I'm going to put it on the table. I'm going to put it on the table. I'm going to put it on the table. I'm going to put it on the table. I'm going to put it on the table. I'm going to put it on the table. I'm going to put it on the table. I'm going to put it on the table. I'm going to put it on the table. I'm going to put it on the table. I'm going to put it on We're back to my son. Yeah. Do we need to do it in the following? Nope. I can just do roll call and mayor's ready. Okay. Seven twenty-29 is my phone. You're right. Yeah. A long minute. Okay. 730. Directly over the year for interest. Good evening everybody. Welcome to the September 3rd work session. City Council. Everybody. Welcome back from recess. Hopefully everybody had a good two weeks off We're jumping right back into it. So let's start with roll call please. Thank you mayor Miss Connolly is absent miss Flynn Here miss his Scott here mr. Schneider here Underhill here a mayor Hardy here. Thank you mayor I'm Mary Hardy. I don't think anything is electronic because Mary Beth is not calling and all together. One note on the agenda we had a discussion just before this meeting and we will do the bike master plan after ADs and do the stormwater last just to keep the two CPEDs items together. And so we'll start off with accessory dwelling and I'll turn to Mr. Stoddard for introduction and then Mr. Trayne will give the report. Before it starts, we have disclosure statements we want to. Yeah, thank you. Yes, thank you. The City Council is discussing tonight the proposed accessory dwelling unit ordinance. I, like many others in the city, am an owner of a residential property that would be eligible for an accessory dwelling unit if the proposed ordinance were to pass. And as a result, my property may realize a reasonably foreseeable direct or indirect benefit from the ordinance. After careful thought, I've determined that I am able to participate in this transaction fairly, objectively and in the public interest. Thank you. Thanks, Abby. Okay. All right. Thank you, Mr. Shields. Thank you, Mayor Hardy and members of Council. I'm Paul Starter, Planning Director with the City. I'm going to set up this item, introduce this item before I turn it over to our lead staff from this one, Mr. Jack Traynor. The request tonight on line two of the staff report is for Council to hold its first work session not on 80s generally, but first work session on the draft framework specifically. And this is a draft framework for possible code amendments that would provide more flexibility to build accessory dwellings within the city. Just a note on how we got to this point tonight. So staff had developed this framework using national best practices, input from public meetings as well as city boards and commissions and comments from council that were collected over the most recent phase of this project where we were going out to the community with information and hearing what their interests in 80s were, as well as what their concerns about 80s were going forward from this work session tonight. This same draft framework will be shared throughout the community generally, as well as with boards and commissions. And then then input will be used to inform drafting of potential code changes that will come back to council in October and November for first reading. Still final consideration isn't scheduled to be any earlier than February of next year. So it's a deliberate process, it's a phased process where we're checking in with the community at each stage. As I mentioned at the open, this is your first work session on this draft framework. So the request from staff tonight is to receive the presentation and then also to provide staff with direction on the specifics within the framework. But with that, I'll turn it over to our lead staff from Mr. Jack Traynor. Okay, thank you, Mr. Stoddard. A good evening Mayor Hardy, members of council. The minute, if I could interrupt just a minute, I live in an R1A or R1B and have no plans to do an accessory dwelling unit and the city attorney do I need to do a, let's disclose your statement. If your property would be eligible and this is the difficult part is that would require I think an opinion from staff but if then yes it would be why you should do a disclosure statement. Okay well let me make that statement down. Why don't I send it to you and pass it around? It's all related and we'll just pass it down. Yeah. Most of us live in R own air on B right? I think given that we could all personally benefit from adding one of these Or have okay city Council is discussing tonight the pros accessory dwelling unit ordinance I like many others in the city and in an owner of a residential property that would be eligible for an accessory dwelling unit if the proposed ordinance were to pass and As a result my property may realize a reasonably foreseeable direct or indirect benefit from the ordinance. I'm very careful thought. I have determined that I am able to participate in this transaction fairly objectively and in the public interest. Thank you. The city council discussing tonight the proposed accessory dwelling unit ordinance. I like many others in the city, M&O, or residential property that would be eligible for an accessory dwelling unit if the proposed ordinance were to pass. And as a result, my property may realize a reasonably foreseeable direct or indirect benefit from the ordinance. If your caravan thought I've determined that I am able to participate in this transaction fairly Objectively and in the public interest and I have no plans whatsoever to do an accessory dwelling unit The City Council is discussing tonight the proposed accessory dwelling unit ordinance I like many others in the city I'm an owner of a residential property that would be eligible for an accessory dwelling unit if the proposed ordinance were to pass and as a result my property may realize a reasonably foreseeable direct or indirect benefit from the ordinance. After careful thought I have determined that I am able to participate in this transaction fairly objectively and in the public interest. Okay, great. Well thank you. As Mr. Stoddard mentioned, Council Times requested to hold a work session on a draft framework for possible amendments to the zoning ordinance related to accessory dwellings, which again, this draft recommendation was crafted through National Best Practice Review input from public meetings and city boards and commissions, data collected at two open house meetings, and an analysis of proposed state code regarding accessory dwellings. The recommendation for Council tonight, against the review, and provide staff feedback on the draft framework before coming back for another work session scheduled in October. I'll talk a little bit about some background information before getting into the review of public engagement that's occurred to date before jumping into the recommendations itself just by way of additional background. So again for background accessory dwellings, it become popular in cities across the country as a tool for increasing housing availability and reducing housing costs while having limited impacts on community character or sense of place. Common uses for accessory dwellings include housing for extended family members or family members that need to live nearby and providing a source of supplemental income for homeowners. These are commonly, we've included a list of common regulations for accessory dwellings beginning on line 27, most of which are included in the recommendation framework before you tonight. They're broken up into two kind of sections which are dimensional and programmatic. The dimensional considerations include floor area, building height, setbacks, and previous lot coverage in tree canopy, and some of the programmatic common considerations are parking requirements, short-term rental use, ownership, and occupancy requirements, and the approval process. So again, I'm going to jump a little into the report to summarize the public engagement that's happened to date, beginning on line 143. So two date, six public meetings have been held on accessory dwellings, including work sessions by the Housing Commission, the Urban Forestry Commission, Environmental Sustainability Council, and the Planning Commission. Staff's also hosted two open house meetings gathering input for a draft initial recommendation. And we've included the summary of some of the dot voting results that were collected across those two open house meetings. Those are beginning online 168, which I'll run through now. So 168 begins with the kind of design considerations. Again, we had dot voting boards across the two open house meetings where folks use dots basically to communicate their preference for a range of considerations for accessory dwellings. The first was a maximum height. The options presented were 15 feet, 20 feet and 25 feet. And across the two open house meetings, the 25 foot height maximum was received the most votes. For a maximum floor area, the 25-foot height maximum was received the most votes. For maximum floor area, the options were 500 square feet, 750 square feet and 1000 square feet. And across the two meetings, the 1000 square foot gross floor area maximum received the most votes. For rear setbacks, the options were 5 feet, 10 feet, and 15 feet, and the 5 foot rear setback and side setback receive the most votes across the two days. For programmatic considerations, this ranged from, again, many of the things that were mentioned at the top of the presentation, but we also included some additional ones like the one beginning on line 175. What most interest to you about accessory dwellings and the top three voted interests about accessory dwellings were aging in place or housing for intergenerational family members, which received the most votes across the two days. Housing affordability, which received the second most votes, and supplemental income opportunities for homeowners. Another consideration was what most concerns you about accessory dwellings. The top voted concern was short-term rental use or Airbnb. Second most voted concern was privacy. And the third highest voted concern was tree canopy preservation. Regarding short term rental use and accessory dwellings, the question was, you know, should accessory dwellings be allowed in, sorry, short term rentals be allowed in accessory dwellings be allowed in, or sorry, short-term rentals be allowed in accessory dwellings with the options being yes, some or no, and some receive the most votes across the two days. The question should the owner of the accessory dwelling have to live on site, or should there be an owner occupancy requirement? The options were just yes or no. And yes, there should be an owner occupancy requirement for accessory dwellings for the property and or to live on site, receive the most votes across the two days. The question, how many people should be allowed in the accessory dwelling or how many occupants should there be a maximum occupant limit to accessory dwellings with the options being up to two, up to three, or family of any size, or household of any size. And the results were split with the Tuesday, July 23rd, voting for the up to three receiving the most votes and on Sunday, family of any size received the most votes. Regarding how should the city regulate off-short parking requirements for accessory dwellings that provided options where the city should not require off-short parking requirements for accessory dwellings, the city should require require archery park and requirements for accessory dwellings. The city should require any existing spaces be maintained and lastly the city should require one off-tree parking space for accessory dwellings. And again, we had split results on Tuesday. No parking requirements received the most votes and on the Sunday maintaining existing parking spaces received the most votes. So with that data and again reviewing some best practices and the regulations of some neighboring localities staff together, the draft framework. Again, this is a first rough draft and will be subject to additional feedback, both from Council and from boards and commissions in the public. I'll review the public engagement schedule going forward at the end of the presentation. But to jump into the draft framework recommendations beginning on line 95, these are against split up between dimensional standards and those programmatic considerations. So beginning with gross floor area or a maximum floor area. The proposed recommendation is that in accessory dwelling be allowed to have a floor area of up to 50% of the primary dwelling square footage or 1000 square feet, whichever is smaller. Regarding allowances for attached or detached accessory dwellings, the proposal is to allow both. For maximum height considerations, staff recommends, again, the lesser of either 20 feet or one and half stories. For setbacks, staff recommends the five foot side and rear setback and a 25 foot setback requirement from any public street right away. And then staffs also included a couple detached accessory dwelling considerations, detached specific that wouldn't apply to attached or internal accessory dwellings. The first being subsection C that no windows facing the adjacent lots above the first story for parts of the building set back less than 10 feet from side from the side yard line Sorry, I jumbled that being the the consideration being that no windows would be Allowed on the second story of a detached accessory dwelling set back less than 10 feet from the neighboring property facing that property D That in an eight foot minimum separation be required for the nearest walls between primary dwelling and the detached accessory dwelling. And lastly, that any detached accessory dwelling be located no further than 500 feet from the primary dwelling. Regarding lot coverage, the recommendation is compliance with existing standards, which are listed in that far left column there. Again, that's 25% building coverage maximum, 35% in as by right accessory uses in the R1A and R1B districts only. Regarding parking the recommendation is that no off-tree parking requirements be included. For short term rental use staff recommends no immediate change And that the city consider a citywide Policy for short term rental that can address accessory dwelling specifically Regarding occupancy and ownership the recommendation is to establish an owner occupancy requirement for either the primary or accessory dwelling and rely on building code standards regarding occupancy limitations. For existing accessory buildings, the recommendation is that accessory dwellings and nonconforming accessory structures built before January 1st, 2024, remain as conditional uses subject to a one-time, especially use permit granted by the Board of Zoning Appeals. And lastly, for accessory dwelling approval process, that a residential building permit and associated trade permits would be required for detached accessory dwellings, and that no more than one accessory dwelling be permitted on a lot, a single lot. So, moving to line 188. In the timing section, we've included the entirety of the consideration process here, or at least as currently mapped out. So, the first phase was the initial scoping of preparation. And then the second phase was the preliminary workshop where council and the planning commission had their scoping and initial input sessions. Several boards and commissions had work sessions again on the concept of accessory dwellings. Staff hosted the two open house meetings on July 23rd and July 28th at the library. And now we're in the third phase, the draft framework phase, where some conversations are happening on this, and rough draft, again, that's based off the feedback that came from that second phase, the preliminary workshop. So following tonight's work session, the Planning Commission is scheduled to hold their work session on the draft framework at their September 28 meeting. Staff will also be holding two more open house sessions on September 25th, which is a Wednesday and Sunday, September 29th. which is a Wednesday and Sunday, September 29th. Moving and more information will be released about those in the coming week. Phase four of the draft code. So that's the phase after this where again we'll take the feedback that we received from this phase over the course of this month and next and turn it into the draft code, which again will, by no means, be a baked product, but there will still be plenty of room for discussion on each of the components. Staff will just start drafting because this is going to take extensive code writing. We'll be starting the underlying code drafting. And so they'll continue to be debate about specific components and numbers, et cetera. And then final consideration, that period scheduled to start in November and wrap up in February, where there'll be several more work sessions for council and the planning commission across, again again November to February with final consideration scheduled right now for February 2025. So that concludes my presentation. I'll turn back to you Madam Mayor. Thank you. Thank you Jack, and thank you for holding the six public meetings thus far. I think we've got a good input. I think many of us were at those open houses and those were quite well attended. So thank you for hosting us. Let's open up to questions, Justine. I'd like to reiterate both thank you for putting this all together listening to people and of course having more sessions going on in the future. I'll try to go through my questions as quickly as possible. Why exclude RM zone? Are there backup? Are there any single family houses in the RM district? No, the RM primarily are townhouse districts, so there's single family attached, but they're townhouse projects. So there's no detached single families. Single family homes in that district, okay. How is this detached accessory dwelling unit ordinance different from the accessory structure ordinance that we already have on the books because my understanding is that people can already live in an accessory structure, according from last year when I asked the zoning administrator, the only difference is that you can't have an oven. Is that still the case? Is basically the biggest difference here just that we're adding an oven? Well, not enough and specifically. So the, to qualify as an accessory dwelling, right? The structure has to have all the provisions for living and sleeping, which includes the kitchen, wet bar, electricity, heat. So it's not just an oven that is the difference between an accessory structure and a dwelling. An accessory structure can include things like a garage, that may not have any of the other things required for a dwelling. It may have everything but an oven. In both scenarios, it's still not considered an accessory dwelling. So an accessory dwelling has a lot more considerations that make it a dwelling versus an accessory building. Okay, so I mean, my understanding is you could, like right now you could have, my neighbor has a structure, or neighbor down the street, has a structure that has electricity, I think has a structure, or neighbor down the street, has a structure that has electricity. I think has a bathroom at it. And I think they're allowed to have someone sleep, you know, they could put a bed in there. So my understanding is, but the one thing that they can't do is put it in an oven. If that would be like the final missing piece. Yeah. Correct, yeah. I just want to make a plug for fire safety and life safety. If anyone is living in an accessory structure, I would encourage them to get some sort of certificate of occupancy to make sure they have safe wiring, that they're safe egress, that there's enough room in and out of the doorways and the hallways. So I wouldn't encourage people to live in unpermanent structures, but I think the point is you need multiple elements to qualify as to rise to the level of being a dwelling in the zoning ordinance And so when you remove any one of those elements, it's no longer considered a dwelling. Okay, and to your point about living in it, right? So someone could theoretically be renting out an accessory building that doesn't qualify as a dwelling from in the eyes of the zoning ordinance that City doesn't qualify as a dwelling. From in the eyes of the zoning ordinance, the city doesn't regulate rentals. So that's how that could happen. But under the proposal, accessory dwelling obviously would be regulated and permitted. Yeah. Okay, I think I understand. Thank you. In terms of, I mean, given that one can only, we're not changing the percentage of a lot that one can occupy a home on. Given that, are we expecting any sort of fiscal impact the city, allowing detached units versus the attached or large structures that we already allow on 25% of a lot. So I'm not sure I Are we expecting any additional fiscal impact to allowing accessory dwelling units? Detached. Detached. Yeah. I think certainly a detached accessory dwelling would probably have larger fiscal impact to the lot than attached. So yeah, I mean, like individually, that would probably affect the property more than attached. But in terms of city wide, you know, as like, we've observed the share of accessory dwellings is so modest compared to new houses that get built, particularly like detached accessory dwellings. So I guess that's my answer. It's detached would have a larger share of, or a larger impact financially than in attached. To the city. Yeah. I guess is there any way to quantify that or not really? It's, and we're working on that. There's still kind of, yeah. Those conversations are still ongoing. Okay, that's fine. With any sort of proposal that comes in front of council, we always wanna make sure we run fiscal impact analysis. One of the reasons we're having the conversation about the framework now is so that we know what to model. That without a framework, it's difficult to model what the impacts could be because we don't actually know what might get developed. And so this is why we're having the conversation about the framework now. And we did flag in the staff report that a fiscal impact would be forthcoming as the framework sort of fits into a little tighter mold. Got it, okay, perfect. Other things are just wondering, is there reason that we picked 20 feet versus 25 feet? It seemed like, so 25 is what Arlington allowed, and also what was a popular answer there? Yeah, that was made sort of in concert with the rest of the draft recommendation so 1,000 square feet if you you know allowed for a 1,000 square foot gross floor area in 25 feet you end up obviously with a larger potential structure than you know 1 and a half stories of 20 feet. And so to keep it sort of proportional to the principal structure that recommendation was made for 20 feet. I guess the other thing, let me see if I can find it. We talked about the lesser of 50% or 1000 square feet. Given that you can only build up to 25% of the lot, why not just say up to 1,000 square feet and no more than 25% building coverage? And is there any downside to going the other, you know, to including lesser 50% because it seems to unnecessarily penalize smaller homes because it might take from that? Sure. Yeah, I mean, I think it's all about proportionality to the principal dwelling. You don't want to, it's an accessory dwelling unit, right? Not an equal second access, like dwelling units. So with that in mind, I think that recommendation was more about keeping proportionality of a subordinate unit on the same lot to the principal. OK. And then do most detached garages follow the proposed AD regulations and where this question is going is such that I know that there are people who are interested in converting their detached garage into an accessory dwelling unit. Would they be able to do that under this or we haven't even gotten there yet. Yeah, part of it is that that's something that'll evolve. But so accessory structures have different setback and height requirements than what we're talking about now. So I think it's a three feet setback and I think a 12 foot maximum height. So the regulations are different than what we're discussing. I you know we don't have or I don't have an inventory of every accessory structure. I'm certainly that's probably on the survey on a property-by-property basis. So it's hard to talk about accessory structures in a blanket like that, but they do have different regulations. And so ostensibly they would be non-conforming if they exist today. Something that Arlington does that I would personally be in favor of is if there is a garage or non-conforming accessory dwelling structure, what they do is allow that to convert into an accessory dwelling, but they do not allow you to change the footprint of that building. So if it is 12 feet, you can't suddenly go up to 20 or 25. So given that, I think that would be a simpler path for people to go, especially if they already have an accessory structure that they want to convert, they would be in favor of that. Other things, in terms of the owner occupancy, would you have to have owner occupancy to be able to build the accessory structure? As in right now I know the development pattern is, or in many places in false church, is a builder will actually buy a property and then completely tear everything down and then redevelop it. And so I guess in some ways giving a builder an option to build an accessory structure rather than completely tearing down the home. I think would be generally a positive path forward. And so I am wondering does this right now as we're proposing it preclude that from happening. I think that order of operations, we may need to think a little bit about, I think right now we're still just, yeah, kind of in a binary mode, owner occupancy or not. Okay. And so those kind of nuances we'll definitely need to think a little bit more about. Okay. Other things that popped up were located no further than 500 feet from the primary dwelling. As long as it's conforming by all the other regulations, I don't necessarily see a reason why it can't be more than 500 feet away as long as it's you know has whatever setbacks from the rear and side. Let me see what else. Does the gross flare area of the main house, what we're using to calculations on? Does that include basements? Yeah, the zoning ordinance definition of gross flurry or does include the basement. Okay, okay. Okay, I think that's all my questions for right now. I would generally be in favor of, I don't see necessarily a problem with 25 feet. And again, I, the 1000 square feet, rather than the lesser of 50% versus 1000 square feet, I think would be, I would be in favor of, and then changing the located no further from, then 500 feet from the primary dwelling, I would also be in favor of that's all. Thank you. Great. Who's next? Debbie. Thank you. Thanks, Justina. Several questions. It's always great to have a very detailed person go before you then who asked a lot of your questions articulately. Thanks again to staff. Thanks to all the people who have joined us tonight and have sent in their opinions and dot voted and We'll continue to do so throughout this process. Just have two questions at the moment So we've been talking a lot lately with folks at Welcoming Falls Church, you know, we've been working with them We've resettled five African families to the city of Falls Church, we've been working with them. We've resettled five African families to the city of Falls Church. We, as a city, are financially supporting them. And they often are families that have multiple children, often three children. And it's been a challenge in a lot of our rental units to have a two bedroom with three kids in the one room and two adults in the other room. Insight properties have been really worked really well with us over at Falls Green and so we've been using two bedrooms there. Are there any restrictions like that on a single family home size of house? Restrictions aren't currently on number of people per bedroom. I'm just not familiar with that. You know, we've bumped up against it as a problem. So it's not specific to the, well, yes, there is a, there is a definition in the zoning ordinance, but that's, that's probably not what people are bumping into here. So within the city zoning ordinance, a household can have any number of people related by blood or marriage or up to eight unrelated individuals. And that's defined in the zoning ordinance. You'll see it under the definition of family, but for reasons of fair housing loss, staff tries to use the word household instead of family. And then the building code also has a set of requirements around how large room has to be based on how many people are in it. So minimum square footage and dimensions for a bedroom and then how those dimensions increase with more people. So both those requirements have to be satisfied. Yeah, on the number of people just thinking of getting these families in particular, that would be great to see it tied into zoning as it currently exists for single family homes to the extent square footage and the orientation, everything else allows for that. On back to just the impression on the number of accessory structures and kind of the impact on the city, I guess along the same lines of discussion we've had is making sure like we receive, obviously, if you build something, you pay taxes on it and you sure that to extend those taxes support any additional services that the folks there would need from the city just to make sure that we're covering our bases and then I just wanted to thank you for including some of the ESC comments just to reiterate that they're definitely in support of not changing any of the current lot coverage and previous or you know tree canopy that no matter whether you're whether it's approved and you build an accessory dwelling in a main dwelling or you tear down a current and build out to a maximum that you know continue to manage and maintain and be responsible for keeping the tree canopy keeping our lots and our setbacks regardless of how that's built. Those are my questions for the moment. Thank you. Thank you. Actually I don't think I said I was in support of what just seems that I was just appreciated your comments, but I do. I'm in support of the same dimensions, or three that were mentioned, 25 feet in height thousand square feet. And I'd like to learn more about the 500 foot setback from the accessory. I mean, from the main house. Not sure I need to fully think through with those implications or in terms of how that lays out a lot depending on the size of the lot because great it could impact more negatively smaller, lots of smaller houses. So thank you. Thanks. Okay, you're so nice. Erin? I guess I'll go. I'm going to try to? I guess all go. I'm gonna try to be better with my comments because I know sometimes I just do a big poll package of comments and I don't like break them down and actually get into more discussion of back and forth to allow an opportunity to answer as opposed to, like, hear my 20 comments? Great. And we can't kind of discuss as much. So I guess I want to zoom out a little bit. I'm not yet at the point of sort of my new show of all the dimensions and specifications. I would slowly understand why you're trying to get some of those reactions from council in order to facilitate kind of community discussion around this, but I guess I kind of want to zoom out a bit. First kind of to ask about just the structure of the framework. internal, right? So the attached dwelling unit or the internal dwelling unit, the detached accessory dwelling and then like the issue of conversions, whether it's conversion of an accessory structure, conversion, I don't know what like on the property. And so I think for me, and I think it would be helpful in the community dialogue, even though in the proposed updates, you do have sub issues within there where it applies to one another, but to actually disentangle those three things to talk about what changes are we potentially making to internal dwelling units and why? Like how does that just make more dwelling units within existing structures? What do the specifications for detached new unit that would go on a property look like? And then what are the conditions or the controls that would exist for converting something on the property and do conversions apply for example to like pre existing structures or do conversions apply to basically anything that anyone puts on the property that made later like get converted into an accessory dwelling. So a builder comes in, totally new light, puts up a home, there's a garage, like are we talking about 10 years from now? Does that garage conversion apply the same way as like, you know, a pre-existing garage that exists at the time that we pass the ordinance? Like are we talking about grandfathering in accessory structures as conversions, or are we talking about just like a convert at an accessory structure at any point in time, going forward can be converted into an accessory dwelling, even though that accessory dwelling wouldn't qualify as a detached dwelling in the first instance. Because I think it just, for me, part of the reason that I'm asking these questions is because as you know, like I always kind of go back to infrastructure and managing growth and how this relates to the CIP and what it is that we need to be planning for 10 years from now, 15 years now, 20 years from now, and those questions I think help inform what we need to be thinking of infrastructure wise, even though the marginal impact of like accessory wells every 12 months may not be that high. But what does it mean 10 years from now, 15 years from now? What does it mean for new builders coming in? So I guess I'll let you answers as to maybe you know in terms of the framework whether it makes sense to address those things separately or whether you think it makes sense to put all of those things together kind of as you've done. Oh sorry yeah. Well, I hear that. I feel like it can get lost a little bit when we're talking about within the proposed updates, those three different categories that attach the attached or conversion. So we can look at breaking those out. I think the framework as presented is more about comparing the current regulations to the state regulations. If there's a request to be more specific about even further comparing those three, we can certainly comment that. Then in terms of... I just want to follow up on the inversion date. Did I thought I read that it was January 1, 2024? Yeah, that's, that's included right now is, is a, uh, thing after, I get that if a developer came in clear to put a house in a garage, that garage wouldn't be eligible. Right. The structure would have to be existing. Yeah. Before January 1, 2024, as, as proposed. Okay. Maybe that goes had a common internal external conversion chart altogether. Right, so conversion is basically like grandfathering to the extent that you could convert something to be code compliant. Yeah, okay. Then on the lot coverage question, it hasn't been clear to me when we say compliance with existing standards, whether we're saying the accessory dwelling would have to comply with the 25% building coverage maximum or whether the accessory dwelling would comply with the 35% impervious surface coverage maximum. So can you clarify to which of those numbers applies? Oh, if the accessory dwelling would be, yeah, considered building coverage or impervious surface. Yeah. Right, yeah. So the whole property would consider all three of those things. Right. So yeah, but I guess when you saw that map, right, there was a 25%. Oh, that was just building coverage. Yeah. Just building coverage. But we were talking about essentially you'd be talking about 35% building coverage, so long as you're taking into account your driveway paths on the gravity. Yes. Like your accessory dwellings. What's the buildings and purview centers? Right-way strategies. Yes, but it purviews under the code actually include buildings. So like your graph is an impervious building, it's a super set. So, if you were to think of a Venn diagram and someone had a property, they could have, oh boy, I hope I do this right on the fly. So they could have 20% of their primary building covered a lot. And that would need up 20, that would need up 20 of the 25% of allowable building coverage. They still have 5% of the lot that they could use as the accessory structure, but now in total they've used up 25%, so they only have 10% left for driveways or other hard surfaces like patios or things of the lake. Okay, but what about something like a garage, right? A garage does, a garage does encounter against their 25%, a garage counts against their 35%. Where does the garage count against the 25%? It's certainly counts against the 35%. I think we'd have to check the definition on building. Like a carport, it might be a nuance of the zoning code, right, where like a car port doesn't count as a building, but a garage does. But we clarify that. It has to do with walls and. OK, so you're saying that it shows for conversion, for both internal and detached dwelling units. And then for conversions, all the building coverage would still be 25% or under. For the whole lot, that's right. Okay. Then in terms of like the controls, so to speak, or larger framework. Justine raised tax implications. I guess I'm wondering, apart from increased assessed values, is there a difference in terms of, like, are we doing treat this as rental, like commercial income in some sort of way? Or is there a consideration of how you treat rental income? I ask partially because Arlington, for example, when we look at like neighboring jurisdictions, they have, if you are renting a dwelling and the rental income is over $10,000 per year. For example, you have to have a basic license in order to rent that dwelling. And it likes things like the Virginia, whatever it is, residential landlord and tenant acts, seemingly would apply to accessory dwellings. So I just want to have like a broader community conversation, dialogue about expectations in terms of both city regulations, but then like state overlight in terms of legal implications or licensing, or what we do for like consumer protection purposes to get to make sure that, you know, part of the reason you have licensing in a place like DC for example is that in order to renew your license you actually have to show that you're dwelling that you're renting is complying with code so that you're making sure that people have habitable dwellings that are safe to reside in. And so I'm kind of getting at like the benefits of regulation or the benefits of some sort of conditions, whereas I think it's been kind of portrayed in a like it's much better to have just like an unregulated market because it means that people are able to build accessory dwellings without having to deal with all of the things that come along with it. Just sort of double down on that point. I think one of the things, I think one of the benefits of this the overarching program of sort of adjusting the rules around accessory dwellings is that it actually invites more people into the permitting process. I think there may be people who are afraid to sort of reach out and I don't know if they're afraid to request an inspection because maybe they're not allowed to have an 80 or what if they put an in-law suite in the basement and they don't want to tell anyone. So I think one of the things about sort of changing these things and publicizing them I think can be very beneficial because I remember when I set up my own basement in my previous house about sort of I wanted that to be a living space, but it didn't have any aggressive window, and so right those are expensive, but it's still really valuable, because you might want it. And when you want it, you need it. And so I think it is valuable to have that permitting process set up, then I think it's a good point about what are the license requirements that are going to go along with these things. You could look into that. I would appreciate it. And then just on the marginal impacts, I think matter for planning purposes. So what are the sewer impacts? Yes, one additional bathroom is like marginally a minuscule sewer impact, but when you have X number of accessory dwellings, you're gonna have that combined, for example, with the TZone parcels where we've seen a lot of development very quickly, you know, there are gonna be broader impacts when we're already up against our sewer capacity. The same way for stormwater impact as I understood this, it said that you know, you don't have storm water requirements if you're under 2500 square feet disturbance, which seemingly most of the accessory dwellings would be. And so like we know that the city is on top of a bunch of streams so that we deal with these stormwater issues because of it. So I wanna make sure that, you know, the same way that we are now getting public comment about things like the T zone and concessions that like we actually don't have stormwater capacity for some of the buildings that we approved through that ordinance. I wanna make sure that we're doing the planning that we need to want to make sure that we're doing the planning that we need to do to make sure that we aren't creating stormwater issues for people in the community. And that we're not just saying, okay, build on your lot and we're transferring like that risk to other lots when we know that we have stormwater issues. And then separately kind of school impacts. It's every year we hear from the schools. It's really important given that we are a single school district, right? That 10 students, like here or there, makes a large difference for budgeting and for teachers. And you could imagine, right, the accessory dwelling, as I think Mr. Duncan said during the last planning commission meeting, you know, being used different ways over time or the primary dwelling owner living in the accessory dwelling and wrenching the primary dwelling, which means a lot of times you're renting single family homes and the single family homes in the city are often rented to families with children. And so what that means in terms of school impacts again for planning capacity wise but also budget wise. And then I guess I'd be interested in as we take on the trash issue and I think at the ESC that there was a comment about practically do you have a different address for the accessory dwelling? Is the accessory dwelling? You know part of that primary, like is the address for the parcel or do you have A and B parcels on the lot? So some of those kind of practical considerations. So I would like to think a little bit more globally about this instead of just kind of practical considerations. So I would like to think a little bit more globally about this instead of just kind of moving to code language without dealing proactively with some of the impacts that I think are like foreseeable impacts that we need to address up front. Thank you. Thank you. Dave? Thanks a lot. So I very much look forward to a robust community discussion on this. And consequently I'm going to suggest a couple things and ask that a couple things be included in the package that aren't included now. We got a very thoughtful letter from Christine Ward today, and I don't think that's in the package. And I would urge that any package of commentary go forward, including her comments. I thought all of our citizen comments were insightful, but that one in particular, I think, raised some critically important issues. The second thing is I attended one of the sessions. And I think to give the dot exercise a kind of feature that you're giving it is somewhat questionable because people were given a lot of dots. And it would have been quite easy to put a bunch of dots and one particular issue. So I thought it was a very It was not a formal voting process where you could verify that only one vote was cast by one person on each issue And so I think you're giving too much credibility to that exercise. I don't mind that it be So I think you're giving too much credibility to that exercise. I don't mind that it be included, but I think you also ought to include some of the commentary. And there were extensive comments, highly critical of ADUs in the public session. And I didn't see you really picking those up either. So I think if you're going to fairly present the results of those sessions, you're going to need to add a lot more and downplay the significance of the so-called dot voting because it wasn't clear that you couldn't place all of your dots on one particular issue. So you could have three or four people putting 20 dots on one item. So I think that's important to minimize. You can report it, but I think you've got to provide the correct context of it. The next thing is in the package you have an advocacy note from the AARP. In this case, they are an advocacy organization. I would suggest that you might also want to present counterarguments to give people the true sense that city staff is being neutral on this and not acting as an advocate. I also note that in your PowerPoint presentation, I think I mentioned this before, there was a section on benefits but no discussion on potential negatives. And so I want to make sure that we give the citizens a complete package to consider. Also, I think our surrounding jurisdictions, while there's short mention of them, I think you should talk more about it, because I think it's been far more careful than we, than one might suggest, based upon the grid that we have. So, outlined in the grid of issues and discussion. So, those are a couple things I'd recommend. So, I'm concerned about a couple issues. The notion that you don't have to provide parking spaces on site. There's an irony here where that and combination with something else will be discussing shortly to reduce the parking requirements in commercial spaces. Oddly we're forcing more and more cars under the public streets at the same time that we're talking about a bike master plan that would be jeopardized by exactly large numbers of streets, large numbers of cars on public streets. So I think there's a real irony here and I think this is a policy issue which we need to sort out better. So I'm a little reluctant to, well I am reluctant to just say, well you don't have to provide any parking on site for the ADU because that means that the cars are going to be on the streets, more cars on the streets, the potential failure to regulate properties which are within three feet of other properties. Could they be expanded? Could they be otherwise changed in terms of their footprint? And thereby, really defeating the effort here, I think, which is to maintain setbacks and environmental considerations. But what also had Christine Ward makes an interestingU, that's a benefit to you, or benefit to the family benefit from a tax standpoint, perhaps for you, benefit for resale potentially. Why don't we leverage that to make sure that we're getting the maximum environmental considerations involved and certainly maintaining existing. Lot coverage, tree canopy is a good beginning, but maybe we ought to be more aggressive. Particularly because in effect, whatever the theory is, the effect will be more structures covering more property and less pervious surface than we currently have now. So that's a guaranteed, if an ADU and detached ADU is built by definition, it will occupy what is now open space. And so are we from an environmental standpoint adequately addressing that issue? Those are just a few of the initial comments that I wanted to make and some thoughts and concerns and I would really like since we're going to go out to the citizens. I think it needs to be very clear that our discussion tonight is preliminary that code language would also be preliminary and that all issues are on the table for community discussion. I'm not sure that's always clear after an initial council review of something. So I hope that it will be crystal clear that we're putting things out here and we want a full and robust community discussion of all of the issues that are there and other issues that our citizens may come up with. Finally, I do think there was a Q&A that I think is very relevant because I've already seen some references to affordable housing and I think the comment was well made and I think staff made it that ADUs would probably rent it basically what an equivalent apartment would rent for today So we're really not gaining anything in terms of traditional affordable housing And I would like that to be set aside as early as possible. I did I want to note that up staff comment and I did want to note that staff comment and considering that we've built about 2000 apartment units in the last 20 years, I'm not sure that we need more. Anyway, those are just initial comments. Thank you. Thank you. materials, I guess when I saw the ABCs from the AARP, I was reminded of, I think I had sent both to you, Paul and Jack. There's a 2021 study, you know, their experience. So I would ask that the 2021 report be included among the attachments for future sessions, both here and in the boards and commissions. And then also when SB 304 was referred out to the Virginia Housing Commission. They had their initial meeting in May 2024 and they have kind of a helpful 19 slide power point that I sent in a follow up discussion. Follow up email. And so to have that included too, because it does present this in a more neutral way and have the kind of various considerations that go with all these different parameters that I think helps again frame the conversation in a helpful way. Thanks. Thank you. Justine. I'm also just falling up on some things. Given that a house or a structure can cover 25% of the lot, something that I personally care about is that we're not putting undue, onerous regulations on accessory dwellings that we wouldn't put on a main house. So in terms of licensing, like if we're going to put it on accessory structures, I'd like to make sure that it's also something that's on a main house. If we're talking about sewer impacts and all these other things, whether someone covers 25% of their lot with an accessory structure and a small house or with one large house. I'd like to make sure that the regulations are somewhat fair across the board. Anything else? Yeah, I get to go now. It's really hard going last. It's really hard going last. I used to get to go first, it's really hard going last. I used to go first. Thank you again. I'm going to start where Erin and Dave made comments about learning from our neighbors. I really appreciated the data in the staff report that noted that Arlington who's adopted this five years ago, it's between two and six percent of their single family. Structures have accessories. I quickly googled what their population size and their size of the county. So they're 15 times our size in terms of our population and 12 times their size in terms of square miles. And so if we translate for to however many units there are, I think this is a very incremental change. So as much as I share the concern on infrastructure impacts, utilities, I do think that when this gets implemented in false church, it will be pretty incremental. I wish it would do more because I know that we have, we want to create more housing options for people, but I know that given the way it's written right now, I share justine sentiment of level that playing field for what single family home owners can do today. So given that they have to meet 25%, build and coverage in 35% impervious, the 20% tree canopy, I think applying the same rules of whether you build a six-bedroom house or whether you keep your three-bedroom rambler and build a thousand foot accessory in the back that has really largely the same impact or hopefully less impact is now you've preserved a three-bedroom rambler and we will talk about the importance of having more starter home stock. So that's one thing that I thought I appreciated just seeing the actual numbers from Arlington, Alexandria, how limited accessory dwellings have been there and how incremental the tool it is. So I was kind of first comment and appreciation for that. I do want to plus one on, thank you, my person, getting the height limit up to 25 feet. If you think that's worth thinking about more. And in general, which is a comment I've made in the past, is as we get further along, this is the first draft of kind of these parameters, I think it is important to market test this, right? I think when I compared the code with what Arlington and Alexandria have done, clearly they're buildable, although not very many as we've seen by the real data from those two jurisdictions, but we do want to make sure that whatever we develop is actually buildable by the market. So at some point I would ask that we have those conversations with accessory dwelling homeowners, builders out there to make sure that the regulations we develop are realistic. So that's kind of one request. On the owner occupancy question, I had a similar question as just seen in weather that would preclude builders, because they think right now what often happens that we all lament about is when people scrape the entire lot and build the six-bedroom mansion. So again, if we have a way of preserving the smaller starter home stock, I would like to understand whether a builder could buy that lot and actually add accessory and then resell that without requiring that owner occupancy. And in general, I think owner occupancy rules, while they're very common, actually, is some kind of a backdoor way of blocking renters. And in general, I think as we think about creating more housing options, I want to make sure that we think about ownership and rental opportunities for people. And so let's think more about pros and cons of whether we really need that owner occupancy requirement for either the primary or accessory. As next comment, I appreciate all the discussion on existing accessory structures and what the conversion looks like. I did look at that Arlington code as well of whether, as long as they don't change the building envelope, could we bring in some old legacy structures in the conformance? I guess they'd still be non-conforming officially. Is that how they would be labeled? They should, do we get labeled in the accessory dwellings with that one-time special use permit that's proposed? Well, yeah, they would be not conforming if they were used in accessory dwelling, but as a- They could then be legal by getting the BZA special use permit one time. They would be legally non-conforming. Yeah. I don't know if you're not in conforming. I'm kind of an oxymoron. Okay. And actually as a side note, I was actually given feedback recently to not use the term grandfathers in the room. I think I was told that there's some racial history of that, so we'll call them legacy, I guess, legacy units. So I do think that the thought around not changing the building envelope could be a good way to bring in old legacy units. Let's see what else. So back to the general sentiment of how do we create more options and boost supply for everyone. One thing that I had brought up was actually the idea which I know will be a little hard to understand at first, but the idea of kind of creating separate ownership, there it is. That's that last part of the box. So without kind of splitting the underlying line, I think we all in general, I think Dave actually just talked about this, how home ownership is increasingly out of reach. We've certainly created a fair number of rental opportunities. Princeton, New Jersey, I think is the first jurisdiction in the U.S. to allow the accessory structures to be owned differently. And the reason why I think this is important is one, obviously creating more ownership opportunities in neighborhoods, which is really difficult. Because where else can you buy anything in a neighborhood for $300,000? It's probably nowhere, right? Second, I think it creates more financing opportunities. You could get a mortgage for that secondary structure. So then accessory dwelling units no longer become essentially an affluent option for people. Because right now I think people can only build them if they take out a cash out refi or have three and a thousand dollars in cash laying around. And so if you could actually get a mortgage for that backyard unit and build that and have a different ownership structure, I think the land is part of it would mainly be a condoing of the land. I think it could be a pretty cool innovation that false church could be a leader in at least after Prusa New Jersey. So I would like to give that some more thought because I think in the vein of creating more ownership across the city, I think that would be a sentiment that many of us share of wanting to do and this could be a good way to broaden the opportunity and increase the supply. It does not split the underlying lot, so the lot will still be owned. I know it's probably more complex and I'm also okay, tabling it for now, but I do think that if our policy goal is to create more options for everybody, ownership rental, this could be a really innovative way of thinking about it. So I'll leave it out there for discussion. I know it requires more thought. I do want to follow ups maybe just on the, when I was talking about infrastructure planning on the stormwater issues, I guess, and we had talked about this once before after one of the sessions too, I guess I would like to model out, you know, I think what we're talking about are residential lots that either because their tear downs are maxed out to the building coverage maximum or because we're incentivizing additional structures on the lot are at their, at their building coverage and impervious surface maximums. So I would like to understand like more in terms of storm water implications, given that both of those things will be happening. What that looks like instead of just kind of reacting to, you know, what can we do storm water wise in our commercial lots where we repeatedly er well a lot of the storm water issues are because of tear downs in our residential lots or because of, you know, over development of residential lots. So like for me they're in tandem because it means you're incentivizing more building on those lots that have less coverage and you are also still going to have tear downs happening of our older housing stock. And then I guess just on the neighboring jurisdiction points, my only caveat I think in this PowerPoint that I referenced from just May was that in terms of talking about accessory dwellings, they say that they often do occur predictably so and more affluent communities. And so I think that where we are an affluent community and we do have larger lot sizes, we could actually end up with more accessory dwellings like some of our neighboring jurisdictions. So I don't know that it's like fair to just extrapolate out based on population size of our neighbors to what it is that false church like may or may not predict on a yearly basis for accessory structures. I mean, accessory dwellings. But sorry, that you responded my last one, but I wouldn't accept it. Thank you. Okay. Sorry, just seeing if you're responding to the partnership. Yeah, justine, if you're responding to the partnership. Yeah, just quickly. Generally, I am in favor of more home ownership opportunities. I think that is a positive for our community, especially. Yeah. But I guess, you know, it's something that I'd like to explore more. Maybe there are downsides. I haven't given a ton of thought. I don't know about the whole structure. It's really work complex, but I think it's certainly more complicated. It might not be worth going down that route, but I think it is an interesting point. That is worth exploring. Okay. There's a lot I need to learn about how that works. But I too, I like that notion of additional home ownership, just because of the fact that we're wealthier than our other neighbors and we hear again and again that people really desperately want to stay here and they want to own here, that their options are incredibly expensive single-family home or in a partner. So I like the notion, but I think there's a lot more to understand about the implications and how it works and I like the concept that I'm going to see more details. Great. Yeah, hi. and how worse and I like it. I like the concept. I'm just saying we're understimulating details. Great. Yeah, hi. So just a couple of things. I think by surrounding jurisdictions, I intend to include all the surrounding jurisdictions in all of Northern Virginia and not just selecting Ireland and then Alexandria, because I'm interested in Fairfax County. I'm interested in other jurisdictions as well. Point number two, I think if we're gonna really move into this ownership, we need to be honest that we're eliminating single family zoning. And I think if we're gonna go that direction, I think we have to be honest with people. We're not talking about ADUs anymore. We're talking about a very significant change in zoning, which if we're gonna move in that direction, I think that ought to be put out to referendum, because it's not a minor change. Anyway, just thought for future reference if we delve into that issue, but I think, anyway, I'll leave it there. Thanks. Thank you for the thoughts on that. I have one last one. Corner lots is often a unique thing and so I think it's worth calling out how corner lots are treated because they have two front yards and rear yards are different so let's call out the rules for that for people who have corner lots. I think that was last one. Having attended several of the public meetings, Airbnb usage is a frequent concern. That said, I went on Airbnb myself to look at how prevalent they were. I think back in the 20 next when we had ability from the general assembly, we made a choice to not pursue regulation. I guess my request to staff is let's continue monitoring it. When I last looked like literally if we could go, there wasn't many Airbnb's frankly. I just don't think we're a hotbed for them But I do think that if we do see an uptake of them It does make sense to take up the citywide policy especially from a taxing process with people are making money from it I would love to regulate the neighborhood impacts and actually make sure that we treat them again Level of the playing field or whoever might be a landlord compared to people who might be landlords in bigger buildings So my request to staff is just keep an eye on how prevalent they are right now. I think handling them on a case by case basis would be fine, but if we do see that there's enough to take it, it would probably make sense to take up that as a citywide policy issue. Any final thoughts before we move on to the next item? I just want to find a one just in response next item. I just didn't respond to that. So I know some of the public comment talked about will just table the rental issue for later for example and put a later control on if the impacts are such that we grant increased property rights, for example, and whether we're able to then put conditions later on those property rights that were extended. So I would like to understand, like if we're gonna kick a issue down the road, for example, does it mean that as an effective date going forward that applies or does it mean that it would be retroactive to those accessory dwellings that were permitted under ordinance between enactment date and like Airbnb short-term rental regulation. I will follow up to answer that question. Thank you all for the very median third discussion. Thank you, staff. Thank you. Thank you. I think you still have to say that. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. We're reordering the agenda so we're going to move up by master plan, which is the third item up to that. We get all the seep up items in. So, Kerry Medina is joining us here at the table. And I think for this one, once again again we'll let Paul make some introductory comments. Our goal tonight is not to do sort of the full presentation that we've, we need to turn up the temperature. But our goal tonight is not to kind of go through the full plan, but to hit some of the highlights from the discussion from the August 5th work session and any changes since you've seen it last. I'll turn it over to Mr. Stotter for a fuller introduction and then we'll turn it over to Kerry for the staff presentation. All right. I am Paul Stotter, Planning Director with the City. Thank you, Mr. Shields. Thank am Paul Stider, Planning Director with the City. Thank you, Mr. Shields. Thank you, Mayor Hardy and Members of Council. As Mr. Shields said, I'll provide a bit of an introduction before I turn it over to our lead planner on this one, one of our principal planners, Ms. Cario Odenino. As Mr. Shields said, this will be a more compact presentation than you've seen in the past. And that is because you did have a recent work session on this. So the request tonight there online three is for Council to treat this as a final work session on updates and amendments to the City's Bicycle Master Plan, which is tentatively scheduled for your final consideration later this month during your September 23rd regular meeting. As was mentioned, you've seen this recently during your August 5th work session, changes to the staff report since then are highlighted in gray, changes to the plan documents since then are highlighted in red. The staff report is long and that's deserving of a project of this bike. And you can see the different sections of the report. It talks about the vision and goals in the plan. The map of future routes, plans to expand capital bikes here. The priority routes that were selected with community input, the conceptual designs for those routes. And then implementation, both for those routes specifically, as well as for the bike plan more generally. And all that's laid out in detail on the plan, and that's been discussed in previous plans. But again, the focus tonight is, the plan tonight is to stay focused on a few key issues and things that are still in motion after that last work session. So first is around vision and goals, around these ideas of all ages and all abilities and becoming a bright friendly community, second around the future routes and what should be in or out of that map of future routes, third looking through specifics on the implementation of those three priority routes, and then for a conversation about metrics and how to track progress. But with that, by way of setup, I will now turn it over to, as I said, our lead planner on this one, Ms. Cario D'Nino. Thank you, Mr. Shields. Thank you, Mr. Stoddard. Hi, I'm Cario D'Nino. Good evening, Mayor Hardy and members of City Council. So, council is requested to receive an update and hold a final work session regarding the bicycle master plan update. And staff recommends adoption of the resolution at the September 23rd council meeting. As Mr. Stoddard noted, and looking at line 19, City Council last reviewed materials during the August 5th work session. Since then work sessions were held with the Planning Commission and the Citizens Advisory Committee on Transportation. Major updates since that work session include updates to the vision goals to reinforce all ages and abilities and achieving bicycle friendly community status, updates to the future routes map to incorporate additional routes suggested during the last work session, map to incorporate additional routes suggested during the last work session and additional information about improving existing biking routes. Line 78, since the August 5th work session, staff has revised the goals in the plan document to include a goal to provide an environment in which bicycling is safe and comfortable for people of all ages and abilities. And to include a goal in the policy guidance and vision section of the document to achieve statuses of bicycle friendly community. In terms of metrics for the bicycle friendly community status, staff is continuing to close the loop with the League of American bicyclists and plans to have those added. is continuing to close the loop with the League of American Bicyclists and plans to have those added before September 23rd. Line 93, a comment response table is available by topic. Looking at the map of future routes, that map is an out-year vision, provides an out-year vision for a connected and complete bicycle network. And the network was developed using the principles of connecting to regional networks, connecting priority destinations such as commercial areas and neighborhoods, transit facilities in schools, connecting to designated bicycle routes and neighboring jurisdictions and connecting islands of low stress streets. In terms of updates to the future routes map since last work session, North Washington Street has been added as well. Some lower stress routes through neighborhoods throughout the city. Now looking at conceptual design on line 154. Staff prepared conceptual designs for the three priority routes and presented the cross sections at a series of community and neighborhood meetings. During the meetings, meeting participants also requested traffic calming and pedestrian access improvements, as well as consideration for parking utilization and operational impacts for trash and recycling pickup. And a brief two or three sentence description of the concepts shown in the staff report is provided in the appendix of the draft plan update. Staff proposes refining the concepts for the routes and engaging in a second round of community meetings during the spring of 2025 and then If the update to the plan document is approved staff will continue to revise the designs for the three priority routes of Southwest Street, Northwest Street and the East West connection by incorporating those community requested features including traffic calming and pedestrian safety features Now looking at the implementation section on line 199, implementation involves a four-pronged approach, including building new bicycle facilities, improving existing facilities, installing bicycle parking and hosting educational events. And that implementation should be guided by the goal of achieving bicycle friendly community status. Moving down to the timing section of the report, line 244, we kicked off this update with a discussion of scope and schedule with Council, did a review of existing conditions and identified priority routes in late fall and winter, reviewed conceptual design smart through June and are now looking toward final consideration this month with council final considerations scheduled on September 23rd. So I'd be happy to take any comments or questions at this time. Thank you, Kerry. Thank you so much. We threw a lot at you last time. So thank you for so wonderfully combining a lot of things that we threw at you. A few things that are feedback that I've gotten from the community. I just I do want to be clear. So what we are voting on the next time is going to be the bike master plan not that we're not voting on The information and the staff report so what we're approving is the bike master plan and solely that even so It has led to some consternation the images online 190 and 194 in the staff report and so rather than Continuing to show those images, I'm wondering if it would be possible in the staff report to take those images out as we go, just for clarity, because I've been assuring people, and they did point to the staff report, that things will be done on a block-by-block basis. But this then sort of puts things in a different direction. And so there's a little bit of confusion there. Yes. Just by history, we ran into actually a very similar situation on another project. So years ago on the WNODE Master Plan, there was concern about showing a WNOD rerouting going through Crossman Park and the neighborhood was very upset because they had worked 10 years prior to that plan to get something removed from a plan. But because it had been removed, there was no record of it. So I wonder if the concern is clarifying that these need to be done on a block-by-block basis. Maybe we just state that and be affirmative on this picture rather than taking the picture out, so that the conversation doesn't get lost. Okay, then I think making clear that this is preliminary and sort of painting things with a broad brush and this is not how things are necessarily going to turn out. We are going to look at things on a black-by-block basis. And I think reaffirming that in those lines, even though we're not voting on the staff proposal, we're voting on the bike master plan. But I think clarifying that here would be a lot more. Yeah, we can put a stamp right on the image that says conceptual loan laid to be developed on a block-by-block place. Perfect. Okay. That would be great. I appreciate that. Other things, something that I brought up with why a few weeks ago on implementation in the bike master plan, I don't know what page it is. Let me see if I can find it. But under implementation, number seven on page 1940. It talks about the three things that for bicycle routes, it says that City Staff as well as other members of City Council Because there is concern in the community. Oh, is it's not going back to Council? Are we just gonna suddenly get a plan and like you know tear up everything on the street and we won't know about it And we won't get a chance to comment on it So I have been reassuring people that it will come back the Southwest and Northwest will come back to City Council But that's not how it's currently laid out in the implementation in the Bike Master Plan. So we did have a discussion about this and maybe I'll just share with Council a couple thoughts. One, to date, no bike lane that has gone in in the city has gone to City Council. So the ones on Maple Hillwood, Roosevelt, et cetera, did not come to City Council. The language that is in the plan is very similar to the language that was in the 2012 plan. So it's not a new idea that we have this type of process. So that's a little bit of background now. When you deal with a sensitive street where on, you know, parking can be impacted or there could be other neighborhood impacts, one difficulty that we do run into is that sometimes there's some lack of clarity for the residents like what is the decision-making process? And so it's an important discussion to have. One, does council want certain streets to come back to you or certain thresholds of impacts that come back to council? We could have that discussion. Or we could keep the language as is. Or alternatively, neighborhood traffic calming goes to the CACT. There's that process that's available. So it's an important issue. At the end of the day, we do want a real easy to understand process so that neighbors are not confused when we're having these discussions in the future. I think for certain bike lanes, when there's like an administrative process, you narrow the travel lane with, and then maybe you have space for a bike lane, that can be more administrative and doesn't necessarily need to go to council. And I imagine that as we come up with complete streets and other things like that, there's gonna be plenty of roadways where, you know, you suddenly have a 12-foot lane that can be narrowed down a little bit and suddenly there's space for a bike lane. I do think that for some of these bike lane decisions like on northwest, southwest, I would like it to come back to council. I think that also reassures the community in many ways. But I will leave it open to others. What about it that goes back to see that there's a process where CACT begins it because they have a body of those who are highly invested and represented by the community and like as a step before it comes back to council. That would work. I mean, so I mean I would take recommendations from the CTE, you know, that would be a strong recommendation to understand where they... Yeah. I think it should be on the CTE and council for saying... Or I mean I like there will be a process that's clear and defined. I don't know that we want to have if this and that, if it's this street that it comes back to Council, if it's not that street, then it doesn't. So I guess that's why I'm thinking to go to lean on the CACT process that has happened in the past. But your concern is that there are a couple streets in particular. I mean, I guess you can define those streets. I mean, I think we have a major, the major corridor as you can list. Yeah. West Washington, broad. Yeah, I think there's like a handful that we could easily list. But we have to authorize the budget, or the, like, we're going to be over the threshold amount where it'll come back to us as an authorizing thing for the money. And that's our approval of whether the project goes ahead. Sometimes not it's not a guarantee that that would be the answer. The second year road is 1.2 million estimated. Yeah the the the three that we're talking about is the primaries they will likely be of a contract amount that will need to come back to council. But in terms of, you know, this is going to be a 10 year or 15 year plan. We're going to move past those projects. And so it's just what there could be some instances where it wouldn't. I do think we need some language to address this issue and hopefully we can see that at all before we vote on this because I think you're right. I think we've already seen points of controversy in areas where we thought there wouldn't be controversy. So this is clearly an issue. So I would like to see some language drafted about a process that citizens can have input before infrastructure is changed and whether that goes to CACT first, but I think they should have the opportunity to come to us if they have an issue. Hopefully in some cases, if it just sharrows on the street, you're not going to get that. But if we're talking about particularly taking on street parking, we already know that that's a very sensitive issue. So I think some degree of the ability of citizens before hard infrastructure or major changes are made have the ability to come to us. I think that's a really good idea. I think that's well taken. Paul, did you have something? I was just gonna say, it may be a sort of a missing carry over from the other plan, but I know in developing the bike routes, the steps are largely the same as written here. I think there was a requirement for some sort of public meeting or public forum. One thing that's giving me a little bit of pause is, right, these are new. And so what we maybe do is have some sort of stipulation within the, within the appendix where we talk about these priority routes that sort of commit staff to bringing these specific streets back to council for maybe a consultation going back to that IAP2 spectrum but what I don't want to sort of accidentally bake into the plan is some requirement that somehow every street design comes back to council I think that's going to just mechanically the agenda is going to clog up pretty fast. It's also going to get in the way of some of the things we're talking about sort of standardizing the lane widths, widening sidewalks to me, DADA standards. I wouldn't want that to trigger some sort of council hearing requirement. So I think if we want to be specific about these routes, then I guess let's do that. And maybe we can be specific about the level of review and how that will be handled when we get there. That would be great. I mean, I think what you said would be adequate for what I'm looking for. So we would reference the three routes? I think we would do that in the, right, the appendix calls out here the first three routes to work on and here's the locally preferred alternative. I think we had, had, had language that says we committed to do a block by block design. We're going to do that and then we're going to share that publicly at a council meeting before we, before we could submit to, to construction. That's fine. Okay. Thank you. That, that addresses my concern. Okay. I'll quickly try to go through the rest. Thank you for adding the all ages and abilities. Thank you for adding things about the elevator, the cycle tracks and all the other fun, unusual biking things. Let me see. I guess is there a reason that we're not listing the rest of Anondale Road, we're not listing South Virginia, so this is sort of in the Winter Hill area. There's probably about five streets, or four streets of Gundry, Anondale, South Virginia and Sherrow in that area. I think Andrew Olison called those out. I very much be in favor of including those. Is there a reason not to include them? Yeah, um, stuff didn't want to end up in a situation where we were putting a lot of resources towards streets that were already low stress. I would be in favor of, I mean, again, this doesn't have to be like, you know, we put bike lanes. Well, for me, Anandale Road is fairly stressful, but, you know, for Gondry, South Virginia, at least from my point of view, some of these things could be signposts or whatever else. It doesn't have to be, you know, saying like official bike route for school. It doesn't necessarily have to be, we completely redo the road. So I'd prefer to include more than less. And so that would include gungery and endale south Virginia and Sherro. In terms of pointing people to the, oh my gosh, I guess small area plans for bike. I noticed that line was in there. Would it be nice to have this sort of like, so that people don't have to go back and reference the small area plan that we can just have a complete document here? The reason for including the note in the way it is is that the small area plans are often predicated on consolidation and resub division and redevelopment. So in some cases in the small area plans it shows routes going through today what are building footprints. Generally staff is pretty hesitant to show those things because in a lot of cases we're actually trying to hold on to those buildings and do business conservation. And so we're hesitant to show sort of cross documents that don't have the nuance of sort of why it fits so long as all those other places. Right, because the small area plans aren't just transportation plans, they're often community plans. And so putting them within the small area plans sort of shows that full context. It also avoids confusion where we show sort of bike routes going across what today are in streets. Okay, I see. I guess there are sort of a creative path to Eden Center through broad months that I think Andrew Olis and Sheridan and we also got a letter about it from Craig Berry. I'm very much in favor of thinking creatively like that. Wouldn't that be cool if we had a neighborhood bike route to Eden Center? But I guess so I worry that if we don't include things like that in our wish list, then it'll get forgotten to the ravages of time. We'll never, ever consider that or do that. And especially if some of those connections aren't in a small area plan right now, it'll never happen. So we did add the paper street there on village. And then so actually the specific graph that's been requested actually is in that small area plan. It's showing sort of as the area redevelopes there's a potential for a whole local street network to stand up within the east end. But again, that's a very for a whole local street network to stand up within the East End. But again, that's a very sensitive subject for the whole neighborhood. So I'm very anxious about in sort of a separate plan. Somebody picks up this one without understanding all that went into neighborhood conservation in the smaller area plan. Okay. I see. What about, I guess, in terms of the back of Claren Don's and that sort of connection, is that in the small area planned to? I'd have to double check that one. No, that's, no, I'm not referring to that. I'm referring to, actually, at least what Craig had sent was going through the back of the parking lot behind the state theater you can kind of connect to the park along and so using that as a pathway but right now we have fences up and other things up that make it difficult. It's all five. I guess this is what I'm wondering and this is what I'm trying to figure out is that would belong in a small area plan then because that would be Re-invisioning that space that is private property and what that could become. Yeah, and I think that's where you'd have a more balanced conversation about sort of why would be beneficial Not only to the public but also the property owner and here's a sort of a reconfiguring or re-thrinking of that that area that could Okay, so that would not belong in the bike master plan, that would belong in a small area plan, something like that. I think that would be a good fit. For the small area plan. Yeah. You could include it here. I'm just nervous about what it means, right? It's someone gonna show up at the council meeting and say why didn't no one tell me until the nine months of this thing that you're thinking about clown through my job. Okay, and that's what I'm trying to figure out is, is this like a wish list of everything that we'd love to have or is it sort of, because I can imagine that that would maybe scare somebody. And so it's like we're not, all of these routes, we're not necessarily, in my view, going to do in the next two, 10 years. This is sort of like, wouldn't that be nice if we could have this someday? I guess the only other thing is goals and education. I would like to see some specific metrics. I'm guessing Letti is going to follow up on that, so I'll let her do that. And then the only other thing is that we have additional, you added additional routes at the end, so that was number route number four, five, and six. I was wondering, is there a specific reason that we're including those and then is that information going to get more filled out for the final document or are we going to leave it as TBD? So we added those in because they were part of that earlier discussion and there was a request at the last work session or question, you know, is this sort of the five year plan or could we provide the five year plan? And so that was that was an attempt to address that. Gotcha. Okay. I'm still going to push for footing. If you know if we're going to include four, five and six, I would still love to have a seven in there, which is little falls because I almost would love to, I would like to look at little falls before looking at great falls or some of the other streets. But so that is my opinion. I will let the rest of council chime in on that. Thank you. Thank you. Other comments? Questions on bike. Erin? I only had a couple of quick ones. So on page, there is a 3640 of the clean document. I agree with what Justine was just talking about in appendix B on the priority bicycle routes. And I do think we have this came up with the maybe August 5th work session and we were saying, hey, can we build out what the other routes might be? But seeing it here gives me concern without it kind of being fleshed out a little bit more. So because 1, 2, and three were accompanied by much more community engagement and the walking opportunities and kind of more feedback and dialogue to just kind of tack on four, five, and six without some sort of statement accompanying them, I think gives them sort of equal weight in a way that I don't think we intended for them to have that sort of weight because we didn't engage really in any public process as much around those specific designs. So I don't know if you just, you know, would want to include some kind of topic sentences between, or blur, right, between three and four to say, you know, part of the plan in visions, exploring these additional routes in community conversation to see whether they would be feasible for implementation in this five year period, right? But to just have the one introductory paragraph that says we envision implementation by 2029 and to include 45 and six, I think, you know, doesn't really do justice to the planning that took places to one, two, and three and the conversations that did not kind of take places to four, five, and six. So I know early on I've expressed reservations about great falls in particular. To me it sort of seems a little bit duplicative when the trail is so close I would prefer that we are actually funneling people toward the trail and then they're getting off going towards our business zones and downtown districts like We're Spring and Oak and those natural points are rather than creating, you know, a bike lane on great falls in particular between little falls and Lincoln. Like a man that street is a pedestrian every single day and it's tight, there's no shoulder. You do run into kind of parking issues and delivery and landscaping like there's almost something always in the parking lane which is only on one side of the street to begin with and then you have the wall you know on the other side of the street so I mean I would I would support justine suggestion of actually including like a north, south connection for oak street elementary before even including that is a priority route, for example. And then we had talked about, I guess in response to the last set of public comments, I would almost like to have like a priority improvements section on this page. So we say typical schedule for restriping the bike lanes is every one to five years depending on whether in use of the facility. But I think that you know, as we've seen in public comment, we should think about utilizing the crash data that we're getting to think about where should we prioritize improvements and make a commitment in this document to say that we're going to do that and we're going to, you know, respond to data we're seeing about where we need to make safety improvements and prioritize that within this five year period. And to me, that sort of is, you know, Hillwood and Roosevelt, and I would put, you know, North Maple and Little Falls in sort of that priority improvements bucket as well, if we wanted to talk about trios, right? The trio of streets that we addressed a little bit more in public conversation to be more proactive about what may be closer on the horizon, a trio of streets that could be further out in the five year period and then a trio of like priority improvements. That's all. Just to, I think some of that might actually be envisioned in the, in the planned document, the implementation section is, is broken down into different pieces, right? So this, this appendix B is really about the new routes that are being developed. One of the things that we did see quite a bit in the comments was sort of how can we integrate this with existing programs like the rapid response team and can that be used to strengthen some of the existing? And a lot of that is sort of data focused when we recognize that there is a problem either through crash data or complaints or just our own sort of engineering analysis. Right, I don't know that that has to wait for a planned document. I think that's just something we can go out and do and that's why we have those operational resources. And some of those things around fixing existing, that's where we're looking for the sort of the implementation to be clear that if it's a known issue and it's something existing, Rapper's going to add, I was thinking similar way to the air and on just highlighting the work that has been done in those first three and on the extensive neighborhood discussions and walks and that the intent is to address those first and then have some kind of delineation there to say these are the next three or four if you have little calls and I could see the purposes that for sure. And I highlight that the same process. I mean, I assume that we're intending to go through the same process. I would hope that we would be going through the same process for the fourth, fifth, and sixth, and seventh routes as well. So I think that's a really good idea, and it just highlights how much work has been done, that those are clearly the priorities. All signs indicate that, but we recognize and acknowledge that these are the next three. And we want to go through the same process and make sure that we have as much block by block analysis and input as we can. Understanding they will never have 100% of people agreeing on what block by block means. And we have to make those tough decisions at the end. But I really like delineating that. That makes it clear clear and so people understand what they're reading the plan and what's happening. So thanks again for all your work on it. David? Yeah, I just also like to speak in support of sending a lot more about process with regard to any of the streets beyond one, two, and three. So hopefully that will be included. I request that that be included in this document when it comes back to us. What do we say with regard to bike share, the electric bikes versus the traditional bikes and bike share. Are we pressing for the electric bikes at this point? Do we have any in the city? So the city hasn't purchased any of those but the bikes, they sort of, they move regionally throughout the system and so by e-bikes do come to the city because people ride them in and so they do appear in the city regardless of whether or not we purchase them. There was a request at CACT for the city to purchase them. They are written at a higher frequency than the classic bikes. I think like three times higher frequency. So. So do we have any yet at this point? We don't own any. Does the bike share system have them? Yes. Okay. Good. That's all my questions. I want you to go back to bike sharing today. We want to allocate X number and the sick. How does that work? Do your point they are constantly shifting? How do you like own or pay for electric bikes? So yeah, so there's a like regional spreadsheet and it sort of keeps track of right they have like a tracker in them and so you can tell which who owns which one but they do yeah they do move and so when the city purchases bikes we can choose whether or not to buy e-bikes or classic bikes. That was outside of this bike master plan that we have budget decision from next year's. When is the bike share plan renewal? through the phase two, by Chair, phase two, RSTP money that's already in the CIP? Okay, that's a question, thanks a lot. And then, I want to speak, especially in support of Appendix D. Every day I see bicyclists going right through stop signs. I mean, every day, multiple bicyclists. I think it's a real safety issue. And so I hope that there will also back the bike with enforcement because it's really as dangerous. And I see it every day. So, anyway, thanks. And I hope we move forward on this. Thanks a lot. Great. While we were in Bikershire, I actually had a kind of tangential thing that had come up because we were colleagues who were writing one of the eBikes from Capital Bikershire. And I googled it because pedal bikes from Capital Bikershire have to be checked in and returned to a dock. E-bikes can be docked at those stations or can be parked anywhere except that false search is not part of the defined service area. So she couldn't actually park the bike and she had to go back to a station. Can we update the defined service area? So it is part of the defined service area. It made you say that the part of the city that she was in didn't have it. We looked at the map The city was just not included and she couldn't end the trip until she went back to a station So just okay to look and do this yeah, this city should be included So I'll look into that just he was with me to I've also I've run into this issue personally where I've not been able to dock a bike, like not at a station. That's unusual. I'll book into that. Just remind me the conversation when you're talking about docs and whatnot. So, reminding on that, overall I really appreciate the continued iterations. Thank you for incorporating so much feedback from us and the community. Two things. One is just a general comment. As with any fancy policy documents, we adopt, I always think the proof will be in the putting in terms of implementation. So I specifically paid attention. I want to make sure my colleagues saw the three estimated amounts on how much it would cost to implement these. I think we are discussing them likely in our budget amendment this fall. Staff, we feel good about how close these numbers are to implementation like actuals or. For women are a number. They are preliminary numbers. But we, that's our duty to estimate this point and that's the number that we would care for in the budget amendment discussion that will be happening this fall. Yeah, so I think while we collectively hopefully we'll get to unanimous support of this, that we would carry forward in the budget commitment discussion that will be happening this fall. So I think while we collectively hopefully we'll get to unanimous support of this but I think it really will be important how we fund this and implement this is without implementing this is just a plan on a shelf so as a comment I always make. Second request is the metrics and goals which I have brought up in the past so I know that Andrew Olsson has provided us really great KPIs and while I love many of them, one that I'll hone in on, I think it would be really helpful is, I think we've all talked about how, and we looked at the report card we got from the bike-friendly community. Should we establish a goal when we'd like to be rated as a bike-friendly community? Because I do think working backwards from that that can drive a lot of the behaviors in the programs we want to implement. So as much as I would like to measure, you know, miles of bike lanes and bike accidents and all the detailed data, could we just set a realistic goal of, by 2020 something? Could we be a bike friendly community and if we work backwards from that, does that then drive the right set of projects and budget decisions that we need to make to get there. And so I don't want to throw the data out there because it will probably be more aggressive than is realistic. But I guess I would ask staff to kind of come back and say what would be a realistic date of when we could achieve bike friendly community status of some kind. And then that will ensure that this council, if you true councils, really prioritizes it with budget dollars and work plan, you know, priority, right? So that's something that I thought could be a good way to get to the metrics and measurability of big lofty goals like we have on getting to more bike infrastructure. And then my last one is really just a tactical request. So I know that we engage a lot with Northwest and Southwest neighbors in particular, Southwest we had owed an update on traffic calming and what light and room solutions could be realistic. Has that happened with that community? So we did have the neighborhood working group meeting on August 8th and then are still working through a couple more engineering questions. Some of them have been answered, but we wanted to provide the full response. That's terrific. Thank you. Do we have a timeline of when those light solutions might be implemented? They would need to be one staff circles back with the working group. The working group would need to kind of approve and then and there's there's generally some back and forth with the working group on the set of solutions so But once they're approved we can sort of put them on the schedule And is that something that needs ending as well? It's kind of an interim thing? Or do we be funding in the neighborhood traffic on the budget to do so? That there's enough in the NTC budget. Yeah. As we talk about complete streets, like this is one example where when we went to the neighborhoods and hey, we want to talk bike to you. And they're like, okay, that's fine. But we also want to talk sidewalks and crosswalks and safe speeds on the street. And I do think that as we talk about complete streets policy and vision zero that it really is important for us to follow through on those to that neighborhood before we revisit like discussions with them. So thank you for the traffic calming folks on that. With that, I think that's it. I'm sorry. I guess Aaron mentioned a path to a northwest path to Oak Street. I know some of these are on like neighborhood streets, but in addition to Gundry and the Dale South Virginian Cheryl, it can inform the intersection, you know, if we ever redo intersections at some point, but just having a path whether it's on Oak, on Lee or on spring that can cross Rod Street going from Park down. I'd also appreciate seeing that too. What is weather right now people are using start-arm control? What were the cross? Did it cross right there? Lee. Maybe it's showing a lead connection down. Yeah, I'll say that Lee has the most regular intersection. There is the hawks signal going in at Oak. By design, hawks signals don't go at intersections, so it's offset quite a bit, whereas the Least Street intersection that signal might work better. Then yeah, something there might be nice. Great. Thank you for all the work on this. And we look forward to the final vote. No, I'm sorry. Just a quick question. Could we have a list of the obligations to achieve a like friendly community that just like Arbor in order to tree city, you have to have this, this, this, and this. Could you send that around since we're being more precise about that? Yeah, I think we got the scorecard over public comments. We can send that again. Yeah. That'd be helpful to know kind of. Yeah, we could attach that. Yeah, perfect. Thank you. Yeah. Realistic but aggressive goal. It would be my request. Thank you. Thank you. Thanks. That's another awesome round. I think it's going to be pretty quick. Mr. Keyflay is here to give the staff report and we really just want to focus on the items that are in gray in your staff report. The comments we've gotten, which reflect comments we've gotten from Board Commission's and the fact that we have not really gotten much comments from our mailer that were sent out to residents that are property owners in the RPA. So Mr. Keyflite with the idea of having a shorter presentation than the earlier full briefings on this I'll turn it over to you sir. Thank you Mr. Schild, I agree with you. Council, I see the council and Mayor Letihardi. I will pull up my presentation real quick. Mayor Letihardi, I will pull up my presentation real quick. Sorry to reorder the agenda and make you go last. Thank you. So as we discussed in the last two city council meeting, city staff is proposing for main changes to the stormwater cold chapter 35, addition of new restriction, again, removal of beta chain in RPA, addition of new climate change and sea level rise impact assessment, both of them are proposed in the resource protection area and both of them the state mandate. The third one, change of treatment of single family house from new development to redevelopment. The fourth one is a TORI city staff to give local rain for precipitation data. And the last two are a request recommendation by city staff. Removal of VITGIN, PAA, again, the last two are a rock recommendation by CT staff. Remove all of the data in our PA. Again, this is a city state mandate. I will pass to the next one and climate change and sea level rising practice. Again, this is state mandate, the climate change and sea level impact assessment are conducted using a model or forecast developed by a situa commonwealth of Virginia like projectors, sea level rise, turn surge and flooding. So both of the above change are in the RAPA just to conclude they are only impacted for impact future development. They are not impacting a day-to-day property owner, you in the RFA, and they don't directly impact the storm with their quality and quantity design requirement. The third one, which is, staff is recommending change of treatment of single-fimary house development from a new development to redevelopment as we discussed during the last two meetings, the EQ provided two meters in new development and redevelopment, currently, city staff is using a new development. So it is almost impossible for a single family home development to meet the new development standard without using an off-site credit, which the developer or the homeowner can go out and purchase the stormwater stormwater quality requirement from the stormwater bank. Continue from the last slide. So under our regional DQ permit we used to use the XSports first or nitrogen removal during the new development but starting from 2020 to to the QDC allowed a new development method as we get no benefits from the excess requirement in addition, city staff redo the conversion from new development to redevelopment and addition of supplementary calculation that would have been included when planned with the meeting. This process is every year when we prepare our MAs for report. The force recommendation by the city staff is using a data local rainfall curve. We discussed in the last two meetings, current city ordinances using a last 14 intense state duration curve. This is based on historic record in main old fully captured local variations. And now we are seeing more changes to the precipitation. So we need more preside information to our specific regions. So staff is proposing to use the projected intensity duration, IDF curve prepared by NOHA Marisa in short. This is just one example from their website to see the difference between the proposed IDF curve and the current NOHA Atlas. So this change will allow additional store motor to be detained. If they propose store motor management process on the side, this change will probably add 15 to 20% more store motor to be held on site. So, in connection to the current ordinance with the MAs for 10-day requirement, while redevelopment provide a tool to assist the city in meeting is just a peak way. 10-day policy reduction requirement, it cannot be utilized as the city's sole means of attaining compliance. So to meet the 2020 requirement, the city has to come up with other means in methods. Per the city council request, we present the court update to the Urban Foreign Service Commission Next, we present the court update to the Urban Foreign Secretary Commission and Public Utility Commission. We haven't received any comment or respond from Public Utility Commission, but we have received comment from Urban Foreign Secretary Commission. In general, Urban Foreign Secretary Commission appreciate welcome and recognize and support all the full updates. We are requesting council. The second one they requested to attend definitions in the definition section. We insert three of them and we refer three of them from the state, Chesapeake Bay and Astro-Motor Manor Regulation. We haven't included the rest, which is four, because they are to not define in the Chesapeake Bay or Astro-Motor Regulation State Code. They also recommend five edit and we go ahead and update, go through the edits and updates, they request. As you can see, they have also comment to manage soil erosion control and soil management plan as one. And we don't feel comfortable to accept that. Per city council request, we also sent out, uh, to all property owners in the RPA, letting them the changes in the RPA, uh, we saved the staff report, uh, attached with the letter, you can see on the screen. Today, staff have never received any comment or questionry is put into our mail. In terms of timing, we had two meeting, a counseling meeting. The first one was July 1st. The first work session, we present the co-lab into public utility commission, July 17th. The same day, we present to urban forestry commission. City Council First reading was on July 22nd, today the final work session and the public hearing and second reading is scheduled for September 9. With that, I'm happy to take any questions and comment you have. Thank you. Thank you for the updates and engaging with the Urban Forestry Commission. Any comments? Questions? You said all the letters are in it and we haven't gotten comments back on it. That's correct. Everyone in the RPA's got letters. Okay. Dave. Thanks. So I wanted to focus on this treating tear downs as redevelopment as opposed to new development. So it seems to me it probably is a benefit to developers. So how much what are we what would they otherwise have to pay that we're now saying they don't have to pay. Because most building residential building in the city would be tear downs, so and rebuilds. Yeah, I don't think I'm getting the question. Can you elaborate on that please? Yeah, Mike. So if it's a new development, is my understanding that you've got to pay for environmental credits, right? But if it's a rebuild, which we're now calling tear downs, you don't have to provide for, you don't have to pay for environmental credits. Am I reading that right? If you don't just, if you just read the same amount of links, so if you tear down, put up the same size, that's considered redevelopment. If it's larger than, then that's going to be new development. And the phosphorus credits paid by, like if you put up an accessory structure in a distributor or that that's the square feet, the phosphorus credits paid for by the home or not the not a developer. Those are two separate answers, but that's my understanding. I'm just trying to find out what's the impact of that change, both economically and environmentally. Because it's not just the city, isn't it? It doesn't have any benefit. It does to a phosphorus base in a place that's not in the city. Right. But overall, it would be reducing that society-wide. Yeah. We're providing a cost reduction and I'm wondering what's not being done as a result of that. So this is a, it's an issue that we had a lot of internal discussion about and I think from a Chesapeake Bay wide perspective, the city's program did require developers to put into the bank. And so there was a social benefit to that. It was a disproportionate impact on homeowners in the city, however, and we were getting no credit for that from the Commonwealth of Virginia. We were also the only jurisdiction that was doing it this way. And so we do recommend making this change. One way to think about it, however, is that going with the, with the Marissa calculations, that will increase the stormwater detention requirements for new development. That is where most of the complaints in the city come from is from quantity. And so the water quality is the way that I think the council members have discussed it tonight. There is that impact, but this code does have a higher standard for detention and I don't know that they're equal. They're going to be slightly different for different situations. It would not be correct to say it's an equal trade off, but I think it does get more directly to what we most often hear in terms of complaints associated with new development. So what relationship does that have to changing the phrase applied to a tear down and rebuild? What it just said? In all words of being a— What's the environmental impact of that? So we—you know, there's—it's pretty minimal. I mean, if you go through all the applications and we were running the numbers on this, the amount of phosphorus that we have been having developers meaning people who build new homes in the city go into this regional bank. It's a very small number relative to the overall Chesapeake Bay total maximum daily load reductions that we're trying to achieve. And so it was not a significant contributor to the environmental benefit, but it was an expense that homeowners or builders, ultimately the builders passed on the cost to the homeowners or bearing. How much is that? Do we have any idea? So, Mr. Keyflay, we ran some numbers, and I think you'd tallied up with the total pounds of phosphorus is on a typical year. Do you have that number handy? Yeah, so like Mr. Schultzade at the first in the nitrogen amount, we get from a single family house. It's very small. In my time with the city, most of the numbers, the first numbers are below 0.1. The nitrogen can go a maximum up to 3 pounds per year, but talking about phosphorus is a very small amount. And based on our training for the last five years, from development including single family house and commercial how we get 40 pound per year of nitrogen and that we are keep counting toward this our theme deal requirement but gathering those nitrogen for the first from development is not enough to meet the 2028 DEQ requirements But the numbers are very small from a new from a single family house Right, so all I'm trying to figure out is this is a change. I'm trying to figure out what's the financial impact of the change, positive or negative to home and why, and then secondly, what's the environmental impact? That's all. I'll just. No, I just want to. Go ahead. Just a moment and then we'll. Okay. So, Mr. Sander, on the chart from the staff report it does say depending on availability and demand offsite nutrient credit prices can range from $27,000 to $37,000 per pound and so in the property A it did the calculation it comes out to about $3,000, I did the calculation. It comes out to about $3,000, $3,300 per year that they would pay. So that's for an example property. How much was that? That's one time. It's just a one time fee. Oh, one time fee. OK. Oh. Oh, it's 40 pounds, right? So it's like it's 40 pounds times 27 to $30,000 per pound. When you do. times 27 to 30 thousand dollars per pound. When you... So 40 pounds, so Mr. Keyflay, the question was how many pounds are we saving from the Chesapeake Bay by the current definition relative to the new definition. Would you know that number? It's very small. I would probably give some number example. So if we use the new development and if we gate a zero point one, as far as I've found, when we converse that into redevelopment, it will probably lower to zero point zero. Seven approximately that area and still is very small change, but financially, as you can see the prize, every time the price is going higher and higher. So they will buy the force for someone, but the CT is not benefiting out of it. So that is one of the requests we are making, because they buy it, but DEQ doesn't allow us to use it because we require them to use the new development, and the new development assumed open space in grass as a predivorovement, but if it literally most of the tear down there is already in previous area. So DEQ doesn't allow us to use the new development anymore. So that is why we are spending significant amount of time every year just to make a change from new development to redo and just to comply with DEQ. Can I try to sum up to make sure I'm understanding this? So I share some of the concerns that Dave raised, which is I don't want to make it easier for people to hear it on the progress, right? Like it's a concept and this seems like it can make it cheaper for them because they don't have to pay for these off-site credits. I went back to my July 1st notes when Zach had said that the realities we actually can't achieve the new development water quality standards and the fact that we're the outlier, I think is why staff kind of made the recommendation. If we call it redevelopment, if you could scroll down the staff report, it would require us to require, it would enable us to require, it would enable us to require more quantity detention. Is that what I'm understanding? And that's the issue that we see more of the quantity rather than the foster situation, the quality. I think the state cares more about the water quality and as a local concern our neighbors typically care more about quantity. I'm just reminding 166 says the next provision allows us to have a higher standard for redevelopment. If we do go with the redevelopment definition then we get to be sure to run quantity and detention part of it and that locally, none of us think that if you change the, if you're changing that I am key curves, I am key, that's my third. Two more aspects, which are more accurate, meaning more current, that's where you're 15 to 30% difference and retention becomes. And that's why it is like, how do you offset? Like how do you make that decision offset quantity versus quality? And a word is necessary only to tell the distinction. We've all met. We're different. They're different. If you're looking at netting it out, that's the point. Why do you want to know? I can use it. We very strongly recommend conforming with the state norm. It has become this incredible bureaucratic nightmare, frankly, to try to convert everything back to the way the state wants it, relative to how we're doing it, and it's really not a good way to do business. So it took us all kind of a little bit of time to understand that after our subject matter experts were explaining it to us for the same concerns that I think have been articulated tonight. But the way we're doing it right now is not a good solution. So I appreciated, maybe you know, we could have more of a staff response. What are we losing in terms of what in the macro sense? Are we losing? By making this change what's the gain financially? And are we gaining that? Are we gaining back what we may be losing in? Quality with quantity controls. Okay, so we can address that and when this comes to you for For final consideration we can aggregate what what the Delta is on a typical year So you so you have those numbers? And we can provide that information. Yes. Any else? Okay. One request. Just so that we can better understand this nutrient credit purchase generally outside of this change. When the CIP comes back for next year's conversation, that $2 million new credit purchase was an out-year slot in the CIP. And so I would appreciate just kind of a more full-sum explanation of what that is, where that number is coming from, where we might actually be able to do methods of water quality and water retention on site instead of buying our way out of obligations that we're trying to better the region generally in terms of that bank. That seems like too many of us could buy some locally. I press that. Yeah, that's a lot of rain beers. Okay. I think that's it for work session. I have one consent thing as a preview. All right. Thank you, Mr. Keyflay. And Ms. Hoff, I think is on the call as well. Thank you both for your work on this. And the last item is just a consent preview and then we will review upcoming agenda items. The consent preview is a requested contract authorization associated with the Community Center project. This is a contract with colossal contractors incorporated. We would expand on an existing contract we have with them and that's to do the painting, the remediation of the building renovations that are associated with the demolition that's required for the ductwork and the other infrastructure that's happening with the HVAC project. The requested contract amount is $300,000 and that is within the bounds of the numbers that have been discussed with Council for the project as a whole. Any questions for why I don't have? Okay. We thought this was a Tuesday. We would just do the mayor's meeting here. Talk schedule. Although we still boxed ours so we only get half hour back for those joining. All right. I do a quick run through. So yes, as just noted, then at 9 a.m. tomorrow morning, we'll have to ask the council meeting. Next Monday September 9th we have four proclamations and we'll have a presentation by the Electoral Board of the I voted sticker presentation and the Library Board will join you for their annual report. During the City Manager's report it's proposing that we would have a short briefing for the council on the Fellows Park Conceptual Design. Items for Action on the Agenda would be the Rent Relief Code update for second reading, Final Consideration, the Stormwater Code, which we just discussed, Final Consideration, and then the consent item we just discussed. Skipping ahead to that Saturday then is the Falls Church Festival and I think our event where we'll have the closing ceremonies for the 75th anniversary and a launching ceremony or celebration for the visit Falls Church Tourism webpage. That will be at 1015. Is that right? 1015 on the morning on Saturday at Falls Church Festival. The run for the schools is on Sunday, September 15th. The work session on the 16th will have a greening of Lincoln update, resolution for the Community Criminal Justice Board, and a closed session to discuss land acquisition associated with the Virginia Village area. A couple of events coming up are Board and Commission recognition picnic as on the 17th. That's also the same night as the federal night as the federal. That just got what we did. So that's helpful for us. Okay. Yes. Reduces the conflict, but it's not going to be scheduled. Okay. So just thank you for that. So just the Board and Commission recognition picnic on the 17th and then the 19th at noon is the employee picnic for current employees and retirees all are invited and then on the Friday morning at 8.30 a.m. we'll have the budget finance committee where we'll talk about year-end financial results and and have a preliminary discussion about sort of strategies on the use of understanding and revenue surplus from the last fiscal year. We'll carry that discussion then to the City Manager's report on the September 23rd regular session where we have the Year End Financial Report during the Manager's report. Final consideration for the bike plan. Final consideration for commercial parking. And the resolution of the community criminal justice board. For commercial parking, just for council's awareness, the planning commission does not have a quorum for their meeting that would be tomorrow night. So we're still intending to have the planning commission meet prior to the September 23rd meeting. So we think we can keep this on the agenda for that night. But the Planning Commission's recommendation will have only been made three days prior, or the Wednesday prior to that. We do have the two open houses that were discussed about accessory dwellings. I go back to that. I have to reschedule the Economic Development Committee and the government operations of the meetings of the 24th and 25th. I'm about on how to get the 23rd. I can follow us if you want. I'm Aaron and I'm talking about states. I can follow up with just a media. EDC. Or you can have a minute. I just want you there. Your choice. Okay. I'll be back with all of us. Aaron, go. I didn't keep watching. I asked them to check that out. Here first. So I'll circle back on that. OK. Just wanted to note the. The number was the website. So I'm going to check that out. That's right. So September 25th, we have the VML Regional Legislative Meeting that's still on at Godfrees. Also on the 25th is the AD Framework Open House, the 1st of 2, and then we'll have a 2nd one on September 29th. And October 7th, Work Session, Council of Salaries, financial policies, discussion and review, affordable housing fund governance, which is associated with the financial policies and then the scope of work for the solid waste financial policies. October 21st, Vision Zero and Complete Streets, Accessory Dwellings, and Budget Amendment I'm going to sort of scan because we're getting a little bit out there. The new date for the Alexander and Arlington dinner October 23rd. That's moved forward. Does that mean it's new to me? Does that mean it's new to me? It had been I think a little bit later. Maybe it's. Yeah, they had sent out a save the date, so I'm anticipating feedback came in. That's my understanding, is that that was the, this is the news suggested date just to see if that works better for people. So tentative new, not so much. How do the work on this group and then we can see how? Yeah. It's hard for me to reelect the bodies I met. Is that right out right after VML? VML October 13th of the 15th. Okay. Is someone sitting? One can. I think it's fine. It's a fourth Wednesday that helps with any. I think I have meetings. I have the NBTA stuff. But there's always going to be something. I wouldn't be TAA. The current NBTA is probably all-in-counting and we might also be at NBTA. But the NBTA one that I go to often gets cancelled. So... Is that the PCIC? Yeah. Aaron Dave had us October 23rd with him. So maybe I was very good with him. That's pretty good. It's pretty good. The response back from the other person. Thank you for putting together. It's something we, years ago, talked about wanting to be resurrected. I'll just hit a few highlights then. November 12th, that regular session we did put in the swearing in ceremony for a new city council member Second reading for the budget amendment First reading potentially for accessory dwellings Financial policies resolution and then the associated affordable housing funding Resolution and the Saigon Boulevard naming. And it's a policy resolution on the following or just reviewing. What are we resolving versus reviewing? It would be a re-adoption of them. So we're anticipating that there may be some small technical changes, but there also might be some policy, media or policy issues. One that we've been talking internally is how we fund affordable housing, maybe having some articulation in our financial policies about how we do that in sort of a multi-year basis. The Planning Commission has asked it to be folded into the CIP, which we resisted a little bit, just because it's not really a CIP thing, but if the council directs, that that's what we do through the financial policies, I think that's the way to sort of square that circle. That's a discussion, that's kind of one substantive discussion that we might have. I put the number on schedule. I put the number of on schedule. I'm a marriageist at one. It's more for the city attorney about a conflict, a appearance of conflict of interest and conflict of interest guidance. If you have a time table online, it would be great. So thanks. Sorry. I had a request. We feather in the work plan So we'll do an update on council strategic priorities and CIP on October. Yes, quarterly CIP. The same as the walk plan update now. It should be the same. Doing the same night, even though they're not the same document. Does that make sense? We'll let include our include our dashboard too. Last time we looked at it like Word format, and then we were like, you mean chart it out. Yeah. Yeah, chart. Now some of the men of financial sort of dashboard will figure out maybe if the budget and finance committed, even if it makes someone just be low. Yeah. So Karen and I have been talking about that at the budget and finance committee. Anyone that makes an entity, no? Yeah. So Karen and I have been talking about that. It's kind of the broader question of how we do where it's quite regular financial reporting. Kind of making sure that they're relevant. They have the right information. Yeah. Marif, I could highlight on November 18th and is the legislative 2025 resolution. So I sent out to the legislative committee an update on the VML stuff and then an ask for date so that we could try to meet the week of October 7th. So we could start the legislative process for 2025. So I just wanted to flag that email that's come out to the pledge committee. Is your inter and multi year intern? He is a multi year intern. He is coming back. And he just finished a wonderful summer internship with HHS. So we are, the work, Alex has been awesome. So he's already committed to coming back during the school year. So that'll be great. So if you could let me know what dates will work for the legislative committee, we'll get that going. And then you have the stuff for the BML meeting, which I'm doing Thursday, so I'll have information to share. And then the goal will be, which I gotta doing Thursday so I'll have information to share. And then the goal will be, which I've got to work with the City Manager on hopefully bring that resolution to Council on November 25th for adoption. No later this December depending on if we're going to request for some bills to be filed or charter amendments in November. It would be better. So I just wanted to flag the email that I sent out for the LEG committee scheduling. So, White and Sally, I think we both talked offline about scheduling a closed session for the housing and Sally's recommendation on policy for that. We should do that before then. The LEG priorities are done. Look at the schedule for that. That requires only a lot of money from us to... Okay. Thanks. Anything else on schedule? Anything else for the night? I have a quick, super quick question regarding the conflict of interest of what we had to read tonight. You know, there are other projects like Greening of Lincoln or even the bike master plan to some degree, like we all benefit from that. And so I guess I'd like a little bit of a clear delineation. Like I could say that like, you know, implementing a bike route to school improves all of our property values to some degree. And so I guess having some guide in addition to whatever slide I was asking for, but having some guidance on that, because, you know, for going forward, are we gonna need to read a statement for every single assessment from the following unit, and for every plain and every type of approval? It's not welcome to remove it, and then they would know it right. Right. So, there's, so I can provide more detail, but the general answer is if, is if you're interested in a transaction or an ordinance is the same as every other member of the public, then you don't disclose that. So for example, if there's a tax decrease, every person who pays taxes is affected in the same way as you are, and so you don't disclose that because there's no difference between the way you're affected and the way the public is affected Well, yeah every prop every property owner wouldn't be affected the same way and so I guess I'll have to I'll have to but anyway, that's the short answer to your question is if you're not part of a subset of people of taxpayers who are affected differently then there's no disclosure requirement And I will let the council know we do have a working group that's meeting on a regular basis to work through these issues with the city attorney and the city clerk so that we can provide greater clarity to our board of commission and to all folks who are concerned. But it is important and we need to think it through in a good logical way. So that's why we've put this workgroup together to think things through over not a long period of time, but at least a reasonable period of time. So we can give you something solid and sustainable as opposed to something that's sort of reactive and maybe that doesn't stand the test of time. We want something that we're trying to influence culture and sort of kind of how we will address this over the long term. That's great. Thanks. Great. Well, that was a dream for me. Thank you all. Good night. Thank you. Thank you. I know what you see you guys.