedicated space for cyclists that is separate of pedestrians and drivers.

Traffic calming will actually be supported through phase one.

While we're delivering the cycle track, we're also reducing width of the travel lane.

Also lowering the speed limit to 25 miles per hour along the corridor to continue to support that traffic calming effort.

Adding always stops at Orleans Place, which is adjacent to the Quail Hollow Swim Club, to again help facilitate safer crossings.

There's a lot of pedestrian activity at this intersection, especially in the summer, due to the activity at the swim club.

And then again, acknowledging the painted curb bump outs at all of the intersections on the west side of the street to help with visibility and to shorten crossings for pedestrians along the corridor.

So this gives you just an overview of phase one's schedule.

So we had two public touch points over the last year that helped to inform the design process.

Moving into August, we'll continue to do pre-construction outreach and then deliver the markings updates later this summer.

And then I've mentioned the phased approach that we're taking with this project.

So again, we're in phase one, which is a very flexible phase where we're really focusing on setting the cross section for the street.

So delivering this effort with paint and markings and signage.

And continuing to coordinate with Raleigh Stormwater as we move into phase two and three.

And at that phase, we'll also resurface the street, go back and add a hardened vertical separation between cars and the bike lane, as well as address sidewalk gaps on the southern end of the corridor.

That's the information I have, taking any questions.

Thank you.

Yeah, I just wanted to note a couple things I heard.

First, I really appreciate you talking about the various options.

I know that some residents have been concerned about loss of parking.

Others have asked for having the, you know, bike lanes on both sides of the street.

And I think what this represents with the cycle track is a compromise where we only lose one side of the street for parking, but we still potentially in the future are going to have a truly protected bike lane, which it sounds like that's coming by 2029 as you all look at what is feasible there with vertical separation.

So I feel good about where we're at.

I will just acknowledge that sometimes the cycle tracks are not ideal because it does require a bicyclist to have to cross the street sometimes awkwardly to get onto it if they're you know needing to go on what they would consider usually the wrong side of the street.

Um, but I like the idea of those crosswalks that you all be adding, especially as people are trying to get to the pool nearby and maybe the elementary school.

Um, so from what I can see, and I did also receive a memo from your department about that community engagement, those two touch points, you know, about a third were fully in favor of this option, another third were okay, you know, still looking for a couple improvements, like the vertical separation, and then another third, you know, we're looking for another option.

So I don't know that there is one option that is going to meet everybody's goals or needs, but I think we've found a good middle place.

So I'm gonna leave it at that.

Thank you so much for this.

In your uh research and she mentioned the pool.

I know that we've gotten uh emails about the amount of traffic on the street that parks for events like swim meets and things like that.

How do you guys take those into consideration?

And what is the recommendation for those uh residents who normally did park there?

Now is it just that you park across the street, but we have lost those those parking spots.

Where should they go?

So the west side of the street will mostly remain open.

Um, and then there's several side street options along the corridor that can help supplement that as well.

Um so those would be our recommendations.

There's adequate, you feel that there's adequate side street parking.

Awesome.

Okay, thank you.

Um counselor silver patten then about.

Barbara, I know you've supplied us with information about the public engagement.

I know I attended one uh CAC meeting where this was presented.

So just for the record, you talk about the engagement and if anything in this was proposed today, the public has not seen.

Yes, I'm gonna turn it over to Kenneth Ritchie.

Good afternoon, Kenneth Richie with transportation.

So certainly I think we've we tried to do a tremendous job of engaging with the community through that those touch points, and certainly I think the data we provided kind of bears that out.

Um I know there's been some recent conversation regarding what appears to be some additional parking impacts that have come with the with these recommendations.

As the design has evolved, and we've looked at the design of those bump outs in particular.

One thing we noticed was for cars coming southbound, knowing that we're gonna have those bump outs, the north side of the intersections, there is a taper there that was not necessarily highlighted before design was not matured enough at that point to really know what those impacts were gonna be.

So you do have some minimal additional impact.

What that equates to is roughly five percent of what would be available today for that parking space along the entirety of that west side.

I think we've added if you do it at about 20 feet, it's about 13 spaces over the course of about a 5,000-foot street.

So certainly I think there is some additional impact that was identified, but certainly very minimal on the grand scale of things, and certainly is this part of the design evolution process that came out.

Yeah, a couple maybe while you're here.

Um, so just focusing on engagement for a sec.

So midtown plan was developed with a lot of community engagement.

Also, I'm noting that Barbara's reminded us we pulled this out of the neighborhood traffic management program, which can only there only would have been in the neighborhood traffic management program if there had been resident outreach with a request to evaluate.

Is that right?

So we know there was resident engagement then, and and then now there were there were those two additional touch points on the version of the project we're seeing.

So is that right?

Okay, helpful.

Just wanted to kind of put a fine point on that.

Um the other thing I wanted to ask about, um, you know, any time we're operating in the midtown area, I'm like reminded of Six Forks Road and how sort of constant iterations uh cause delay and and drove and property values rose in the intervening time.

You know, the ideal, I think probably the ideal scenario would have been if we could go behind the curb, but we would have had to acquire a lot of property, right?

Can you um just quantify like how much additional money and time would have been consumed if we had pursued that option?

So it's gonna be hard to quantify the exact monetary impact from an acquisition standpoint, but certainly any time you get into property acquisition, uh, you were likely adding at least a year to a process.

Um because of needing to identify exactly what the needs are, then going and negotiating with property owners, the back and forth.

Do we have to go to condemnation?

There's just a number of factors that play into that.

So generally, I would say any time that you're gonna be adding the real estate process, you're adding about a year, and certainly there's cost inherent in that time, and then there's just the cost for the actual property itself, which as we learned with the six forks project, can't is growing as it relates to these kind of horizontal street capital projects.

Yeah.

So I'll just I think you know, I was determined to learn my lesson when we canceled the six forks road project.

And so I know this one is about on the street or it's being constructed this summer, and so while it's imperfect, I'm I'm ready to be pencils down on this project.

Yeah, I'll make a motion.

I just want to add, maybe this is an unpopular thing to say, I don't care about the loss of parking.

I'm tired of folks prioritizing storage of their private vehicles and public right-of-way space when so little of our public right-of-way space is allocated to multimodal and non-car infrastructure.

I hope that folks will bike or scoot to a pool if they can.

Um, and even a lot of the bike lanes we have, people park in them anyway.

I was just taking my scooter to a doctor's appointment.

There was a dumpster in the middle of the bike lane right in front of a sign that said don't block the bike lane.

And so I do hope that we'll get these bike lanes down and then get the particle delineation added as soon as possible to help with enforcement.

But with that said, I move to approve.

Second.

Any other conversation?

All in favor of the motion?

Aye.

All opposed, nay.

That is unanimous.

Thank you so much.

All right.

Okay.

Yes, and I pulled, I think it's C4B, uh, and that's our city hall uh renovations, and I just had some clarifying questions on them.

I did send them through, and uh unfortunately one of them wasn't answered, so I just want to uplift that here.

And that was when we did this, this was in years ago when we made this this um approval.

Did we agree then to keep those three floors unfinished?

That was part of that vote, correct?

When we made the agreement back in 2022 to uh advance the project with the new project amount, um let's go back for a second.

We master planned the project back in 2016.

In 2018, we developed the project budget to be a hundred and ninety million.

Then the pandemic hit, and when we put it out on the street, it came back at like 250 plus million dollars.

Council asked staff to go back and value engineer that down to make it close within close proximity of where the approved project budget was.

In order to do that, we had to scale back some of the floors.

You will remember that the original project was 20 stories, and then we scaled it back to 17 that would allow us for some future growth, but not as much as we had anticipated when we started the project in 2018.

When those conversations started in 2023 in the FY23, part of the capital reserve X exercise was that we would start to put back those floors as resources became available.

And that's kind of what we've done over the major projects update, kind of talked about what an additional floor would look like and what it would entail in this year's proposed budget and the budget message we mentioned that we would include those three additional floors, because as we went back to do some of the redesign work, we had to figure out how we were gonna put all of staff in a much smaller footprint when we had already committed to being able to bring all of our downtown personnel into this one structure, and also be mindful of the fact that the way we pay for the Civic Tower is by the disposition of the property that we currently own that we have people in.

So yeah, this is just bringing forward those commitments that we made back in 2018, then in 2022, 23, and then ultimately in 24.

Right.

Yeah, I think because I remember when we did that vote and we had the conversation of the three and finished floors, I remember us saying, Yeah, we will leave those and we'll go back to it.

So I do remember that conversation.

I think what was striking to me, or I guess the confusion that I just wanted to clear up for my is how do we know when we get that public conversation?

I don't want to keep bringing up six forks, but when we reallocate money, there are other points where we have that public vote, um, especially in a budget year, and I know that we all went through that.

I know you did it much stronger than than we did, and you did a wonderful job with the budget.

Um I'm wondering, is there how was there other capital needs that could have if we had already agreed to having unfinished floors?

Were there other capital needs that could have been addressed that m would have helped, uh, whether that's helping.

It would have been to undo a commitment that we had already made.

Because when we brought the project back and brought it back at 17 stories, we you gave us the charge for staff to find the resources to be able to build them out, right?

So that we would not have to go back and redesign and push people and cramp them into a space or take one of the buildings that we were slated to sale offline so that the model would make so that we'd be able to fund it without a tax increase without a bond that would put additional debt on this on the residents in the city.

So in doing that, yes, we could have said, well, we don't want to do these three stories, although we committed to it, but the question was around the fire master plan.

At the point that we committed to these additional floors, we didn't have the fire master plan.

And as we come forward with this year's capital reserve, whatever additional resources that will be that exercise that we typically have with council in October and November, we bring forward some recommendations of some things that we were not able to fund as part of the budget, and then we figure out whether or not we can fund them.

And the reason why it's coming forward now as opposed to back then is we're in the construction number one, and then number two, we're actually bringing the project through completion in FY27.

So that's why you see it as an agenda item now versus back then because we weren't actually encumbering the money.

Okay, that's very helpful.

Thank you.

I think what I'm hearing and clarify if I'm wrong, that because this was first, this was something that we've been doing for a while, instead of going to the other capital needs that may have come after, yes, after this, we chose to do it this way because it was all within that one project.

And it's money that we saved within that project to then hopefully do more with, because that's that nine and a half million that we have saved from is a wonderful job on the project team.

So thank you for that.

Um, and you're saying let's keep it in house because this was a project we've done for many other years.

It's been on the books.

To clarify, some of the money came from refunds and rebates out of other funds, but we got it from council contingent, not council contingency, project contingency.

Um, in addition to that, we had some savings in some of our risk funds that we were able, as well as capital reserves that council approved back in FY23.

Got it.

Okay, thank you so much.

That's me.

Um, and that that's all the questions I have.

I'll just have one clarifying question.

How many buildings will we be able to dispose of once we move everybody into one building here?

It's four, right?

Martin Street, OEP.

Well, not we don't own Bank of America building, but we will no longer have that lease for housing and community development and um Bank of America building.

Okay, so disposing of those properties would give us like more than offset the cost of the three additional floors, correct?

Uh yes, that's really when we built the project, and the project was approved.

The funding from the sale of those properties would cover the cost of construction, and that's the financial model that we build to be able to cover the pro the project cost.

Yeah, so we won't have it immediately, but eventually we will remove those costs.

Yes.

All right, thank you.

All right.

Uh thank you so much.

Uh, I'm move to approve C4B.

All right, all in favor of the motion, aye.

All opposed, nay.

That's unanimous.

Thank you.

All right, next we go to the report and recommendation of the planning commission.

Find them Walter.

Good afternoon, Madam Mayor, members of council, I am Walter, planning and development.

I'm joined today by Chair Dwight Otwell from the Planning Commission.

A review of upcoming holidays through early October for you.

Right now, we have uh one item scheduled for public hearing on August 18th.

That's your next uh meeting in the afternoon.

That's a continuation of an item you already have discussed once.

And right now there's nothing scheduled for public hearing on the September 1st meeting afternoon or evening.

We are uh recommending uh as published everything to go forward to the August 18 afternoon agenda for public hearing.

I have some exceptions to that uh that will not that will not be uh they've folks who have asked to not be uh scheduled today.

Uh and then we do have one item coming forward that we're suggesting for September 1st from the reporter planning commission today.

So uh first item on the report is a text change.

This is a privately initiated change that would uh modify square footage required for uh school lot area.

The second item is on Dorothea Drive.

This is property controlled by the Raleigh Housing Authority.

They are asking that you not set the public here, take the action today to set the public hearing, but please could they come back on the August 18 meeting to be scheduled for a date after that?

They would like to revise their request, right?

Uh the next item is Z5125.

This is on Spring Forest Road, just west of uh US 401, we're near where Spring Forest and Kyle Drive cross 401 uh again suggested public hearing here for August 18.

This is uh going from R1 to commercial mixed use.

This request you just scheduled the um annexation public hearing for August 18.

This goes these items go together.

This is about 30 acres uh being rezoned to a unified district.

Part of it is in Durham County, but per annexation agreement is uh eligible for annexation into the city, suggesting an August 18 date here.

The next item is Z 826.

This is on Rock Quarry Road near Barwell Road, uh going from R4 to neighborhood mixed use.

I have to keep my Rock Quarry Road items straight.

Just had to check the notes.

Uh Z9 is on Glenwood Avenue.

This is a mixed uh uh split zone piece of property.

They're trying to unify the zoning here uh again suggesting an August 18 date.

Z 12 on uh also on Rock Quarry Road.

This is a little farther south.

This uh applicant has requested, please could you not take action today to schedule the public hearing, but instead wait until August 18.

So this is Z12, and then uh similar request from the applicant for Z 14, the Scorman Street Assemblage.

This is uh just south of Western Boulevard across the street from the McKimmons Center again asking that you not set the hearing today.

Uh Z16, this is on North Boylan Avenue, going from an office mixed use district with the NCOD to uh commercial mixed use with a 12 story height limit, also ask uh suggesting August 18.

Z18 on uh at 6904 and zero pool road.

This also is associated with a rezoning.

We are suggesting the September 1 date for both items here to uh satisfy notification requirements to our neighbors in Nightdale.

And then comprehensive plan amendment CP 126 for old cruise road.

This is a little bit unusual.

So many times street plan amendments ask to be re to be removed, right?

This is a change in designation, uh, transportation and planning staff both are um this is very much in line with things we expect to see coming forward in the uh comprehensive plan when we do street plan review.

We have a lot of big streets on the street plan that can probably be scaled down.

Uh again, recommending an August 18 public hearing date here.

What questions could I answer for you before you make uh decisions?

Council report.

I have a question.

So on Z 1925, did you say it was that the Raleigh Housing Authority?

Right?

Yes, ma'am.

And that they want to make some modifications.

Yes, ma'am, they do.

Do you have any idea what those modifications are?

I cannot speak to that.

I I do know one change they would like to make, which is that they would like to prohibit the vape shop use.

Prohibit prohibit.

Okay, all right.

Thank you.

Counselor Cotton.

Yeah, um, yeah, maybe for you or for Chair Otwell.

Um, I'm interested in any discussion that happened around the Spring Forest Road case.

I've received a little bit of community feedback about it.

So I'm curious about y'all's deliberations.

So I didn't take thank you, Mayor Cowell and Council for having me.

Uh I didn't take detailed notes on that one, so I'm gonna have to do this one from memory because it was, I think, a unanimous vote.

The uh Spring Forest was there was a lot of concern about walk through traffic between the adjacent parcels and the residential area to the east.

There was concern about traffic safety, especially crossing Spring Forest Road.

And I believe that there was a concern about traffic congestion.

And did the how did the planning commission find those?

Did you find that you did not feel like this they were sufficiently mitigated by conditions on the case or yes.

Well, that was how we voted, and we thought the conditions mitigated it, and uh was it a unanimous vote?

Yeah, it was in a unanimous vote.

Thank you.

Counselor Jones.

Uh Mr.

Otwell, I have a question about the Glenwood Avenue case.

Uh so that's Z926.

And I was just wondering what that there was a split vote, it was a six to three.

Can you help me uh understand what the people who did not vote for it?

Certainly, I did take detailed notes on this one.

Um, so in opposition was Commissioners O'Haver, Commissioner Fox, and Commissioner Omakaye, and they all had uh different reasons for dissenting.

Uh Commissioner O'Haber was primarily concerned about the uh the neighborhood concerns, and he didn't feel they'd been properly addressed.

There could end up being a fairly large retaining wall, abutting a residential neighborhood uh that has an NCOD on it.

Commissioner Fox was primarily concerned about a very larger training wall that would be required and might be in the transition zone between a mixed use district and a residential district.

And Commissioner O'Makay was primarily concerned about impacts on the NCOD and that the neighbors' concerns were not being adequately addressed.

Yes, it's a it's adjacent NCOD.

We did not remove or we did not vote to recommend removal of the NCOD, but it's next door adjacent to the parcel.

And can you further uh help me understand the retaining wall and what is the fact that it's gonna need to be so large, why is it needed?

Speaking a little bit to what the applicant talked about wanting to do, they would wish to expand their parking lot to the north, which there's a large slope down towards the neighborhood, extending out that parking lot would require a very large retaining wall over the creek, and to get it big enough and structurally sound.

There was some concern about whether it could be kept within the bounds or outside of the bounds of the transition yard required when uh mixed use uh joins residential use.

And were there any uh discussion about any stormwater impacts because this is right on a creek uh that that would affect like you said, the retaining wall would affect that creek that it sits on?

I I think that that was one of the primary concerns that there was a lot of discussion about stormwater, the development redevelopment would require stormwater retention measures.

Commensurate with the stormwater manual.

Uh there was no specific discussion about actual infrastructure or flow rates or paths of the stream or anything, but it was just a general concern, especially for the neighbors.

Great.

Thank you so much for that.

I do I would like to ask that we consider moving this from the August 18th meeting at one o'clock to the September 1st meeting at 7 o'clock, so that more neighbors can attend who won't be uh available during the day.

And that is my motion.

I'll move to move uh Z926 from August 18th to September 1st.

Second.

All in favor of that motion, aye.

Aye.

All opposed, nay, and that is unanimous.

Thank you.

And I had one more question for Chair Otwell while you're here on Boylan.

I saw there was one dissenting vote.

Um I believe that's also related to the NCOD.

Could you speak to that one by chance?

Certainly.

Uh that one was directly related to the NCOD and the planning commission recommends removal of the NCOD as part of the uh application.

Commissioner Omakkay is opposed to the removal of the NCOD.

I feel she thinks it's a systemic issue, the chipping away at the NCODs.

And uh she feels that if they're not a very strong and legitimate reason besides developer preference to remove the NCOD, she will oppose it.

Thank you.

Um at this time I'm ready to motion the rest forward, I think as is, unless there's other I think we probably have to specify to hold the three that indicated they would like to confirm I had um Z 19, Z12, Z eighteen, were those the uh 14, 14, 19, 12, and 14.

Repeat that again, 19, 12 and 14, 19, 12.

Okay.

Yeah.

So move to hold, or if you want to go ahead move to hold 19, 12, and 14, see them as special items to set the public hearing August 18, and then remove and move to set the remainder of the hearings as recommended by staff.

Second.

All in favor of that motion, aye.

Aye.

All opposed.

Thank you.

Thank you.

All right.

So then we have a special items, and we have Sue Ellen Cologne.

Actually, we will have Taisha Mosley presenting that item today.

Welcome back.

She's back.

Very kind of you all.

Um good afternoon, Taisha Mosley with the community engagement department.

Um today we have a couple of uh bylaws.

If you recall, you've actually approved a lot so far as the result of the work from your special committee on boards and commission.

So you approved a batch in January, a batch in February, and then another batch in April.

And so today you have bylaws and your backup materials for the substance use advisory commission.

Who also has a proposed resolution to revise their mission statement for your consideration.

The police advisory board, the human relations commission, and the Raleigh Commission for Persons with Disabilities.

Okay, thank you.

Any questions?

I just have one question on the parks bylaws.

Reviewing them a lot of the intention focus on facilities and um ideas and and and not I didn't see any on programming.

Does the parks board ever look at the activities that take place within our centers?

Sure.

So yes, they do, and I um I believe they have a presentation for you coming up a little later in the agenda.

Okay, cool.

I think we had um another question here from Councilor Jones.

No, it's not a question.

I just wanted to give some clarity on the um substance use for those watching who don't know what the resolution is, and I just wanted to give some uh that's well documented in the backup material, so please go ahead and read it.

But this board was established back in the 90s, and at that time the the goals were a little bit different than what they do now.

So this is just an attempt to standardize and bring us back up to what we are currently working on.

So I just wanted to give that clarity before we vote.

Thank you.

Any other questions or commentary?

Move for approval.

Thank you.

All in favor of the motion, aye, all opposed, nay, and that is unanimous.

Okay, next we've got text change authorization exempt and minor subdivision regulations, Justin Remetta.

Good afternoon, Mayor and Council Justin Rometta with planning and development.

Uh this item is intended to introduce to you all some potential UDO text amendments uh that may help further our uh housing choice and affordable affordability goals.

Uh those would primarily occur through uh reform of the subdivision ordinance uh using uh tools that are uh made available through state law and that other jurisdictions throughout the state um also utilize.

As you all know, over the past five to six years, we've made a lot of changes to the zoning ordinance to introduce some flexibility, created building types and patterns like cottage courts, a lot more duplexes and two unit townhomes, allowed for um tiny houses, and um we've had some modest uptake on those, but our subdivision ordinance has remained largely unchanged since the 1950s.

And so one example of that that you see on the screen here is an exemption that uh the state um allows through uh chapter 160 D, where if you have a site uh up to two acres in size, you can split that site into up to three lots, provided that you're not dedicating new streets, and of course, your resulting lots comply with uh dimensional requirements in your zoning ordinance.

Raleigh's uh operates a little differently because we have this local act from 1955 that allows us to um regulate all subdivisions of land in the same manner.

So, practically speaking, uh the same multi-step process, the same regulations apply whether you're creating two lots or whether you're creating 200 lots.

And while utilizing that authority that we have has allowed us to get some right-of-way dedication, other exactions that you know we would not have that would not have otherwise occurred, there are impacts particularly to small-scale developments.

With right-of-way dedication with sidewalk construction, with street tree installation comes additional cost and time delays, and those are kind of disproportionately weighted on smaller developments because those costs can't be spread out among a larger number of lots like they can in larger developments.

So the result there can be reduced buildable areas, fewer homes being built at higher prices.

Um also cost in terms of review timelines for applicants and staff time as well.

So with that being said, um staff has two options today for your consideration.

Um the first would be to just to adopt that 160D state exempt subdivision directly from state law, that would match what nearly every other municipality in the state does.

As mentioned, it could reduce cost, simplify process for both staff and applicants, allow staff resources to be allocated to more complex project.

We would expect some modest increase in small lot development with this option.

Of course, the trade-offs there is with that limited city review.

There is no ability to get that right-of-way dedication, the infrastructure improvements that you get today.

Umise, there's no way to prohibit, you know, uh the size of homes being built with that option.

So where economically feasible, you would still continue to see you know larger, more expensive homes on some of those lots as well.

Second option uh would be to layer in what's called a minor subdivision process.

This is another tool that the state allows us to use.

Um, and again, it's something that most other jurisdictions in the state do to kind of create a tiered process for subdivisions.

So you have the exempt plat where no public improvements are required, and you have this intermediate tier of minor subdivisions where uh typically in the in the three to ten lot range, um you develop an ordinance where you have flexibility in requiring some dedication, some public improvements, uh, but not necessarily uh the full gamut of what you would apply to uh to a large-scale subdivision.

So, again, this this is a um you know creating this process can also streamline streamline review and lower costs.

You do have that ability to build limitations into the ordinance as to the frequency and the locations where it can be used, so the city does maintain some level of oversight over those developments.

Um we do feel it would more kind of fully unlock housing access and choice where you could have these developments where where even if some of those uh project costs are increased due to dedication or construction, they can be spread out over a larger number of lots.

But again, the same trade-offs as far as you know the limited review where we'd be getting less infrastructure or construction than what we see today.

Some of our peers um again have have been successful in using uh some of these tools.

Durham, for example, uh small homes and small lots programs, uh, has created nearly 300 lots, those are comparable to our tiny homes.

So these are in the 1,200 square foot range on small lots, two to six thousand square feet.

Um most of those lots have been created through the exempt process.

Um they also allow the minor subdivision process.

Um Durham specifically allows up to six lots, provided you're not building new streets and you don't have to extend utilities and you're not having to construct a stormwater device.

Just some visual examples of what they've done.

Um, Trinity Park in Durham.

Again, these are 1200 square foot homes, two bedroom, two to three baths, um two thousand square foot lots selling in the low to mid 400,000 range.

Uh just one more example also in Trinity Park and Durham.

So next steps, if council so chooses, you can authorize text amendments for um options one or two.

Um if uh if that occurs, staff would kind of work to draft an ordinance framework, um, allow us to have a discussion with our colleagues, both internal and with the public.

Uh we would bring an ordinance uh through the public review process to the planning commission for a recommendation, and then back to you, City Council, for a um final review and public hearing.

Happy to answer any questions you have.

Thank you.

Questions?

Councilor Patton.

Hi, Justin.

Thanks for this.

Sure.

Um I am I have these like kind of two pieces of resident feedback that are ringing as almost oppositional in my head.

And so one is that we hear residents who want sidewalk connections.

It's like consistently a top priority on community feedback surveys and budget listening sessions and beyond.

And so um that's ringing out to me.

And then conversely, we also hear residents who say, like, I don't know, these big big old McMansions next to me, and it sounds like this could make that more possible.

Um can you go to one of the slides with your little overhead of the IMAPs with the outline?

I'm curious to understand what's like practically happening on the ground right now in a situation like this.

So it sound like, you know, in this situation like this, what you're saying it's people would not really go through our subdivision process because they'd have to do street trees, sidewalk.

That would apply to, you know, they would bear the cost and transfer that on to the homeowner.

What like what would happen in a situation like this?

Would someone just build a huge house or what what would happen?

Yeah, so this is a real world example.

So this was a three-lot subdivision, um, and you can see kind of where the right-of-way, right?

Where we got right-of-way dedication.

Um we did not get any construction of any sidewalk or street trees.

So nothing was constructed, but we did get the actual right-of-way uh dedicated.

Um, because of that right-of-way dedication, this particular applicant had to go get a variance from the board adjustment because the right-of-way dedication then rendered their lots too small to comply with the zoning ordinance.

So that was an additional, you know, step they had to take.

So kind of as we mentioned, you know, all of the the time and costs add up, and they are usually passed on to the home buyer, right?

And so um we can't control the the size other than you know through setbacks and and whatnot and height uh of the home that's built.

Um, but typically what the higher land costs and higher project costs come higher cost of homes as well.

Okay.

So they've dedicated the right-of-way, they went through a variant process.

What what is present on those lots today?

Uh I don't know if they've been built upon yet or not.

Or what's going?

Is it gonna be three small homes?

It would be one large house.

It would be three single-family homes, most likely, yeah.

Got it.

But no limitation on size other than height and setbacks.

Councilor Lambert Melton.

Yeah.

For several years I've heard all these stories about Durham and the successes they've had with small small homes and small lots.

In fact, there's a lot of smaller developers in Raleigh that will only work in Durham because the process is easier.

And so they're getting the housing.

They're getting the smaller homes that we're not.

And a lot of folks say, well, why are most of our development projects these big developers and big projects?

And this is probably one of the reasons.

Um, and so I'm in favor of moving this forward.

I would be fine with, you know, no um minor subdivision um process for one through three lots and three through ten or whatever number we do doing option two.

Um and so I that's what I would like to advance and have it go through the public process and through planning commission and and then come back.

So I'm prepared to make a motion at the appropriate time.

Thank you.

Yeah, just one question comment um building off the sidewalk kind of conversation here.

So you're saying in this case, they did not have to build a sidewalk, and rather did they pay a fee for that?

They did.

And why was that acceptable?

Like how do you make that decision?

Yeah, I'd certainly defer to my colleagues in transportation if they want to add anything additional, but it is a case by case basis.

Um, you know, I think they evaluate uh, you know where in the city this is, um, whether there are plans adjacent to it to to build additional sidewalk or street trees, and I see Kenneth.

Yeah, it'd be great to hear from Kenneth on that.

I'll let him talk.

Thank you.

Good afternoon, Kenneth Richmond Transportation.

So I guess Mayor Pro Tim, using this example, there is no other sidewalk infrastructure along really this block, and certainly on Bloodworth or Bragg.

So looking at the expanse of what we would get, you'd have this infrastructure be on an island, which does create a maintenance challenge for us with really no public utility at that point.

So those are instances where we have taken a fee in the past.

Just understanding that at some point we will get it as part of a larger project where it does have that public utility, but it does create a maintenance burden the minute that we put that infrastructure on the ground.

Okay, and so if we were to pursue this text amendment, um, what would be the change here?

So what I'm hearing is there's no requirement for sidewalk.

If I've got that right, would we not get a fee either?

So I and Justin, I guess I'll I'll defer to Justin on that point.

I think part of as we go through the text amendment process is gonna be looking at where what is that threshold there and understanding what those implications are because I think certainly that's something we want to be mindful of is just that protection.

Yeah, so with the um a strictly uh exempt subdivision process.

I'm sorry, um there would be no ability.

You we would not get anything, right?

If we adopted the states, thank you, the states um one sixty D exemption.

So that option where you've got a site that's no larger than two acres, no more than three lots, you're not building any new street.

Um that's just a simple administrative platning process.

So we would not get any sidewalk uh right away or fee.

With the minor subdivision process, we have the ability to build in those limitations.

So we may say um it is dependent on uh geographically in the city um or in areas where it's you know uh there is more need for infrastructure.

Um you have flexibility to say you can we can require right-away dedication, but no construction or fee.

So there's there's a whole uh menu of options that we could apply to that minor subdivision process.

Okay, great.

Yeah, I think I can support option two.

That was the one you had, or did I do you have that wrong?

Sorry.

I was gonna do a combo.

I was gonna suggest we do option one for one through three lots, so very, very small, and then for everything else, so three up, do option two so we can get some of the um the infrastructure.

The reality of it is those really small lots, like the example joke about it.

The sidewalks are useless when it's in front of like 50 feet of property.

I think those are situations.

What if it connects to another sidewalk?

That's just what I'm thinking about.

Like if there was an existing.

Yeah, that's why I think if we do a combo, we'll get like a hybrid of both where I think the larger site areas will be able to do it, and then the smaller ones, quite frankly, I think it's really the city's responsibility to be more proactively doing that.

So I would like to do option one for one lots one through three, then three through ten, I would do option two.

Just to be clear, as presented, option two is both.

Option two is the exempt.

Perfect.

Then option two is what I would like to move forward.

Okay, got it.

Yeah, and I'll just I again just want to make sure that we are really looking at any sidewalk opportunity we can get because as much as I'd like to say the city can do it, we can't.

Uh forty-three percent of our streets do not have sidewalks, so we have a lot of work to do and not enough money to do it.

Counselor Jones.

Thank you so much.

I was wondering, I know you had that picture up, and you don't need to bring it back up, but of the the lot that you're discussing.

Can you quantify how many uh in the past could have been if we changed the law, how many more uh approvals would have gone through if this were in effect?

Like how how many uh applicants are we talking about here?

Um, yeah.

This I think we process uh you know in the dozens of these subdivisions per year.

Um, you know, not to say, and they still have occurred, right?

Um, yeah.

I don't know that we could quantify how many more would occur if if we didn't have the the same regulations.

Right, because that that spectrum we're saying we're seeing dozens right now of this, and then we juxtapose that against Durham, who has 300, because that's in the same thing.

So we're saying hopefully somewhere in between that.

Is that the goal?

Um, yeah, so the 300 for Durham was specifically for their small home for for essentially what is their their tiny home ordinance.

Um we've had very few tiny homes built um since we've adopted the rules.

So uh, so not able to replicate the 300 that Durham has done.

I guess I'm just confused if that's not what we're talking about.

I'm confused of what that reference is.

Yeah, so w with the minor subdivision process um where you can create, you know, lots in that four to ten ish range, whatever we think is appropriate, um, without having to factor in costs for building sidewalk and dedicating right of way and street trees and the additional um costs that that the time delays incurs as well.

We feel like that would allow for more construction of of those smaller homes on those lots.

Okay, thank you.

Oh, I was ready with the motion.

Um, Councilor Putton.

Are single family homes?

I guess they don't need to be subdivided, but are single family homes exempted from things like street trees or right-of-way dedication?

Yes.

They are a single single home being built on a single lot is exempt from those requirements.

Okay.

So in the example you've you showed us, if that person had just built those three independently, three large homes on three large lots, we still wouldn't get sidewalk or street trees.

That's correct.

Okay.

Yeah.

In a commercial context, you could um we could, um, but not in a single family or one or two family home context.

Okay.

So I'm prepared to support option two, particularly though the one to three lots is meaningful to me.

Like if we're not getting sidewalk today, like let's it was at least get smaller homes there.

Um, but I can support some you guys will hash out the parameters, but uh I agree.

Like if there are opportunities to get the sidewalk infrastructure because it makes sense because it's connecting to existing sidewalk or whatever.

Let's get that, or let's get a right-of-way dedication so we can put it in it at our expense at an appropriate time.

Yeah, I'm ready with motion.

I fully agree.

I think what we're seeing with these smaller sizes, the one through three is people just aren't doing it.

So we're not getting the sidewalk anyway.

And what we're getting is just bigger houses.

And so if we want to make it easier to build smaller, more attainable houses, then we do need to make it easier for folks to do that.

And so I think that accomplishes these goals, and then of course, lots three through ten, we can still imply a minor subdivision process that staff will work through to figure out how we can get some of the infrastructure as well.

Um so with that I move to authorize the um proposed text amendments uh option two.

Second.

Any other discussion?

If not, all in favor, aye.

Aye.

All opposed, nay.

That is unanimous.

Thank you for that work.

Okay, next we have the report and recommendation of the city manager.

Good afternoon, Mayor and Council.

We have two items today.

The first item um we have Ed Buckin from Raleigh Water here to present on stage two water restrictions and provide an update on our water conservation plan.

Well, I think it's here.

He was outside, okay.

I thought he had a glass of Raleigh water and he does not.

Coffee water, close enough.

Thank you.

Sorry about that.

So as no one here should be surprised, we're still very much in a drought.

Despite the rainfall we received of the last two days and even the weekend prior, we've lost two percent of our water supply pool.

And this last two rainfalls were in the Falls Lake watershed, which is not always the case.

We'll oftentimes get rain in downtown Raleigh doesn't really benefit us.

But I wanted to highlight here that the highest level of um drought rating, which is exceptional, basically covers the Falls Lake watershed.

So this is a long-term problem that's not gonna go away with an occasional summer thunderstorm.

Uh we certainly want those, and they can benefit us temporarily and at best usually kind of offset the the loss that we typically see in a week, which is two to three percent.

But uh we're not gonna be gaining ground anytime soon.

So I just wanted to make that clear.

And just to highlight that, this is where we're right now with 62 percent of our water supply pool remaining.

So that's the amount of water that is reserved for our drinking water supply in Falls Lake, and that's really what drives all of our uh drought uh triggers.

Uh typically so um it has dropped.

Um by comparison, the water quality pool, which is the amount of water that is used for downstream releases, um, is at 25%.

And I would just highlight that um in 2019 where some of uh you were here, we reallocated some of that water in Falls Lake so that we are able right now to manage uh pretty well, relatively speaking, because we reallocated a lot of water in Falls Lake, so we're at sixty-two percent rather than probably closer to 30 or below 30 uh prior to 2019.

That said, um this is a um diagram or a uh chart of what the Army Corps of Engineers is projecting the water supply pool to drop to uh by the uh September.

And so this is obviously very sobering.

Now it makes a lot of assumptions.

This is uh zero percent uh inflow to the lake.

Hopefully we're gonna get inflow.

Um but it but it does show you uh a downward trend, and this is not that surprising given we are um in the summer.

So typically the Falls Lake or any reservoir around here will drop in June, July and August, and usually through September.

But um this is, you know, as I've said uh to other folks, this is a very unusual drought because of when it started in the winter, which is usually when we refill, and uh and then the spring and Falls Lake has always been full on April 1st, except for this year.

So that goes back over a hundred years of records.

So I'm just trying to impress home how uh unusual this drought is and uh I think everybody also knows that irrigation is a big demand for that in the summer.

And what I'm showing you here is um the differences of uh irrigation um from 2025, the impact of that, and to 2026.

So whenever we we went into stage one on April 20th, and the goal of any water shortage response plan is to reduce uh ye uh overall demand, especially compared to the year before, because that's our closest analog.

And we've we've unfortunately we're not able to do that.

We did that uh in April and the first part of May, then it obviously got a lot warmer and dry, and then our demands have uh gone up quite a bit since then.

Uh so we've unfortunately uh gone in the the wrong direction um since uh mid-May to present time.

So what we're what we're proposing today is um the ability to go into stage two if these overall demand trends continue to increase.

Um and we've also collected a lot of uh as I'll show you the next slide, but collected a lot of uh meter data on irrigation accounts to demonstrate uh the demand of of irrigation and and also um which kind of irrigation accounts are using that water.

But the the trigger that we've outlined back in 2012 to go into stage two for for July is at 45 percent remaining.

So it's sixty two percent.

We're still technically a long ways from that.

But again, this drought is so unusual.

I think it's gonna be we're gonna have to reset our our drought triggers after this has completed.

Um and we and we want to encourage people to cooperate with uh the drought triggers and only irrigate on on the days that they permitted, which are Tuesdays and Wednesdays based on the street address.

And we also want to give the city manager the ability to go into stage two, even if we don't hit that drought trigger.

Um in this business, we're very, very conservative.

Um we never want to get into a very serious situation.

So we want that flexibility, the city manager to go into stage two if we're still not seeing uh a downward trend in overall use and and compliance with with stage one.

And another change that we're um proposing to make is to limit athletic field irrigation to one day a week.

And originally in stage two, um, it was still unlimited, but in recognition of the impact of irrigation on the overall demand, we wanted to limit that to one day per week if we go into stage two.

So this is uh the very latest on our compliance and enforcement, and um I'll start with the the top bullet there.

Um, this is something that our meters team was able to pull together very quickly over the last uh couple weeks.

And so they went around to all these irrigation only accounts, and we can get real-time data so we know when they're being used.

And based on that analysis, 43% of them during that week were not compliant, and then the following week, 40 six percent uh were not compliant.

And this is largely residential, and there are some commercial irrigation meters as well, but a lot of this was um residential issues that we were seeing.

But we've also um stepped up our enforcement efforts over the last few weeks because we're using all of our field staff to help our enforcement team to if they see something they're reporting that, and that counts as a violation.

So we've got a lot more eyes on the street, in addition to being able to use uh this meter data.

So that's all I have, and I'll take any questions.

Council Brown?

Yeah, definitely thank you for the information.

My question is around um exemption lists.

Um I know, for instance, I called in a site that I saw watering and we f and I found out that they were on well, and so because they were on well, they were able to continue to water their fields because they're not on the Raleigh system.

Do we have, I'm sure you all have a list of known sites that are on wells.

Is there a list that we can publish so at least the public also knows these sites are exempted because they're on well?

Um that's a great question.

So this is a little bit of a convoluted way to do it, but if you go to IMAPS, which is a uh Wake County and Raleigh application, you can look on that and there's a layer for wells.

So if you go into IMAPs, look up the IDRS of the um like the one I think you're talking about, it'll show up uh you can hit the layer for wells and it'll pop up and populate with those wells.

So you'll be able to shoot see those.

It's not a hundred percent accurate, but it's usually pretty close.

So that's a good way to um let people know.

We could um add that to the website web page to provide uh a link for somebody to click on.

Yeah, if we can at least provide a link and directions um, to the average person that's at home not watching us right now, they're not gonna know that.

So whatever information we can provide proactively, I think it'd be helpful.

And we usually just to be clear, we usually go confirm that ourselves.

I mean, just a big sure.

Thank you.

Yeah, I'm just curious, Adam.

Looking at that graph about the irrigation consumption gallons and how different, you know, double the amount of demand, you know, from one year to the next.

Is that simply because we're in a drought and people are watering that much more, or why is that practice was so different from 25 to 26?

So, yes, I I think it's um unfortunately when you enact restrictions that might create a scarcity type psychology.

So there's a little bit of reaction there, but also it's just been very hot and dry.

And when you have that, our our highest days that we saw were um 76.5 million gallons on an irrigation day.

Um so that's um well above our average.

And by by contrast, um on June 27th, this is a Saturday, we had a heavy rainstorm in this area.

On Sunday, um, which is the re result of that is almost nobody irrigates the next day.

So Sunday, the demand on June 28th with 58 million gallons.

That is the average demand in March, which also there's no irrigation.

So you've that's an extreme contrast, but you've got a day in in June, late June that was 58 million gallons with no irrigation, and then earlier in June where people were uh were irrigating very heavily on those irrigation days, it was 76.5 million gallons.

So that gives you that's almost 18 million gallons difference, um, and so that's a it's a big impact on our overall demand.

And if someone does see, you know, someone doing something they shouldn't, what do they do?

How do we make a call?

You can call um the call center.

We've we've said Raleigh water.

Yes, ma'am.

And or water dot conservation, Raleigh NC.gov.

We get a lot of it um for that email address as well.

And we have that on the web page, you can report it that way.

Okay.

Well, I'm prepared to make a motion to authorize um the request.

Council Ford.

Um when you're talking about athletic fields, are you meaning like golf courses?

I mean, what what are you describing there?

Uh softball fields, soccer fields, um, uh as someone told me, people that we're if you fall down on it, and hopefully people aren't falling down on golf courses, so golf courses are not included.

And the golf courses in our area are uh usually irrigation wells, they use um ponds on site, so those aren't or they use reuse water.

Um so those aren't typically um a problem for us, but that is not considered an athletic field.

Okay.

Thank you.

Anybody else down here?

Um counselor padding.

Hi, Ed.

Um, what is the the target amount?

Like if we've if you felt like everyone is doing what they're supposed to do, complying, what is a number of m millions of gallons per day that we would be hoping to see?

So I think in a perfect situation, 58 million gallons because we saw that just you know a week ago.

Um now there's no irrigation on that day, but uh non-irrigation days would be 58, 60 million gallons.

The the plan is developed around 60 million gallons.

That's sort of what we based it on.

Um so and in one of the issues we've seen, like on a Monday, we saw one that was 72 million gallons.

So clearly people were irrigating on on that Monday.

Um so on on a non-irrigation day, we would like to see it close to 60 or a little bit below.

Got it.

Okay.

And then um, you know, I get a lot of community feedback about this and you know, a lot of desire from residents to it it's hard to ask people to make individual change for collective benefit.

And um, so one question I get is like how do you know that it's the irrigation?

It sounds like there's some irrigation only accounts.

If I'm like a red, I don't have a sprinkler system at my house, so forgive me for not knowing this, but if I did have an underground sprinkler system, I would have two water meters and they would be monitored separately.

Is that so basically you there's there's two options here.

Um there's um one you have a separate irrigation meter, so that you have a meter that goes to your house, that's your domestic line that's you know goes right into your house, but it also feeds your spigots outside.

And then there's a separate split and there's a separate meter, and and the reason why you you have that separate irrigation meter so you don't play pay sewer charges on it.

Now there's some that don't have a separate irrigation meter, so they are running either the irrigation system off, well, excuse me, they're we call them hose draggers.

They're they're hooking it onto their hose and they're putting it in a sprinkler and they're moving it around their yard.

That will just come off your domestic line.

Um, and so those I should also mention when I when I talked about the irrigation account um data and the compliance, that does not include the domestic lines.

So there's you know the hose draggers that are still out there probably irrigating at times that we're not capturing that very well.

Um so there's there's separate meters, so you could turn one off and it won't impact the domestic line.

Okay, got it.

And then um, I have a handful.

I'll just ask one more and then I'll pass and come back.

But um, so then this a lot of this is kind of reliant on neighbors reporting other neighbors.

And I'm wondering if given that there are there are some ways to monitor these irrigation only accounts, if we didn't like considering almost like an economic pinch instead, like can we during drought conditions at a predictable rate, like have a really steep ramp for chart like charges?

Like if you're like your irrigation only account on Monday is is gonna be a bajillion dollars per gallon, and then on your irrigation day it's a normal price.

Um that that's I'll say uh one of our neighboring systems does have the ability to do something called a drought surcharge.

Now they do that to make up lost revenue.

So they're assuming um they'll lose a lot of revenue because everybody will be compliant.

Um that certainly has not been our problem.

And um and we don't we didn't include that in this proposed code change.

Um, you know, I might turn it over to Witt here, but I I'm not we're not sure that um additional financial uh charges would make a difference if for some folks that they've made the decision they want to irrigate, and so I we're not sure that that would really be a deterrent to uh to everyone.

Now some it probably would, but um, you know, we can think about that.

Sure.

Yeah, I mean, I would think like maybe a resident making a calculus that I've just laid down a thousand dollars worth of sod and a two hundred dollar penalty is worth worth the the cost.

So I think something like a something that's just objective can be monitored by y'all and not reliant on people reporting on their neighbors could be um worth worth exploring.

I have more about it.

Jones.

Thank you so much for all of this.

I um as I talk to the community and we reference the 45% because that's the trigger for stage two, and so I'm trying to be very clear that's what it is.

In what you're asking for the code shift, is there a specific target that we all are clear if we're gonna move it from 45 percent to 55 percent that the community can understand what that is, um because I think as we go into break leaving, you know, changing or giving the authority to make that decision, I think there's still gonna be some questions as okay, but when is that gonna happen?

Okay, so what I the way I would kind of frame this is that what we're looking for today is flexibility so that the 45% will still stay there.

And if we start to see a downward trend in overall demand, then we can leave that at 45%.

I think the problem is that 45% was based on a downward reduction of demand, which we have not seen.

And so whenever it's continuing to go up, uh the month of June, it's gone up, you know, roughly seven million gallons a day compared to 2025.

Um again, that's the wrong direction we want to see it.

So if we uh reduced it by let's say four percent in June, just by way of example, then I think we'd be much more comfortable.

But we we want to get out ahead of this because it is again that trend is going in an upward direction, and so if that continues, what we're asking is to have the city manager ability to go into stage two to reduce that demand.

So if the trigger wouldn't be a specific 55 percent, and you're saying four percent reduction would prevent us from going quicker.

I just want to be able to communicate this best and is as easy as possible to residents.

Good afternoon.

Just wanted to make one clarifying point.

So the the water shortage response plan that we have assumed we were gonna have reduction goals.

And so in that plan, there's a statement that we we're assuming that we're gonna get 50 million gallons a day from Falls Lake and 10 million gallons a day from Lake Benson Lake Wheeler system.

And the problem, and that's and then the triggers are are in that process.

The problem is we we're not seeing those reductions, and so that's why we feel compelled to ask for a way to change this, because we're not we're not hitting the 60.

We're not you know, so that that's why we're we're looking at if we don't see a downward trend, we feel like we need to move to stage two.

Does that make does that make sense?

Because that that larger plan was based, those triggers were based on you hitting those reduction goals, and and we're not we're not doing that.

So those numbers are not in sync currently.

Is that does that make sense?

Uh it does make sense.

I hear what you're saying.

I'm trying to put myself in my resident's shoes who are coming when it when we first went in at 85 percent, and they were like 45 percent for stage two, that seems really low, and we were being confident saying, no, we've done the research, we've done this, and then that is the trigger to, but I did not at that point because we didn't have that conversation.

Say those are measured on reductions.

And so now coming back, I I'm I fear that the community is gonna come back and be like, Well, see, now you want to change it.

Now help me understand this.

So I'm just trying to make sure that I have all of the armor to be able to defend and understand that yes, that was the triggers, but because we haven't reduced, which was the whole goal when we started in winter straight stage one reductions, now we have to make different decisions.

So I just want to make sure I'm communicating what you want me to communicate properly.

That is correct.

And what it said earlier was this is an unprecedented drought.

We we haven't seen this pattern through the winter before.

And so that those many, many years of data are looking at, you know, statistical predictions based on what happened in the past.

So that's another.

Right, and the benefit to not just changing that restriction, changing it to fifty let's just for funsies, say 55%, um, so that there is a clear goal that the community knows all right, instead of making that determination at this moment, what you're asking for is giving some allegiance saying, hey, this is your last warning, it's your last warning.

We we really need you to reduce so that we don't have to, and we can remain at that 45 percent, but if we don't hit those targets, then we will have to jump higher.

So that's how I can communicate, and that sounds good for you.

Yes, it does.

And and since they we are just before going on the break, we felt an urgency to get approval from council to be able to do that.

Got it.

Thank you.

Counselor Silver.

I have a statement, not a comment.

Um I wasn't here in 2019, I was here in 2008.

And I remember at that time, if I remember correctly, Raleigh was down to 60 days of water supply.

I'm not sure the public understands a sense of urgency, and so I am more than willing to give the city manager uh the ability to designate a stage two.

Um, the fact that we're having some major rainstorms where the public may say, Oh, it's raining, we're good.

Uh we are an exceptional drought, as you stated.

I will certainly support anything earlier because back then in 2008, we're looking at how car washes may have to close, how golf courses would have to stop providing water.

There were actually suggestions about how much water per day each household should use to conserve.

It was a crisis period, and I want to make sure sooner rather than later that we're now in a sense of urgency because behavior has not changed, and our irrigation is showing that in your numbers.

So I'm very comfortable supporting this.

Uh I'm not as concerned about the trigger because everything is flexible.

Uh there are different metrics that are making you make this determination.

So for me, I want to send a message that we are in an exceptional drought.

And water is a very precious supply, and I don't want to get into a situation what happened in 2008, where we started talking about interbasin transfers.

It was a crisis, and there are many images out there 2008 when I can't even believe there was 60 days of water in uh in Falls Lake.

So I'll support this.

Uh, get us a statement, but I just was not here for 2019, but I wasn't here in 2008, and that was a very scary period when to have a brown lawn was considered cool.

Thank you, Counselor Silver.

And I would add something for um Counselor Jones.

In the water source response plan, we do have uh reduction goals listed by month in stage one.

So that would be something we can point people to to say we if we can do that, that will get us in the right direction.

Awesome, thank you.

Okay, just one more round for me.

Sorry, Ed.

Um, a lot of the conversations I've had with residents, it you know, we're asking people to make individual change to to sacrifice something they're likely very proud of, their lawn.

I mean, I have different opinions about lawns but um doesn't matter.

Um, but what I hear in response is what about the data centers?

What about the bottlers, and what about the golf courses?

You've spoken a little bit about the golf courses to date, but can you speak on like the level of usage, the presence of those things, those other water users in our community and whether changes to those would would be helpful?

Sure.

Well, we have very, very few data centers in our service area.

None of them are the large hyperscale uh generative AI centers that we spoke about earlier in June.

So the demand for those are relatively small, like combined roughly 25,000 gallons a day.

So they they generally do not use much water.

You know, we're talking about 67 million gallons a day on average, so they're very small for the data centers, and and the bottler that that is in our service area again is um in comparison a very small, you know, less than a half a percent of our overall demand.

And um and the bottling thing too is we also get a lot of bottles coming into our service area from other areas.

So it's it's not really uh it's kind of a uh not zero sum there where it's you know we're getting a lot of water coming in from other places, um so they're not exporting a lot of water from our service area.

Thank you.

All right, I'm prepared to support this.

A couple of pieces of feedback I would have.

One, I do think that um making an objective sort of like drought penalty fee rate model would be um helpful.

It sounds like you have ability to monitor that and make up objective.

So I do think that's worth exploration.

Um, and then the other thing I would just say is I uh I know the on the site it's asked people to water half an inch, I think.

I'm not I'm not totally certain that a regular resident knows how what that equates to in terms of time, like how long they should put their hose in, sprinkler out or run their sprinkler system.

It could be useful to give that like a relative time.

Just so people know it's 20 minutes or that's whatever.

We used to use a tuna can put it out there and just kind of capture the water and measure it that way.

Let's distribute tuna cans to everybody.

Okay, I have a motion.

Yeah, um, I am going to motion to authorize the revisions to the Raleigh City Code and the water shortage response plan.

Second.

All in favor of that motion.

Aye.

Aye.

All opposed.

That is unanimous.

Thank you so much for all of your work.

Awesome.

And my second item is um just uh update to the community.

Many of us had the opportunity to enjoy several activities in a positive way on Saturday in celebration of the 4th of July and this country's independence.

However, on Saturday night, um, activities turned and shifted in a way that was not indicative of who we are as the city of Raleigh and who we aspire to be as the capital city.

So have been in communications with several of our staff members over the last several days to kind of speak to our approach, what our next steps are and how we are planning to deal with these team takeovers as they are labeled.

So I have Chief Rico Boyce, Ty Shamosley from community engagement, and Stephen Bittley from Parts and Recreation and Cultural Resources here to give you the second item.

Good afternoon, Mayor, Council Rico Boyce, Chief of Police.

Uh it's important when we have incidents in our city that affect public safety that I come before elected official city leadership, as well as our community to explain exactly what happened to give you a perspective of everything that went into the events on Saturday.

Uh I'm thankful for our partners with community development um engagement, excuse me, and parks and rec, as well as a lot of business owners and bar owners from the Glenwitch South area that I've had previous meetings with that are here to support some of the recommendations or one of the recommendations that I hope we can uh discuss here later today.

So on Saturday, I would tell you that uh we had a lot going on in the city.

I'm gonna go over that in our weekend events.

Uh my partners here are gonna talk about current uh city youth engagement.

I'll come back up, talk about potential options and next steps.

So this is a team approach uh presentation here.

So weekend events, it started off with a team takeover.

We got information that there was a team takeover planned for downtown.

And let me be very clear.

This was dedicated to the area around Moore Square.

Our patrol officers and hospitality district area officers handled this event.

It was a non-event.

Seventy-five individuals showed up at Moore Square just through our presence alone, that crowd quickly dispersed.

There was zero issues with that.

So a little heads up on a takeover, but it was handled very quickly.

The events of Saturday went on with no issues at that point.

There were four, and I'll talk here later about the four operational plans that we had in place for the events on Saturday.

In these team takeovers, this is nothing new.

This has happened throughout the country.

This is somewhat new to Raleigh that we had something like what we had on Saturday.

This is not something that's constant.

This is not something that we always see, but this did happen on Saturday, and it was similar to what we've seen in other major cities throughout this country.

One of the common denominators that happened in Raleigh that we're seeing throughout the country is that young folks having access to weapons to guns.

That was prevalent on Saturday, and I'll get into that later in my presentation.

Also, I want to highlight here laws combined to reduce accountability.

Where I'm going with that, and what that is up there for is in 2019, North Carolina raised the age from a juvenile ages 16 and 17 to 18.

So now those 16 and 17-year-olds before 2019, they were classified as an adult.

Since that has happened, we have seen a pattern of very disturbing behavior with that age group with this new with the raise to age law that was enacted in 2019.

So what did we prepare for?

We prepared for large crowds to come into our city on Saturday, which was a holiday.

The weather was extremely hot.

We knew that we were going to get large crowds, and we were prepared for that.

I want to thank our officers in the special operations division and field operation divisions for having a plan for everything that happened on Saturday.

We were not caught off guard.

We were prepared for what was to come.

Zero arrest, zero criminal activity, and only medical heat-related incidents.

And once again, Raleigh Fire and Wake County EMS handled those very quickly.

We had a incident commander, we had additional resources that deployed to that area.

That event for pretty much most of the night was uneventful until it came late night and at the conclusion of the fireworks.

At the end of that event, we had multiple juveniles that were engaging in fights, multiple fights.

EMS, the officers on scene quickly rendered aid and got them to a local hospital and are very thankful that they're recovering right now.

At the same time, while we're now dealing with a shooting, our officers encountered a juvenile under the age of 18 that was in possession of a firearm.

Once again, I said earlier, these are the trends that we're seeing, these juveniles having access to guns.

Well, we did detain a juvenile at the Briar Creek incident with a gun.

Now, our investigation believes or led us to believe right now that that juvenile was not involved in the shooting, but they did have uh they did were in possession of a firearm.

We quickly got that situation at Briar Creek under control.

I want to commend the officers for doing that.

I want to commend our community for working with us in helping getting that situation under control so quickly.

After that incident, many of our officers responded to Glenwood South, and that was our fourth operational plan that we had for the night.

Now, Glenwood South, we knew it's Saturday, it's a holiday.

We're gonna have large crowds.

When those officers left Briar Creek and they responded to Glenwood South, a lot of officers said this crowd was at Briar Creek, and now they are here at Glenwood South.

So what we started to see at Glenwood very, very early in the evening, we started to see large crowds of juveniles who they couldn't even get in the establishments that were open.

And I'll talk about that a little bit later too.

But these are kids, in my observation, I was there.

They were under the age of 18.

They had nowhere to go.

They got dropped off, dropped off some kind of way, which complicated clearing the area later in the night.

But we had a large, I estimate, we reported 5,000, we were probably say closer to about 8,000 of juveniles who were on Glenwood South.

And a lot of these bar owners and managers can attest to that.

So Glenwood South, the crowds are growing.

We are shifting our resources.

That's one thing that we do well here at the Raleigh Police Department.

Just two weeks ago, we dealt, we dealt with a crowd of about 180,000 people in this city, and we had no problems.

We know how to manage crowds.

But when you have juveniles who have no way to leave that area, who are not being respectful for law to law enforcement, who have no other business down in the area where they can't even get into these establishments, you're gonna have problems.

So from about 10 o'clock to about 1 30, all is good.

Just after 1 30, we have our first shooting in the 600 block of Glenwood, where two juveniles are shot.

Officers rendered aid, secured the scene, and tried to get that part of Glenwood South under control.

It was a challenge.

Unruly, undisciplined, unsupervised juveniles is what we were dealing with after the first shooting.

30 minutes after that first shooting, we had a second shooting at 700 block of Tucker Street.

We had a young man that was shot multiple times.

When we arrived to that scene and rendered aid, the victim had a gun concealed on his person.

This is a young man just over the age of 18, but a very young adult with a firearm concealed on him.

Officers quickly responded to that scene, and now we have two scenes within a block of each other.

So it was chaotic.

But I commend the commanders that were on the scene that quickly established command and got that situation under control.

At that time, I was knee deep in the middle of it.

As a chief of police, I had to see this for myself.

I responded to 500 Glenwood, and within minutes, I observed multiple juveniles in front of the chief of police fighting.

One particular individual was very aggressive and engaged with that young man.

He quickly realized it was the police.

He took off running.

I caught him, and guess what he had on him?

He had a gun.

He looked up at me and said, Officer, don't shoot me.

It's disturbing these young adults and these juveniles, the behavior that we saw on Saturday.

After we got that young man in custody, and we started to make more progress in controlling the crowd on Glenwood Avenue, there was a third shooting that went out at 14 Glenwood Avenue where an individual was shot.

That individual was a juvenile as well.

And the person that we believe that shot him is a juvenile as well.

Officers were able to quickly take that juvenile into custody and retrieve that firearm.

So I'm just trying to paint a picture to what we had going on and commend the officers to quickly getting these scenes under control.

We were prepared for the crowd size.

What we're not prepared for was the level the amount of firearms that we were recovering off individuals on Saturday night.

Oh, going backwards, my bat.

Our response, and what I want to highlight here is our overall goal was to prioritize the safety of those juveniles, the community as a whole, the bar owners, their employees, and just our visitors that were in the city that night, and most importantly, the officers of the Raleigh Police Department.

Priority was the safety.

As a result of our actions, we arrested 29 individuals.

We recovered 11 firearms off Glenwood Avenue on Saturday night alone.

Four petitions were submitted.

I will say one of those four has now been upgraded to a secure custody order because, like I mentioned, 14 Glenwood was committed by a juvenile.

We're looking to take that juvenile into custody as soon as possible.

Our investigations are ongoing.

We do project or predict that there are going to be additional charges.

But the actions of what we saw Saturday was something I never seen in my 26 years here at the Raleigh Police Department.

So a lot of the communities asking, What are you going to do, Chief?

Well, I've been very, very intentional, and everybody up here know it in this community know it.

I have created those safe spaces for these juveniles to have other options than committing this criminal activity.

There's no excuse for juveniles as well as their parents saying, I don't have anything for our kids to do.

Here in the city of Raleigh, we have very great resources for kids and parents to take advantage of.

One I want to highlight before I turn it over to my partners is Hoopnight.

It's an easy way to just connect and have those conversations and create those safe spaces.

So I'm going to pivot and let our partners come up here and talk more about the youth engagement, but that is what we were facing with uh facing on Saturday with those four operational plans, those events that we were prepared for.

Two of those uh events, no issue.

Briar Creek and Glenwood South, a different story.

So Stephen Bidley.

Thank you, Chief.

Um Stephen Batley, Director of Raleigh Parks.

Good afternoon, Mayor and Council.

Um I'm gonna highlight a few things and then turn it over to my partner, Taisha Mosley, but to set the context, you'll you'll see a lot of bullets about what we do.

And the reason is there's no one way to engage teens.

Teens are one of the hardest populations in my profession to engage at a certain age.

So our approach is interdisciplinary.

It's not just the parks departments, not just engagement.

We pull in our partners and RPD.

You'll hear me talk about workforce development where we have fleet and sanitation, multiple departments, and how we're trying to engage youth across the city.

Um Teen Connect is one that I'll I'll build upon later, but it is a membership for our teens, which is free.

You get free swimming, come to our community centers, free field trips, free programs, and it's been highly successful.

Uh, we have park programming for the arts, we have athletics, we have history, we have culture.

So our focus is on not one pathway.

You know, we heard about the pathways to public service.

That is, we want to provide opportunities so um young adults or teens can find their why, find something that allows them to thrive, not just survive, and something that they can be passionate about.

We've also partnered with the chief on something to say, which recently was hosted up at the Dix Park Chapel, which was a teen focused forum, which I believe you'll hear from Mrs.

Mosley about things that we might do again like that in the future.

Good afternoon again.

Taisha Mosley with the community engagement department.

As my partner stated, there is no one way to do engagement.

There are multiple ways, multiple demographics that we try to reach, and so as you've heard from them, we do try to take a multifaceted approach to that.

Within the Department of Community Engagement, we are currently having conversations with Raleigh Parks about ways to expand the Raleigh Youth Council.

What we want to do there is better reflect the full spectrum of youth voices throughout the city.

Most of you here at the day is are familiar with the Raleigh Summer Youth Employment Program, which we've had for a very long time.

But there are components of that program that the public may not be aware of.

So what Raleigh Summer Youth does is employ teenagers from 15 to 18 over eight weeks.

We typically have about 200 students every summer, and they also explore career pathways.

But within that, we recently rolled out what we call the job readiness edition.

And so that's a free training open to anybody who's interested in applying for this program or any student or teenager who just wants to get skills around preparing for job interviews and application awareness.

So that's free.

The last time we did it was in February, and we had over 85 to 90 teenagers there.

We also held our inaugural mental health summit, which was a free community summit for teens and individuals that support teens, and we had over 90 participants within that event.

Partnership Raleigh, those students were here today.

No, that's typically older, from about the college junior seniors and grad students, but that's also a program that we have.

Our digital connectors includes connectors and ambassadors who enhance technology and they bridge the digital divide.

That interest form is open right now.

So if anyone was interested in signing up their child or student for the Digital Connectors program, that's available on the city's website at Digital Impact at RaleighNC.gov.

That last bullet we're really excited about.

So we recently submitted a grant through the Bloomberg Institute for the Love Your Block grant.

And if all goes well, what we hope to achieve there are a youth center initiative where teenagers and young adults will be positioned as leaders.

We'll have hopefully have many grants, and we'll work with the youth to identify priorities and lead projects that develop a term that you've probably heard a lot called third spaces.

So that's somewhere outside of school work and home for young people to gather.

So we're we should hear back about that grant next month.

And with it, we plan to target young people in 27610 and 27604.

With that, I'll turn it back over to Stephen.

Thank you, Taisha.

Last slide to talk about our efforts for programming.

We do have after-school programming to engage teens, and that's through this Teen Connect and Teen Zone program.

So besides our St.

Monica Teen Center, we have multiple locations like Roberts Park Method, Peach Road, Green Green Road Park, these centers provide space, programming and opportunities that are free for teenagers across Raleigh to engage in.

You know about the Teen Monica's Teen Center, sorry, St.

Monica's Teen Center, but you might not know about a co-op that we have started.

So if you are a nonprofit, and if you do not have your bricks and mortar space, um, as long as you are a registered nonprofit and you have a certificate of insurance, we will provide space for you to put on programs that historically we don't.

We're piloting that and looking at is that something we can replicate across the city at other locations and just not at the teen center.

We have uh team programming or teen camps during the summer.

So not so much arts and crafts, but it would be focused on experiences and leadership opportunities that teens uh might want to acquire through a camp program.

Uh and workforce development, and I'll give you three examples of that.

One would be just in Raleigh Parks alone.

We are one of the largest employers of teens in Raleigh, if not Central North Carolina, between hundreds of lifeguards, uh camps, um, maintenance, front desk workers.

But the example I'll use is you can be uh a camper in or sorry, a counselor in training one season.

The next season you can come back, you can be a counselor, the next season you can come back and run a camp.

And last week I had the fortune enough to meet over a dozen of them that have been with us for almost six years and are now in a pathway to get a full-time job in Raleigh Park.

So that makes me feel good.

That's one of our own workforce development programs.

The other is a partnership forged um by our social accountability manager, Andrea White, who you've met before.

She has partnered with Central Wake High School.

Um, it's an alternative high school.

We now have brought students in the last couple summers.

First, it was this to show them jobs in parks and recreation.

This past summer we showed them fleet services, solid waste services, rally uh transportation, so we have um and our other folks in stormwater.

So, opportunity to engage teens in a different way to show them different um uh jobs that they might want to consider right out of high school.

And then the final one is the Raleigh Youth Conservation Corps, which is really focused on trade skills and access to the outdoors.

We bring in speakers from NC State, we bring in trades workers so that those youth conservation corps workers can learn about job skills that they can use later on.

And then, of course, we have the thousands of opportunities through athletics, um, nature, open play gym, and then if you do you are not aware, we have a mobile gaming unit.

So there are some uh teens that are not interested in athletics, they are interested in STEM-related activities, and this trailer has the capability of Wi-Fi.

So gamers can not only uh play amongst themselves, but they can compete against others from across the country.

So we're very proud of that.

And of course, we have things like open gym.

So we want to reiterate that we're not taking just one approach, it's multi-prong approach based off of the interest and the passion of teams.

Hopefully, like I said, we can get them in so that not only they survive, but they thrive as young adults.

And I'm now gonna turn it back over to the chief.

Thank you, Director Bentley and Director Mosley for that.

So as you heard, we have many options for you to take advantage of.

But we also understand that there's a segment of population out there, youth that are not, we're not connecting with them.

The criminal behavior needs to be addressed.

So what I'm before you today to really talk about is options for improvement, a curfew for those 17 and younger.

And if I could take a moment just to the bar owners and the managers on Glenwood South that I met with, if you're here, if you could just stand up for me just to be recognized briefly.

Whatever, I just want to thank you all, and they can attest that we talked about this back in March.

We and I said to you guys, when the day comes that I gotta stand before the podium, I'm gonna need you guys to stand with me to amplify what we're seeing just along Glenwood South, but also throughout our city here in the past couple of months.

So I want to thank you for being here and thank you for your support and your partnership.

Thank you.

So we're talking curfew for the city of Raleigh.

This is new, but I would tell you here, Raleigh's a major city.

We have over 500,000 full-time residents.

We all know that, but we also have the activity that comes with that.

We need to start looking at what a curfew looks like here in the Capitol City, and that's just one of the requests that I'm making today to you all.

All the regulations along with a curfew, when I've seen from other jurisdictions and talking to fellow chiefs throughout the country, is also a backpack restriction.

And we can talk more about that.

I know that's probably new, but we have encountered our hospitality unit have encountered multiple groups of juveniles that are carrying backpacks.

When we have a legal right to interact with them and get access to that backpack, we find that there's typically a gun or guns in those backpacks.

So there is there are some jurisdictions out there that have a backpack restriction that is attached to the curfew, and we can talk more about that later.

Especially, and then next is programming specifically to youth, like areas within the city that a curfew would apply to.

And I just like say we need to come to the table and see what that looks like with this youth activity, these team takeovers, and some of the uh activity we've seen with groups that are gathering all over this city.

So I did some benchmarking already.

My team and planning and research, as well as the commanders that are joining me here, other cities that have curfew.

Greensboro, you can see their 11p to 6A in their downtown business district.

Greenville, North Carolina, 11p to 6A in certain areas.

Winston Salem just talked to that chief last night.

Uh they're about two weeks in to their curfew, but it's pretty much the same hours, 10 to 6 in public places.

Uh Charlotte, obviously the largest city here in the state, uh, their curfew 13 to 15 age range, and uh, you know, you can't be out after 11 p.m.

And for 13 and under is 10 p.m.

So we have had some conversations with Charlotte as well.

Uh and they had some issues as well on July 4th.

They also made some arrests.

They also had to detain a 12-year-old uh in their uptown area on July 4th.

So also benchmark with cities outside of the state of North Carolina.

Nashville, Tennessee is a great city to compare us to because of just the vibrant nightlife.

They always have something going on pretty much in Nashville, they too have a curfew.

As you can see, it's year-round, starting at 11 p.m., the days of the week, Sunday through Thursday.

In a nutshell, Madam Mayor and Council, there's enough data out there to to benchmark and see where we land as a city when it comes to a curfew.

Also continue to do my homework and understanding that uh the research showed that curfews alone is not changing the behavior.

We have to partner with other options.

My partners, Director Bentley and Director Mosley, they laid out those options.

We have those options that we can also incorporate, you know, creating safe spaces.

I've seen jurisdictions that say on Friday, Saturday, and Sunday, the recreation centers will be open open.

So things like that that we should consider when we're talking about a curfew.

In this conversation about curfew, and I share this often when I say safety is a shared responsibility.

The police, RPD, we're gonna do our part.

That's what we get paid to do, protect and serve.

The schools, faith organizations, nonprofits, but most important are the parents.

Where jurisdictions that have curfew seen the most success is when parents are just parents.

They set their own curfew.

If your child is not home at 9, 10, 11 o'clock, 12 o'clock, and God forbid, we had our first shooting at 134 a.m.

There were still kids out on Glenwood South.

Parents need to come to the table.

They have a voice.

I'm sure they're facing some challenges as well, but we need their help.

We need the parents and we need the youth to help us with this curfew.

And obviously, options to confine to Glenwood South.

I mentioned earlier, I personally saw kids who are under the age of 18 that could not get into any of the establishments on Saturday.

Why are they there?

What other what can they do?

I know we gotta be very, very careful about making sure we're not infringing on anyone's rights.

But what can a person under 18 do on Glenwood after 10 o'clock?

Okay?

So that's just something to consider.

You know, it's important that we keep our youth, keep them safe.

That's the priority.

They are our future leaders.

They're the ones that you know are gonna grow up to be doctors, lawyers, or just be professions, professors at universities, or do something productive with their life.

We want to make sure that we help with that.

Um we want to look at options for, like I just said, if we need to tweak our hoop nights and increase it to three nights a week, we need to look at those options.

We also need to look at partnerships.

This is a community problem.

This is not a police problem.

This is not uh just one section of the city problem.

This is all 520,000 full-time residents and everybody that visit and other business stakeholders that have a vested interest in overall public safety.

We need to have partnerships when it comes to making sure we keep our city safe.

And also the enhanced web page where we just put resources uh on our web page of what is available to help parents and guardians connect their youth to positive uh activities to keep them safe.

Next steps.

Uh what we're gonna do in the Raleigh Police Department is continue to gather that intelligence.

I'm talking to fellow chiefs throughout the country.

One thing that they suggest is that chief, when you know that you have a teen takeover or a large gathering, that you go out and you get on the radio, you get on social media, you get on every media platform that you can, and you let parents and adults know that if your kids show up at these events, there is a potential that they could be held criminally liable for their actions.

I think that is something different.

I think that is easy for us to do here within RPD.

Um so we're gonna explore uh that uh going forward.

We need to communicate with the businesses.

I understand that sometimes they feel left out, like they don't know what's going on.

They see a bunch of blue and whites patrol vehicles just show up on Glenwood Avenue and be like, nobody told me anything about what was going to happen.

We're gonna continue to take a proactive approach inside RPD and make sure that we are having those conversations with those businesses.

In the situations where we get information about a team takeover, make sure we communicate that with our businesses ahead of time.

Enhance and target weekend staffing.

We do that already, but what I'm what I'm hoping to um accomplish there is when there is a situation uh that we're gonna have large gatherings of teenagers that we can make contact with our partners, whether those are mentors in the community that can reach those juveniles and those youth ahead of time and make sure that we convey our concerns about uh that event, and mobilize additional support resources, making sure that we are visible, that we are accessible if parents, youth need resources, need questions answered, that we are accessible 24 hours a day, seven days a week, because we are here 24 hours a day, seven days a week.

So making sure that we're making that connection between RPD and the community if they need additional support.

Once again, I shared that safety is a shared responsibility.

So moving forward with how can we discourage this app this this type of activity, there's other stakeholders that need to come to the table, and I've started some of these conversations with Department of Public Safety and the Secretary Smythe, Office of Attorney General.

I've had ongoing conversations with Lauren Freeman and the Way County DA's office about what happened on Saturday, uh the current investigations with those cases, as well as what it looks like when it comes to a curfew and how that will be enforced and getting some input from her.

We must engage our business owners, our faith leaders, as well as our nonprofit and our community partners here in Raleigh.

They all must be at the table to help us with crafting what a curfew looks like for us here in Raleigh.

At this time, I'll take questions or I think um I'm gonna kick it off here.

I know I want to hear from everybody at the table, but um, first off, I just want to thank you, Chief, and all of the officers who are here and um who serve the city of Raleigh for everything that you do and the excellent work, and we all have your back and we all support you and your officers.

Thank you.

Uh and I also want to say that what happened the night of the fourth and early morning of the fifth is just totally unacceptable and really can't be tolerated in the city of Raleigh.

And I have heard from a lot of residents who are just angry, and I mean I get it, right?

I mean, and to see the pictures of officers being assaulted, and then by children sometimes, I mean, it's just it's heartbreaking and horrifying.

And I understand the desire for accountability.

Um, and I I do appreciate that y'all have made a rest, right?

You are working the system, but I also know that you can't do it all alone.

Um I have also uh reached out to our district attorney Lauren Freeman.

I also have talked to Wiley Nickel, who will be uh you know, district attorney after November, and others, and I think we all, like you said, have to work together to make sure that we can hold perpetrators of violence accountable and that it isn't you know a revolving door.

And uh so I will also say I think this whole council is absolutely willing to back you on a curfew.

Thank you.

Uh yeah, I uh this is all new to all of us, so we have all been learning and working with our city attorney to understand uh the constraints.

So it's my understanding that um the fastest we can move on a curfew uh in terms of something you know more robust is really August, because our district attorney's office has to draft it because it is uh about rights and et cetera, there have to be public notices and hearings and two readings.

So we are certainly um, and I can make the you know motion at the appropriate time, but to direct our city attorney to work with our uh police and others to draft an ordinance to consider, you know, and I I believe again that you will have the support for that in the interim.

I've also learned that if you have intelligence that there is anything impending like what we just experienced last weekend, that under the Raleigh City Code 1151, that I can as mayor enact emergency measures and pass an ordinance uh working with you and your department, and I am absolutely willing to do that if the need arises in this interim period while we are drafting this ordinance and and working.

And then the final thing um I would say is I appreciated all the you know, Taisha and Steven and others talking about these broader issues around how can we work with our youth, work with our parents, and have more you know root cause and better coordinated strategies.

Um, and I absolutely support that longer term, and I would love if there was uh, you know, in this interim period while council um goes on hiatus for a few weeks, if we could maybe have a report back, some sort of task force that would have a set of recommendations looking at many of the options that you put out here where we could consider those and um work.

And if the final thing I'll say is uh, you know, we live in a great city and we have a lot of incredibly great youth.

What happened did not reflect that, but I also know from from you that these are youth from all over the state and certainly regional.

Um so as much as we can do here in Raleigh, that is obviously not going to I'm not gonna say fix the issue because if when you've got kids coming from as far as the coast, you know, this this goes way beyond uh Raleigh.

Yes, ma'am.

Thank you, Mayor.

Okay, uh Counselor Ford.

Um, Chief, I'm commend you and uh all the other city employees who've been putting in tremendous effort to deal with the situation, and certainly know the hoop nights and all the other things that you do are great.

Um I think I can say something that you cannot say, um, which is I know you identified a lot of partners that need to come to the table, but in a previous life, uh represented juveniles in juvenile court.

And one of the challenges is kids can go into court today under a petition, walk out tomorrow, and engage in the same activity over and over and over again into the mayor's point.

This is across the state.

Um so this is more of a statement, not so much a question for you, but a statement to the other folks who are listening.

Um there's a shortage of resources as relates to the juvenile system.

And one of the challenges is um when you don't necessarily have mechanisms to effectuate um, I don't want to necessarily say punishment, but to make sure things are a little bit more strict for juveniles, you're gonna see a revolving door.

And when you take kids in, before you your officers can get back in the car, that kid may be right back out on the street.

And so one of the the people groups that you didn't list, but I would say to folks listening is that you need to engage your members of the General Assembly and ask for more resources as relates to the juvenile system, because as much as the chief and everybody here, we want to put curfews in place and do all the things on the front end.

The one thing we cannot control is what happens on the back end.

And so when these kids hit the street again, um they're in a position to basically go right back into criminal activity and things that you can't you and your officers can't necessarily stop.

And so for all the folks who are here, the folks who are listening who are engaged in this issue, we need more resources.

I can't tell you the number of times that teachers, school resource officers, and even parents have come to me, district attorneys, judges, and said, you know, my kids having a problem where this child is identified as an at-risk youth, and what they're often told is there's nothing that can be done for that child until they're in the system.

That's a resource issue, and that's not something that those of us sitting in this table can correct.

But folks in the General Assembly who control the purse strings can make some changes, not just in Raleigh, but across the state.

So I know you cannot say that, but I can say that that we need folks to have conversations with members of the General Assembly and other folks who have budgets to fund district attorney positions, judges' positions, but more importantly, provide mental health resources, counseling, and other things that a lot of these kids need but don't have any access to.

And you can't solve that problem, and we can't either.

So just want to say that.

Thank you.

I just want to say thank you for all your efforts.

Um, I'm I guess like everyone at the table, I received a lot of communication over the weekend and leading up to today from folks who are outraged, concerned, conspiracy theories that the council's not giving you what you need, it won't support enforcement efforts, which I think you've heard otherwise today.

I will fully support everything you and your department are doing, and and whatever we can do to help you manage this situation on an ongoing basis.

Um, a couple things.

Um, some of the folks that have reached out to me are offering to help.

So I think there's a lot of folks in the community that maybe have youth programs or activities or mentorship opportunities that would love to be part of the solution.

And so finding a way that we can add those people into the capacity of all the programs you've shown that the city's putting forward.

And then the second piece is there was some mention in your slide deck about perhaps uh curfew just on Glenwood South.

Um I don't like that idea.

I think it needs to for an enforcement purposes needs to be citywide, one.

Um and two, I see all the Glenwood's health uh, you know, bar and restaurant owners and managers here.

Um, I don't want to stigmatize one part of the city because most of the folks that were down there, they're not even old enough to be going to these establishments.

The folks who were there going out to have a good time, celebrate the fourth of July, support small businesses, they weren't contributing to this problem.

And if we put the curfew just on Glenwood South, I think it's gonna cast a negative dispersion on that area, but also folks are just gonna go somewhere else.

I mean, this happened in Briar Creek and Glenwood South.

And if we just put the curfew on Glenwood South and folks that are seeking to do this type of behavior, they'll probably just go to Fayetteville Street or Moore Square or somewhere else.

And so I think it needs to be citywide, and it also needs to make that help, I think will help with the enforcement aspect as well.

So that would be my position on where the curfew would apply.

But um thank you very much for all you're doing, and we we're here to support you as best as we can.

Yeah, thank you.

Just keep me on down.

Hi, Chief.

Uh I'll add to the long list of thank yous.

We're very grateful for you and all your officers and also all of the other agencies that came to service backups, that we could get that under control.

So thank you for all your efforts.

Um I have a couple of thoughts around like other things we would add, or if there's to be a task force, some thoughts that I have, and then I do have a couple questions about um curfew.

Um so one thing I have been thinking about is that um a while back for very thoughtful and well-intentioned reasons, the city has ceased their communications on TikTok.

And um I think we might need to reevaluate that because I think that is how a lot of some of these antisocial behaviors are spreading, and if we could get into the feeds of some people to get these programs that are abundant and you know, into some people's feeds um to at least counterbalance their feeds with some more pro-social behaviors, I I think it is worth some consideration.

Um we've also done gun buyback programs in the past.

I think we should consider doing another one.

Uh I think we should talk about safe storage, like a safe storage public service announcement campaign of some sort.

Um, certainly these weapons were not purchased by these teens.

The 10 12-year-old cannot log into a gun shop and buy it, so they got it some other way, which means it was likely not secured from um from the legal owner.

And so if we can help reduce the amount of unsecured weapons in our city, that would I think that would be good overall.

Um we talked a lot about how we increase teen employment or how we engage with teen employment within the city with the city as an employer, but there may be ways we can further partner beyond the city as employer to get uh teens employed elsewhere.

You know, I certainly resonate with some of the um challenges that Gen Z is facing, AI is taking a lot of the jobs that might otherwise been reserved reserved for young adults, um automation, like there's just there's just a lot of challenges these teens face, and so if we can um help facilitate conversations beyond us as the employer, I think that's very useful.

Um so I would just like to add those to the list of recommendations for consideration.

Um, and then on the topic of curfew, I do um do you support it?

I do want to ask about capacity and enforcement ability, you know, it's a youth curfew at 17, like how are your colleagues in other agencies enforcing this?

How are they telling the difference between the 17-year-old and 18-year-old, etc.?

It it varies, uh, Councilmember Patton.

Uh one chief that I spoke to said that they look at it uh when there's a criminal uh an alleged criminal act that has occurred and they have a legal right or justification to have a conversation with that individual who appears to be a youth.

So that's when they mention or they start entertaining the curfew violation is that they they only look at it when there is a a in a criminal matter that they're investigating.

So yeah, we gotta be very careful, make sure that we don't infringe on anyone's rights.

And the way that chief, the way he put it was that I want to make sure that we have a legal justification to have a conversation with someone who we believe to be in violation of the curfew.

The curfew is secondary to what that criminal act is that they are currently investigating.

I like that approach because if we're legally situated to have that conversation, that covers us and make sure that we're not violating that use uh their rights.

Um I've seen it on other on the other end of the spectrum where it is just, oh, you look like you are this age.

Uh we're we're not we're not gonna have that approach, but some agencies they just they do that.

Um works well for them or maybe not, but that that is on the other extreme.

So I just think it's just very important with bringing folks to the table who have experience with this and who have uh input on what this should look like.

Obviously, the city attorney's office, the uh three attorneys that I'm fortunate to have inside of RPD, they will definitely be part of what that looks like to make sure that we are complying with uh people's fourth amendment, you know, right, you know, that we're not infringing on any of that at all.

Okay, and then you had a slide that said uh confine Glenwood South.

That means confine the curfew to Glenwood South, or was that something else?

Right.

I I let me clarify.

I had that up there for conversation purposes on just Saturday night.

We're talking about Glenwood South, and let's just say those individuals that I saw could not get into that area.

So imagine if we had a curfew for Glenwood South on Saturday, then we could have taken some proactive steps to remove those juveniles that were in violation of just Glenwood South, because that entire street from the 100 block to the 600 block, they couldn't even get in any of them.

So just imagine if we had a curfew for just that overlay on Glenwood South.

So that was just for illustration as well as conversation purposes, but I agree with Councilmember Lambert Melton looking at it from a entire citywide perspective when you enact a curfew.

Counselor Silver.

Chief and all the partners, thank you for very outstanding and a detailed presentation.

I'm very troubled.

I think we all are troubled about what happened.

Uh I do think it's the right thing to offer as many teen opportunities and benefits as possible.

But I think we all agree that there's gonna be a segment of the uh the population of teens that don't want any part of that and want the thrill of doing something different.

And so I will uh support the the curfew.

My question is, because we talked about going beyond Glenwood South.

We have many locations that have private security uh and just wanna understand should this curfew uh come about.

How does it work with private security and what we kind of call public private space uh throughout our city?

I think Briar Creek is one of them.

We can name other locations.

So just want to understand as we consider the curfew, and I do agree it should be citywide, not just Glenwood South, how we communicate with our other law enforcement partners on the private security side.

It goes back to partnerships and collaboration, and that's what we do within RPD.

We understand just even like downtown, we have other security and law enforcement partners with us currently that that communication is ongoing and we have that conversation about what that looks like and who takes the lead in enforcement, and obviously that's gonna be RPD.

We're the lead police agency in the city, and we're gonna continue to be that way.

We're gonna continue to take the lead in enforcing a curfew when it comes about.

My second question is there's a lot when we hear curfew concerned about profiling.

Uh your department has a high level of integrity.

Uh can you communicate to the public at large the concern?

Oh, if this curfew goes in, there may be some profiling based on someone's, you know, how they're carrying themselves, uh, or you know, potentially what their age is.

So you could talk about how RPD would approach that to allay any concerns that this would be used for profiling certain individuals uh in some of the public spaces after curfew.

Once again, uh Councilmember Silver is it's all about communication.

When we have those interactions with youth right now, the first thing or one of the the the first thing we we we attempt to do is contact the adult, the parent, and explain to them exactly why we are dealing with this individual.

That's already built into our DNA and to our protocol here RPD and and has been for quite a while.

That will continue with a curfew.

That would not be a huge change or shift that we have to do.

We always make that effort to contact an adult when we're dealing with a juvenile.

That's that's only as as being a parent as just being the chief as well.

We want to the parents to know, because they they share some responsibility in this, but they need to know when they're their youth have some interaction with law enforcement.

I encourage that as the chief.

Our officers.

Uh they they do that when we interact with youth, and we will continue that um when a curfew is is in place.

Um so it's very important in peace in in making sure that we communicate with the parents.

Thank you.

Thank you for everything uh as has been said.

I just have a few questions.

Of the 29 arrests that you mentioned, yes, were the majority of them under uh 18?

No, so the 29 that are rest that were arrested, they are adults, young adults, because they physically went to jail.

The four juvenile petitions now down to three, because one got upgraded to secure custody, those are the ones that were under the age of 18.

Okay, thank you for that.

So there's there's still people getting arrested that are adults, what young adults, but but still then that this curfew would not necessarily you already have the resources and you're already providing that that coverage by being able to arrest that.

So we you have twofold.

You've got the the adult side, and now we're just asking for help on on the youth on the under 17 side.

Awesome.

I wanted to make that clear.

And then the next question I have is actually for parks.

Um, so I love all the things that you guys are doing, and you have so much that you're offering.

My question is all those programs are they capped?

Or are everybody is every are they all full?

Um, no, they're not.

Uh we would probably cap like a teen extreme camp where we're taking someone on a field trip and that's purely out of numbers, but uh I'm not aware of a long waiting list, if you would, for all these programs.

So maybe uh if if as we are here can prioritize getting more people in there, you are you have the capacity to accept more.

Um it is not something that is being utilized.

I remember when we talked about uh uh specifically uh swimming lifeguards, that's definitely an area where we need more.

We always want to hire 40 more lifeguards.

I'm gonna tell you we need 40 more life.

There we go.

There you go.

So we have plenty of space right now is your point is is the point here that we can accommodate some additional uh assistance in this realm for youth that are interested.

Yeah, and space is.

You know, I listed I believe we have eight locations for that the uh team connect.

Every community center is a safe space.

So if a young adult or a youth says, I just need a place, go to your community center.

We'll find something to work with you on and find your resources you need.

And something I was talking to um a friend on the uh wake board of education and uh question they brought up was the open gym space time.

They were concerned about the t the timing, the times that are open that it doesn't always uh correlate, and I can't specifically say which which I'm sure you're much more educated on that.

Um so uh I just wanted to uplift that as a concern that I did hear from in regards to open gym time.

Yeah, the open gym times are normally in the evening.

Um right now they're off limits during the day because we have 15,000 kids running through them all summer long, uh, but we open them up usually uh an hour or two after school.

Uh but they also compete with basketball and volleyball, like those other things.

But I we're tactical, we our staff know in the in the communities they work within where an open space needs to be.

And then we do not program it because we know that there is a void that teens will come from the neighborhood and and play.

Awesome.

Thank you so much.

And my last question, I it's more of a permitting question.

So uh city manager, I think I'll all uh reference or ask you directly.

Um for events like Briar Creek.

I know that last year at our Briar Creek Festival, we also had not a shooting, but we had uh fight breakout, and it was a big concern.

As we permit these, do we reference these instances in being available being willing to permit them again?

Because if you have two years of let's just use Briar Creek as the example where there's a big outcry, then does this affect their permitting possibly for next year?

Yes, ma'am, great question.

And one of the things that we had on the table that we started the conversations on Sunday evening around is whether or not that is an event that needs to be permitted.

So I don't want Briar Creek all mad at me.

We want everybody to celebrate the fourth, but at the end of the day, we have a commitment and an obligation to keep the city safe.

And not only do we have the detrimental activities from the youth, we had a fire out there as well.

So we wanted to make sure that whatever we do throughout the summer break, we would be in communication with you because that's your district to ensure that we're being, you know, really strategic and and intentional about how what that suggestion looks like for twenty seven.

Right.

And to be clear, I'm not trying at all to prevent Briar Creek from having.

I love the Briar Creek Fireworks.

I was not able to make it this year, so I was not there to experience it.

However, I guess my question is more tailored too as we have the report as a file, are there specific questions that go out so that we can account for if you have a repeated uh offense, then okay, perfect.

When we permit events, we do an after action evaluation.

And based on that, sometimes we repermit, sometimes we do not.

Awesome.

Okay, thank you so much.

Thank you, everyone.

Chief, definitely thank you.

Um, thank you to all the officers that work that night.

Um, those who I know July 4th is always a day you never give officers off historically, and I know somehow some time coming up, so please enjoy that.

But again, thank you for your work.

I do support the curfew um in going forward with it.

But in kind of supporting the curfew, I'm always big on enforcement and how does enforcement work.

Um, so I do know a lot of that enforcement.

We talk about the kids and juveniles, but I'm leaning towards the parents, yes, and making sure parents are held responsible.

Um digging here, pulling up.

Um, I'm not an attorney, never practiced to be one to all the attorneys in the room.

But I did find North Carolina General Statute, Chapter 115 C, Article 26, and in there, this talks about school um kids and their attendance in school.

And if a kid misses so many days in school, how parents are held liable.

If we can leverage this or use this as we're creating the the curfew rules, um I think it gives us grounds to try to help, you know, bring that more enforcement.

Because the last thing I ever want to do is create something, but it has no teeth.

So, you know, we have to make sure, you know, I have a daughter, and if I tell her not to do something, and the first time and she does it, I'll talk to her.

If she does it again, then there are consequences.

Then if she does it again, there are real consec more consequences, and it amps up.

I want to make sure that whatever we put in place, we have a ability to have that conversation to try to correct the act, correct the action, but if it is a repeat offender, because again, we don't need to keep arresting or stopping the same people over and over just to catch and release.

So please look into that when we talk about holding kids accountable but also parents.

Um, a lot of us grew up, it's 10 o'clock.

Where are your children?

Hey, maybe we need to pull that back out as a public announcement and and doing something.

Um the other part I want to talk about when we talk about parts and rec.

Parts and rec does a great job with programs that stop at 9 p.m.

So my question is, and I and I'm in my ask, and I think this is going to be an ask of counsel because is it gonna be a financial you know impact?

What can we do to run programs later?

Back in the day, we even had midnight basketball that put a lot of people off the streets in a supervised environment that were 18 to 21.

Um, because if we had 29 people over 18 that were arrested, if maybe we have something else positive they can do, maybe that's helpful.

Um, so when we're looking at all options, let's look at the hours of our programming and see what we can do to because unfortunately, there may be some parents that work a third shift.

Sure.

And so they're not home to supervise their children.

But if there's a program that they can, hey, you can go here, you'll be safe, it's supervised, they're not on the streets, those are the things that I'm asking while we're out.

Look into that because I feel it's another deterrent, um, in which we can reach these kids and then maybe get them in some of our daytime programs.

Yeah, it's a it's a great point.

I in preparation, I talked to some of my colleagues across the country.

Where it is, it's gonna be working with the chief.

Because if you set a curfew, you're saying you can't be out at a certain time.

And I'm saying, come out at a certain time.

That's an inherent policy conflict.

Right.

But there's workarounds.

Can I pick you up and drop you off?

Is it a transportation issue?

Is it working with trans?

So there's ways, but to respond, yes, we are certainly looking at expanding hours and try to pull people in when they historically have not.

And I know there's also exceptions to curfews because you're going to have young people who are working jobs.

Sure.

And so they need to be able to get from their job to their house.

So if a kid is at one of our programs, I think that's something that could classify as an exception to the curfew because they are being supervised, they are being monitored and watched.

So I'm not the expert.

I don't live in this day in and day out.

Um I do know there are other organizations I'm getting text messages about people interested in getting involved.

So if you can, if you all, as well as the chief, share with us how we refer people to you all that want to be involved, that have a legitimate programs, that I think will be extremely helpful.

But we have to do something.

Um I wish we were not here again, but we have to get it right this time.

All right, I just want to thank you, Chief, for your leadership as always, and to everyone that responded to events this weekend, um, you know, police, fire, EMS, our 911 call center, our leadership of the city, you know, you all do that work, and I'm so so grateful.

Um I do support the teen curfew as well as backpack restrictions or any immediate steps that you see needed here.

Um, but I'm also thinking about root causes, and I'm glad our whole team is.

Um I was a teen once.

My recollection is that risk taking and sometimes reckless behavior is part of being a teenager.

Um, but I know I made some bad decisions.

Luckily, I did not have easy access to guns.

I did not have social media.

Um I think there's a lot of things going on here, and so I just want to mention a few of those.

On the gun front, my understanding is we do have free gun locks available in every district office.

Um so if you want one of those in the community, you can visit one of our police district offices and get those.

And that is so critical to keep your guns locked up at home to make sure that young people do not have access to these and bring them to our streets.

We have to keep those, you know, safe and controlled.

Um I also want to make sure we're investing in gun buyback programs.

I know we've done that in the past.

I want to continue that work.

I'd also ask our colleagues at the state legislature to think about gun control legislation.

How many guns do we really want in our community?

I think we are at, we have gone past that taping point.

Um it comes to social media.

I'll just leave it maybe for you to think about and let us know maybe in the future.

You know, where are these messages coming from?

Who is actually spreading these ideas to come all of a sudden and converge?

The largest party I probably went to in high school was maybe 150 people.

If it had been thousands, it would have also been a problem.

And so I'm just curious, you know, how we can work with you know partners from other cities to understand what is really happening here.

How are these messages spreading, and where are the young people coming from?

So, how many are actually coming from Raleigh, and how many are coming from other places?

That I don't quite, you know, understand.

I don't know if you have data on that.

We we do, and we we we track that just to paint a picture of there.

These folks are coming from outside of Raleigh.

Uh, we we have obviously contact with those that live here, but surprisingly, a large number of folks that we deal with, specifically on Witsouth are not from Raleigh.

And then and we track that data to to prove that that they're coming from outside of uh the city here.

Yeah, and I have to say, I I mean, I I almost want to apologize really to our own youth that are doing wonderful things in our city.

I don't want them to, you know, be punished by this, but what I see, you know, a curfew doing is just letting folks know from all over the place, this is not the place to come.

And we have to get that message out.

I'd say finally, if we can talk to teens themselves, the more we do that, the better, and have those community conversations led by teens like the Raleigh Youth Council, school forums with program mean maybe like that something to say.

I love that idea.

And then um, I just want to thank Marshell.

I know you may be talking to Dr.

Taylor soon with Wake County Public Schools.

Any way that we can just make sure our resources are getting into the schools that we are talking back and forth because teens are pretty unlikely to come here to City Hall.

We have to go to them, and I just appreciate all the proactive work that I know our staff does on that front.

Thank you.

Yes, thank you, ma'am.

Okay.

That concludes uh the conversation.

And uh I know this is the end of the city manager's report.

We're gonna have a 15-minute recess just uh after this uh conversation and then reconvene um at a quarter till uh but before we take that recess, I think you need to give us direction so that the city attorney can prepare the emergency order in the event we get in tell that something is happening this weekend so that we'll be prepared.

All right.

So I'll go ahead and attempt to make a motion and uh madam city attorney.

You can but uh the first is uh uh directing you to craft an ordinance to bring back to the city right on uh related to a curfew.

Um that you could bring back on August eighteenth at our next meeting.

Um if there's anything I need to do around the emergency order in the meantime, you know, obviously that will take place, and then third, um, if we could just request that the chief, you know, the DA, the schools, if if there's some sort of intermediate work on some of these other recommendations that you would bring back a report to the council as well on August eighteenth, so that we could take action on some of these longer term and broader issues uh um with uh a broader community stakeholders.

For clarity, we're talking about under seventeen, eleven p.m.

to six a.m.

citywide, or keep it open-ended for the attorney.

I think we are leaving to the attorney with the exact things, but I think that the my initial understanding would be citywide, 17 and younger.

I don't think we've talked about times yet.

I mean, I think we've got some good benchmarks.

Uh I don't, but I I I defer to the city attorney and the police chief if they if they want to propose a time.

That's that that is what we will work on.

Understanding that is the interest of council.

Yeah.

Okay.

Well, I'm just talking to uh attorney guestner or whatever, he started some of this uh legwork already and crafting some hours.

Uh I'll wait and talk to the city attorney about what we're seeing inside of RPD for those hours.

Okay.

It will be time limited whenever we adopt it, it'll be in place for some designated.

I think that will also be discussed to bring back whatever that time limitation is.

Okay.

Okay.

So we have a motion and a second.

Um, all in favor, aye.

All opposed, nay.

So that is unanimous, and uh we will be on a 15 minute break.

Well, we're not going to be able to do it.

Well, we'll be able to do that.

Well, we're going to be able to do it.

Well, we're going to be able to do it.

All right.

We will reconvene the meeting.

Thank you for letting us pause and turn to Stephen Bentley for the annual work plan for Parks and Rec advisory board.

Thank you, Mayor and Council Steven Bentley with Raleigh Parks.

Um, it's my honor to introduce the work plan for the Parks Recreation and Greenway Advisory Board for the next fiscal year.

Um, I really appreciate the park board's approach.

It's highly collaborative.

They review with me on some recommendations, and my goal is always to make sure it aligns with council priorities, our comprehensive plan, our strategic plan, and ultimately our parks plan.

Um, who led that effort this year is Ian Burnett, and I'm going to introduce Ian to come up and talk a little bit about the work plan and seek your approval.

Um, so I was asked to speak here today by Chris Prayer, our board chair, um, to introduce our our work plan, and as an aside before I get into that.

As someone that's lived in many places, I can semi objectively say that Raleigh has a really excellent uh arcs greenway and recreation system.

And you know, one of the things that we talk about a lot and learn about at our at our parks meetings is not only the activities and the services that parks provides, but the people behind them, and I think we're very lucky to have our parks leadership, our staff, and uh as well as the volunteers and nonprofits that uh support this system.

So, with that getting into how we developed the work plan, um, with so many things that happen in the Raleigh Park system.

It's a bit of uh prioritization and as Steven said, uh working through the park priorities so that both the parks board interest and the community's interest are aligned with what the parks department was already going to do.

Uh so we're not wasting any effort and also really focusing on the things that are moving forward this year.

Um this led to a lot of support both within the parks department and with the parks board.

So with that, I would like to just give you a quick overview of the sections and kind of the philosophy of how we develop this.

As a work in progress, you know, we we've given each focus area uh a theme, and uh this is the uh this is the way that we're gonna go.

Um, and it's rather than be prescriptive, each focus area is sort of a target area that allows the assistant directors and the committee or the board chair to work out what is the best agenda, what is the best thing to discuss at each meeting.

So going to the first one, recreation, health, and wellness.

Um, you know, just some highlights is that we really want to work on water safety and access on wheeled resources.

I know that you have a presentation on e-bikes coming up soon, and that's something that we get a lot of uh comments and questions about as well.

And then athletics and and how we can support more uh athletic leagues, drop-in activities, things like that.

Um parks, which also includes the community centers, the aquatic centers, and the art centers.

We're, of course, going to continue to support the bond projects, both as uh community liaisons and then reviewing the project designs as they go, and then look at the facilities, how they're used, and how they're available to the community, uh both for organized and um ad hoc activities.

Um, and then also we're making it into a year-round home for volunteers because volunteering is huge in this city.

We have you know tens of thousands of volunteers giving hundreds of thousands of hours, and it's it's great to highlight their efforts and their contributions.

Uh greenways, you know.

Of course, greenways is uh vital to this city, and it's becoming part of the transportation network.

So we're looking at increasing connectivity, uh, increasing safety and accessibility, and then also leading innovation, um, treating greenways as sort of a small park on the go.

Uh the fourth is sustainability, wildlife and urban trees.

So, of course, continuing the leaf out effort and the 24,000 trees initiative, um, but then also looking at other natural areas.

We have a the city has an upcoming natural area plan, master plan, and looking at how we can support ecosystems, including many of the the waterways and ponds and lakes that um either are adjacent to or in our park system.

Of course, uh Fred Fletcher, that is great, and we need to continue to support our volunteers.

And then the last bit is organizational excellence.

So that gets to both the park system as well as uh the board itself.

So, you know, we're gonna keep a uh an already excellent parks department on their toes with the policies, their standards, and continuous improvement.

Um we want to really focus on supporting nonprofits this year, especially the ones that uh either work in or help with park initiatives and projects, and then volunteer efforts uh to continue to make it easier for volunteers to do what they want to do with the parks department, and then as a board, um one of our our key roles is really reaching out to the community to make sure that their needs are being met, and we're going through a more intentional way of following up on stakeholders and priority issues that have come up in previous design reviews so that we're not dropping anything along the way because a lot of these projects take years from uh master plan to uh ribbon cutting, and so we need ways to make sure that what happened years ago is still relevant and um people are being reached.

And at that, I would be happy to take any questions.

I don't have a presentation for you, so thank you, Mr.

Burnett.

Any questions?

Just one question I had asked it earlier.

Um, as far as the programming in within our community centers, um we have a lot of programs.

The book comes out every year.

How often do you all get a chance to review or hear status?

Or even get an update of programs and the and the people the impact?

So, yeah, it's a great great question.

Um, we get these uh sort of what we do presentations pretty much every month.

Um, and usually the the board chair and Steven will pick a department, it might be youth activities, it might be specialized in inclusion inclusive services, um, art centers.

So we we don't look at the whole thing at once, but we will get a department.

And one of the areas that we are have been talking about for a few months is looking at like drop in play, and I know that was relevant in the the previous discussion to make sure that there are open spaces uh for when people want to play but don't necessarily want to commit to it every week or every day.

Okay, all right, thank you.

Any other yes, counselor?

Um kind of following along the same lines.

Um I know you get a presentation based on what you just said from the parks department, but um is there an opportunity for the public to come in and say we'd love to see more programming around ballet or dancing or art or other specific things to sort of guide the activities that are provided by the park system because I'm not sure that there's a way for the public to sort of you know to give any feedback about what they want to see.

Is that something that y'all will be able to do or yeah?

So thank you for that.

Um we we have uh public comment at the start of every board meeting, which is the third Thursday of every month at six o'clock here, um, and then the committee meetings, and we really appreciate when the public comes in and shares their ideas.

You know, we have ideas about like can you uh, for example, can you make a roller skating track?

Something like that that that then gets factored in.

We you know, we think about it, we add it to the notes so that when it comes time to for the parks department to do their work, um, we can bring it up like hey, we had community members that cared enough to come here and talk about that.

Okay, I guess I'll look at the city manager when I say this.

I think one of the the challenges is folks here parks, recreation, and they think strictly athletics, and I'm not sure that we're attracting kids who've got interest in arts and crafts or painting or other things because I think at times it's overwhelmingly athletic focused, and so folks don't necessarily recognize, and so I don't know if there's a way to encourage the public to come to your meetings and have these conversations, but it certainly seems that we should have some way to get public input and identify other things in terms of programming that may kind of take a little bit of the overly athletic focus out of what happens in parks, right?

Not that athletics is bad because I'm former athlete, but you know, I can understand that.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thanks for this.

Um you alluded to it a little bit, but obviously our previous conversation um highlighted the need to access our youth at all hours of the day, and so um I think you all have an important role to play in in helping to keep that conversation alive and well and multifaceted.

Um so if you can I I don't think you need to revise your work plan, but I think it's well covered, but just put that in there.

Um I'd appreciate it.

And then the other thing that I would love for y'all to consider in the year ahead, um, you know, I know our parks plan calls for an aspirational goal of a park within 10 minutes walking distance.

And um that's an aspirational goal in a lot of a lot of parts of the city that will be really difficult to to accomplish on public lands alone.

And so I do think there's like this wealth of of like public private space, HOA community lots and and things like that, and um it's not quite clear to me exactly how we partner as like public providers of the same service, but like I think there's just a there's some kind of like partnership to be unlocked that is getting people out and helping us accomplish that goal, and so maybe you all can also noodle on how we can facilitate or force multiply activation of these like private public spaces.

That's great.

Um, one of the priorities that we're tasked with is land acquisition, but it could also be partnerships.

So I think that fits in nicely.

Okay.

Somebody want to make a motion to authorize the work plan.

I move that we uh authorize approve the work plan for parks, recreational, cultural resources.

Second, all in favor of the motion, aye.

Aye.

All opposed, nay.

And thank you.

Yeah, uh Mitchell did.

Okay, in here, that's why.

Okay.

Oh, oh, and then Megan seconded, yeah.

Thank you.

Thank you.

All right, next we have matters scheduled for public hearing.

Uh, the first item we have Matthew Burns uh's petition for annexation AX4225.

Good afternoon, Mayor Cowell.

Members of the city council, Matthew Burns with planning and development.

This is a request to annex two parcels totaling just over an acre and a half.

Uh the site's in West Raleigh in an unincorporated county pocket and is within Raleigh's priority annexation boundary.

If annexed, it would come into district D.

The request is not associated with rezoning, but the applicant is proposing a 56 unit apartment building on the property.

And it's uh associated with two approved site plans, and the site has fire service concerns.

And I'll note that for today today's annexations, we've summarized the details uh on a single slide for the sake of efficiency, but additional slides are available if you have specific questions.

So please let me know if you have any questions before you open the public hearing.

Questions?

Okay, I will open the public hearing.

We have no one signed up in support or opposition, and I will close the public hearing.

Motion to approve.

Second, all in favor of the motion, aye.

All opposed, nay, that is unanimous.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Uh next item is AX0326 petition annexation.

Uh yes, ma'am.

Uh Matthew Klim, Raleigh Planning and Development.

This is a request to annex uh just around an acre of land uh for the purposes of constructing three duplexes.

Uh for a six-unit infill project.

Uh utilities are available at the site.

Um, and isn't that priority annexation area?

Uh also is outside the um FPA response time standards for fire response.

Uh happy to take any questions.

Okay.

Questions for Mr.

Clum.

Seeing none, I will open the hearing.

Uh we have no one in support or opposition.

Close it.

We have a motion.

Uh move to approve the annexation.

Second second.

Okay.

All in favor of that.

Aye.

Aye.

All opposed, nay.

And that passes.

Um next we have petition annexation AX1226.

Good afternoon again.

Uh this is a request to annex nine parcels totaling just under 14 acres.

Uh the sites in South Raleigh, and if annexed, it would fall within District C.

The site is in an unincorporated county pocket, and within Raleigh's priority annexation boundary.

The applicant is proposing a 250 unit apartment building, and there are two site plans currently in review.

And also the site does have some fire service concerns.

So please let me know if you have any questions.

We have questions from Councillor Jones.

Thank you so much.

Um, I t I tried and look at the fiscal impact, and this one has a pretty significant 100 negative, a negative 155,000 after 10 within 10 years is declining to that point.

So are there things that can be done that change that perspective or change that outlook on that now that we that it's in the report?

I would defer to finance staff to speak to the tenure table.

I know it's multifaceted, and so I don't want to act like that's the only thing, but um, if I'm looking at it and that has whereas the other annexations on our report this this today don't have such a negative such a high negative impact.

Yeah, Alison Bradshire Finance.

Um, thank you for the question.

And you know, this is a 10-year forecast, so we are conservative and looking at our revenues out into the future, both for property and sales tax.

You know, we have said for some time that our expenses are growing, you know, greater than our revenues, and that's really reflected in that 10-year plan.

But we know every year we produce a balanced budget, so that's really how things get worked out in the end.

But when you look at just you know, a single annexation, um, I can't say that there's specific things that you can do relative to this annexation, but just know obviously the city will produce a balanced budget on an annual basis.

Got it.

Thank you so much.

Well, actually, I mean, just to follow up, you would think that a 250 unit apartment building would be property tax positive.

I mean, that seems odd.

Yeah, I mean, this one uh you to your point, Mayor.

Yeah, 250 units, um, the market value at build out looks like it's just shy of 70 million.

Um, and yeah, again, we're just looking at it from the that initial build out and then the growth and the revenues have been, you know, projected to be um conservative, and I believe it's the real out years where it turns negative, and again, that's just that structure of the cost just increasing faster, especially when you start adding on the capital investments necessary, whether it be for transportation or parks, etc.

Does it fall under nonprofit status?

That's another way that we don't collect revenues.

Okay.

Any other questions?

If not, I will open the hearing, and we do have uh Mark Frederick signed up in support.

Uh good afternoon, Mayor and members of council.

Uh Mark Frederick with Parker Poe.

Uh, I'm really just here to answer any questions.

Okay.

Questions from Mr.

Frederick.

Okay, and we have no one signed up in opposition, so we will close the hearing.

Do we have a motion?

For approval.

Second.

All in favor, aye.

Aye.

All opposed, nay.

Great.

AX1326.

Yes, ma'am.

This is a request uh to annex uh about two and a half acres for the purposes of constructing a 19-unit uh townhouse development uh property zoned R 10, water and sewer available on the site, it's within our priority annexation area.

Okay, any questions for staff?

I will open it.

I will close it because there is no one signed up.

Do we have a motion?

Move for approval.

Second.

Um all in favor of the motion, aye.

All opposed, nay.

That is unanimous.

And next we are AX 1626.

Hello again.

This is a request to annex three vacant properties, uh, totaling about three quarters of an acre.

It's in Southeast Raleigh if annexed would fall within district C.

And the applicant is proposing a six unit residential development on the site, but there is no site plan yet.

Uh and let me know if you have any questions.

Okay, questions.

I will open the hearing, and we do have two folks signed up, Sabomo Wacoma and Jamie Guerrero.

Are they here?

Thank you, distinguished panel.

My name is Sabuma Wukuma, and I'm the developer.

Um, the goal is to build three duplexes on each of the lots.

I'm Jamie Guerrero.

I'm the civil engineer working on a flight plane, and I'm just here for any questions you may have.

Okay.

Do you all have questions for them?

Okay, we will uh close the hearing since we had no one signed up in opposition.

Do we have a motion?

Move for approval.

Second.

All right, all in favor of the motion.

Aye.

All opposed, nay.

That's unanimous.

Thank y'all.

Next, we have rezoning Z5024 on Garner Road.

Uh yes, ma'am.

This is a request to rezone about 10 acres from residential 10 to commercial mixed use with a five-story building height limit and zoning conditions.

The request is inconsistent with the future land use map, but consistent with a comprehensive plan overall, and your planning commission recommends approval 10 to zero.

Uh so this is the site uh on Garner Road, just south of downtown.

Uh, you can see to the east is Biltmore Park uh and some moderate and low-scale residential.

To the west across Garner Road is some industrial industrial uses there.

Just a view of the site here from the street view.

Proposed zoning conditions, limit uh the uses in condition number one, uh vehicle sales, uh repair, uh crematorum, tattoo parlors, uh, and development is limited to 150 units.

Uh it limits office to uh 50,000 square feet and retail to no more than 47,500 square feet.

Um the applicants have a presentation for you.

Their um intention is to construct uh and develop um a community-owned grocery store.

Uh this is a look at the existing and proposed zoning.

So you can see the increase in entitlement uh for the maximum uh units, and also uh some reduction in the building uh setbacks there.

Uh practically speaking, the rear of the site uh is heavily sloped down to uh creekside that separates the this property from the park.

There's also um uh reparian buffer there, so um there are some other natural limitations to how close the building could be built to that rear property line.

Um this slide shows the difference in entitlement uh with office and retail capped by those zoning conditions uh currently not as permitted under the residential zoning.

Um inconsistent with the future land use map, which calls for moderate scale residential um zoning here, uh inconsistent with the urban form map as well.

Is it consistent with a number of uh comprehensive plan policies uh focused on compact development, bringing more housing to the area, uh broadening retail and commercial uses uh in perhaps an underserved area of the city, um, and just some more healthy food options policies here as well.

Uh inconsistent with the future land use map, there's no frontage designation on the site, which is also why it's inconsistent with the urban form map, uh, and there are um response time standards in the area as well.

Uh if you approve the rezoning request, the uh the future land use map will be amended from um moderate scale residential to community mixed use.

Uh and this is the planning commission's recommendation for approval.

Okay, thank you.

Questions for Mr.

Clone?

All right, I will open the public hearing, and we have seven folks signed up in support.

I'll just let y'all divide the time as you like.

How do you go back to work?

Okay.

Is there anybody in opposition?

No.

Can I say thank you?

Do you want to hear the present?

Okay.

You're saying, I see people saying yes.

Giving thanks.

I'm Aaron McClellan and uh the president of Fertile Ground Food Cooperative and board member.

And we are here in support of a rezoning case Z 5024 for 2020 uh 2245 Garner Road.

And we're requesting the rezoning to CX 5CU in order to allow for a full service community-owned grocery store in this location.

And this is this project is gonna be a partnership between Fertile Ground Food Cooperative and the JD Lewis Center to uh create a home for health and wellness in Southeast Raleigh.

Okay, Simone Willett Dillahunt, Assistant Vice Assistant Vice President of Marketing for Advanced Community Health.

That's not why I'm here.

I'm clearly very tired today.

Um Vice President of Fertile Ground Food Cooperative.

Um, as mentioned, this uh location sits among some historic sites, so Biltmore Hills, um, and we are proud to partner with the JD Lewis Center for this project to build a wellness campus.

So excited to bring this uh to such a historic community.

Um I'm gonna kick it over to Jin to talk a little bit more about the case.

I'm gonna speed through the technical stuff, but the slides are here if you have questions.

Um, this is what we hope our grocery store will look like.

Um, courtesy of Andre Johnson Architects who've been a joy to work with, us and our community and member elders.

Um it did zoom out just so you could see that um we have a very mixed zoning uh map nearby, um, including a very mixed future land use map.

Um they're very similar future land uses just across the street um to the one that we are asking for.

Um so we believe we're consistent with the overall area.

Um you can see the same on the urban form map, and we're very close to frequent transit overlays with access to the bus route and the planned Biltmore Hills Trail at the back of the site between us and Biltmore Hills Park.

Um I did want to just highlight um uh Mr.

Clinton mentioned the reparian buffers in the back of the property and the steep slope.

Actually, the property owners have already deed restricted this as permanent open space, um, so you cannot and we cannot, and he cannot ever develop on the rear of the property um towards the creekside and towards the park.

Um so just wanted to highlight that for you.

And of course, um, as all of our member owners know, um Southeast Raleigh is part of a food desert or food apartheid, um, and our hope as uh cooperative grocery store is to solve that problem.

Um, but to do that we have to rezone to commercial mixed use.

Um we're asking for five stories because there are significant grade changes on the site that need we need that height flexibility with the extra height of grocery store stories and the grades.

Um we've offered kind of typical conditions to limit other uses and development size, um, but overall our goal is really just to bring that healthy food access, um about 20 jobs, um, gathering space for community members, particularly in Southeast Raleigh of all ages, um, and then of course environmentally conscious and community-led um ownership of the project.

Um I'm gonna turn it over to one of our other uh member owners who wanted to share some thoughts as well about who we are.

Good afternoon, Mayor and City Council members.

My name is Sharon Bay Christopher, and I live in Raleigh's district C.

I'm I am an owner and member of the Fertile Ground Food Cooperative, and I'm here today to support um the rezoning KZ 5024 affecting Garner Road.

Our request to transition the Garner Road property from R10 to CX5CU is exactly the kind of intentional community centered development we need in Southeast Raleigh.

For far too long, parts of Southeast Raleigh have faced economic disinvestment, food insecurity, and a lack of accessible community-owned fresh food markets.

Approving rezoning to CX5CU champions change and that dynamic and furthers community economic development through a community-owned grocery store combined with the enhancements and amenities of a vibrant neighborhood gathering space.

Rezoned to CX5 allows for responsible economic development options along a major Southeast Raleigh corridor, which brings food access and amenities closer to our neighbors.

Our project promotes a more walkable and sustainable neighborhood.

The planning commission saw the value of our project and forwarded a unanimous recommendation for rezoning approval.

So accordingly, I asked that the city council vote yes on KZ5024.

Thank you so much for listening.

Thank you all.

And for your time.

Yeah.

Alright, any questions?

I can close the yeah, okay.

Um we'll start down here with no questions.

I got something after you closing here.

Okay, I will.

Do you want before or after I close the hearing?

Doesn't really matter.

Okay.

I will go ahead and okay, Counselor Silver.

Great project.

Uh Jen, you went very fast.

So I just want you to circle back because there was inconsistent with the future land use plan.

You said a couple of things to show why it was a reasonable in the public interest.

So can you just circle back to that?

Sure.

You have a little bit more time.

The clock is now stopped.

Yes, okay.

Um thank you, sir.

Um as you can see, I zoomed out from the map from kind of the scale that's uh staff normally shows of the future land use map, just to show the variety of future land uses along Garner Road.

Um, and I also want to point out that the existing community center that J.D.

Lewis runs with the basketball camps and the youth camps there, um, is inconsistent with the future land use map and was when that was applied.

Um, and sometimes that happens when we map the whole city.

It's hard to get every single property right.

Um, and so we want we think that um being a community mixed use uh site in the future land use map um and the rezoning is consistent with the overall community mixed use that's available across the street just to the south along Garner Road, um, even though it's not exactly on the property.

All right, thank you.

Yes, so I know this has been a labor of love for folks for a long time, and the reason I know that is the very first meeting they had for fertile ground.

I don't even remember what year it was.

2013.

Yeah, I attended and became a founding member owner.

So I've got to actually recuse myself because I have a very small ownership portion in this.

And so it was years ago 2013, but I was one of the first contributors to this, and so I will not be voting.

But that's the reason why, but of course, I fully support it.

I feel like I'm about to become an owner at the statement.

I will wait, motion to recuse councilmember for it second.

Well, I would say I am also an owner because I've donated, but I am voting because I don't really see that as a conflict.

Yeah, I'm not like a majority owner or anything.

Um just congratulations on making it this far.

Uh again, I know it's been a long time, but this is incredible that you're here today with a drawing.

Yeah.

And we will make a quick note that we appreciate your support.

Um, and cooperatives across the country are proudly supported by both the county and the city and a ton of underfunders.

So we welcome that support as well financially from the city as well.

So uh thank you for support here, but extending beyond today as well.

So we hope that is up for consideration.

So does the council report.

So I made a motion to recuse council report.

Does she need to be recused?

Councilmember for I have discussed this with her, and she request she requests to remain excused.

Alright, so I moved to recuse Council Member Fort.

All right, second.

All in favor of that motion, aye.

All opposed.

So we will let her uh recuse herself.

Anybody else?

So I'm I'm not recusing, and I'm glad I hadn't done my commitment because I would have had to recuse myself.

Um but we know what the future may, who knows what the future may hold.

But as of today at this time, um I know this started when the Kroger closed, and that was in 2013.

And when that Kroger closed, um, I know I held a meeting at Martin Street Baptist Church and about their Krogers and the impact that it was having in the community, and out of that fertile ground, you all got to work.

You all been moving and pushing, and I can't wait until the dirt turns and we can have a groundbreaking um in the near future.

And with that said, I move to adopt the proposed consistency statement dated July 7th, 2026, contain 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 deemed an amendment to the future land use map to the extent described in the adopted consistency statement.

Second.

Okay, all in favor of the motion.

Aye.

All opposed.

That does seven zero.

Congrats.

Okay, moving on.

We've got petition annexation AX3725.

Good.

Good afternoon.

Council, Hannah Rechau Planning and Development.

So AX 3725 and the following item, Z4425, go together.

They're an annexation and rezoning pair, as you uh may recall, both hearings were opened at your last meeting on June 16th and continued to allow the rezoning to be amended, which has happened.

The uh annexation AX3725 as a reminder is contiguous but outside of RETJ, it has not changed since you last heard about it.

And then the rezoning Z4425, um the um applicant has uh amended the the zoning conditions.

As a reminder, this uh site currently has uh Wake County R 30 zoning and they are requesting R 10 conditional use.

So new um since uh you last um this case was last in front of you.

Um they have made an addition to condition four, which uh requires a certain amount of land to be set aside as open space.

They're adding a requirement to plant trees beyond what the UDO would require, so this would be at least 130 new trees in that area.

Um they've also added one additional um condition which would uh commit to a financial contribution to the city of Raleigh fire department.

So those are the updates to the request.

I'm happy to answer any questions you have.

For Ms.

Recall, Counselor Pat.

Yeah, I'm a um question about fire coverage.

I might be for you or for the chief.

Um this was an area of interest for me in the last uh when we first opened the case.

Um, you know, in the staff report, there's a packet that shows long response times, and I um but I'm to understand there's some sort of agreement between partner agencies and such, like such that what whatever happens on this site, whether it gets annexed or not annexed, if there is a rush fire or then eventually a structure fire on the site, like the fire fire the fire trucks are gonna go, and so the sort of 15-minute response time shown in the packet is does not mean that um a resident is waiting for a full 15 minutes for help to arrive.

But Chief, can you elaborate?

Sure I can.

Good evening, uh Herbert Griffin, good afternoon, rather Herbert Griffin Fire Chief uh here in Raleigh.

Uh it's a great question, Councilman Patton.

Um, there is an extended response time for this.

But our ECC has computer aided dispatch.

So once the address goes in, it looks for the closest unit.

That closest unit could be a Wake County unit as well.

It could be a nightdale, it could be a wake forest anybody.

Raleigh's going to send is 10 app rest to every structure fire in the city, but it will pick up additional units as well if they're closer.

We have what's called a four minute 30 second response.

If it could be within four minutes and 30 seconds, the computer aided dispatch would pick it up and dispatch it with Raleigh units as well.

So uh in an area like this, you could someone could end up with like 15 units there, right?

Because we're gonna send all of our 10 eventually, but also.

Well, I wouldn't say 15.

Okay.

That's pushing.

You might get additional one or two units.

It could be a uh, like I said, a Wake Forest unit, it could be a Rollsville unit.

But respect we have agreement with these outside entities.

When Raleigh arrives, you let them go back to respective territories.

So they could be placed on our dispatch card, but once we get there, it's our scene, we relieve my duty and they go back to respective territories.

The same is done with us when we provide service to Gorn and everywhere else.

Once they get there, we relieve, we come back to the city of Raleigh.

Got it.

And just to confirm that's that's gonna be true, whether this is annexed or not, annexes just applies universally across the county.

That's in a county-wide agreement.

That's correct.

I spoke to the director this morning, he said this was been practiced since 2015.

Okay.

Okay.

And we don't have any plans to change that.

Great.

And then just one last question.

You know, we have city has an ISO rating of one, which is the best one, and that's important because it impacts um property, pro um, homeowner insurance.

And um how like, and then I think about that chart that's in the staff report with all the red lines.

Is that the chart that's using that the ISO uses, or is it or does this uh Wake County-wide agreement is is that the thing that determines it?

Like how to what's what factors into the ISO rating?

Okay, so let me try to answer what I think you you're asking.

Each city has its own ISO.

So the city of Raleigh is a class one, which is the highest rating.

We do use outside agencies as a part of that on our exterior uh determinate factors for our outlined agency county lines.

So we can use Wake County resources, as a support of our dispatch model to maintain our ISO one.

So we do we do use Wake County resources well for consideration.

Thank you.

All right, okay.

Yes, ma'am.

Thank you so much.

As we look at these annexations, which we've had uh um report and we had a whole meeting where staff was and you were there, let alerting the concerns of big annexations such as this.

I mean, this is 27 acres.

Um we have done the report to limit how far we go out, so I am appreciative of the work that staff has done to make sure that we are accommodating the concerns that we heard.

But as we go into this, what would be some things?

I mean, when I look at this report and I see five out of six in red, but now I'm hearing okay, it's not a concern, it gets a little confusing.

If I'm looking at that.

It looks like it's a it's a big concern, but you're saying maybe not so much, which is good.

But what should we be looking at?

And is there anything that you would highlight for us to ask as if we're going to approve an indexation like this that will address the concerns that you gave to us just a year and a half, two years ago?

So it's still a concern.

Okay.

Let me be clear that it is a concern.

The thing is, we're relegating to think that Rollsville unit's going to be there.

That's not necessary.

If they're not in the house, guess what?

You don't get them.

If Wake Forest engine is on the EMS call, you don't get them.

The computer aided dispatch picks up the closest one, but we could still be six or seven minutes out, eight minutes out.

So the concern is we provide that for you so you have some information while you make those decisions.

Right.

Got it.

Thank you.

Okay.

Any other questions?

If not, I will I just have a question for the applicant.

Sorry.

Okay.

Well, do we want to open the hearing?

It's already open from last time.

Oh, okay.

Um yeah.

For the applicant, you've applied two new conditions.

I wonder if you could just give us a little bit of your thought process, what you're hoping to accomplish, et cetera.

Yes.

Thank you.

Uh Councilmember Patton and Michael Birch here on behalf of the applicant.

So our two conditions touch on fire service contribution as well as uh adding to the tree coverage of the site.

So just given our conversation now, I'll touch on fire service first.

So thought process for this condition.

One, we are in the priority annexation boundary.

Two, we are immediately adjacent to uh Forrestville station.

Uh right, this development there, R 10 conditional use to the west.

Uh that's about 160 townhomes, 224 apartments to the immediate south, where you see RX4, down that bottom right uh left hand corner in the red, that's a sheets, uh, an approved daycare, and an approved uh car wash facility.

Right.

So we're immediately adjacent to the corporate limits uh of the city.

Water and sewer are immediately stubbed to the property.

We have a significantly high uh gallons per minute of water pressure at the site, 18-inch line in Hartham Park Avenue, and that is a much higher rate than is required for fire service.

Um I do want to note we are served by uh Fire Station 28.

The first alarm fire response unit is within five minutes and meets that uh standard.

Um right, the second standard is not met.

Um, but Wake Forest Station 3 uh is within six minutes, but again, understand what uh Gurvin has said about not having kind of first priority rights to those uh services.

Um I do want to note uh you all may remember seven, about seven weeks ago, May 19th.

Um, this council unanimously approved uh zoning case Z 35 on Liggan Mill, which is essentially just to the west of this site.

Um it had uh nearly identical request going from the county to uh the city.

I think that was 180 single family homes, very similar to what we have here.

Uh it also only met the first standard for the first alarm.

Um Wake Forest was also within six minutes uh of that site.

So again, nearly identical situation.

Um they provided a fire contribution of 20,000.

Uh we have offered a fire contribution of 25,000 dollars.

Um, and so again, I do want to note fire station 28.

There are no medium or long term improvements proposed for that station.

Um, but we do understand that a ladder truck uh was identified as a priority for station 19, which is uh a station that would serve this in a second alarm.

So again, we want to um again contribute as others have contributed to um the fire department for their infrastructure and uh services.

So that's on the fire service condition.

Uh as to tree coverage.

Uh right, we have a tree conservation requirement of 10% net site area.

Uh many of the trees on our site are heavily uh impacted by requirements to extend Heartham Park through the entirety of the site, connect to Barkingway up into that north uh west corner, and also extend a street uh south.

We expect those roadway improvements to impact close to seven acres of the site, much of which is forested.

So we wanted to uh make a commitment to reforced replant uh some of the site, uh which will work out to about an additional uh an additional five percent of the net site area, an additional acre, uh committed to both uh shade trees and understory trees, and a requirement for those trees to be planted within the the open areas, so even outside of lots.

Uh and we have a provision to be very clear that those trees cannot be used to count towards any other UDO requirements so that we can't count street trees, we can't count any other like stormwater landscaping or anything else.

So we wanted to again kind of go above and beyond there in recognition of the removal of some of those existing trees.

Nope.

I'm good.

Okay.

Um I'm gonna go.

Do you want to close the hearing or we can close the hearing?

Closed.

All right, go for it.

Michael, do you come on back?

Um I we talked about this at the last hearing and just wanted to understand again uh the six-foot fences along two property lines.

How again did that evolve?

And in the conversation, were the adjoining property owners aware that uh landscape buffer can serve the serve same purpose.

What was the gate fence mitigating?

I just need to understand because a couple of cases in the past year, I went ahead and supported it.

I'm very uncomfortable.

I'll put it barriers between neighbors.

And if there was a concern, why wasn't a fence put up before the fact that this project is coming in?

I'm just very uncomfortable uh with a barrier between neighbors when you know you're going all the way.

There's a lot of uh forested areas, you're adding more tree conservation.

I'm just trying to understand the background for why uh it would they felt a six-foot fence at two parts of the property was needed.

Yes, thank you, Councilmember Silver.

So, in short, right, those were uh very specific and direct asks by the neighbors uh to the north and to the south, uh in areas where they were either not existing trees or you know, we were very upfront with them where we anticipated trees that might be removed, and so those areas were uh along this area and then points uh along this area here.

Again, that's kind of a what we expect to be a road stub to the south.

So um right up in this area there was existing vegetation that we expected to remain.

Uh so again uh in response to direct specific gas by the property owners at neighborhood meetings uh and at meetings outside of that um, and so that was us being responsive to them.

Any other questions?

Do you have a motion?

Yeah, do you want to close the hearing?

Oh, it's yeah, it's closed, all right.

Um yeah, I just um you know I want to recognize and acknowledge the folks who who reach out to us related to annexation concerns, and um, you know, I do find these some of these cases really challenging to weigh the sort of multi-layered commitments everywhere, so not not shown very well on this slide, but that Lily Lyles Road to the right on the right side curves around, and that's our annexation agreement with Rollsville.

And then this is inside our priority annexation line, but outside of our ETJ, but revenue positive, but not meeting our fire service standards everywhere.

Like there are just sort of every case in this area is a smattering of pros and cons.

Um and so anyway, they create a challenge.

I take them really seriously.

Um I've done to the best I can worked with the applicant to have some mitigating conditions, particularly around the fire service contribution, but I do ultimately think it's on us as a council to stay laser focused on implementing the results of the fire master plan so that we can bring the bring the service to the this area, not only for these new residents, but for the existing residents who have those conditions today.

Um and you know, I'll just remind viewers in the council that you know not too far from here.

We've we've secured land dedication for a future fire station.

I think it'll be fired station third 30 in the future.

Um so we are making investments, but we need to continue to stay laser focused on them.

Um so anyway, with all of that said, I move to adopt the annexation effective immediately.

All in favor of that motion, aye.

Aye, all opposed, nay.

Okay, so one um in opposition.

And then we have to do the rezoning.

So I move to adopt the proposed consistency statement dated July 7, 2026, 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.

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

All in favor of that motion, aye, all opposed, okay.

So we have two no's on that one, all right.

Um moving on uh we have rezoning Z4625, 523 Southwest Street.

Yes, so this is request C 4625, um 523 Southwest Street.

This is a site downtown, about three quarters of an acre currently zoned uh downtown mixed use five stories urban limited.

Um they're requesting two additional stories, so some additional context.

You can see where this is uh within um downtown bordering uh West Lenore Street and Southwest Street.

This is the site of the fair weather.

Some views of what the site uh looks like currently and the structure there now.

Um, this is a general use request, so there are no proposed zoning conditions, and again, the the change that they are requesting is to go from a five-story maximum to a seven-story maximum.

Um I believe you'll hear from the applicant after this.

Um understanding is the intent is to be able to use part of the existing structure as habitable space.

Um but if it were to be a redevelopment scenario, you can see kind of what that would look like under the proposed zoning here.

Quest is consistent with the comprehensive plan overall, including the future land use map and the urban form map, and then a number of consistent policies.

Um you can see here a couple of inconsistent policies.

These are really noting um the the heights um in this area uh area-specific guidance that seven stories would go beyond.

And then the planning commission did recommend approval unanimously.

You can see their finding here.

So happy to answer any questions you have, okay.

Questions from Ms.

Recall.

All right, um, I'll go ahead and open the public hearing, and we have Suzanne Prince.

Hello, council and um council members, good to see you today.

And um, I am Suzanne Parance and I'm a resident, and I am um here to um show you about this case.

Um so we have we are um asking for um this to be um changed um from DX5 to DX7, and it would be no change in the overall height of the building.

Um the building would stay at, excuse me.

Sorry about that.

The building would stay at the DX, would stay as it currently is.

It would be no overall change in the height of the building.

I'm so sorry, for us to be able to change, to allow for a voided space in the mezzanine level to be finished for a community room.

So the height would the overall building would stay exactly the way it is now.

So no funding has been allocated for the project.

It's just a matter of us being able to finish off that room.

The surrounding zoning, since I've moved there six years ago, to the south, we've had a 20-story building that's gone up.

To the south and to the north, we've had a um apartment building that's gone up this uh seven stories.

We've had a 12-story rezoning go up.

So we've had a lot of change in that um in our um surrounding area that I think makes it um, you know, that has changed things to allow for this rezoning to go to seven stories.

I don't think it's in conceivable that seven stories is out of character for our neighborhood.

Um this is the Fairweather Condos as it sits now, and if you look at the building, um you'll see that this building is not going to change at all.

Um I took this picture from the MAVE, which is next door, the 20-story building, and you're looking at it as I took the picture, and you'll see that it's kind of as a if you're looking at the part of the building is um has the um the upper floors are showing with a pinhouse unit, and those pinhouse units have a second-story mezzanine, and then the back side of those units, you're gonna see those are one-story pinhouse units, and I'll explain to you in a minute kind of it'll make a little bit more sense.

But you can see that there's a difference in the a little bit in the height, but the mezzanine makes a difference, and you'll kind of see where I'm going with that in a minute.

These are the as built drawings for the um for the building.

Um the voided area was walled over by the developer.

Um, so you can kind of see on the as built where that um space that I'm talking about is, and I've got some pictures that will also show this a little bit better.

Um, and we don't have the zoning to currently be able to finish this space.

Um, but some of the residents have seen this space before it was actually walled over.

It's about 16 by 30.

Um, and he had planned to finish this as a community space, but he found out as he was going through the process that we didn't have enough area to or we didn't have the zoning to finish it.

So he just completely walled it over and walked away from it.

So this is the outside doorway going to the mezzanine area.

So the access is from the um elevator and you go through the roof area and then into this doorway.

So when you go through this doorway, you'll see where the mezzanine area is, and then there's also an inside stairwell.

So this is the inside mezzanine area, and this is looking towards that doorway going to the outside.

So if you place a doorway on this outside or on this uh hallway, you have now got six stories instead of five.

So all of those areas that I was telling you about previously where we had those pinhouse units that had the mezzanines, those mezzanines open up on the inside of those um units.

So those were okay according to the city because they opened up on the inside, but by placing a doorway in this hallway, the city now considers that six stories.

So that's why I'm before you today asking for this rezoning.

Um this is looking at the outside of the doorway.

The stairway is stairwell is now to the right at the end of the hallway.

So the only thing we're gonna do is put in a um a doorway and open up that room that already exists.

And this is the outside wall that shows the outside of the wall of the voided space that would be part of the new proposed community room.

And um this is the outside of the north side, and you can see that blank wall, and it's kind of located.

Um, it just looks weird right there.

It's a very right side.

You're like, why didn't somebody put a window there?

Well, they didn't put a window there because they didn't finish it like they were supposed to.

But it was COVID, and nobody even cared about a community room.

They were like, Oh, these people won't even care, we won't even finish it.

Um, so this is a resident roof area, so we have a nice little roof area.

Um, and um we were supposed to be able to walk down that little corridor and go to our little nice little community room, which we don't have.

Um, we did get a unanimous approval from the planning board, and um I'll take any questions that y'all have.

Any questions?

I got a question.

Um, first of all, when was this built?

When was this building built?

Um, this building started in 2018, and um was actually didn't complete until 2020.

Um so it was actually completed in 2020.

Okay, and I guess my question now is really towards staff.

Um for something like this, the rezoning is the only way to address it.

Yeah, because it pertains to the what is considered a story and the number of stories, they need to raise the maximum level maximum height.

This must be some old mid silver coat.

Okay, thank you.

So that's a whole other story we can talk about.

So for staff, I think council member, Lambert Melton that asked for a text change at some point.

Do you have an update in terms of where we are on that?

I think you got a phone of friend coming to help you with that.

We have modified the way that we measure height several times since we adopted the UDO in 2013.

So it's not an original silver code.

Uh and I just want to say this request is remarkable.

We have never seen another request like this is not a pattern.

We did not believe there's actually an issue with the measurement of height in the code.

This is a this is a fluke.

Maybe not.

I was just gonna say um it's a mezzanine issue, and maybe if there's just like an omnibus tweak we can do.

I just I would be glad if this was the only fluke like this we had.

Because I don't want folks to have to continue to come down here and spend all this money and time and that issue aside.

Our staff's resources, the resources of our planning commission just to be able to use a space that is already built in an existing structure.

And so if there's anything that you think needs to be cleaned up to prevent this from ever happening again, stick in an omnibus text change and let us just take care of it.

Thank you for the guidance.

Appreciate it.

I'm gonna close the hearing.

Do we have a motion?

Yeah, I've got a motion here.

Thanks, Suzanne, for being with us, and um, very happy to support this effort.

Apologies that it might have been more work than you would like.

I move to adopt the proposed consistency statement dated July 7th, 2026, 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, all in favor of that motion, aye.

All opposed, nay.

Not as unanimous, thank you.

Enjoy that.

Rec room.

Okay, Z 5725.

Yes, so Z 5725.

Uh is a request to rezone one property, 80 20 Lichford Road.

Uh this is about 22 acres.

Um, they're requesting to rezone a majority of it, so about 20 acres of it.

And it's currently zoned with a mix of residential districts, which include R1, R4, and R10 conditional use, and the requested district is R6 conditional use.

So that we can situate ourselves here.

This is in Northeast Raleigh.

You can see the site is bisected by Lichford Road.

This is just south of the intersection with our interchange with um I uh 540, mainly residential in this area.

There is a shopping center as you can see, uh, to the north.

Some views of the site.

Uh the portion um that is requested to be rezoned is not um developed currently.

You can see it's mainly forested.

And then there are two proposed zoning conditions.

One would restrict the residential density on the site to no more than six units per acre.

R6 and our uh the UDO currently would allow a little more than that.

And then there are some um principal uses that would be prohibited um under the requested district.

So looking at uh existing versus proposed, you can see the mix of uh residential districts.

Um this sums out to about 130 units um estimated.

Um so the the requested um R6 would actually go down a little bit.

Um, and then um you can see it would uh align the the setbacks across the sites, it is consistent with the comprehensive plan, including the future land use map uh designation, which is low-scale residential.

There's no urban form map guidance in this area, and then a number of consistent policies um pertaining to the maintenance of the housing variety and um city's housing goals.

Uh two inconsistent policies, these are both um in reference to the existing fire service considerations in the area, and then planning commission recommended approval unanimously.

You can see their finding here, and I'm happy to answer any questions you have.

Questions from Ms.

Recall?

Um, hi.

Some transportation questions.

Um, we have gotten some late breaking feedback from residents regarding um transportation conditions in this area, um, which I think's like I've gotten some feedback from staff on this in the past, but it would be helpful to illuminate.

Um I think there's intersection evaluation happening here for protected left turns, and then I'm also would just be interested in like traffic volume in this area, traffic counts.

Sure, yeah.

Uh transportation staff is here and they can address those questions.

Hello, good afternoon, Carter Robertson with transportation, just pulling up those numbers now.

It looks like the most recent volume counts we have from 2024, is showing about 14,000 vehicles a day for this section between uh here and up to falls of noose, I believe.

And when we look at the historical trend for that, it's been relatively stable around that 12,000 to 14,000 uh level.

And I'm also just looking at the um triangle regional model projections real quick.

Yeah, so the triangle regional model projections show uh going up to about 15,000 to 17,000 closer to falls of noose.

Um, and that's in line with um the future street designation for Lichford.

So we have this uh designated as a four-lane divided um in the future.

Um that's well below the the capacity for a four-lane facility like that.

Okay.

What is it?

So four lane divided in the future.

What is it today?

Yes, it looks like uh two lanes with a center turning lane for um along this section, and so after rezoning of this when this comes in as a site plan, they'd be required to give that right-of-way dedication um and the road widening there.

Okay, and what is a two-sounds like the when it gets to the four-lane version, they've dedicated the right-of-way, eventually we do this road project.

This will the traffic projections will be well low below the capacity.

How does that compare to the capacity of the existing infrastructure?

Two-lane divided.

I'll step in on this one.

Kenneth Richie with transportation.

So currently, if you look at the typical programming we have for a two-lane divided, it's up to about 20,000 cars per day.

So we even at 15, we are well within that.

So certainly the future projection will give us that growth that's needed as we see this area continue to grow and develop.

Got it.

Helpful.

And then I think around this area, there's an y'all are doing a signal, some kind of signal analysis related to lift turns.

Is that sounding familiar?

I will need to confirm exactly where that's at.

I know we've been looking at different things along this corridor, both in the north, and certainly as we get down towards Oldwick Forest.

I have first staff.

Okay.

I will go ahead and open up the hearing, and I have uh Bronwon read us here.

Hi, I'm Bronwyn Redis.

I work at McAdams.

I'm a planner working on this project and this rezoning request.

Thanks so much for having us here today, and thank you to staff for the presentation.

That was a great overview.

I'll try to keep it brief in the interest of time.

Um, I want to take a second to introduce my client.

Um, Grand Communities is the land development company for Fisher homes.

And so together they make up the Fisher Group.

Um, they are active in 11 markets over seven states in the United States, and are really proud of high customer satisfaction, and they're excited to be in Raleigh.

So I have some representatives from grand communities here today in the audience, and they're happy to jump up here and answer any questions if any come up.

All right, so um just one thing I wanted to mention about the site itself.

Um I'm sure you noticed we are kind of carving out two acres that are not included in the request, and so those are remaining or that piece is planned to remain as R1 untouched, and that is in that same area where an existing house is today.

Um so that existing home would remain, and the plan is for the resident who lives there today to remain in place.

And then to touch on the intent behind the request.

Um so we have one parcel here that is split-zoned three ways, which is pretty unusual and creates uh a complicated situation for design and then later on enforcement of development standards.

Um Fisher homes, their plan is to provide a um cohesive and consistent community with um kind of similar lot sizes across the entire site.

And so that's kind of the intent behind the request is to consolidate development regulations, make it um what the same across both sides of Lichford Road, and then just wanted to mention as well.

Um, the portion that is zoned R10CU has quite a few specific zoning conditions that were right set for the previous applicant that came through.

So you'll see there are some architectural treatment conditions in there, specific EVE measurements.

Um so that was really a right fit for the previous applicant, and moving forward, we would want to kind of level set um clear out some of those architectural conditions.

Um so that's why we've included both sides on Lichford Road.

And then our request is to rezone those portions of the site to R6CU.

Um R6 is consistent with the future land use map designation of low-scale residential.

And we've proposed two zoning conditions.

The first to limit residential density to six units per acre.

Our intent here was to kind of thread the needle and provide a consistent intensity, density across both sides of the site.

So taking the existing R4, the existing R10 CU, thread the needle, and provide something that is consistent with that development density.

So that's why we've proposed the six units per acre.

And then we've also proposed a condition to limit some uses or prohibit some uses that are otherwise allowed in R6CU.

And we've been happy to work together with neighbors at neighborhood meetings and the planning commission to bring a case to you all today that's consistent with the future land use map and the comprehensive plan overall.

And we would respectfully request your support too.

So I'm happy to answer any questions that you have.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Questions for Ms.

Ritos.

Okay.

Well, I will close the um.

So this should not be new, but to lift it up for the view of the public.

We received some, again, like breaking feedback from residents requesting some improvements, and so some of them were around sidewalk connections through the area, offering that like other people would like to be connected to the shopping center.

That's very close to here.

And then they also asked about tree preservation and buffers between existing properties.

So can you speak to both of those topics?

Yes, definitely.

All right.

So I'll touch first on the tree preservation piece.

So in the RSX zoning district, we would be required to meet the 10% TCA requirement.

And then part of the priority tree preservation area is a minimum or average 50-foot width buffer along any major street.

And so Lichford Road planned for future four-lane divided road, that's a major road, and so we would be required to meet a 50-foot tree preservation buffer on both sides if that vegetation meets the requirements to count as TCA.

And then buffer-wise, so because we are looking at residential development surrounded by residential development.

So those aren't a requirement here.

We do have some stream features on the site.

So near the kind of southeastern border of the site, around here, and then kind of coming in here and around here.

And those are jurisdictional features, they would be required to be buffered 50 feet on either side, and so that kind of creates other natural tree preservation areas and natural boundaries from existing neighborhoods surrounding.

And so we haven't proposed anything additional for perimeter buffers, feeling that those buffers are in line and in the spirit with the UDO.

And the other question having to do with sidewalk extensions.

And so specifically, I think the requests were having to do with an extension up here, and then an extension down here.

And the difficulty with committing to off-site sidewalk extensions has to do with right-of-way availability and just what's existing today.

And so to the south, these are existing single-family detached homes.

The right-of-way for the future cross section, the four-lane divided, is not existing today.

So down here it's about 86 feet wide, and the future ultimate cross-section is 109 feet wide.

And so we would have to look at acquiring significant right-of-way or even just uh easement in that ultimate location.

And that's quite uncertain having to coordinate that with those private property owners.

And so we wouldn't want to make that commitment through a zoning condition just because of the uncertainty of that.

And so similar situation to the north, there's I think about 95 feet of width of right of way there.

And the ultimate is 109.

And then in this particular location, um, this piece right here, all the way from the site up to Lichford Road.

Those are individual parcels that are HOA owned that are called out as open space.

A lot of times those are protected as an approval of a subdivision approval and are meant to remain undisturbed.

So again, just adding to that uncertainty to not allow us to make that commitment through a zoning condition.

Um, but of course, like Carter said, we'll meet all of the requirements across both property frontages for our site as staff requires it during subdivision review.

Thank you.

So just to summarize, along your frontage, you'll do the sidewalks and you'll have the 50-foot tree buffer, and then all where those streams are, you'll have tree buffer there, but you can't do these sidewalk extensions because you don't own that property and you don't have powers of imminent domain or yes, anything like that.

Yes, got it.

Helpful.

Um, had that one lingering question from the staff.

I wasn't sure if you ready.

I don't have any more questions for the applicant.

Thank you.

So, yeah, staff was doing an analysis at Lichford and Harps Mill.

Uh, no, there were some concerns raised, I think, as it regards to potential crash patterns.

Staff did evaluate that.

Certainly there are some crashes at an intersection, but certainly we're not seeing any trends that would warrant any kind of protected left turn, which is really the only improvement that could be made.

Likely that's signal other than some timing adjustments.

Okay, got it.

Thank you.

Helpful.

All right, okay.

Um I'll go ahead and close the hearing.

And is there.

Okay.

You want me to do it?

I guess we're really good to do these.

All right, you take it.

It's done between two districts.

So uh, Z in Councilmember Silver's district and mine.

I rarely get rezonings in my district, so thank you, Councilmember Patton.

Uh so uh I move uh to adopt the proposed consistency statement dated July 7, 2026, contained in the agenda materials, and to approve the rezoning amendment with the adoption and effective dates described in the agenda item under recommended action.

Second, all in favor of the motion, aye.

All opposed, nay.

That is unanimous, and thank you.

Thanks.

All right, next we have text change to TCZ026.

Yes, ma'am, thank you.

Uh Matthew Clem planning and development.

All right.

Uh this is at 4601 Creedmore Road.

Uh it's a request to amend zoning conditions uh to a 2011 rezoning case.

Um so you'll remember our current unified development ordinance was adopted in 2013.

So these conditions pertain to the previous ordinance.

Um so when you look at the full black line in your staff report, there's a lot of cleanup there.

That's because of uh references to the legacy development ordinance that we no longer have.

Um, the site is currently zoned, community mixed use with a three-story building height limit, parking limited frontage, and the zoning conditions, which are requested for change.

The request is consistent with the future land use map, uh the urban form map and the plan overall, and your planning commission recommends approval 8 to 0.

Uh so this is the site located at the intersection of Creedmore Road and Glenwood Avenue.

Uh you can see to the south is Crabtree Valley Mall.

Uh there are surrounding residential uses at various scales to the north uh and east, um, and some other commercial uses in the area.

This is the site, you may know the container stories here.

There's a Joseph A Bank and the Athletes Foot.

So an existing commercial development.

So generally the request expands the list of permitted uses on the site to include a greater variety of commercial uses.

It increases the hours of operation for commercial activity, removes restrictions on delivery service hours for bringing in goods for sale, removes certain exterior building material requirements, and it removes the requirement of a traffic impact analysis at the time of site plan approval.

That was there because in 2011 that code requirement didn't exist.

It is now in the unified development ordinance.

So that is removing a legacy zoning condition that is now duplicative of our current development standards.

Overall, the buffering requirements to the residential properties to the west are being maintained as they were.

It's currently developed and planted in accordance with the zoning conditions, are not proposed for a change or amendment in this request.

And that's the overall changes to the zoning conditions there.

You can see that the entitlement and the setbacks are not uh changing.

So 45,000 retail and office permitted today.

Uh that is not proposed to change in the zoning request, consistent with the future land use map, urban form map, and plan overall.

Uh and list of um policies here for consistency and consistent with uh zoning and infrastructure impacts and the um response time standards uh for the uh NFPA.

Uh and this is the planning commission's recommendation for approval.

Okay, thank you.

Yes, all right.

I am opening the hearing.

I have Colin McGrath.

Thank you, Mayor, members of council, Colin McGrath with Pointer Spruel on behalf of SDC Glenwood Place, SDC Glenwood Place is the owner and the applicant uh for this text change to zoning conditions.

Um, I won't walk through everything Mr.

Clem just walked through, uh, but I do want to take a minute or two uh to to explain a little bit of the why that is behind the subset of changes here.

Um as Mr.

Clem mentioned, a lot of what you see in the black line, there are a lot of changes.

A lot of that is just cleanup, um, mostly due to the fact that those conditions, although the current set is 2011, most of them go back to 1996 when this site was, of course, developed for circuit city.

Um at the at the time it was developed, uh, and even at the time of the 2011 conditions, um, the vision that the conditions sort of outline is for 4601 Creedmore to function as an outparcel to Crabtree Valley Mall.

Uh, we see in the existing conditions retail that is limited to the type of retail you would find in a shopping mall in 1996 when that condition was created.

The hours for retail uses in particular also mirror the mall, no retail uh before 9 a.m.

is the current rule on the site.

Uh looking forward, there are no plans to redevelop the physical site, and we are still years away from any you know lease issues with the existing tenants.

This request is purely prospective to make sure that this site is positioned when the time comes for a new tenant uh to remain viable.

It is a very prominent location, as we all know.

Um so the goal is just to be ready for when that time comes.

And what SDC is considering is that the future of the site to attract a top quality tenant.

Uh, the goal should be to function less as an out-parcel to Crabtree Valley Mall, but to stand on its own a little bit more and amenitize the area, not just accessorize the mall.

Uh, so along those lines, some notable omissions from the list of uses that are allowed, things like a grocery store.

You couldn't have a grocery store under the existing conditions, either by use or based on those hours of operation.

So we have uh really gone into this with the limited intent to open up those uses to expand the variety of retail, uh, open the door to some limited personal service use, and then adjust the hours to follow the type of use that we believe would be attractive.

You know, a grocery store that opens at nine o'clock in the morning is not the most useful grocery store uh if you live in the neighborhood next door.

Um, so those are the goals.

Uh in doing that, we've worked a lot with staff uh to identify conditions that as Mr.

Klim noted are just kind of legacy conditions that have been around for 30 years at this point, where the UDO has caught up to things we used to have to do only by condition, so a lot of duplicative conditions.

Mr.

Clinton mentioned the TIA requirement.

TIU requirements are not going away.

They're just coming out of the conditions, they live somewhere else.

Uh cross access is another example.

The code now requires that.

The uh existing condition is duplicative.

Um the other thing we've been incredibly careful to do, seeing the neighboring Brookhaven neighborhood as a benefit to the site, um, not something we need to work around.

When this site was zoned in 1996, uh a lot of ink was spilled, sort of defining the relationship between this commercial site uh and that sort of characteristic characteristically Raleigh neighborhood.

Um we are leaving all of those conditions intact.

Those include a 45,000 square foot um limitation on the overall site build out.

Um so if a grocery store comes in, it's not gonna be a modern hair sketer.

Uh those include a 35 or 42 with a parapet height limitation, and most notably they include what the existing conditions call a super buffer, which is kind of a cool term, that that landscape buffer expands up to 80 feet as you get closer to the back of the site north from Glenwood.

So I have uh completely jettisoned my presentation.

If there are questions that the council has, I'm happy to uh answer them, but figured I'd move a little more quickly through that.

Thank you, Mr.

McGrath.

Any questions?

Yeah, what is this circuit city of which you speak?

I will tell you I I only vividly remember the circuit city because I feel like I overpaid for car speakers in high school there.

And that's the second location.

I'm gonna close the hearing.

Do we have a motion?

Yes, I have a motion.

And first off, I want to thank you for walking me through all that because all those crazy uh conditions, all the changes were a little bit alarming at first, but I really appreciate you taking the time to walk me through it.

I've heard nothing from Brookhaven, and I promise you, if they had a problem with it, I would have heard by now.

So um so I really do appreciate the work that you guys have done to take care of our neighbors uh in within the street zoning.

So with that, I have a motion to approve.

I move to adopt the proposed consistency statement dated July 7th, 2026, 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.

All in favor of the motion, aye.

All opposed, nay.

That is unanimous.

Thank you.

All right, final.

Public hearing Z.

1126.

Yes, Hannah Reco again, planning and development.

This is a request to rezone.

Uh one one property at 3901 Stratford Court.

It is currently zoned R2.

They are requesting R4.

You'll note this is a general use district that they are requesting.

So to situate ourselves, this is off of Stratford Court.

As you can see, it's near Lastner Mill Road.

Um, just north of this frame is uh North Hills.

Some views of the site.

There's an existing detect house.

A look at um the current and proposed zoning.

Um, you can see uh under a redevelopment scenario, uh, additional units could be built on the sites.

Another thing that changes between R2 and R4 is the maximum impervious surface.

So that um you know corresponds to additional units.

So it could also correspond to a larger parking area.

Request is consistent with the comprehensive plan and consistent with the future land use map designation of low scale residential uh consistent with a number of policies uh you can see here.

Um uh these are mainly pertaining to housing uh policy goals, and then inconsistent policies uh are uh pointing towards existing fire service considerations, and then the planning commission recommended uh approval unanimously.

You can see their finding here.

Happy to answer any questions you have.

Questions from Mr.

Reckle?

For this, I know we're going to from R2 to R4.

Is the plan to add additional housing?

Uh, I know it will allow it for it, but I know the corresponding R 4 we did a few years ago on Stratford Court, and um it was just for renovation.

So I'm just wondering, is this a renovation or is this actually looking to add more housing?

You'll you'll hear from the applicant now they can make you directly.

Okay, I will go ahead and open the hearing, and we have uh Kara Jennings McConnell.

Good evening, Mayor and Council.

Appreciate y'all's time.

Um, yeah, the plan is just to do the same thing as the other lot on Stratford Court, so um just a new build there.

If you have any other questions, though.

Okay, any other questions for Miss McConnell?

All right, we will close the hearing.

Yes, I have a motion.

Um I'm sorry, I have the wrong one up.

Uh I move to approve the proposed consistency statement, dated July 7, 2026, 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.

All in favor of the motion, aye.

All opposed, nay.

That is unanimous.

All right, thank you.

Next, uh, there is no committee reports unless I hear an objection.

We will go to the report of the mayor and city council, and I'll start with Mayor Alberton.

Yes, I would like to read a proclamation.

Um, this is for Freedom Books.

It will be Freedom Books Day tomorrow.

Um I want to thank the mayor for putting this together.

And um uh whereas Freedom Books established in 1984 by Ajamu and Rakia Dillon was Raleigh's first African American owned bookstore and served as a vital center for culture education and community life.

And whereas located at East Martin and Blunt Street, Freedom Books provided access to literature, dialogue, and resources that deepened understanding of the black experience and global social issues, and whereas the bookstore inspired youth leadership, including the 1989 Crabtree Valley Mall Boy at Cot, led by young people from Southeast Raleigh, resulted in a successful call for accountability and justice, and whereas Freedom Books operated from 1984 to 1994 through the dedication of Jammu and Rukia Dillahunt and their daughters, Dara, Kimba, and Sophia, whose collective efforts made the bookstore a pillar of empowerment and community connection.

And whereas the Greg Museum will honor this legacy tomorrow on July 8th, 2026, through a community stories exhibit celebrating the impact and significance of Freedom Books.

Um Mayor Cow uh proclaims July 8th, 2026 as Freedom Books Day.

Please go out if you can to the Greg Museum while this exhibit is open.

It's fabulous.

Um it's again part of NC State University, and tomorrow there'll be a big party uh evening opening for it, and I think we all need a little bit of inspiration.

Um, and that's something that'd be worth doing this summer.

How long is the exhibit open?

Uh I think it'll be at least a few months, and it might even be six or more.

So yeah.

And they were unfortunate they were just here.

I know.

So that's all I have.

Have a great summer all.

Um well, first of all, I want to thank I think the one person from the community that is still here at our city council meeting.

Thank you for sticking it out with us here today.

And mainly is to staff, thank you for this year and getting through budget season.

Um you get at least, you know, five weeks off from city council meetings, um, and maybe reduce communication from us.

Um but I definitely want to thank you all for what you do.

That's all I have.

I just have two quick notes.

Our July community meeting has been canceled, but we will resume in August.

So make sure to join us on August 12th at La Cusina Italian restaurant for our next scheduled meeting.

And then our decoding democracy book club will meet, but virtually this Saturday, July 11th from 9 30 to 11 30.

The link will be sent out by Friday, and we will be focusing on chapter two.

Thank you.

I had two items.

And if I could, you know, have them report back maybe at the end of the summer break.

And he's nodding, so thank you for that.

And then second, what was removed from today's agenda on the selling of the parking decks since that offer was rescinded.

There is a parking study that will happen, but I also wanted to request could we also in parallel to the parking study uh refresh uh a look at all of our downtown properties with the new city hall.

We'll be vacating a number of different downtown properties, and uh just thinking about them in conjunction with the parking decks and the sequencing and timing of potential disposition of some of those properties or redevelopment.

So that would be my request.

Thank you.

I just have uh one comment.

We unfortunately had to discuss what happened with the teen takeover.

And upon reflection, I know for some it's been a difficult year, but I just want to talk about sport and how it brings a community together.

You know, I'm from New York to see how sport and the amount of people coming together, and I want to underscore the public joy from watching New York celebrate the New York next win after 53 years for over a hundred and eighty thousand people to come to downtown Raleigh to celebrate the Stanley Cup and our Carolina hurricanes to see the public joy to go beyond that to watch on television.

Yes, I'm addicted to the World Cup for different cultures and nationalities to come to our country and express public joy.

Whether you win or lose has been refreshing.

So our public spaces and our sports mean a lot to us.

And for me, it has been gratifying as I move into the summer with there's more world cup to come, uh, just to see those expressions of public joy.

I think that's what makes our civilization better.

And I just hope and continue to see more of that public joy as we can consider other sports opportunities for the city of Raleigh and our state.

So I want to end it there and just want to end on that positive note as we go into our recess.

Yeah, I'll be really quick.

I was gonna return to my practice of um naming the good things we've done through the consent, but in the interest of time I will not.

Um so happy summer to you all.

Please use your vacation time.

I'll be asking if you did uh when I get back.

Um, but I hope you will.

Um and then just wanted to say hats off to staff for executing a really smooth and seamless event at Dix Park over the weekend.

Um it was hot, it was very hot, but it was a well-run, well-executed event that was safe.

Um I really appreciate that.

And it was actually really fun to ring in the 4th of July with um visitors from our sister city, Rostock Germany, members of their city council joined us, and so that was just a fun little kismet of an event.

No report.

Yeah, I want to um honor the legacy of Dr.

Percell R.

Robinson.

He was the eighth president of St.

Augustine's University.

Lived to be 105 years old, and on August the second would have been 106.

Fortunately, we were able to give him a proclamation during Black History Month at one of Octavia Rainey's celebrations.

So we had a chance to honor him when he could actually receive the honor.

But uh he passed away last week and just wanted to lift that up.

All right, thank you.

Next we have appointments.

Good evening.

Jumping right in versus design review commission, two alternate vacancies.

Jason Cress received seven votes, Stephen Odom six.

So both would be appointed there.

Nominations, Fair Housing Hearing Board, one regular vacancy term of Amber Williams is expiring.

She would like to be considered for reappointment.

Move to agree, point.

All in favor of that motion, aye.

Aye.

All opposed, nay.

That is unanimous.

Lastly, police advisory board, one regular vacancy for your at-large slot term of Cole McMahon is expiring.

He would like to be considered for reappointment.

Move to reappoint.

Second.

All in favor of that motion, aye.

Aye.

All opposed.

Thank you.

All right.

Next we have the city attorney.

Good afternoon, mayor, members of council.

The one citizen that is still here is waiting for the city attorney's report.

Well, at least the one that I know of.

As reflected in your agenda description, the use of electric uh bicycles has increased significantly in recent years.

And at the same time, there's confusion about what is and is not an electric bike under North Carolina law.

Many vehicles commonly referred to as e-bikes are in fact legally classified as mopeds or motorcycles and are subject to different requirements.

The purpose of today's presentation is to explain those distinctions, discuss where each type of vehicle may be lawfully operated, and summarize the city's current education and enforcement efforts.

We'll also briefly, not yet, Luke.

We'll also briefly discuss the next steps, including continued public education and monitoring of state legislation.

I have with me here today's senior associate Paul Gessner, and we'll turn it over to him for the presentation today.

Thank you, Karen, and members of the council.

Thank you for allowing us to provide this presentation.

Regrettably, the Greenway unit was unable to be here.

They got pulled away to an incident.

So as Karen said, that we're going to talk a little bit about the basics and then go over some of the current efforts that the police department and the city and the city attorney's office were all working together to try to um to educate people and to deal with the issues.

And then finally, next steps.

I know that you all get a lot of calls because they then in turn get filtered back through the city attorney's office.

Ultimately, either to the police department and Sergeant Garcia and Officer Huff or to the Greenway unit, and then sometimes on to me.

But we hope that this will provide a good overview so that it'll clear the air.

Because as you'll see in a minute, there's a lot of confusion when I was a little kid.

We would talk about it's a is a bird, it's a plane, and that would be somebody else.

Uh now we're like, is that an e-bike?

Is that a moped?

I don't know what that thing is.

Um so hopefully this will clear some of that up.

So why does all this matter?

You know, these bikes are popular, they have exploded um in popularity and are readily available.

Um, what are ultimately electric mini motos are small like bikes, but they're extremely fast like a motorcycle.

And I think uh and I'll say at the outset that um the issues and the complaints, I guess, or the concerns that are being brought to your attention to the department's attention to the city attorney's office attention.

Um, there are a lot, and the vast majority of the people that are operating these devices are law-abiding citizens that are just trying to get out, get from point A to point B, or get out and enjoy the greenways and public spaces on the bikes, and they're not they're not causing problems.

It's but it's some of the folks, a small number of them, many of them young people that are um are generating the issues of the concerns.

Uh a big part or a big thing that we've identified is that many of the consumers are confused, that's exactly what they're getting.

And then the to me, kind of the the probably the most important thing is that the injuries are very serious that can occur from anybody, but particularly kids riding these devices.

Um, you know, there's been a lot of news uh stories about the confusion, uh, what happens.

You know, parents are buying these things for their children.

They don't they think it's a safe legal um device, when in fact it's something uh much more than what they thought they were getting.

Uh so that this has been in the news.

There have been crashes involving e-bikes uh or these electric mini motors, depending upon what they're classified as here in the city, and obviously that's a concern because especially when we have young people riding them, um so the injuries are on the rise.

Uh the injury rate is obviously higher for e-bike users, uh 44.7 percent were 10 to 13 years old, and 97% of those did not wear a helmet.

These statistics came from the National Institute of Health, and there are a lot of uh recognized periodicals and medical journals that are have uh published lots of data and reports on this, but um, you know, this kind of exemplifies or or points out how dangerous and how uh concerning this is so the uh the e-bikes are the um or the these devices fall into typically into three categories.

And the way that I look at it is and I think the officers would tell you too, is that when you see one of these devices, the first thing that I do when I find myself doing it now when I see one is like, does it have pedals?

Because if it does not have operable pedals, then it's not gonna be an e-bike.

It's likely going to be a moped, and depending upon the speed, it could be even be a motorcycle.

Um but when you see an electric assisted bicycle, the the uh the general rules are there's three classes.

Uh if it has a motor of less than 750 watts and it has operable pedals and it has speeds less than 20 miles an hour, then that is typically considered to be an e-bike.

750 watts.

I'm not an electric electrical engineer, but did a little bit of research and figured out that's roughly consistent with one horsepower.

And uh the current version of the city code uh uh defines what is a bicycle and also includes uh allowing it to have an electronic helper motor uh of up to uh 750 watts.

So this has been something that has been contemplated um long before I got here and long, you know, for for a long time it's been in the code.

And by and large, this is what I was referring to that a lot of the folks that are on the greenway or trying to get from point A to point B, this is what they're operating.

They're complying with the law, they're not causing the problems.

Um it's the unfortunately the misconduct that uh casts a shadow over everybody that's riding something other than a traditional bicycle.

The uh a moped by definition, and this uh is consistent with the general statute, uh, contains a motor of up to 50cc, which is relatively small.

It does not have an external gear shift, it obviously does not have pedals, uh, and it can operate at speeds of up to 30 miles an hour.

There are some different requirements for mopeds uh that I'll get into in just a few minutes, but those are um if they meet the requirements that we'll go over in a minute.

They're legal to operate.

Uh motorcycles, uh, and this is um a pretty good depiction of what we're seeing sometimes zipping along on the sidewalks or on the greenway or in the public street.

These are electric or powered devices that have a seat, one or or two or three wheels, typically the ones we're seeing are two.

They're capable of speeding over 30 miles an hour.

In fact, as the officers will tell you, they have encountered them that can do way more than that.

And they also, if it was a if it is classified correctly as a motorcycle, then you are required to wear a helmet.

But those are just some basic definitions.

And again, as you see these, sometimes that's not an electric or an e-bike, that's a motorcycle, even though the engine is not a traditional gasoline-powered engine, it's electric.

So looking at some of the basic summary of the regulations for an e-bike, you do not have to have registration, you don't have to have insurance, you don't have to have a driver's license, and anybody can ride one, any age.

And again, that's for just the e-bike.

Now for a moped, remember the moped has 50ccs, no external shifter.

You have to register that with DMV.

You have to have insurance on that.

You do not have to have a driver's license to operate a moped.

And if you're going to operate a moped on a public street or highway or in a public place, the statute requires you to be 16 years old, 16 years old.

If you want to ride, if a 15-year-old wants to ride a moped around and around in grandma's backyard, that is perfectly legal.

That's private property.

But for a moped on the street, they have to be 16 or above, and you have to wear a helmet.

Motorcycles, the rules that would apply for them is you do have to register a motorcycle with the North Carolina Division Motor Vehicles.

You do have to have insurance, you do have to have a driver's license with the motorcycle endorsement, and obviously you have to be 16 or above to legally operate a motorcycle on a public street or highway, and wear a helmet.

So where what vehicles can be operated and where?

So e-bikes can be operated on the greenway.

Remember, they're capable of going less than 20 miles an hour.

They've got the electric helper motor, they've got operable pedals.

You can ride an e-bike on a bike lane.

You can ride an e-bike on the public street or highway.

Mopeds, the city code currently prohibits motorized vehicles on the greenways or in the city parks.

So the greenway, you can't operate a moped, you can't operate a motorcycle.

Bike lanes, that's an inappropriate use of a bike lane with a moped or a motorcycle.

But you can ride those two subject to complying with all the other rules on a public street or highway.

So wearing a helmet, having the registration, having the proper license, being 16 if you're a moped.

That is okay.

Sidewalk.

I don't know if sidewalk is included in road.

So motorcycles and mopeds cannot operate on a sidewalk.

Bicycles, the code allows you state, so you cannot ride them on the sidewalk on Fayetteville Street, I think around Moore Square, and on a sidewalk that is immediately adjacent to a bike lane.

So if, for example, the one that I'm familiar with the most, because I go by there frequently is Ridge Road.

If there is a bike lane like there is on Ridge Road, you can ride your bicycle in the bike lane, but you're not supposed to ride it on the sidewalk where there's a provided bike.

You can use an e-bike on a sidewalk if there's no bike lane.

Yes.

Except for in those, except for on those specific streets that are in the code.

It's Fayetteville Street and around Moore Square.

Okay.

So enforcement and education, kind of what's going on at the police department.

You see Sergeant Garcia's shining face, he's standing here in the room.

RPD is conducting proactive patrols and engaging in an educate and warn campaign, and has continuing to, you know, as as the issues uh come up.

So when like on the greenways, if they have issues, the greenway unit targets them.

Officer Huff and Sergeant Garcia and their uh team, they deal with the issues in the community in the north, and then there is a whole separate uh communic group of community officers on the south side of the city.

Um their enforcement targets the safety concerns and repeat violations.

Um if Sergeant Burgess and the community group were here today, he would tell you, and I spoke to him briefly this afternoon, but um he reiterated that they have been very fortunate when they have encountered people on the greenway and they talk to the kids and they identify the parents and talk to the parents.

The parents um generally they've had a very high compliance rate, and they're very pleased with that.

The community officers have not had as much success with that, not sure why, but um they're they're you know trying to let people know that these devices are really not a bicycle.

A lot of the ones that they're in uh coming across, and that you know, the once they talk to the parents, they're hoping and they're you know that they can get compliance.

Um another big campaign or part uh is that the uh police department put out a uh public uh affairs video tonight there, down the bottom.

There it goes.

Um as part of their education campaign.

I'll uh take a moment here to.

Hey, I'm officer Wagnon with the Riley Police Greenway unit.

We're seeing a lot more electric-powered bikes and motorcycles on our streets and greenways, and there's a lot of confusion about what's considered an e-bike and what's actually an electric motorcycle.

Here's what parents and riders need to know.

A true e-bike has operable pedals and is designed to function like a bicycle.

E-bikes can generally be ridden where bicycles are allowed.

A rider should always follow traffic laws and operate responsibly.

The concern comes from high-powered vehicles, often marketed online as e-bikes, that are actually electric motorcycles, sometimes called e-moto's.

Many of these vehicles can reach speeds far beyond those of traditional bicycles and are classified as motor vehicles under North Carolina state law.

We've encountered young riders operating these vehicles in traffic and on public greenways, creating dangerous situations for themselves and others.

Parents, before you buy, do your research.

Know what you're purchasing and understand where it can legally be ridden, and make sure your child can operate it safely and legally, whether you're riding a bicycle or an e-bike, safety comes first.